Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ancient Rome As A Museum Power, Identity, and The Culture
Ancient Rome As A Museum Power, Identity, and The Culture
Introduction
Museums and Muses
Steven H. Rutledge
DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199573233.003.0001
Page 1 of 33
Introduction
Step outside the museum and the picture is no more coherent. There is a series
of museums, none of which has anything in particular to do with the other. These
include a museum of the American Indian, across from another museum, the
National Gallery of Art, that contains a collection of (primarily) paintings and
sculptures from the Middle Ages to the contemporary period. Across the Mall
from the contemporary wing there is a large botanical garden, while next to the
Museum of the American Indian stands the Air and Space Museum. Walk across
the Mall once more and you arrive at the Museum of Natural History, which in
turn stands across from the Sackler Gallery, a collection of Eastern and African
art. Architecturally the Mall is an organizational disaster. Modern glass buildings
with giant mobiles suspended in enormous empty spaces stand next to neo-
Classical buildings adorned with copies of Renaissance sculpture. While each of
these museums has an organizing principle in its own right (although some
critics note the fragility of such systematic unity), collectively they represent
what is (p.2) tantamount to an almost willful incoherence.1 What, after all, do
paintings by Manet and Vermeer have to do with the Lunar Module (or one
another for that matter)? How is the Hope Diamond related in any way to ritual
masks of Native Americans from the Pacific Northwest? Wandering off the Mall
one can visit the National Portrait Gallery, as well as the Holocaust Museum.
Again, one must ponder the relevance of Lincoln’s death mask to the artefacts
that commemorate a twentieth century atrocity. Are these not fragmentary
products with unrelated histories, cultural contexts, and origins?
The picture becomes less clear if one takes into consideration Washington’s
numerous monuments. Many of these are themselves artificial creations that had
or (in most cases) have absolutely no local historical value per se. No military
battles were fought at the Lincoln Memorial, no great legislation was passed at
the Washington Monument. Rather, over time they have accrued value for their
symbolic significance. This is particularly true of the Lincoln, where a bronze
plaque commemorates where Martin Luther King Jr. stood when he delivered his
‘I have a dream’ speech, and the Vietnam War Memorial, where thousands still
come annually to mourn their dead and leave offerings. Such monuments
represent, in their own right, spaces where ‘official’ historical memory and the
commemorated past serve as a point of negotiation between the current
structures of power within American society and those who would challenge its
narrative.2
Of course, some places do have a significance stemming from the historic events
that occurred there: Ford’s Theatre, the Watergate Hotel, Blair House, all of
these in one way or another figure into the historical landscape that is
Washington. Add to this the significant historical ‘clutter’ that has accrued over
time such as the Washington National Cathedral (with its stained glass that
Page 2 of 33
Introduction
depicts subjects ranging from the landing in Normandy to the Lewis and Clark
expedition), the myriad bronze statues of figures from Grant to Gandhi, or even
the fresco depicting the apotheosis of George Washington that adorns the
interior of the Capitol dome (in which he enters a heaven not of the Trinity but of
the Olympian deities).
Yet Gandhi, Vermeer, the Lunar Module, and Julia Child’s kitchen all cohere for
several reasons. Of these perhaps the most important is place: all are situated in
the heart of a city that itself rests at the centre of a vast empire that bestrides a
(p.3) continent and, arguably, the world and beyond. They are a collective
expression of historical experience, as well as political, cultural, and social
values, and of economic power. They tell us who we are, and, equally important,
who and how we should desire to be. In the same way that we fill our houses
with random material and cultural objects that collectively speak much to our
own personal identity and experiences, a similar situation holds true for the
urban landscape of the United States’ capital. The diverse monuments, art
works, and hodge-podge of cultural objects are symbols of that to which we are
told we ought to aspire and of our values. In the case of such monuments as the
Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, they are, in a sense, victory monuments that
represent the triumph of free people over tyranny and repression. Moreover in
the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorial, the values are literally enshrined in temples
based on neo-Classical design. Collectively they constitute some of the ‘raw
material’ which, as S. Pearce has argued, either organizes itself or is willfully
structured into ‘the kind of cultural construct which we call human [in this case,
specifically, American] society’.3
In the case of the United States (to draw from a contemporary example), the
very existence of such memorials—and, for that matter, the collections on the
Mall—are not politically neutral. They constitute a statement of power or
domination of one group or one idea over another, and not infrequently (as in the
case of the Museum of the American Indian) can serve to remind a dominant
group of an act of resistance on the part of a once (and regrettably in many
respects still) subordinate people. Indeed, the cityscape constitutes a venue
where competing claims by divergent groups have occasionally played
themselves out. To cite but two examples: in 1995 a new annex of the Air and
Space Museum opened up in McLean Virginia, a suburb of Washington DC,
where the Enola Gay, from which the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima,
had been mounted for public display. On the day the new exhibition opened,
several Japanese protesters stood nearby to object to the display and the text
that accompanied it which they believed did not sufficiently address the moral
ambiguities involved in America’s use of an atomic weapon.4 In addition, as of
this writing, a public discussion is (p.4) currently taking place in Washington
DC over where and how Martin Luther King Jr. is to be commemorated on the
Mall. Such debates in and of themselves encapsulate who we collectively are as
a people in the early twenty-first century, as we argue over such diverse topics
Page 3 of 33
Introduction
as the place of minorities and their history in American culture, or the history of
our use of force against other nations. The debate has been taken up in
academic circles as well, most naturally among those involved in the discipline
of art history and the more specialized subject of collecting and museum
display.5
The situation for Washington will remain a dynamic one for as long as it remains
a major centre of power. Whom, how, and what to commemorate is bound to
continue to remain controversial. Along with such controversy, there will be the
thorny matter of how to fund memorials of this sort; yet the commitment of vast
sums to build, house, collect, and maintain such commemorations is itself an
important statement concerning the values placed on identity, power, and its
maintenance in the form of visual symbols. That such commemoration and
display are controversial brings up yet another issue, that of the viewer. Various
commemoratives and displays are bound to signify different things to different
individuals.6 The ‘meaning’ of the Enola Gay would be decidedly different for my
father, who was a United States infantryman in the Philippines during World War
II, than for one of the Japanese protesters noted above. That is to say, there is no
such thing as a single, monolithic ‘American’ viewer of such objects, and that
despite the attempt to control the various messages that objects invariably
convey, the meaning of such objects is rarely static.
Page 4 of 33
Introduction
(p.6)
Page 5 of 33
Introduction
(p.7)
Page 6 of 33
Introduction
Page 7 of 33
Introduction
(p.9) Overview
As we examine how the collection of such artefacts reflected Roman values,
several immediate issues come to mind: how was the material acquired? What
types of material were gathered, exhibited, or otherwise accrued
commemorative value over time? What was the context in which cultural
artefacts (such as statues and paintings) were exhibited? How were such
artefacts and memorabilia maintained? How did the disparate monuments and
cultural-historical memorabilia create what we might call an ‘inter-functionality’
by which objects resituated themselves from their original contexts to form
coherent statements about Roman identity and power? Each of these questions
raises issues pertaining to how Romans viewed themselves both collectively and
individually. They also raise basic questions about class, status, and how these
were expressed both in private and public contexts.
Page 8 of 33
Introduction
In addition, the diversity of viewers in antiquity is one that merits close attention
and has recently been the subject of a number of studies. Elsner, for example,
has noted that numerous responses to ancient visual culture were possible and
socially contingent, depending on among other factors, gender, class, and
ethnicity; consequently no ‘model viewer’ exists, which implies that a variety of
readings can coexist.14 That ‘the meanings of objects are contingent, fluid, and
poly-semantic, but none the less constructed by the materiality of the object’, is
something that museum theorists and classicists have both come to recognize,
and bears emphasizing.15 The various readings we here offer, even the
structuring of the material itself, constitutes only a narrow slice of the
conceivably enormous hermeneutical range the material collected and discussed
in this study presents.
It should be further noted that throughout this study the term ‘art’ operates
inevitably as a convenient term for cultural property, although it is arguably a
term of privilege along with ‘masterpiece’ or ‘authentic’, and such terms sit
opposite words such as ‘artefact’ or ‘copy’.16 As many contemporary museum
theorists and art historians have recognized, because all these terms convey a
judgement of value, I sometimes use terms such as ‘art’ and ‘cultural artefact/
object’ interchangeably for works one might uncritically accept as ‘art’, although
(p.11) for other objects we use terms such as simply ‘cultural artefact’.17 Both
the exchange of these terms and our noting it are important, since one suspects
that elite Romans (one thinks for example of Pliny’s encyclopaedia) certainly did
pass judgement on what constituted art as opposed to a mere ‘wonder’ despite
the lack of a modern systematic method of classification.18 ‘Cultural artefact’,
moreover, covers a wide range of material from both the human and natural
realm that simply does not fall under the rubric of ‘art’.
We will at times use these various terms interchangeably, since a work of art,
such as Praxiteles’ Eros, would be widely recognized as such, although it is also
a cultural artefact, just as is the German war mask that adorned the Temple of
Augustus (see p. 265). It is doubtful, though, whether the latter would be
considered ‘art’ per se. However the value imposed on each, whether through
the fame of former owners, the artist who created the work, or the manner in
Page 9 of 33
Introduction
The next three chapters (four through six) will examine the disparate types of
cultural artefacts in ancient Rome. Here we will focus on why certain objects
and sites were preserved, how they preserved historical memory, and what that
memory was potentially intended to communicate.19 There are a variety of ways
to classify such a wide array of cultural artefacts. One could, for example,
categorize them according to the type of artefact, or according to the period
which specific artefacts and monuments commemorated. Here we have
categorized the various commemoratives and artefacts in terms that, we hope,
are most (p.12) illustrative of the way such material constructed a collective
memory and a space where Roman identity was variously created, negotiated,
and assessed.
In the first of these chapters (chapter four) we examine how imperial domination
by the ruling elite influenced the appearance of the city. The elite used cultural
objects both to maintain and perpetuate their control over not merely Roman
society, but other peoples as well. As Holliday has noted, such display was not
just an additional luxury of conquest, but inherently bound up with it.20 In the
next chapter, we look at how the Roman social and historical record was
remembered through a variety of cultural material in a manner that reinforced
Roman values and ideology beyond those directly associated with military
conquest and imperial hegemony (such as the commemoration of women who
were important to the Roman historical record). Finally, in chapter six we
examine how the natural world was exhibited as a symbolic form of domination
by the city; such display inadvertently served as an ambiguous reflection on the
(sometimes monstrous) nature of empire.
One of the more important aspects of the display of cultural artefacts is their use
in the competition between powerful individuals or families; such use itself is
telling about Roman power and how the city served as a field for political rivalry,
where grandees tried to lay claim to political power or to legitimize it. Power
and its legitimization will be the central though not exclusive consideration in
chapter seven, where we examine the major imperial collections and their
significance. What were the major imperial displays within the city, and what did
they potentially signify? More importantly, how did such collections and displays
come to reflect the values of individual emperors, and how did they function in
their larger topographical settings? While numerous studies have looked at
imperial collections, those under Augustus have received the lion’s share of
attention. We here put Augustus’ collections in the context of other substantial
collections and in their larger cultural and historical context. One omission in
Page 10 of 33
Introduction
these four chapters that might seem glaring is the absence of any focused
discussion on the Roman response to Hellenism; that is because this discussion
is embedded to a certain extent in the present study, and because Hellenism’s
cultural influence has been the specific focal point of numerous other studies.21
Sources
A work such as this one is bound to rely, in no small part, on our literary
record.22 That is due to the simple fact that virtually every cultural object has
utterly vanished, while any of the venues for display, the temples and porticoes,
survive as mere ruins. Hence a paradox: the study is about cultural artefacts and
their display, but it cannot be said to be exclusively ‘art historical’. Rather it falls
into the realm of museum theory and cultural history (something that should,
perhaps, be already apparent), and naturally includes forays into the realm of
display and collecting. With so much material vanished, we depend for the most
part on literary accounts and occasionally the archaeological record to
reconstruct ancient collections and displays. The images used to illustrate this
study therefore, are intended to give what at best must be for the most part a
conjectural and impressionistic sense of the appearance of ancient collections
and objects within the city.
In the course of this study we will draw heavily on Pliny the Elder and other
literary sources, which will inevitably lead us to focus primarily though not
exclusively on the Roman elite.23 The city itself was the creation of that elite,
and they wrote about the city they had built. Such sources are not without their
(p.14) problems: to what extent did an author actually view the objects? Was
the author in fact accurate in describing and giving the history of a particular
memorial or artefact? What are the possible ulterior motives that, for any
number of reasons—rhetorical, political, or social—could lead an author (such as
Page 11 of 33
Introduction
For the moment, suffice to state that since Pliny (for one) lived in and was
familiar with the city of Rome, my own belief is that he will have had a good idea
about what was in the Forum and other prominent locations; for places more ‘off
the beaten path’ it is likely that he had access to some sort of imperial
inventory.25 Cicero’s case is more difficult: his remarks about Scipio, for
example, arise in a highly charged rhetorical context, the prosecution of Verres,
making them suspect. However Cicero was intimate with Sicily, Verres was
genuinely guilty, and the comparison Cicero makes between Scipio and Verres
may have been for the most part accurate and certainly was plausible for
Cicero’s Roman audience. We need to be aware of such difficulties, and will
address them as they appear. At the same time, the complete veracity of our
sources is less at issue for us; it is more important for our purposes to ascertain
what was understood and believed about particular objects and what that tells
us about the Roman sense of self. For example, whether Dionysius of
Halicarnassus is correct to assume that the Temple of the Penates in the Velia
held the actual Penates that Aeneas brought to Rome is, in a sense, irrelevant.
For us in this case, neither is the truth of Aeneas’ existence nor the various
versions concerning the origin of the Penates at issue—nor, for that matter, are
the literary traditions and the value of those traditions for reconstructing Roman
‘prehistory’.26 Rather what is at issue is what Dionysius’ (p.15) belief about
their origin tells us about Roman cultural identity.27 As Barkan has noted,
Rome’s past was largely imagined; what matters is how the past and present
relate to one another as ‘symbol and exegesis’.28
Page 12 of 33
Introduction
Introduction
both an individual and a group or national level, and can assist, as a number of
studies have shown, even in the creation of national identity.36 This is an area
that has been thoroughly explored by theorists of collecting, many of whom have
discussed the symbolic function of objects and their role in the creation of
identity.37 Among cultural historians of the Roman period, Edwards has taken
this issue on in the most explicit terms, noting the direct connection between
(p.18) knowledge of Roman cultural identity and the Roman self particularly in
terms of understanding the city visually and reading it as a text.38 In terms of
collecting for our period and its connection with identity, along with Chevallier
(1991), and now Bounia (2004), Elsner has noted the clear relationship between
the acquisition of cultural artefacts and the construction of Roman identity (or,
more properly, identities), while A. Wallace-Hadrill’s Rome’s Cultural Revolution
(2008) similarly examines the consumption of luxury goods and Roman
identity.39 Most recently, I. Östenberg’s fine study, Staging the World: Spoils,
Captives, and Representation in the Roman Triumphal Procession (2009), has
explored the construction of Roman identity in visual terms through the specific
objects displayed in triumphs.
Cultural theorists have further noted that objects are vital for the conservation
of human memory, something closely linked to human identity. As has been
observed by Fentress and Wickham (whose theoretical study on social memory
considers the variety of means by which social memory is transmitted), ‘we are
what we remember’, and we are also ‘how’ we remember.40 That is to say,
The way we represent ourselves in our memories, the way we define our
personal and collective identities through our memories, the way we order
and structure our ideas in our memories, and the way we transmit these
memories to others—is a study of the way we are.41
The question of how ancient societies remember, or for that matter forget, has
been a subject of recent interest among classical scholars, with Edwards (1996),
(p.19) Alcock (2001), and Flower (2006) in particular at the forefront of the
discussion.42 Indeed, Edwards makes quite explicit this connection between the
visual and its association with memory in her discussion concerning Aeneas’ visit
to the Palatine when he sees the virum monimenta priorum (‘the monuments of
the men of the past’).43 Yet perhaps one of the clearest connections made
between memory and identity in Rome, as Edwards (1996) has noted, was that
made by Flavio Biondo, secretary to Pope Eugenius IV. Biondo was interested in
‘reviving the ancient form of the city through a proper reading of ancient texts’,
and observed that ‘Rome, through ignorance of its inhabitants, has lost its
identity’.44 In a more recent work, Flower has pointed out an aspect of memory
that will be of direct concern for our study: the desire and need on the part of
nobiles and the ruling elite for notoriety through the preservation of memory in
the form of public visual reminders, be they triumphs, statues, paintings, or
other public memorials.45 This is not to deny the presence of what S. E. Alcock
Page 14 of 33
Introduction
It is this intersection of objects, identity, and power that has in fact drawn the
attention of numerous contemporary theorists. Thus in his essay, ‘Collecting Art
and Culture’, J. Clifford notes that ‘collections embody hierarchies of value,
exclusion, rule-governed territories of the self … this kind of gathering involves
the accumulation of possessions, the idea that identity is a kind of wealth (of
objects, knowledge, memories, experience)’.47 A similar line of thinking has been
followed by others such as Pearce, who observes that ‘politically, the motive
behind [the] collecting is that of display, which through its sheer impressiveness
can convey legitimacy … The display of wealth is the basis for prestige which
(p.20) underpins political power’.48 Pearce also asserts that objects constitute
human goals and desires that invite us to act upon them.49 Seen in this way,
objects have the potential to create a conversation with the viewer concerning
the relations of power between the object, its previous owner, and the viewer, a
relationship that, as Stocking notes, is implicitly a relation of power.50 In
addition to symbolic forms of power that serve to create legitimacy or make
statements concerning relations of power, theorists have noted that objects have
the capacity to generate cultural capital and ‘sustain their own authority’.51
In sum, objects reflect relations of power through three essential modes. Since
they are often appropriated, looted, or purchased, they are an indication of the
possessor’s wealth or power. That power conveys an authority that serves to
legitimate or perpetuate power through various means, some of which we shall
explore in the following chapters.52 By virtue of the simple fact that the
possessors and looters of cultural property, certainly in Rome but one suspects
in most societies as well, tend to make up the dominant hierarchy, they also
invariably express the values and tastes of that hierarchy, values that are
frequently designed to act in the interests of the dominant elite, to perpetuate its
power and legitimize its hegemony over the rest of society.53 It should be noted,
however, that this was not the entire story. As R. Bradley has noted, ‘not all
antiquities were associated with ancestors or with sources of political power.
Many were linked instead with the supernatural, and often they were feared’.54
As we shall see, this was certainly the case with any number of cultural artefacts
within the city.
How objects communicate, and much of what they have to communicate, will of
course depend on context, and it is the relationship between objects, their
context, and their potential significance that will be central for much of the (p.
21) present work.55 To cite one example of how the context or relationship
between objects could change their meaning radically, Gregory has noted in his
study on the political significance of imagines that cultural objects for display
Page 15 of 33
Introduction
could form ‘pendants’, and thereby ‘give a new ideological meaning’ to that
object or even set of objects.56 He cites as an example Augustus’ dedication of a
statue of Antonius Musa, his physician, next to a statue of Aesculapius: ‘Doctor
and god of healing formed a natural pendant, and Musa’s own profession was
identified, and his prestige and reputation was undoubtedly raised through his
image’s proximity to Aesculapius.’57 The significance of associations of this sort,
which are often culturally determinant, can change rapidly based on context.
This is perhaps most dramatically illustrated in a contemporary context (to
return to our example of Washington DC) in the placement and display of
presidential iconography. Hence the presence of the colossal Lincoln in a quasi-
Phidian pose (seated in majesty like an Olympian Zeus) in an Ionic temple (the
Lincoln Memorial), or bronze statuary of presidents Lincoln and Washington set
in separate niches of the National Cathedral’s main entrance, constitute
contexts that raise them to a status normally reserved for saints or divinities.
Here the pose, size, and setting signify to the viewer the message(s) such media
are intended to convey. The contextual association alone is a statement of the
values they embody, values our own society—of honesty, courage, sacrifice,
virtue, and compassion—hopes collectively to maintain and whose moral basis
(given the religious context of these examples) transcends the human and looks
to the divine.
Page 16 of 33
Introduction
Significantly, the complex in Alexandria was named after the Muses, and it is
worth remembering that the Muses were the daughters of Mnemosyne, that is,
of Memory herself. If one thinks of the Muses and their specific spheres of arts,
letters, history, and science (in the broad sense of knowledge as understood in
antiquity, as opposed to the modern one of experimentation and theory), all are
readily encompassed in the Museion. The association of art, history, science, and
(p.23) literature within a single institution, and their emanation from
Mnemosyne found its way into Athenaeus’ description of Athens as the Museion
of Hellas (5.187d). Athenaeus’ remark could, on the one hand, have in mind the
enormous literary and philosophical talent that Athens both produced and
attracted. He may also have had in mind its monuments that so impressed
Cicero in the De Finibus (see p. 85). Yet there is no reason not to think that he
potentially had both meanings in mind—that Athens was a general cultural
repository of the ancient world, and one that also preserved the memory of great
men. What was to be remembered, and how an individual or an event was to be
remembered, however, offered a vast field for negotiation, visual conversation,
and contention among the various segments of Roman society.
Introduction
Among the vast array of studies on Roman art, display, collection, and its
significance, none have looked at Rome exclusively and in more comprehensive
terms as a museum city, and attempted to interpret it as such. Many studies on
ancient Rome however have recognized the existence of the museum as an
enticing subject for investigation in the course of exploring related areas, and it
is among these that the current examination takes its place. Among the earliest
of such studies was Jex-Blake’s commentary (and Seller’s subsequent revision)
on Pliny’s chapters on art in ancient Rome which noted the ‘museographical’
nature of Pliny’s work and includes a museographic index, though it is little
more than a catalogue and heavily positivistic in its approach.69 K. Lehmann’s
(1945) article was a conjectural study based on Martial’s epigrams concerning
the possible collection and its arrangement in the Temple of Divus Augustus. It is
a subject to which we shall return in chapter seven, but for the moment suffice
to note that it was by no means a comprehensive study, and one that offered only
a limited (p.25) discussion concerning a single collection. Becatti’s (1950)
study on art and taste in antiquity, with its tangential references to conservation
and lengthy discussions of viewer reaction to art, arguably falls into the realm of
museum theory and collecting (and concentrates heavily on what the literary
sources tell us about viewer response), while his study on art in Tiberius’ Rome
was quite narrowly focused.70 Von Holst attempted to put collecting in antiquity
in its larger context, though the study was one that collected material that
tended to be insufficiently documented.71 The study also contains no source
Page 18 of 33
Introduction
criticism and was written without the advantage of any more current critical or
social theory. Other studies that touch on this area, such as those by Koch, Pape,
and Celani, all tend to focus on a single period, with specific interest in Greek
art as opposed to other cultural objects within the city.72 Casson’s (1974) survey
of travel in antiquity included a chapter devoted to a brief and general overview
of museums in the context of ancient tourism.73 Alsop’s (1982) study cited above
also set ancient collection in its much larger context, though it tends to focus on
the economics of ancient collecting.74 Rouveret’s (1987) brief study examined
those collections mentioned in Pliny and also included a cursory examination of
other collections in the city, and stands in the context of a number of other
studies, including Beaujeu’s, whose article (1982) asks whether Romans had the
concept of the museum through a consideration of the repositories of cultural
property (the various temples, porticoes, and fora) and their upkeep. Gualandi’s
study (also 1982), similarly focuses almost exclusively on those collections
catalogued by Pliny, while Duret’s and Néraudau’s work also examined briefly
Rome as a repository for cultural material, focusing in particular on Greek
statuary.75 Previously, D. E. Strong’s article on Roman museums addressed, in a
very general and brief discussion, the subject of acquisition, maintenance, and
display in ancient Rome.76 Isager, in his work on Pliny, has a somewhat more
extended discussion (p.26) on art collections in Rome and catalogues the
individual venues, but again does not venture into the realm of ideology.77
Similarly, scholars such as Carey and Murphy, as a result of their focus on Pliny
and his vast catalogue of art and cultural objects, have arguably been at the
forefront of collection studies in their Roman cultural context.78
Page 19 of 33
Introduction
study, to date, has made a more comprehensive attempt to assess the vast and
diverse array of cultural property that accrued over Rome’s long history, from its
foundation until its collapse. Here, however, it is important to append yet
another caveat. Although I have situated the work in the context of museum
studies, in a sense this is not a study that can be exclusively categorized as one
that falls solely under the rubric of collection or museum theory, or, for that
matter, of art history, Roman topography, or archaeology. Inevitably, though,
elements of all of these areas will prove essential, indeed, inseparable, from our
understanding of how certain material was displayed.
Moreover, the emergence of the modern institution also constituted the ‘tangible
testimonials to the right to rule’.84 That is to say, it became an instrument of
power, ‘the power to name … to create official versions, to represent the social
world, and to represent the past’.85 In addition to the establishment and
perpetuation of power within their own society, it is also the function of the
modern museum ‘to place the peoples of the world in relationships of domination
and (p.28) subservience’.86 The museum became a place where the incoherent
was put in a strict order, giving a new complexity, context, and interpretation to
Page 20 of 33
Introduction
all manner of cultural and natural objects which maintained two frames of
reference: their aesthetic reference on the one hand, and their place as
signifiers of a specific mode of life on the other.87 The result of such objects was
to maintain and foster a sense of identity that, if we apply the model to the
Romans or to any other similar people for that matter, was inextricably related
to what we might call their ‘power culture’. The aim (and result) of those
displaying such objects was to educate, legitimate, and ultimately to dominate.
However, the effort to construct that identity around a diverse array of objects
can appear incoherent, contradictory, and patchwork. It is the task of the
museum to suppress this disordered state of affairs through the process of
collection and the creation of apparently relevant relationships among various
artefacts. In this way cultural objects with no apparent connection—Wilt
Chamberlin’s shoes and Nancy Reagan’s china, or Cleopatra’s pearl earrings
and Apelles’ painting known as the Venus Anadyomenē (Birth of Venus), ‘become
involved in the construction of identity and difference’.88 Hooper-Greenhill notes
that ‘objects are made meaningful according to how they are placed within
relations of significance, and that these relationships depend on who is
determining what counts as significant’.89 Although here too, a caveat is
necessary, since meaning—significance—is never mono-but polyvalent and
shifting. The personal value a viewer attributes to an object or to the
relationship of several objects is one thing, collective meaning is another, and
both often are completely independent of the original ‘intent’ of the object qua
object which has almost always been divorced from its original physical and
cultural context. While Hooper-Greenhill applies theories of power and identity
to contemporary museums, one could say very much the same—despite clear
cultural and historical differences—of the ancient collection(s) found in Rome.
Taken in sum, the city as a whole frequently creates, like a museum, what
Hooper-Greenhill refers to as a ‘master narrative’, acting as ‘the constructor of a
present day “reality”… through bringing into focus a memory of the past that
(coincidentally) supports the present’.90
(p.29) In the case of Rome, that master narrative was one that enshrined a
coherent national identity and was expressive of Roman power. Such a narrative
educated viewers, simultaneously casting into relief the hierarchal nature of
Roman power and the right to wield it: the collective result was (in part) the
establishment of the right of those in power to maintain legitimate control over
the vast majority of Romans who socially, politically, and economically wielded
less influence. Among the powerful, material display served as a reminder of
one’s res gestae (‘achievements’) and auctoritas (‘authority’) constituting an
assertion of power among the elite. The further purpose of such display was to
educate the empowered in the Roman school of aspiration, a subject we shall
explore at several points in this study. Hence the relationship of the subjugated
and the dominant can be read in various objects and monuments found
throughout Rome. The ‘official version’ of Roman history and cultural
Page 21 of 33
Introduction
development that supports and asserts that power is built into the very face of
the city, even as, occasionally, that version presents the possibility of resistance
through alternative readings in the relationship of cultural artefacts one to
another. Finally, it merits observing that while that ‘official’ narrative of Rome’s
past laid claim to the gods Venus and Mars as the parents of the city (and
metaphorically assisted in the acquisition of cultural property through both
desire and conquest), Mnemosyne, Memory—the divine mother who ordered all
Muses under her wings—was to become the preserver of the city’s history and
identity. (p.30)
Notes:
(1) On coherence or its absence in contemporary museums see D. Crimp, On the
Museum’s Ruins (Cambridge Mass. 1993), 47–8; cf. 50–4, where he bases much
of his discussion on M. Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the
Human Sciences (New York 1970).
(2) Concerning which, see S. Sandage, ‘A Marble House Divided: The Lincoln
Memorial, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Politics of Memory, 1939–1963’,
The Journal of American History, 80 (1993), 135–67.
(5) See e.g. J. C. Berlo and R. B. Phillips, ‘The Problematics of Collecting and
Display, Part 1’, ArtB 77 (1995), 6, who discuss the question of the relationship of
power between Native American claims to their own objects as instruments of
power set against ‘the imperialist project of inscribing relationships of power’ in
the context of official institutionalized display; also see M. MacMillan, Dangerous
Games: The Uses and Abuses of History (London 2009), 125–7, for a similar
debate concerning the War Museum in Ottawa and its display of the death and
destruction the allied bombing visited on Germany in World War II. For a good
general discussion over the contentiousness of historical memory and
commemoration see R. M. Van Dyke and S. E. Alcock (eds.), Archaeologies of
Memory (Oxford 2003), 2.
Page 22 of 33
Introduction
(6) See M. Bal and N. Bryson, ‘Semiotics and Art History’, ArtB 73 (1991), 207,
for their theoretical discussion on the attempts to fix meaning; E. Hooper-
Greenhill, Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge (London 1992), 118, who
notes the infinity of meanings an object can have, observing that such meaning
is historically situated and contingent on historical circumstances. Such a
contingent meaning of objects has been discussed in several recent studies by
classicists; see e.g. J. Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer. The Transformation of
Art from the Pagan to the Christian World (Cambridge 1995), 4, 89; D. Fowler,
‘Even Better than the Real Thing: A Tale of Two Cities’, in J. Elsner (ed.), Art and
Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge 1996), 61–2; V. Huet, ‘Stories One Might Tell
of Roman Art: Reading Trajan’s Column and the Tiberius Cup’, in J. Elsner (ed.),
Art and Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge 1996), 21; P. Stewart, Statues in
Roman Society. Representation and Response (Oxford 2003), 14–15.
(8) For the construction of social memory and identity in its Hellenic (as opposed
to Roman) context see in general Alcock, Archaeologies (n. 4).
(10) For the modern classification of objects in the context of museum display,
with its layer of ‘scientific’ curiosity see e.g. B. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, ‘Objects of
Ethnography’, in I. Karp and S. D. Lavine (eds.), Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics
and Politics of Museum Display (Washington DC 1991), 386–443; cf. S.
MacDonald, ‘Introduction’, in S. MacDonald and G. Fyfe (eds.). Theorizing
Museums: Representing Identity and Diversity in a Changing World (Cambridge
1996), 7, on the modern museum as a form of classification. For Pliny’s
‘classification’ of objects see S. Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture: Art and
Empire in the Natural History (Oxford 2003), 26–30.
(11) For the modern city (specifically, Istanbul) as a museum see D. Flaming,
‘Making City Histories’, in G. Kavanagh (ed.), Making Histories in Museums
(London 1996), 135–6. For the theoretical underpinnings of the city qua text see
J. Urry, ‘How Societies Remember the Past’, in S. MacDonald and G. Fyfe (eds.),
Theorizing Museums: Representing Identity and Diversity in a Changing World
(Cambridge 1996), 50–1. Also see Van Dyke and Alcock, Archaeologies of
Memory (n. 5), 5, for the inscription of meaning on place; see too E. Thomas,
Monumentality and the Roman Empire. Architecture in the Antonine Age (Oxford
2007), 115. For ancient Rome as a museum city see C. Edwards, ‘Incorporating
the Alien: The Art of Conquest’, in C. Edwards and G. Woolf (eds.), Rome the
Cosmopolis (Cambridge 2003), 51; cf. C. Edwards, Writing Rome. Textual
Approaches to the City (Cambridge 1996), 30, who notes that ‘in the republic, at
least, the city itself was Rome’s chief historical text. Topography functioned as a
Page 23 of 33
Introduction
substitute for literary narrative’. For ancient Rome as a text also see M. K.
Jaeger, The Poetics of Place: The Augustan Writers and the Urban Landscape of
Rome, PhD thesis, University of California (Berkeley 1990); D. Favro, ‘Reading
the Augustan City’, in P. J. Holliday (ed.), Narrative and Event in Ancient Art
(Cambridge 1993), 230–57 (for a specifically ‘Augustan’ narrative); A. Vasaly,
Representation: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory (Berkeley 1993).
(14) See Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 6), 1–4, who notes that a variety of
‘different conceptual frameworks’ is what makes viewing meaningful.
(16) For the value assigned to such terms see Pearce, On Collecting (n. 3), 297;
on the value of the copy versus the ‘authentic’ in antiquity see C. Hallett,
‘Emulation versus Replication: Redefining Roman Copying’, JRA 18 (2005), 419–
35.
(17) For such distinctions and their embedded prejudices in their modern
museological context see C. Duncan, ‘The Art Museum as Ritual’, in J. C. Berlo
and R. B. Phillips, ‘The Problematics of Collecting and Display, Part 1’, ArtB 77
(1995), 12: in modern museums until quite recently western collections were
considered ‘art’, non-western ‘artefacts’. See J. Elsner, ‘From Pyramids to
Pausanias and Piglet: Monuments, Travel, and Writing’, in R. Osborn and S.
Goldhill (eds.), Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture (Cambridge 1994), 224–5,
for a discussion of the monument as constituting an artefact as ‘an idea about
something which was once (and may still be) an existent artefact but has also
acquired a complex ideological resonance’.
(18) For the distinction made in contemporary terms see Sherman and Rogoff,
Museum Culture (n. 13), xii: ‘art’ is associated with pleasure, ‘artefact’ with
instruction. On this distinction in modern museums see L. Jordanova, ‘Objects of
Knowledge: A Historical Perspective on Museums’, in P. Vergo (ed.), The New
Museology (London 1989), 22–40; cf. J. Clifford, ‘Objects and Selves – an
Afterword’, in G. Stocking (ed.), Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and
Material Culture. History of Anthropology 3 (Milwaukee 1985), 242.
(19) For a good discussion of the construction of social memory through objects
and place in general, including a good theoretical discussion, see Alcock,
Archaeologies (n.4); Van Dyke and Alcock, Archaeologies of Memory (n. 5), 1–3.
Introduction
(21) See e.g. J. J. Pollitt, The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History, and
Terminology (New Haven and London 1974); The Impact of Greek Art on Rome’,
TAPA 108 (1978), 155–74; E. S. Gruen, Culture and Identity in Republican Rome
(Ithaca 1992); K. Galinsky, Augustan Culture. An Interpretive Introduction
(Princeton 1996), 332–63; A. Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution
(Cambridge 2008), 3–35, for a good general (and theoretical) discussion.
(22) Although the authors of those works, as Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer
(n. 6), 12 observes, are themselves interpreters and viewers of ancient art; cf. 21
for his discussion on the difficulties in reconstructing a visual experience
through text.
(23) Such a focus is admittedly quite orthodox as J. Elsner, Roman Eyes. Visuality
and Subjectivity in Art and Text (Princeton 2007), xiv, notes, but he also rightly
notes elsewhere, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 6), 11 that we must privilege
viewer response from the centres of power due to the nature of our sources.
(24) On Pliny the Elder’s sources see V. Naas, ‘L’art grec dans L’Histoire naturelle
de Pline L’Ancien’, Histoire de L’art, 35–6 (1996), esp. 16–19 for those concerning
Greek art; cf. Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture (n. 10), 8–10, for a discussion of
the scholarship on Pliny’s sources. For how Pliny wrote his work see A. Locher,
‘The Structure of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History’, in R. French and F.
Greenaway (eds.), Science in the Early Roman Empire: Pliny the Elder, His
Sources and Influence (London and Sydney 1986), 21–8, esp. 26–7.
(25) See W. Coulson, The Reliability of Pliny’s Chapters on Greek and Roman
Sculpture’, CW 69 (1976), 361–72, who argues that Pliny was quite familiar with
the works of art he recorded and a careful researcher who drew on Greek
sources; cf. G. Gualandi, ‘Plinio e il collezionismo d’arte’, in Plinio il Vecchio sotto
il profilo storico e letterario. Atti del Convegno di Como 1979 (Como 1982), 259–
98, for Pliny on art collection.
(26) For the discussion of which see T. J. Cornell, The Value of the Literary
Tradition Concerning Archaic Rome’, in K. A. Raaflaub (ed.), Social Struggles in
Archaic Rome: New Perspectives on the Conflict of the Orders (Berkeley 1986),
52–76; cf. Elsner, ‘From Pyramids to Pausanias and Piglet’ (n. 17), 226, who
notes that it is not the ‘correct’ history by our standards that was or is important
‘but that it be convincing to the particular group of individuals … for whom it
serves as an explanation of the world they inhabit’.
(27) ‘Belief’ is the key word here, any error of such belief notwithstanding. See
D. Preziosi, ‘Museology and Museography’, ArtB 77 (1995), 13, who notes that
the museum is a ‘particular mode of fiction … an indispensable component of
statehood and of national and ethnic identity’. Cf. J. Fentress and C. Wickham
Social Memory (Oxford and Cambridge Mass. 1992), 24, who note that ‘our
knowledge of both the past and present is built on ideas and recollections in the
Page 25 of 33
Introduction
present mind’. The museum (and the past) in a sense, is a fictional form of
narrative. On the instability of memory concerning history and artefacts and on
their ability to ‘codify’ social meaning see R. Bradley, ‘The Translation of Time’,
in R. M. Van Dyke and S. E. Alcock (eds.), Archaeologies of Memory (Oxford
2003) 221–7.
(28) See L. Barkan, Transuming Passion: Ganymede and the Erotics of Humanism
(Stanford 1991), 17.
(30) For the visual as an utterance that communicates in its ancient context see
T. Hölscher, The Language of Images in Roman Art (Cambridge 2004), 2, who
remarks on the ‘syntactical’ nature of visual communication: ‘how a society may
coin a means of visual communication, how this language then reacts upon the
society as it uses and develops it, what the overall visual system is able to
achieve as a result, which structures of meaning are implied in its syntax and
repertoire of motifs. All of these are of real importance for social and cultural
history’.
(31) See Pearce, On Collecting (n. 3), 8: ‘The impact of structuralist and linguistic
thought—particularly in relation to the analysis of human communication
through words, myths, the organization of human relationships, and objects—
offered ways of understanding the links between these things in the context of
the crucial distinction between metonymy and metaphor’; cf. 15, 22. Also see T.
Bennett, The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics (New York 1995),
146–7, for discussion of artefacts as rhetorical objects whose meaning is derived
from the series of other signifiers that surround them.
(32) See J. Berger, Ways of Seeing (London 1972), 86: the collected object
reconfirms the possession of what it is desirable to possess.
Page 26 of 33
Introduction
23: objects reduced to the level of ‘sheer appearances’ in fact articulate their
meaning more powerfully.
(34) Also see Pearce, On Collecting (n. 3), 18: ‘Objects play their own part in
perpetuating ideological structures and creating individual natures’, citing H.
Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago 1958), 137, who observed that ‘The
things of the world have the function of stabilizing human life, and their
objectivity lies in the fact that … men, their ever-changing nature
notwithstanding, can retrieve their sameness, that is, their identity, by being
related to the same chair and same table. In other words, against the
subjectivity of men stands the objectivity of the man-made world’. Cf. Pearce, 18:
‘Objects are not inert or passive; they help us to give shape to our identities and
purpose to our lives’.
(35) For collective identity, see F. E. S. Kaplan (ed.), Museums and the Making of
‘Ourselves’ (London 1994), 2, who notes that in terms of previous societies,
‘collections and displays were intended to unite a populace, to reduce conflict,
and to ensure political stability and continuity’. See Bennett, Birth of the
Museum (n. 31), 148–9, for the museum as an institution that establishes
national identity in the context of a long historical trajectory stretching both into
a very obscure origin and ‘into a boundless future’.
(36) The bibliography on this subject is ample. For a good discussion see Kaplan,
Museums and the Making of ‘Ourselves’ (n. 35), 1–2, who considers how the
modern museum arose with the formation of national identities and the
emergence of the modern nation-state, and remarks how museums have ‘played
important roles in creating national identity and promoting national agendas’.
(37) See Pearce, On Collecting, (n. 3), 27: ‘Collections are sets of objects, and …
like all other sets of objects, they are an act of the imagination, part corporate
and part individual, a metaphor intended to create meanings which help to make
individual identity and each individual’s view of the world’. Cf. ibid., 151; see
esp. 303: ‘Knowledge is a product of our social and psychological selves, and
hence, among other things, of all the efforts to construct individual identity
through the accumulation of collections.’ Also see F. Baekeland, ‘Psychological
Aspects of Art Collecting’, Psychiatry, 44 (1981), 45–59; Clifford, ‘Objects and
Selves’ (n. 18), 237–8; J. Canizzo, ‘How Sweet It Is: Culture Politics in Barbados’,
Muse, Winter (1987), 22–7; P. Findlen, Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting,
and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy (Berkeley 1994), 298–316; G.
Kavanagh, ‘Making Histories, Making Memories’, in G. Kavanagh (ed.), Making
Histories in Museums (London 1996), 6.
(38) See Edwards, Writing Rome (n. 11), 17: To be at home in Rome was not to be
born there (how many Romans could make that boast?). It was rather to be
master of Roman knowledge. Without such knowledge, Romans might be
Page 27 of 33
Introduction
(39) Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 6), 125–55, with particular emphasis
on the formulation of religious identity and viewing in Pausanias; cf. J. Elsner
and R. Cardinal (eds.), The Culture of Collecting (Cambridge Mass. 1994), 3; on
the definition and question of elite Roman identity or identities as culturally
defined, see J. Huskinson, ‘Elite Culture and the Identity of Empire’, in J.
Huskinson (ed.), Experiencing Rome. Culture, Identity, and Power in the Roman
Empire (London 2000), 95–123, esp. 96–7 citing Tacitus’ Agricola as an example
of multiple identities consisting of elements that are distinctly Roman, Greek,
elite, and provincial; cf. J. Huskinson, ‘Looking for Culture, Identity, and Power’,
in J. Huskinson (ed.), Experiencing Rome. Culture, Identity, and Power in the
Roman Empire (London 2000), 10, who observes that while gender and ethnicity
are essentially fixed parts of human identity, one’s cultural identity is malleable;
also see R. Miles, ‘Communicating Culture, Identity, and Power’, in J. Huskinson
(ed.), Experiencing Rome. Culture, Identity, and Power in the Roman Empire
(London 2000), 34, who argues (drawing on close study of the Philopappos
monument) that identity is performative and notes the possibility of multiple
identities for the individual in antiquity. See Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural
Revolution (n. 21), 3–17, both for discussion of the construction of Roman
identity and a good theoretical summary of the question of the construction of
identity; cf. 23–8 for the ‘dialogue’ particularly between Greek and Roman
cultural identity.
(41) Ibid.; cf. Urry, ‘How Societies Remember the Past’ (n. 11), 55, for the
convergence of memory and visual culture, who notes that one does not
necessarily receive ‘artefactual history’ passively, since it involves reminiscence.
(42) Concerning the ancient theory of memory however, see in particular F. Yates,
The Art of Memory (London 1966), 1–49; cf. J. Farrell, The Phenomenology of
Memory in Roman Culture’, CJ 92 (1997), 373–83, for his discussion of memory
in ancient Rome; for a related discussion on memory see S. Price, ‘Memory in
ancient Greece’, in A. H. Rasmussen and S. W. Rasmussen (eds.), Religion and
Society. Rituals, Resources and Identity in the Ancient Graeco-Roman World. The
BOMOS-Conferences 2002–2005 (Analecta Romana Instituti Danici,
Supplementum 40) (Rome 2008), 165–76.
(43) See Vergil, Aeneid 8.312, 355–8; for discussion see Edwards, Writing Rome
(n. 11), 11: The use of ruins to evoke a superior past was to recur in many much
later meditations on the site of the city’.
Page 28 of 33
Introduction
(45) See H. Flower, The Art of Forgetting. Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman
Political Culture (Chapel Hill 2006), 51–5, esp. 53, for her astute observation
that nobilis comes directly from ‘notable’ or well-known; see now Wallace-
Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution (n. 21), 218–25, for a good discussion of the
construction of the identity of a Roman nobilis.
(47) Clifford, Predicament of Culture (n. 7), 218, cf. 238; also see G. Stocking,
Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture, History of
Anthropology 3 (Madison Wis. 1985), 5, for objects as a display of wealth.
(48) Pearce, On Collecting (n. 3), 105; cf. Fentress and Wickham, Social Memory
(n. 27), 88: ‘Events can be remembered more easily if they fit into forms of
narrative that the social group already has at its disposal … But they tend to be
remembered in the first place because of their power to legitimize the present,
and tend to be interpreted in ways that very closely parallel (often competing)
present conceptions of the world’.
(51) T. Murphy, Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in the Encyclopedia
(Oxford 2004), 14 citing in general Foucault (1970) where Murphy notes that
‘institutional knowledge’, which is what a collective heritage preserves in a
sense, creates ‘certain tacit negotiations with their readers, asserting and
sustaining their authority, implying or inscribing their proper use and audience’.
Cf. Pearce, On Collecting (n. 3), 9–10; also see in general P. Bourdieu, Distinction:
A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Cambridge Mass. 1984).
(52) For a good general discussion of the process whereby objects and place
legitimate authority see Van Dyke and Alcock, Archaeologies of Memory (n. 5), 3.
(53) See Pearce, On Collecting, 304: ‘Values are not “natural” and “revealed”;
they are constructed in the interest of specific social groups in order to enhance
their dominance but these groups also attempt to conceal this naked aggression
by fig-leaves of supposed tenderness, intellectual excitement, and so forth’. Cf.
Naas, ‘L’art grec’ (n. 24), 22 for the connection of power and collecting in
ancient Rome.
(55) See Bal and Bryson, ‘Semiotics and Art History’ (n. 6), 175–80 for a good
theoretical discussion on the semiotics of context, esp. 175 where they note that
context itself can constitute a text and ‘consists of signs that require
interpretation’. Cf. Barkan, Transuming Passion (n. 28), 10, who notes that
Page 29 of 33
Introduction
objects from a disjoined culture or tradition find meaning from their own
‘semantic universe’.
(57) Suet. Aug. 59; Gregory, ‘“Powerful Images”’ (n. 56), 85. The same could be
said of larger architectural programmes that constituted the venues for cultural
artefacts in general; see S. E. Alcock, ‘The Reconfiguration of Memory in the
Eastern Roman Empire’, in S. E. Alcock, T. N. D’Altroy, K. D. Morrison, and C. M.
Sinopoli, Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History (Cambridge
2001), 334–5; also see Alcock, Archaeologies (n. 4), 54.
(58) See Pearce, On Collecting (n. 3), 96–8; for the modern use of the term as
referring broadly to a collection of material objects see E. Schulz, ‘Notes on the
History of Collecting and Museums’, JHC 2.2 (1990), 211–12.
(59) See Varro, De Re Rustica 3.5.9; Pausanias 1.30.2; Diogenes Laertius 5.51; A.
Bounia, The Nature of Classical Collecting: Collectors and Collections, 100 BCE–
100 CE (Ashgate 2004), 293 for discussion.
(61) See L. Canfora, The Vanished Library. A Wonder of the Ancient World
(Berkeley 1987), for his study of the Library that was a part of the Museion; see
esp. 100–6 for a discussion of the sources; cf. L. Casson, Libraries in the Ancient
World (New Haven 2001), 31–47; for the official management of the Museion and
its role as a cult centre see M. El-Abbadi, Life and Fate of the Ancient Library of
Alexandria, 2nd edn. (Paris 1992), 86–7; see R. MacLeod, ‘Introduction:
Alexandria in History and Myth’, in R. MacLeod (ed.), The Library of Alexandria.
Centre of Learning in the Ancient World (London and New York 2000), 1–15 for
an excellent discussion of the Library and the separate institution of the
Museion; concerning the purpose and function of the Library see H. J. de
Vleeschauwer, ‘Afterword: The Museion’, in H. C. Wright, The Oral Antecedents
of Greek Librarianship (Provo 1977), 176–80.
(62) See in general C. Jacob and F. Polignac (eds.), Alexandria, Third Century BC:
The Knowledge of the World in a Single City (Alexandria 2000).
(64) See Sherman and Rogoff, Museum Culture (n. 13), xi–xii.
Page 30 of 33
Introduction
(65) See Stocking, Objects and Others (n. 47), 5; cf. e.g. A. E. Coombs, ‘Museums
and the Formation of National and Cultural Identities’, Oxford Art Journal, 11
(1988), 57–68.
(68) J. Cuno, Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient
Heritage (Princeton 2008); J. Cuno, (ed.), Whose Culture? The Promise of
Museums and the Debate over Antiquities (Princeton 2009).
(69) For the ‘museological’ nature of Pliny’s work see K. Jex-Blake and E. Sellers,
The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art (repr. Chicago 1968 and 1977
with prefaces and select bibliographies by Raymond V. Schroder, SJ) (London
and New York 1896), xci–xcii; for the ‘museographic’ index see 247–52, for Rome
specifically see 249–52; cf. Bounia, Nature of Classical Collecting (n. 59), 182–
207. Jex-Blake and Sellers were preceded by E. Bonaffé’s survey, Les
Collectioneurs de l’ancienne Rome. Notes d’un amateur (Paris 1867).
(70) See G. Becatti, Arte e gusto negli scrittori latini (Florence 1950), 90–6;
‘Opere d’arte nella Roma di Tiberio’, AC 25–6 (1973–74), 18–53.
(71) See N. Von Holst, Creators, Collectors, and Connoisseurs: The Anatomy of
Artistic Taste from Antiquity to the Present Day (London 1967), 21–42.
(74) See e.g. J. Alsop, The Rare Art Traditions: The History of Art Collecting and
its Linked Phenomena Wherever These Have Appeared (New York 1982), 43 for
his argument that collecting began with the advent of the Greek pottery market;
cf. 99 for discussion of the market for Greek reproductions.
Page 31 of 33
Introduction
(77) See e.g. J. Isager, Pliny on Art and Society: The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the
History of Art (London 1991), 159 for the Temple of Concord’s collection.
(78) See esp. S. Carey, ‘The Problems of Totality: Collecting Greek Art, Wonders,
and Luxury in Pliny the Elder’s Natural History’, JHC 12.1 (2000), 1–13; also see
Murphy, Pliny (n. 51).
(82) Also see A. E. Coombs, Reinventing Africa: Museums, Material Culture, and
Popular Imagination in Late Victorian and Edwardian England (New Haven
1994), 57, who notes that in Britain a 1902 initiative making museum visits for
school children ‘an integral part of their curriculum’ was wedded to what was
termed ‘social imperialism’, designed to promote a unified ideology whereby ‘all
classes could be comfortably incorporated into a programme of expansionist
economic policy in the colonies coupled with the promise of social reforms at
home’.
(83) Hooper-Greenhill, Museums (n. 6), 28; cf. 31 where she notes that the
government desired that the portraits in the National Gallery be of admirable
individuals whose deeds were worthy and would promote good conduct.
(84) Ibid., 29; cf. 37: ‘By being publicly displayed in the company of leaders and
heroes from the past, the immediate predecessors of the national administration
were given recognition as appropriate rulers’.
(87) Also see J. Buzard, The Beaten Track: European Tourism, Literature, and the
Ways to Culture 1800–1918 (Oxford 1993), 7 for discussion of this dual frame of
reference.
(90) Ibid., 25; cf. Bennett, Birth of the Museum (n. 31), 130, who notes ‘the past,
as embodied in historic sites and museums, while existing in a frame which
Page 32 of 33
Introduction
separates it from the present, is entirely the product of the present practices
which organize and maintain that frame’.
Page 33 of 33
Collecting and Acquisition
DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199573233.003.0002
Keywords: cultural materials, Rome, artefacts, personal identity, Roman power, Cicero
The tusks of the Calydonian boar; Apelles’ paintings of Alexander the Great;
Lysippus’ colossal statue of Zeus: how did such material find its way into the city
and private collections? And what might this ultimately tell us about Roman
values and identity? Acquisition of cultural property—what is acquired and how
—says as much perhaps about the owner of an object as it does about the object
itself, since what is possessed and how it is acquired is a social act, a product of
cultural values and ideology.1 The intersection of a society that was highly
organized along military lines but also which, from the third and fourth century
BC on, came to increasingly dominate the Hellenized cultures of southern Italy,
and eventually the Greek East itself, set up conditions in which the governing
elite aspired to possess culturally the society it was gradually dominating. This is
Page 1 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
not to say that Roman concerns for collecting were purely based on
considerations of domination. The masterpieces of the Greek world also held an
irresistible aesthetic attraction to the light-fingered Roman governor or
ambitious general.2 In addition, cultural property taken from Greece and
elsewhere constituted a form of cultural capital for the elite.3 It represented in
symbolic terms the military, economic, and religious domination of the ‘Other’,
and became an integral part of Roman self-expression. Collection of Greek
cultural property is particularly relevant in this regard, since it came to be
identified not merely with taste, culture, and sophistication, but was also a clear
mark of power and prestige.
Page 2 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
One common thread that exists among those who variously collected or imported
cultural property into Rome was the mania for all things Greek. As the premier
culture of the Mediterranean in classical antiquity, aspiring to own or possess
Greek cultural objects could signify one’s erudition, cultural sophistication, or
political and military domination of a society believed more advanced in the
areas of art, science, and literature. Despite the objections of such figures as
Cato the Elder, it offered the ambitious Roman something to which to aspire.9 In
addition, when Roman generals adorned the city with such material it had a
number of functions: the display of art works created a collective hegemonic
visual discourse throughout the city in which great works of art became a part of
the story of Roman conquest and of Rome’s history and, consequently, national
identity (considerations that we will explore in greater depth in chapter four). In
a society where political prestige was paramount, visual culture played a key
role in that competition. Greek cultural artefacts also became something of a
political football in Roman circles, in which the presence of Greek art and its use
turned contentious.
It bears noting that from an early date (the occasionally negative view of foreign
importation of art and luxury especially from the East notwithstanding),
commanders were always eager to adorn their triumphs, themselves a sort of
temporary exhibition, with the spoils of conquered peoples to commemorate
their achievements.10 Indeed, such display during a triumph was the highlight of
(p.34) a Roman’s career, and establishes a direct connection between the
display of cultural material and Roman prestige and power. But Roman
domination did not come, to the Romans’ way of thinking, without pietas,
something visually expressed in the various dedications in which the power of
foreign gods were literally taken and transferred to the city of Rome. One of the
most famous and earliest examples we have of this is the importation of the cult
image of Juno of Veii, transferred to Rome after the dictator M. Furius Camillus’
victory over Veii in 396 BC. The event serves as a locus classicus for Roman
pietas, when famously the ritual of evocatio (a summoning forth of the deity) was
used in moving the statue (and the goddess herself) to Rome.11 The Romans,
having captured Veii, deconstructed the goddess’ temple and moved her (after
having asked Juno’s permission) into the Temple of Juno on the Aventine.
Camillus may have had a special affection for Juno, since he also dedicated three
golden bowls to her on the Capitoline in the chapel of Jupiter after he defeated
the Etruscans at Sutrium in 389 BC.12 The Capitoline was a favourite (and
prominent) location for the advertisement of one’s pietas from an early date and
was a cult site associated with imperial victory as well.13 The Romans believed it
to be Jupiter’s abode even predating the mythical King Evander; by tradition
King Tarquin the Proud chose it as the location for the central state cult, and we
need to imagine its site and buildings (see fig. 2.1) becoming crowded over time
with a profusion of cultural objects. Hence after Camillus, Livy (6.29.8–10)
relates that T. Quinctius Cincinnatus, the commander in a campaign against
Page 3 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Praeneste (and the eight surrounding towns it controlled) in 379 BC, took a
statue of Jupiter Imperator from Praeneste (p.35)
Page 4 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Florus (1.13.27) reports that Tarentine luxuries, including gold, purple cloth,
statues, and paintings, were seen then for the first time, although one suspects
that this is something of a cliché, and that Greek imports and loot of this sort
had long since been familiar items. Other sources assert that this trend started
with M. Claudius Marcellus, who conquered Syracuse and numerous other
Sicilian cities and celebrated an ovatio in 211 BC. He was denied a triumph but
celebrated one on the Alban Mount outside the city, after which followed a hefty
importation of Greek cultural artefacts.18 Reaction to Marcellus’ importation is
somewhat mixed: Miles has noted a variety of factors in accounting for the
positive treatment of Marcellus in some of our sources.19 Cicero’s positive
portrayal (one of our best sources for Marcellus’ acquisition) stemmed from his
desire to chalk up a legal victory in his case against Verres. In order to cast
Verres in as negative a light as possible, he dubiously asserted by way of
comparison that Marcellus left much material untouched, although more (p.37)
importantly perhaps, a descendant of Marcellus was on the jury.20 In Vergil
(Aeneid 6.855–59) Marcellus stands alongside Augustus’ nephew (and his
descendant) and is duly praised. Polybius (9.10.1–12) appears to be more critical
however (though we lack his complete account). While he ostensibly expresses
concerns about the effects of the importation of luxury upon the Roman
character, as Gruen notes his real concern may have been more pragmatic: the
appropriation and display of looted objects could only excite resentment among
the conquered and ultimately prove disadvantageous to Roman power.21 Livy
notes that Marcellus’ mass importation of art opened the way for the subsequent
looting of sacred buildings, and further states that Marcellus’ importation of
loot, including paintings and statues, gave impetus to the Roman admiration of
Greek art, although his account is rather vague and there may have been no
detailed record of the spoils.22 Livy’s somewhat formulaic account (26.21.7–8)
also states that a picture of Syracuse’s capture was carried during his ovatio,
and that catapults, artillery, and other types of war engines were also displayed,
but there was nothing unusual about any of this. From the spoils Marcellus
dedicated a sphere, an invention of Archimedes, in the Temple of Honos et
Virtus, while he kept a second sphere of apparently inferior make in his home.23
According to Livy, Marcellus’ enemies subsequently put up some Syracusans to
deplore Marcellus’ despoliation, and asserted (contrary to Cicero’s later claim)
that he left nothing in the city (Livy 26.29–30.11), but the senate protected
Marcellus and the Syracusans ultimately begged him to take them under his
protection and to be their city’s patron (Livy 26.32). Yet, as Gruen notes, Livy’s
entire depiction of Marcellus’ disposal of booty and subsequent complaints
against him are likely anachronistic, coloured by the political strife and civil
wars of the late republic.24 Plutarch’s depiction of Marcellus’ conquest is equally
problematic: he was duly impressed with Marcellus’ adaptation of (p.38) Greek
culture and the Greek education he gave to his son.25 On the other hand,
Plutarch notes an undercurrent of criticism against Marcellus for his
despoliation of sacred objects and his introduction of Greek art and luxury, a
Page 5 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
criticism that was perhaps driven by Marcellus’ desire to enhance the city’s (and
his own) image, as well as to finance the completion of the Temple of Honos et
Virtus, which he had vowed after the battle of Clastidium in 222 BC.26
Marcellus’ looting of Syracuse is a prime example that shows how contingent the
handling of plunder could be when viewed from a variety of perspectives; Greek
sensibilities came into play, as did Roman politics and cultural considerations, in
particular Polybius’ concern about the moral impact of luxury, a concern that
was by no means confined to Greek authors (see pp. 68–9).
Plutarch’s life further indicates that Marcellus was subject to reproach for his
excessive despoiling of the city, and was subsequently compared unfavourably to
Fabius Maximus who later captured Tarentum (in 209 BC), which he left
comparatively unscathed, although as Östenberg points out, Plutarch’s version is
dubious, given what Livy and Strabo tell us of Fabius’ plundering of Tarentum’s
acropolis.27 When Fabius’ turn came to dispose of the material left in Tarentum,
Plutarch more favourably reports that he said, ‘Let us leave their angry gods to
the Tarentines’.28 Regardless of the extent of Fabius’ plundering, while among
divinities Fabius reportedly ‘only’ took a bronze colossus of Hercules by Lysippus
which he set up on the Capitoline, he also placed a bronze equestrian statue of
himself next to it.29 The statue may well have been similar to the gilded, larger-
than-life statue of Hercules that now is a part of the Capitoline collection (fig.
2.2). For Scipio’s rival there could be no clearer statement: the association of his
equestrian statue with Lysippus (the only sculptor allowed to portray Alexander),
and with Hercules (the enduring hero who undertook the steep path to virtue),
was a stark reminder that Fabius was the real hero of the war and the real
conqueror of Hannibal: unus (p.39)
Page 6 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Roman commanders’
acquisition of Greek artistic patrimony continued apace throughout the middle
republic: Livy states (32.16) that L. Quinctius Flamininus brought back a good
deal of money, but, more importantly, paintings and statues by the old masters
after he sacked Eretria in 198 BC. More famously, just under a decade later in
189 BC after the fall of Ambracia, once King Pyrrhus’ royal capital, M. Fulvius
Nobilior hauled off a great quantity of statues and paintings to Rome (Livy 38.9),
although he was later attacked for his excess devotion to Greek culture. Much of
the material, along with a record of his campaign in an epic poem by Ennius,
was deposited in the Temple of Hercules Musarum.32 We will discuss the
significance of such material in greater detail below (see pp. 222–3). For the
moment suffice it to note that Nobilior deployed select material from his triumph
Page 7 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Page 8 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Page 9 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Page 10 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Collecting and Acquisition
the inquiry of a scriba (‘clerk’) who appears to have been taking inventory of
such material (Livy 27.16.8). It is entirely possible that he or his sources may
well have had access to records of this sort.50 The pontifices appear to have kept
similar inventories, according to Livy, who tells us that they were in charge of
determining to which category of art material taken from a city belonged.51 In
the course of the principate moreover such cataloguing was to become an
important activity overseen by well-placed magistrates (see p. 55). To return to
Verres though, his case appears illustrative of the general principle that the
disposal of plunder could be highly contentious and attitudes towards its
disposal politically motivated. (p.46) Cicero certainly used the chance to
prosecute Verres to enhance his reputation, and further political considerations,
such as the composition of juries and the place of senators on them were in play
as well, as were Cicero’s own political connections in Sicily.52 Verres also had
powerful defenders, including Hortensius, and one wonders if the prosecution
would have taken place at all were it not for a good dose of Ciceronian ambition.
When Pompey, for example, came into possession of some of Mithridates’ attire
and armaments, a subordinate named Publius stole a sword belt purportedly
worth four hundred talents and the king’s tiara, a work of apparently excellent
craftsmanship. The two pieces were then handed over secretly by Mithridates’
foster-brother Gaius to Sulla’s son Faustus. Pompey later found the culprit out
with the help of Pharnaces and the thefts were duly punished (Plut. Pomp. 42.3).
In the literary and historical record, Pompey was noted for his (relative) respect
for cultural property. Cicero, in the Pro Lege Manilia (40), praises his integrity
during his extraordinary command to end piracy that was then rampant
throughout the Mediterranean, noting that he refused even to look at the
statues, paintings, and other temptations Greek cities presented to a Roman
commander. Later Cicero argues in the same speech (66) that one of Pompey’s
qualifications for command in Asia was his abstemiousness, a characteristic of
Page 12 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
his noted elsewhere in the historical record.55 Thus when Stratonice, one of
Mithridates’ concubines, surrendered to Pompey, he refused, according to (p.
47) Plutarch (Pomp. 36.6–7) to accept any of the adornments and goods of the
fortresses she possessed, instead receiving only those objects that would adorn
his triumph or Rome’s temples. Cicero’s lavish praise will have doubtless been
coloured by his interest in alliance with Pompey. It bears noting however, that
Pompey appears to have relied, as did Cicero, on Cicero’s friend T. Pomponius
Atticus to procure pieces for his private collections rather than simply on
plunder.56 His contemporary and predecessor in command, the sybaritic
Lucullus, was equally selective while in the East. Upon capturing Sinope, a city
adorned with numerous treasures, he respected its patrimony, taking according
to Strabo (12.3.11) only a globe by Billarus and a statue of Autolycus (the city’s
founder) by Sthennis. Cato the Younger was more thorough in his scouring of
Greek cities. In 58 BC, upon Ptolemy’s suicide, he stripped Cyprus of its
treasures and carted them off to Rome (the looting presumably included the
famous shrines of Zeus and of Aphrodite).57 He reportedly sold all the statues he
took except one of Zeno, founder of the Stoic school, a favourite philosopher of
Cato’s.58
Despite such appropriation, it appears that Cato (as was similarly the case for
Pompey) had a reputation as one who was scrupulous in his accounting for
cultural property acquired in battle or during governance of a province. Hence,
Plutarch tells us (Cat. Min. 38) that Cato was meticulous in the accounts he kept
of despoiled artistic treasures and careful in their transport back to the city, and
also notes his distress at the loss of accounting records after his campaign
against Ptolemy in Cyprus. In the same passage Plutarch states that he
apparently took it as a matter of personal integrity his ability to account for all
plundered material; any losses at sea were accounted for and, if possible,
recovered by the use of cork floats acting as markers for the valuable wrecks.59
Public officials were apparently required to keep records of this sort, since
Cicero indicates that Verres (Verr. 2.4.36) could produce no accounts attesting
whether or not statues from Sicily he had given as gifts to friends had been
purchased or not. Such records will have been no doubt produced for the senate,
will have gone into the public accounts, and been kept on the books. Similar
public records existed as well for private purchases, which were generally kept
by customs officials who assessed export duty (portorium) on luxury items.60
(p.48) One other means of acquisition that ought not to go without mention is
that which could take place through treaty and negotiation. Gruen notes, for
example, a ‘revealing clause’ in the pact between the Romans and the Aetolians
against Philip V in 212 or 211 BC that gave the Romans ‘free disposal of all
moveable booty’, that would include art objects.61 Such ‘legitimate’ acquisition,
through war or negotiation, of cultural property and its subsequent public
display were the ‘proper’ ways for a Roman of high standing to acquire and use
such material. It was with this in mind that Juvenal (8.100–7) could caricature
Page 13 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Verres for plundering peaceful allies and for using their loot for private pleasure.
Such an attitude at least in terms of the public use of property was one that was
quite persistent in Rome, and one that could be exploited from the time of Verres
(and likely before) to the time of Nero (and beyond). Privately one suspects that
one got away with what one could and only when an individual was politically
vulnerable did the private use of cultural property became an issue. Political
patronage and the ties one had to the aggrieved parties will have doubtless been
determining factors in whether one was prosecuted for ‘illegal’ appropriation or
not, as was the case for Cicero, who had developed connections among the
Sicilians, resulting (in part) in Verres’ prosecution. Moreover while privately
connoisseurship was respected and collecting such treasures among the elite
common, publicly it could prove a different matter. One ought not to be too
enamoured of such objects, which should be consumed moderately for private
use, with the lion’s share reserved for public enjoyment.
His tenure as governor in Sicily gives us an added window into the rough and
tumble process by which the illegal acquisition of cultural property could take
place. During his governorship he hired two brothers onto his staff from Cibyra,
Tlepolemus and Hiero, one a modeller in wax, the other a painter; they were
sent to scout out particularly fine pieces, Verres believing no doubt that as
artists they would have connoisseurs’ eyes for loot.63 Armed with his agents,
Verres undertook a devastating programme of pillaging the island of its cultural
treasures. In Syracuse Verres took a statue of Paean and of Aristeus from the
Temple of Liber, and a statue of Jupiter Imperator from its temple; the last of
these was particularly egregious, if Cicero’s claim that it ranked among the top
Page 14 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
During the principate there was less opportunity for such pillaging (with some
notable exceptions), and areas that were conquered, at least after the Augustan
settlement, such as Britain or Dacia, will not have offered the trove of artistic or
cultural treasures as did the East. Augustus himself reportedly brought the
treasure of the Ptolemies back from Egypt in his Alexandrian triumph, including
no doubt artefacts that were similar to the Farnese Cup, a refined objet d’art of
the sort that we can imagine subsequently found its way onto the Roman art
market (see fig. 2.5). Augustus, however, likely sold much of the treasure off,
since Suetonius (Aug. 41.1; cf. 71.1) says that a great deal of cash passed into
private hands after his triumph. He reportedly melted down the gold and kept
only a myrrhine cup. According to Strabo (14.2.19), Augustus was equally
Page 15 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
The East in particular appears always to have been a place of temptation. The
future emperor Tiberius, for one, while in self-imposed exile on Rhodes,
compelled the Parians to sell him a renowned statue of Vesta.68 Tiberius’
successor, Caligula, was—not surprisingly—substantially less moderate. His
tastes tended towards the more grandiose, as apparent in his appropriation of
Alexander the Great’s breastplate, which he had stolen from his tomb, if we can
believe (p.51)
Page 16 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
states that the only reason to visit Thespiae was to see Praxiteles’ Eros. Oracles,
athletic complexes, temples—their collections were not easily relinquished.
Consequently, Sicyon, one of the most famous artistic centres in antiquity, found
it quite painful when forced to sell off its public collection of paintings to Rome
in 56 BC in order to pay off public debts.72 Similarly, when Pergamum was
threatened with appropriation of its patrimony and one of Nero’s freedmen was
sent to strip the city of its paintings and statues, it resisted mightily (and in this
case, successfully).73 Yet cities in the Greek East suffered heavily during the
reign of Nero, who relieved Greece and Asia of their artistic treasures in the
wake of the great fire in Rome in AD 64, but whose activities also extended to
malicious and intentional destruction, such as casting all the statuary of famous
athletes and victors at the sites of the great games (such as Olympia) into
latrines.74
Nonetheless, the Romans did have a notion that cultural property, if possible,
should be restored to its rightful owner—provided it suited their purposes. The
activities of Scipio Aemilianus after the Third Punic War are perhaps our best
example of one who undertook to return cultural artefacts to their proper
place.79 Plutarch reports that when Scipio took Carthage he proclaimed that
those contingents from Sicily who wanted could lay claim to the plunder the
Carthaginians had previously taken and repatriate it. He also ordered a general
Page 17 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
search of the plunder from Carthage for items captured in the past from the
Sicilians for the purpose of restoration; treasures were subsequently returned to
the people of (p.54) Thermae, Gela, and Agrigentum, the last of which received
back Phalaris’ notorious brazen bull.80
His generosity could also have been motivated by his desire to win clients among
the Sicilians through a public show of beneficence. Cicero tells us, for example
(Verr. 2.4.82), that the Segestans’ image of Diana was no longer a mere sacred
object, but a memorial of Scipio’s moderatio. Elsewhere Cicero remarks that the
hapless inhabitants naïvely trusted that artefacts standing as memorials to
Scipio’s generosity would protect them from the rapacious Verres (2.4.84–5). Yet
while, as (p.55) Cicero states, Scipio may have been concerned about public
aesthetics, the beautification of Sicily’s cities, and the enjoyment of public
ornament by future generations, such concerns conveniently supported political
considerations as well.84 Fides (‘good faith’) in the form of political loyalty and
support was the frequent remuneration of such beneficia. It also, of course,
stood as a testament to one’s pietas.
Page 18 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Private Collecting
The sale and trade in cultural property, as opposed to its appropriation through
conquest, was yet another means by which the Roman elite acquired cultural
artefacts and was a part of Roman life that many centuries later was
romantically depicted in the paintings of Alma-Tadema, who imagined a highly
civilized Victorian milieu in which the collection of art took place in, among
other of his works, A Roman Amateur (fig. 2.6). The present discussion will limit
itself to what the literary sources tell us, although a separate comprehensive
study of personal collecting based largely on physical evidence would doubtless
yield rewarding results.92 Motives for such collecting were contingent on a
number of circumstances, and varied not merely from individual to individual; it
also depended on the use to which one intended to put collected objects. By the
late republic collecting had become a fine art in and of itself. We know that
Lucullus had a collection at his villa in Tusculum, as did Hortensius.93 Verres, if
we can trust Cicero (and given the rhetorical context of his account (p.57)
Page 19 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Edwards has noted that the collections amassed by republican notables such as
Lucullus were intended to align themselves culturally with the Hellenistic kings
they had conquered and proposes that this ‘un-Roman’ aspect of collecting may
have led to Agrippa’s suggestion to Augustus concerning making private art
collections public.99 Agrippa’s remark in addition appears to support
Thompson’s contention, who noted that such collections constituted ‘museums’
Page 20 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
in their own right.100 The observation is still more apt when we consider that
Vitruvius advises men of standing to furnish their homes with a room functioning
as a pinacotheca (‘picture gallery’).101 Such rooms would bear a resemblance to
those in houses at Herculaneum, Pompeii, and elsewhere, such as we find, for
example, in the House of the Vettii’s cubiculum in Pompeii (see fig. 2.7).
Moreover, as Leach has pointed out, collectors built separate (p.59)
Page 21 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Cicero’s letters are almost exclusively concerned with outfitting his villa at
Tusculum with statuary, and he asks his contact in Athens, Atticus (Att. 1.6), to
keep an eye out for material suitable for his villa’s lecture hall. Atticus responds
(Att. 1.8) that he had seen some Hermae (herms, i.e. bust statuary of Hermes or
other deities) of Pentelic marble with bronze heads. Cicero asks Atticus to send
them and also informs Atticus of his purchase of some statues from Megara from
L. Cincius for 20,400 sesterces.108 We later learn (Att. 1.9) that Cicero is eagerly
awaiting the statues’ delivery (the ‘Megarian’ ones, as well as the Hermae), and
asks Atticus to send along anything else he thinks suitable for his ‘Academy’ (i.e.
his lecture hall) and to ‘trust his purse’.109 It was not until the next year in 66
BC that the statues arrived at Caieta upon which Cicero paid for the shipment
(Att. 1.10). Such shipment was a hazardous business, as the Mahdia wreck
(along with numerous others throughout the Mediterranean) indicates; the
wreck, discovered off the coast (p.61) of Tunisia in 1907, also attests to a
robust art market in Rome, since it was carrying a shipment of finely sculpted
columns and various relief carvings from Athens and Attica of the very sort that
Cicero or someone of his ilk would have used.110
Unfortunately, Cicero does not tell us what he paid for the herms and whatever
else was shipped, but he thanks Atticus for procuring the statuary at a good
price. In the meantime, Atticus found some choice pieces and informed Cicero,
who was still looking to decorate his lecture hall and palaestrum in Tusculum.
Cicero asks Atticus to send along ‘my statues and my Hercules herms and
anything else you might find’; he also asks him to ‘please get me some bas-
reliefs which I can install in the stucco of my small entrance hall and two puteals
with figures’. In a letter dating from the same year (Att. 1.4), Cicero appears to
have acquired a Hermathena for his Academy. He was apparently well pleased
with it, noting the subject’s appropriateness for the location, and he asks for
more such pieces.111 He also, conversely, specifically rejects other works whose
subject he felt inappropriate to the function of the room, including some statues
of Bacchants, presumably such as the intriguing fragment of one (after Scopas)
now in Dresden (fig. 2.8).112 In the same letter he tells Atticus that he has yet to
see the pieces he sent him earlier since they were at his house at Formiae,
though he expresses his intention to take them to Tusculum, and to decorate his
house at Caieta whenever he has a surplus.
Page 22 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
(p.63)
Page 23 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
As though to underscore the nexus between identity and collecting, Cicero even
propounded a theory of aesthetics based on utilitas (‘usefulness’) and decorum
(‘decorousness’).117 The idea of the well-rounded statesman-orator, a category
under which Cicero would surely include himself, was that he was to be both
learned and in fine physical shape, a notion Cicero emphasizes in his rhetorical
treatises.118 Imagines such as the Hercules and the Athena will have given this
identity visible expression; it is an instance where Greek material culture helped
to formulate a distinctly Roman idea expressed in such works as the De Oratore
where a man is to be both cultured and politically active. Cicero appears to have
constructed for himself a Greek world that supported both his public image as a
statesman, and, one suspects, his own private self-image as a man of taste and
learning.119 It bears noting, furthermore, that the simple act of knowing how to
Page 24 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Page 25 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Items previously owned by celebrated figures also caught collectors’ eyes: Pliny
(without mentioning its current owner), notes that in his day there still existed a
citrus wood table once owned by Cicero for which he paid (even a century
before) 500,000 sesterces, while the nefarious Sejanus owned a statue of
Page 26 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Fortuna of great antiquity, a work that apparently was a source of great pride for
the praefect.128 The price of Cicero’s table was outrageous, but it was that very
price that sometimes gave an object, paradoxically, its value. Such was the case
when Gegania paid 50,000 sesterces for a candelabrum of Corinthian bronze.129
A similar situation may have held for two pictures Agrippa purchased from the
Cyzicans (an Ajax and an Aphrodite) for which he paid 1.2 million sesterces.130
Indeed, as is the case today, the price served to make an object worthy of
possession (though Pliny criticized Agrippa for paying so high a price), and there
are a number of other instances of exorbitant prices paid for such works.131
Naturally, collectors who could afford it also commissioned works (p.68) from
well-known artists, such as Arcesilaus, one of Lucullus’ intimates, whose clay
models (proplasmata) sold for more than the finished works of his fellow
artists.132 Price, artist, history, previous owners, all could impart value to a
particular object which, owing to its expense, its rarity, or its origins could be
converted into a piece of cultural capital for its owner, with Greek cultural
artefacts taking pride of place.133 Such objects in turn confirmed the power of
the owner as a member of the elite and the values of his own class, reaffirming
the importance of the movers and shakers who dominated the narrative of the
historical past for Roman collectors. They simultaneously also reaffirmed the
value of wealth and consumption by virtue of their power to collect.
The desire to possess ‘old’ objects in particular looks back to the auctoritas that
history or genius was thought to convey in antiquity; an object’s age itself could
become a signifier of its importance and give an object an intrinsic value which
translated into social clout for the owner. Pliny the Elder noted, however, that
connoisseurs had to take care lest they be charged with excess pretension (HN
34.6), a sentiment echoed in Martial (9.59) when he derided the snobbery of a
certain Mamurra, whom Martial represents as having impoverished himself by
his extravagant tastes, even turning his nose up at a Polyclitus. Such
connoisseurship was for Pliny closely tied to status, with the aspirant to high
culture trying to distance himself from the man in the street although possessing
no more real knowledge than the hoi polloi. Pliny’s criticism of pretension
though had already been anticipated in satirical form in Petronius’ Satyricon,
when the hapless nouveau riche pretender Trimalchio muddled the history of
Corinthian bronze.134
Our sources generally indicate that there was a social dynamic concerning how
one collected: as in the republic, private collecting ultimately used for public
benefit was publicly applauded, and the collecting of fine objects to show off to
one’s friends at dinner or during visits to one another’s villas was to be
expected. When used however to exceed one’s social status or create, as it were,
a false identity for oneself, then collecting turned to the detriment of the
individual. Similarly, excess luxury was frequently, indeed, famously suspected in
our sources and castigated; such representation is echoed, in part, by historical
narratives such as those of Sallust or Tacitus who tend to employ primitive social
Page 27 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Beyond the social dynamics of collecting, there were also the legal dynamics
through which legislation attempted to regulate consumption. In particular, the
numerous sumptuary laws from Cato the Elder to the emperor Tiberius and
beyond will have regulated the flow of consumption, though how effectively is
open to question. The Zeitgeist may have been as much at play in determining
the nature and patterns of consumption as any legislation on the books. Tacitus
for one noted the ebb and flow of the consumption of luxury goods throughout
the principate and praised the frugalitas (‘thrift’) of his times in comparison to
the luxus (‘luxury’) that flourished under the Julio-Claudians.138 The censor no
doubt from time to time could act as a brake on conspicuous consumption, as
Cicero indicates occurred in 50 BC, when App. Claudius Pulcher as censor was
giving art collectors a hard time (Fam. 8.16.4). The concern to regulate luxury
goods will have been a matter, in part, of the regulation of social equilibrium
with a view to maintaining a balance of power throughout the elite, attempting
to create a parity of consumption as it were, especially during the republic.139
In the principate this will have become less of an issue in some respects. The
resources of the emperor allowed for the display of enormous public collections
(see chapter seven). But the emperors themselves were avid private collectors of
art works and historical artefacts just as were their republican forebears. Julius
Caesar, for one, was known to have an eye for gems, carvings, and statues of the
old (p.70) masters.140 He had desired his collection be given over for public
enjoyment upon his death, but Antony appropriated it, much to Cicero’s
indignation, for his own private pleasure.141 Augustus’ private collection was an
eclectic array of artistic, historic, and natural objects that he kept in his house in
Rome and his villa on Capri. He was the owner of Apelles’ Lineum (‘The Line’) a
finely executed line that Apelles, according to Pliny the Elder, had left as a
calling card for his contemporary and rival Protogenes (and part of its value
doubtless derived from its history).142 His tastes included curiosities as well as
masterworks of art. Thus, at his villa on Capri, he reportedly ‘collected the bones
of large animals’, possibly the fossilized remains of extinct mammals and
dinosaurs, as well as the arms of ancient heroes.143 It is worth noting that
neither Julius Caesar nor Augustus appear simply to have appropriated art for
their collections, but offered recompense (although Augustus did come in for
Page 28 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
criticism for his excessive zeal for collecting Corinthian bronze, a proclivity he
shared with Nero).144 The 100-talent reimbursement by Augustus to the Coans
has already been noted, while Caesar also purchased from Timomachus of
Byzantium two paintings, one of Ajax, the other of Medea, for eighty talents,
though these were eventually put on public display.
Tiberius’ collection similarly inclined towards the Hellenistic, but also towards
the erotic. Hence, the famous anecdote about the painting in his bed chamber on
Capri by Parrhasius depicting Atalanta performing fellatio on Meleager, a
picture Tiberius so valued that he refused an offer of 10,000 gold pieces for
it.145 (p.71) In addition, he possessed a collection of erotic manuscripts—
presumably Greek—from Elephantis (Suet. Tib. 43.2). That Suetonius mentions
this in his construction of Tiberius qua tyrant also furnishes us with a notion of
what a ‘subversive’ collection might contain, offering a commentary on the
‘norms’ of what was considered ‘proper collecting.146 Such a view is reinforced,
arguably, by Pliny the Elder’s diatribe against erotic subjects found on silver
cups of the sort discovered in Pompeii and Boscoreale (see fig. 2.11).147 More
tastefully (at least to Pliny’s mindset), Tiberius also owned some fine Hellenistic
baroque statuary groups, including Odysseus and his companions blinding
Polyphemus as well as Scylla attacking Odysseus and his companions; these
elaborate and violent compositions adorned the emperor’s grotto-turned-dining-
room at Sperlonga and were well-suited to Tiberius’ interests in mythology (see
fig. 2.12–13).148 On the whole, everything points in Tiberius to a selective
refinement of taste for the Hellenistic.149
Page 29 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Page 30 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Page 31 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
(p.76)
Page 32 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Notes:
(1) See A. Appadurai, ‘Commodities and the Politics of Value’, in A. Appadurai
(ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective (Cambridge
1986), 31 for collecting as an activity that ‘is eminently social, relational, and
active’.
(2) Something that was also true for earlier eastern potentates, see M. Miles, Art
as Plunder. The Ancient Origins of Debate about Cultural Property (Cambridge
2008), 16–28.
Page 33 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
(3) For artistic material as ‘symbolic capital’ see R. L. Gordon, ‘The Real and the
Imaginary: Production and Religion in the Graeco-Roman World’, in R. L. Gordon
(ed.), Image and Value in the Graeco-Roman World: Studies in Mithraism and
Religious Art (Brookfield Vt. 1996), 22–3.
(6) For a general narrative on the importation of artistic material into Rome and
its nature see G. Becatti, Arte e gusto negli scrittori Latini (Florence 1950), 1–31.
The studies that discuss this question are numerous. For importation through
conquest see H. Galsterer, ‘Kunstraub und Kunsthandel im republikanischen
Rom’, in G. Hellenkemper Salies (ed.), Das Wrack. Der Antike Schiffsfund von
Mahdia (Cologne 1994), 857–66; S. Carey, The Problems of Totality: Collecting
Greek Art, Wonders, and Luxury in Pliny the Elder’s Natural History’, JHC 12.1
(2000), 1–13; Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 44–59.
(7) On the sacred nature of much of what Romans looted see J. Rüpke, Religion of
the Romans. Translated and edited by R. Gordon (Cambridge and Malden Mass.
2007), 57–8; I. Östenberg, Staging the World: Spoils, Captives, and
Representation in the Roman Triumphal Procession (Oxford 2009), 82–6, who
notes the term simulacrum which predominately applies to sacred cult statues is
rarely applied to plundered images of the gods, with the term signum preferred
instead.
Page 34 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
(9) For Cato’s complex attitude towards Hellenism see Gruen, Culture and
Identity (n. 4), 52–83, 110–13; cf. J. J. Pollitt, ‘The Impact of Greek Art on Rome’,
TAPA 108 (1978), 158–60.
(10) For the negative perspective on imports see Sallust, Bellum Catilinae 11;
Livy 34.3–4, 39.6.7–9; Velleius Paterculus 1.13.5; Plut. Marc. 21; cf. Pliny,
Panegyricus 55; for discussion see A. Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural
Revolution (Cambridge 2008), 315–19; cf. 356–8 on how importation through
triumphs influenced fashion. On the triumph’s origins see E. Gjerstad, ‘The
origins of the Roman republic’, in Les origines de la République romaine,
Fondation Hardt, Entretiens 13 (Geneva 1967), 3–43; H. S. Versnel, Triumphus:
An Inquiry into the Origin, Development, and Meaning of the Roman Triumph
(Leiden 1970); J. Scheid, ‘Le flamine de Jupiter, les Vestales, et le général
triomphant’, in C. Malamud and J.-P. Vernant (eds.), Corps de dieux, Le temps de
la réflexion 7 (Paris 1986), 213–30; E. Künzl, Der römische Triumph.
Siegesfeiern im antiken Rom (Munich 1988); M. Beard, The Roman Triumph
(Cambridge Mass. 2007), who challenges numerous assumptions concerning this
institution; for visual representations of triumphs see Östenberg, Staging the
World (n. 7); for the triumph as a commemorative ceremony constituting a form
of ‘social remembering’, see P. Connerton, How Societies Remember (Cambridge
1989), 41–71.
(11) For Juno of Veii’s evocatio see Livy 5.21.1–4, 5.22.3–8; Lactantius, Divinae
institutiones 2.7.11; cf. 2.16.11; for her temple (which is not to be confused with
the one in the Portico of Octavia) see LTUR 3.125–6. The bibliography on this
episode and on evocatio in general is extensive; see e.g. Y. Basanoff, Evocatio:
étude d’un rituel militaire romain (Paris 1947); G. Dumézil, Archaic Roman
Religion, 2 vols. (Chicago 1970), 424–7; P. Bruun, ‘Evocatio deorum: some notes
on the Romanization of Etruria’, in H. Biezais (ed.), The Myth of the State; based
on papers read at the Symposium on the Myth of the State held at Åbo, 68 of
September 1971, Scripti Institituti Donneriani Aboensis 6 (Stockholm 1972),
109–20; J. Le Gall, ‘Evocatio’, in Mélanges J. Huergon, L’Italie préromaine et la
Rome républicaine. Mélanges offerts à Jaques Huergon, Collection de L’Ecole
Française de Rome (Rome 1976), 519–24; J. Rüpke, Domi militiaeque: Die
religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom (Stuttgart 1990), 162–4; A. Blomart,
‘Die evocatio und der Transfer « fremder » Götter von der Peripherie nach Rom’,
in H. Cancik und J. Rüpke (eds.), in Römische Reichsreligion und
Provinzialreligion (Tübingen 1997), 99–111; M. Beard, J. North, and S. Price,
Religions of Rome, Volume 1: A History (Cambridge 1998), 34–5; G. Gustafsson,
Evocatio deorum: Historical and Mythical Interpretations of Ritualized
Conquests in the Expansion of Ancient Rome. Acta universitatis Upsaliensis,
Historia Religionum, 16 (Uppsala 2000); for the sacking of Veii see Miles, Art as
Plunder (n. 2), 45–52.
Page 35 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
(12) Livy 6.4.2; for discussion see S. P. Oakley, A Commentary on Livy Books VI–X
(Oxford 1997), 422–3.
(13) See J. R. Fears, ‘The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology’, ANRW
2.17.1 (1981), 3–141.
(14) For discussion see Oakley, Livy Books VI–X (n. 12), 622–3; Östenberg,
Staging the World (n. 7), 79.
(15) See Cic. Verr. 2.4.128–31; Östenberg, Staging the World (n.7), 83–4, esp. 84
n. 410; the constant reassembling and cleaning up of material made such errors
not uncommon, see p. 303–4.
(16) Including e.g. Augustus’ attribution of his victory at Actium to Apollo, see p.
237.
(17) See Varro, De Lingua Latina 5.46; Festus 228L; the Fasti Triumphales for
264; for the Temple of Mater Matuta in general see LTUR 2.281–5; for the
importation by Fulvius of 2000 statues from the Volsinii see Pliny, HN 34.34; for
the introduction of Vortumnus see Propertius 4.2.1–4; for discussion see M. C. J.
Putnam, ‘The Shrine of Vortumnus’, AJA 71 (1967), 177–9; see M. Torelli, ‘Il
donario di M. Fulvio nell’area di S. Ombono’, Studi di topographia romana, 5
(1968), 71–5 for discussion of the statue bases related to Fulvius’campaign; also
see Gruen, Culture and Identity (n. 4), 89, who believes the number of statues
inflated; Galsterer, ‘Kunstraub und Kunsthandel’ (n. 6), 858; Hölscher,
‘Hellenistische Kunst’ (n. 4), 877; M. McDonnell,‘Roman Aesthetics and the
Spoils of Syracuse’, in S. Dillon and K. E. Welch (eds.), Representations of War in
Ancient Rome (Cambridge 2006), 72–5; Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 211. For a
similarly impressive importation see Livy 39.5.14 for the 785 bronze statues and
230 marble statues carried in M. Fulvius Nobilior’s triumph over Ambracia in
189 BC.
(20) For Cicero’s representation of Marcellus in the Verrines see Gruen, Culture
and Identity (n. 4), 96; Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 63–5; for a general discussion
of Cicero’s prosecution see F. H. Cowles, Gaius Verres: A Historical Study.
Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, 20 (Ithaca 1917).
(21) Gruen, Culture and Identity (n. 4), 97–8; also see in general Wallace-Hadrill,
Rome’s Cultural Revolution (n. 10), 338.
Page 36 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
(23) Cic. Rep. 1.21–2; for a description see Cic. Nat. D. 2.88; cf. Ov. Fast. 6.277–
80. For Marcellus’ adornment of the Temple of Honos et Virtus see Gruen,
Culture and Identity (n. 4), 101; cf. 241–2 where Gruen notes that Marcellus
reserved material taken from private homes for private distribution, and from
public buildings for public use, citing Polybius 9.10.13; cf. Miles, Art as Plunder
(n. 2), 64. For a history of the temple see M. Jaeger, Livy’s Written Rome (Ann
Arbor 1997), 125 with n. 45; also see A. Ziolkowski, The Temples of Mid-
Republican Rome and their Historical and Topographical Context (Rome 1992),
58–60; in general see LTUR 3.31–3; for the cults to the various abstract virtues in
Rome and their place in Roman religious culture see H. Mattingly, ‘The Roman
virtues’, Harvard Theological Review, 30 (1937), 103–17; J. R. Fears ‘The Cult of
the Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology’, ANRW 2.17.2 (1981), 827–948.
(25) See C. Pelling, ‘Plutarch: Roman Heroes and Greek Culture’, in M. Griffin
and J. Barnes (eds.), Philosophia Togata. Essays on Philosophy and Roman
Society (Oxford 1989), 199–208; S. C. R. Swain, ‘Hellenic Culture and the Roman
Heroes of Plutarch’, in B. Scardigli (ed.), Essays on Plutarch’s Lives (Oxford
1995), 229–64.
(26) For Marcellus’ critics see Plut. Marc. 21.2–5; for the temple’s construction
see Livy 27.25.7, 29.11.13; Val. Max. 1.1.8; Plut. Marc. 28.1; see Gruen, Culture
and Identity (n. 4), 95, 99–100 for discussion.
(27) For Marcellus see Plut. Marc. 21; for Fabius’ more thorough despoiling of
Tarentum see Strabo 6.3.1; Livy 27.16.7, who compares Fabius’ looting to
Marcellus’ at Syracuse; on the sack of Tarentum see C. Brauer Jr., Taras. Its
History and Coinage (New York 1986), 190–5; Östenberg, Staging the World (n.
7), 87.
(29) Strabo 6.3.1; Pliny, HN 34.40; Plut. Fab. 22.6. Pliny and Strabo indicate that
Lysippus’ works were relatively abundant in Tarentum. For discussion of Fabius’
importation of this statue and his use of it to settle scores with rivals, see Gruen,
Culture and Identity (n. 4), 101–2; cf. P. Gros, ‘Les statues de Syracuse et les
‘dieux’ de Tarente’, RÉL 57 (1979), 85–114; Galsterer, ‘Kunstraub und
Kunsthandel’ (n. 6), 859; for its dedication on the Capitoline and subsequent
move to Constantinople see S. Bassett, The Urban Image of Late Antique
Constantinople (Cambridge 2004), 152–4; Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 69.
Page 37 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
(30) Augustus possibly moved the statue to the Palatine; executed by Calamides
the Elder between 480 and 460 BC, its height was thirty cubits; see Pliny, HN
34.39; cf. Strabo 7.6.1; App. Ill. 30.
(32) For Fulvius’ conquest of Ambracia and the importation of artwork see
Polybius 21.30.9; Livy 38.43.5, 39.4; Pliny, HN 35.66; cf. Polybius 9.10;
Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.12.16; for discussion see Gruen, Culture and Identity (n.
4), 107–10; Galsterer, ‘Kunstraub und Kunsthandel’ (n. 6), 859; D. Kinney,
‘Spolia, Damnatio, and Renovatio Memoriae’, MAAR 42 (1997), 120–1; Beard,
The Roman Triumph (n. 10), 43, 254, 264; Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 69–70; for
a general history of the temple see LTUR 3.17–19.
(34) See Livy 45.40; Pliny, HN 34.64–5; Plut. Aem. 32–4; see Gruen, Culture and
Identity (n. 4), 115–17; Beard, The Roman Triumph (n. 10), 116–17, 137–8, 150–
1; Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 71–2.
(35) Velleius Paterculus 1.11.3–5; cf. Plut. Alex. 16.7–8; see pp. 257–9 for the
portico’s construction.
(36) For discussion of Mummius’ conquest and its significance see Gruen, Culture
and Identity (n. 4), 123–30; Galsterer, ‘Kunstraub und Kunsthandel’ (n. 6), 859–
60; N. Purcell, ‘On the Sacking of Carthage and Corinth’, in D. Innes, H. Hine,
and C. Pelling (eds.), Ethics and Rhetoric. Classical Essays for Donald Russell on
his Seventy-Fifth Birthday (Oxford 1995), 133–48; K. W. Arafat, Pausanias’
Greece. Ancient Artists and Roman Rulers (Cambridge 1996), 92–7; Miles, Art as
Plunder (n. 2), 73–6.
(37) Velleius Paterculus 1.13.4–5; Strabo 8.6.23 says the plunder included
Aristides’ Dionysus, which he calls a kalliston ergon; cf. Pliny, HN 35.24 who
dubiously relates that King Attalus II of Pergamum bought it for 600,000 denarii,
a price that motivated Mummius to appropriate it and take it to Rome for
exhibition in the Temple of Ceres; for discussion see Gruen, Culture and Identity
(n. 4), 125. The painting perished in a fire in 31 BC.
(38) For the number see Pliny, HN 34.36; cf. Cic. Orat. 232 who says Paullus and
Mummius filled Rome and Italy with art; Livy, Periochae 52 who mentions
marbles, bronzes, and paintings; also see Polybius 39.6; Cic. Off. 2.76; CIL I.
2.626–32. Mummius’ famous importation became virtually proverbial; see e.g.
Cic.Mur. 31; Vergil, Aeneid 6.836–7; Horace, Epistulae 2.1.192–3; Petronius,
Satyricon 50. On the large scale production of Greek bronzes of the sort
Mummius imported to Rome see C. C. Mattusch, Classical Bronzes: The Art and
Craft of Greek and Roman Statuary (Ithaca 1996), 1–34; cf. Purcell, ‘Sacking of
Page 38 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Carthage and Corinth’ (n. 36), 137 for Mummius’ victory as one over things; see
143 for Mummius’ abstemiousness.
(40) CIL I.2.626–32. As was the case for L. Stertinius in 196 BC, Livy 33.27.3–4;
see Gruen, Culture and Identity (n. 4), 104; in general see L. Yarrow, ‘Lucius
Mummius and the Spoils of Corinth’, SCI 25 (2006), 57–70.
(41) See Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution (n. 10), 131–3 for
discussion; since statues and bases could be frequently switched, we should not
assume that the bronze statue in the illustration discovered in Pompeii actually
came from Mummius’ spoils, although it is quite possible.
(42) Cic. Verr. 2.4.4; Pliny, HN 34.69; on the Temple of Felicitas see LTUR 2.244–
5.
(43) Strabo 8.6.23; on the ius divinum that rendered such material the property
of the gods, see Gaius, Institutiones 2.1–9; see Rüpke, Religion (n. 7), 130 for
discussion.
(46) For discussion see Gruen, Culture and Identity (n. 4), 112; cf. ORF fr. 97; a
similar charge was lodged against M. Fulvius Nobilior by M. Aemilius Lepidus,
consul in 187 BC, see Livy 38.43.2–5; 38.44.6.
(51) Livy 38.44.5; see Gruen, Culture and Identity (n. 4), 108 for discussion.
(52) See Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 119–29 for discussion.
(54) Plut. Mor. 198B–C notes the cup as supposedly the first silver object to enter
the Aemilian house; cf. Val. Max. 4.4.9; Pliny, HN 33.142. For Aemilius’
Page 39 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
importation of Perseus’ library see Plut. Aem. 28.11; for discussion see L.
Casson, Libraries in the Ancient World (New Haven 2001), 65–8.
(55) With the notable exception of the violation of the Temple in Jerusalem; see
Joseph. AJ 14.72.
(56) See Cic. Att. 4.9.1; see A. Leen, ‘Cicero and the Rhetoric of Art’, AJP 112
(1991), 233 for discussion.
(57) See Ammianus Marcellinus 14.8.14–15; also see Velleius Paterculus 2.45.5;
Plut. Cat. Min. 39.1–3.
(59) See L. Pietilä-Castrén, ‘New Men and the Greek War Booty in the 2nd
century B.C.’, Arctos 16 (1982), 121–44 for detailed discussion of the transport
of booty after pillaging.
(60) See Cic. Verr. 2.2.176: L. Canuleius, a harbour agent, wrote to his company
complaining that Verres had paid no export duty on a number of luxury items
(including Delian ware and Corinthian vessels).
(61) See Livy 26.24.11; SEG 13.32; see Gruen, Culture and Identity (n. 4), 94 for
discussion.
(63) Cic. Verr. 2.4.30; cf. 2.4.47; see Strong, Roman Museums (n. 49), 256; Miles,
Art as Plunder (n. 2), 175, 205–6 for discussion.
(64) T. Quinctius Flamininus took one of the remaining three from Macedonia,
but had the decency to dedicate it to Jupiter on the Capitoline, making it public
property, Cic. Verr. 2.4.128–30; see p. 35 with n. 15.
(65) Verr. 2.4.122; cf. 2.2.50 where Cicero accuses Verres of plundering
Syracuse’s temples of every art work imaginable.
(66) The tradition was a long one, whereby the previous owner of an object made
the object famous—or at least worthy of a poem. See e.g. Anthologia Palatina
6.97 = The Garland of Philip, (Antiphilus) on a spear dedicated to Artemis by
Page 40 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Alexander the Great and Anthologia Planudea 276 (Bianor) on a statue of Arion
and the dolphin set up by Periander of Corinth.
(67) For discussion see G. Zimmer, ‘Das Sacrarium des C. Heius. Kunstraub und
Kunstgeschmack in der späten Republik’, Gymnasium, 96 (1989), 493–531; A.
Vasaly, Representation: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory (Berkeley
1993), 111–14; Bounia, Nature of Classical Collecting (n. 62), 277; Miles, Art as
Plunder (n. 2), 155, 206–8; cf. P. Stewart, Statues in Roman Society.
Representation and Response (Oxford 2003), 142, who notes that Heius’ house
was something of a public museum in its own right, citing Cic. Verr. 2.4.3–7.
(69) Though Cass. Dio 59.17.3 is perhaps rightly sceptical of this claim.
(70) Calig. 57.1; Cass. Dio 59.28.3 says that Caligula planned a new temple on
the Palatine to house the statue, and to remodel it to make the work resemble
himself; see Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 95 for discussion, who notes a similar
reaction by the Palladium at Vergil, Aeneid 2.171–5.
(71) Joseph. AJ 19.7, 10; cf. Suet. Calig. 22.2; see Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2),
252–5 for discussion.
(74) See Tac. Ann. 15.45; Suet. Ner. 24.1–2; for discussion see E. Champlin, Nero
(Cambridge Mass. 2003), 180 with 318–19, n.10; cf. Suet. Ner. 38.3; Cass. Dio
63.11–12. Acratus and Carrinas Secundus acted as his agents; for a detailed
discussion of Nero in Greece and his pillaging see Arafat, Pausanias’ Greece (n.
36), 143–50.
(75) For a detailed discussion of the legislation and the history of legislation that
surrounds claims to cultural patrimony see K. Fitz Gibbon, ‘Chronology of
Cultural Property Legislation’, in K. Fitz Gibbon (ed.), Who Owns the Past?:
Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law (Brunswick NJ 2005), 3–7; W. G.
Pearlstein, ‘Cultural Property, Congress, the Courts, and Customs: The Decline
and Fall of the Antiquities Market?’, in K. Fitz Gibbon (ed.), Who Owns the Past?:
Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law (Brunswick NJ 2005), 9–31. The
most famous modern claim of course remains the Elgin Marbles; see K. Fitz
Gibbon, ‘The Elgin Marbles. A Summary’, in K. Fitz Gibbon (ed.), Who Owns the
Past?: Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law (Brunswick NJ 2005), 109–
21. Also see J. Cuno, Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle Over Our
Ancient Heritage (Princeton 2008); J. Cuno (ed.), Whose Culture? The Promise of
Museums and the Debate Over Antiquities (Princeton 2009). Miles, Art as
Page 41 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
Plunder (n. 2) in general constitutes a good detailed study of the ancient concept
of cultural property and its influence on the modern concept.
(76) For Scipio’s restoration see Purcell, ‘Sacking of Carthage and Corinth’ (n.
36), 141–2; Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 95–100.
(78) For the phrase fruitur dis iratis see J. Ferguson, Juvenal. The Satires (New
York 1979), 115, which he explains as an oxymoron, since one does not normally
profit from the anger of the gods, in this case, the gods Marius had despoiled.
For Marius’ trial (Tacitus and Pliny the Younger were the prosecutors) see Pliny,
Ep. 2.11.
(79) See Livy, Periochae 51, according to which Scipio returned ‘the greater part
of the spoils’ (spoliorum maior pars) to Sicily; cf. Cic. Verr. 2.1.11, 2.2.85–6,
2.4.73; Diodorus Siculus 32.25; Val. Max. 5.1.6; Plut. Mor. 200B; App. Pun. 133;
Eutropius 4.12.2.
(80) Cic. Verr. 2.4.73, 80; see Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 97 for discussion.
(81) Cic. Verr. 2.2.89–119; the local senate along with Sthenius, a man of some
influence, vehemently opposed their removal and the consequences for Sthenius
were dire. A marble base at Termini Imerese survives attesting to Scipio’s
restoration, see IG 14.315; SIG3 677; ILS 8769; see Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2),
97 for discussion.
(82) See Cic. Verr. 2.4.72–5, 2.4.80: the town greatly revered it but Verres found
it irresistible. See Vasaly, Representation (n. 67), 117–20 for discussion.
(83) Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 98–9 further posits that Scipio’s restoration
consciously emulated Alexander the Great’s restoration of cultural property to
Greek cities captured back from Persia.
(85) See Polybius 39.3; Plut. Phil. 21.6; cf. Anthologia Planudea 16.26a
(anonymous); for discussion see Gruen, Culture and Identity (n. 4), 126; Purcell,
‘Sacking of Carthage and Corinth’ (n. 36), 142.
(86) Strabo 14.1.14; see T. S. Scheer, ‘Res Gestae Divi Augusti 24: die
Restituierung göttlichen Eigentums in Kleinasien durch Augustus’, in C.
Schubert and K. Brodersen (eds.), Rom und der griechische Osten: Festschrift
für Hatto H. Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag (Stuttgart 1995), 209–23 for discussion
of Augustus’ appropriations in the East after his victory (from those who
Page 42 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
supported Antony); for the competing discourse between Antony and Augustus
concerning the appropriation of art objects, see Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 102–
4.
(87) Pausanias 9.27.2–4; cf. Strabo 9.2.25; see Kinney, ‘Spolia…’ (n. 32), 136; K.
Gutzwiller, ‘Gender and Inscribed Epigram: Herennia Procula and the Thespian
Eros’, TAPA 134 (2004), 383–418 for discussion of the statue. For the epigrams
celebrating the statue see the Anthologia Planudea 167 (Antipater); 203
(Julianus); 204 (Praxiteles); 205 (Tullius Geminus); 206 (Leonidas of Alexandria
(?)); the work was given in payment to Praxiteles’ mistress Phryne, the famous
courtesan. The statue perished in the fire of AD 80; see Miles, Art as Plunder (n.
2), 254.
(88) See Agr. 6.5; cf. Suet. Ner. 32.4; see J. M. Beaujeu, ‘A-t-il éxisté une direction
des musées dans la Rome impériale?’, in Comptes Rendus de L’Academie des
Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Nov.–Dec. (1982), 682 for discussion.
(89) See Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 4), 253–4 who bases this conjecture on
the extensive preservation of statistics and data in Pliny’s catalogue.
(92) For a very general discussion concerning private collecting in antiquity see J.
Alsop, The Rare Art Traditions: The History of Art Collecting and its Linked
Phenomena Wherever These Have Appeared (New York 1982), 190–211. More
detailed studies include e.g. E. Bartman, ‘Sculpture Collecting and Display in the
Private Realm’, in E. Gazda (ed.), Roman Art in the Private Sphere (Ann Arbor
1991), 71–88; P. G. Warden, ‘The Sculptural Program of the Villa of the Papyri’,
JRA 4 (1991), 257–64; P. G. Warden and D. Romano, ‘The Course of Glory: Greek
Art in a Roman Context at the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum’, Art History,
17 (1994), 228–54; and L. Stirling, The Learned Collector. Mythological
Statuettes and Classical Taste in Late Antique Gaul (Ann Arbor 2005).
(93) For Lucullus see Varro, De Re Rustica 1.2.10; Pliny, HN 34.36; Plut. Luc.
39.2; for Hortensius see Pliny, HN 35.130; he also owned a sphinx given to him
as a gift by Verres which he particularly prized, Pliny, HN 34.48; for discussion
see X. Lafon, ‘A propos des “villae” républicaines: quelques notes sur les
programmes décoratifs et les commanditaires’, in X. Lafon (ed.), L’art décoratif á
Rome á la fin de la République et au début du Principat (Rome 1981), 151–72; cf.
Plut. Cic. 7; Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 6.3.98; for discussion see Beaujeu,
‘Une direction des musées’ (n. 88), 673 with n. 8; Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2),
127–8. On the economics of the luxury in such villas see J. H. D’Arms, Commerce
and Social Standing in Ancient Rome (Cambridge Mass. 1981), 72–96, esp. 80–5;
Page 43 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
also see Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution (n. 10), 190–208 on Roman
villas, luxury, and Roman identity.
(94) For Cicero’s stance see Stewart, Statues in Roman Society (n. 67), 225–6
with a summation of the scholarly approaches to Roman attitudes concerning
Greek art. Stewart argues that Cicero’s own private interest in art and professed
ignorance in his oration is attributable to a difference between a public versus
private pose, but Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 166–7 suggests that there was a
shared respect for and knowledge of art works in Cicero’s audience and that
Cicero’s professed ignorance is in fact simply sarcasm.
(95) See A. Weis, ‘Gaius Verres and the Roman Art Market: Consumption and
Connoisseurship in Verrine II.4’, in A. Haltenhoff, A. Heil, and F. H. Mutschler, O
tempora, o mores! Römische Werte und römische Literatur in den letzen
Jahrzehnten der Republik (Saur 2003), 359–65; Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 200–
6 for discussion.
(96) Cic. Fam. 7.23.2; also see RE 2.2 (1896), 2372, 6.1 (1907), 843 for Avianius;
see J. H. D’Arms, ‘CIL X, 1792. A Municiple Notable of the Augustan Age’, HSCP
76 (1972), 207–16 for Avianius’ family; for discussion see Strong, ‘Roman
Museums’ (n. 4), 256; Galsterer, ‘Kunstraub und Kunsthandel’ (n. 6), 861. On
those with a fine eye for art see Cic. Fam. 7.23.1–2; 13.2; Statius, Silvae 4.6;
Mart. 9.59; Pliny, Ep. 3.6; Arrian, Epicteti dissertationes 2.24.7; for discussion
see Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 4), 257; Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 175, 205–
6.
(97) He is also mentioned along with Avianius in Fam. 7.23; for discussion see
Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 4), 257; K. Galinsky, Augustan Culture. An
Interpretive Introduction (Princeton 1996), 339.
(98) Cic. Verr. 2.2.84–5; see Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 207–8 for discussion.
(99) See Plut. Luc. 39; cf. Pliny, HN 35.26; see C. Edwards, ‘Incorporating the
Alien: The Art of Conquest’, in C. Edwards and G. Woolf (eds.), Rome the
Cosmopolis (Cambridge 2003), 55 for discussion; cf. Pollitt, ‘Impact of Greek
Art’ (n. 9), 164 who suggests that as a form of wealth it was also a danger to the
emperor; for Lucullus’ rich tastes see S. Hales, The Roman House and Social
Identity (Cambridge 2003), 20–3.
Page 44 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
(102) See Pollitt, ‘Impact of Greek Art’ (n. 9), 162; E. W. Leach, The Rhetoric of
Space: Literary and Artistic Representations of Landscape in Republican and
Augustan Rome (Princeton 1988), 374; Pliny says Hortensius paid 144,000
sesterces for the painting.
(103) For Cicero as a collector and his attitude towards art see G. Showerman,
‘Cicero’s Appreciation of Greek Art’, AJP 25 (1904), 306–14; Leen, ‘Cicero and
the Rhetoric of Art’ (n. 56), 243–4; Galsterer, ‘Kunstraub und Kunsthandel’ (n. 6),
861–2; Bounia, Nature of Classical Collecting (n. 62), 290–300; Miles, Art as
Plunder (n. 2), 210–17.
(104) See J. E. Stambaugh, The Ancient Roman City (Baltimore 1988), 164; for
detailed discussion see A. Wallace-Hadrill, ‘The Social Structure of the Roman
House’, PBSR 56 (1988), 59; Y. Thébert, ‘Private and Public Spaces: The
Components of the domus’, in E. D’Ambra (ed.), Roman Art in Context. An
Anthology (New York 1993), 213–37 on the public versus private components of
the Roman house in Africa (cf. Thébert, ‘Private Life and Domestic Architecture
in Roman Africa’, in P. Veyne (ed.), A History of Private Life from Pagan Rome to
Byzantium (Cambridge Mass. 1987), 353–82); A. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and
Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum (Princeton 1994), 17–37; A. M. Riggsby,
‘“Public” and “Private” in Roman Culture: The Case of the cubiculum’, JRA 10
(1997), 36–56, whose focus is the cubiculum; S. Treggiari, ‘Home and Forum:
Cicero between “Public” and “Private”’, TAPA 128 (1998), 1–23; ‘The Upper-class
House as Symbol and Focus of Emotion in Cicero’, JRA 12 (1999), 33–56; S.
Hales, ‘At Home with Cicero’, GaR 47 (2000), 44–55; The Roman House and
Social Identity (Cambridge 2003); Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution
(n. 10), 190–208 where he discusses the overlap between public and private in
Roman houses.
(105) See Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 5), 59–62 for discussion.
(106) Leen, ‘Cicero and the Rhetoric of Art’ (n. 56), 243.
(107) See O. J. Brendel, Prolegomena to the Study of Roman Art (New Haven
1979), 153–6 on the divergent nature of public and private art; also see Leach,
Rhetoric of Space (n. 102), 136.
(108) Cic. Att. 1.8.2; see Pollitt, ‘Impact of Greek Art’ (n. 9), 162; cf. Galsterer,
‘Kunstraub und Kunsthandel’ (n. 6), 861.
(109) For discussion of the statues and ‘Academy’ see V. J. Rosivach, ‘Cicero’s
Statues’, New England Classical Journal, 41.4 (2004), 387–95.
Page 45 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
(110) See B. S. Ridgway, ‘The Wreck of Mahdia, Tunisia, and the Art Market in
the Early First Century BC’, JRA 8 (1995), 340–7 for discussion; also see
Galsterer, ‘Kunstraub und Kunsthandel’ (n. 6) and G. Zimmer, ‘Republikanisches
Kunstverständnis: Cicero gegen Verres’, in G. Hellenkemper Salies (ed.), Das
Wrack. Der Antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia (Cologne 1994), 867–74 for Cicero
and his collecting in the context of the wreck; see Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s
Cultural Revolution (n. 10), 361–71 for the Mahdia wreck and the Roman trade
in luxury goods.
(111) See Leen, ‘Cicero and the Rhetoric of Art’ (n. 56), 240 for Cicero’s Academy
in his house and in its larger context; see also Zimmer, ‘Republikanisches
Kunstverständnis’ (n. 110), 871–2.
(112) Fam. 7.23.2; see Leen, ‘Cicero and the Rhetoric of Art’ (n. 56), 239 for
discussion.
(113) For discussion see Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 4), 256; Leen, ‘Cicero and
the Rhetoric of Art’ (n. 56); Hales, Roman House (n. 99), 18–20; cf. 58.
(114) Vitruvius 7.5.5–6; on objects’ ‘suitability’ see Leen, ‘Cicero and the Rhetoric
of Art’ (n. 56), 237, 239; for discussion of the architecture of Cicero’s villas in
their Vitruvian context, and in the context of the construction of Roman identity,
see Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution (n. 10), 170–3, who also has a
good discussion concerning the function of gymnasia in Cicero’s villas.
(116) Cf. Vitruvius 6.5.1–3; for discussion see Leen, ‘Cicero and the Rhetoric of
Art’ (n. 56), 237–8; for related discussion see T. P. Wiseman, ‘Conspicui Postes
Tectaque Digna Deo: The Public Image of Aristocratic and Imperial Houses in
the Late Republic and Early Empire’, in L’Urbs: espace urbain et histoire.
Collection de L’Ecole Française de Rome 98 (Rome 1987), 393; Bounia, Nature of
Classical Collecting (n. 62), 295–6.
(117) See A. Desmouliez, Cicéron et son goût: Essai sur une definition d’une
aesthetique romaine à la fin de la République (Brussels 1976), 266–316, esp.
304–6 for decorum as it applies to Cicero’s taste in art; also see Leen, ‘Cicero
and the Rhetoric of Art’ (n. 56), 235; see Bounia, Nature of Classical Collecting
(n. 62), 291–3 for the suitability of an object to the place; also see E. Perry, The
Aesthetics of Emulation in the Visual Arts of Ancient Rome (Cambridge 2005),
31–49 for how décor was interpreted by those with knowledge and authority,
who created a formulaic visual culture, but one that left scope for interpretation
depending on context.
Page 46 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
(119) For the construction of identity in antiquity see p. 18 n. 39. For private
collections as a showcase for personal erudition see J. Elsner, Imperial Rome and
Christian Triumph (Oxford 1998), 172.
(120) See Appadurai, ‘Commodities’ (n. 1), 41, who argues that ‘Commodities
represent very complex social forms and distributions of knowledge. In the first
place, and crudely, such knowledge can be of two sorts: the knowledge
(technical, social, aesthetic, and so forth) that goes into the production of the
commodity; and the knowledge that goes into appropriately consuming the
commodity’. Commodities—and objects—as he notes, have ‘life histories’ closely
tied to the life history of the consumer; for objects and their individual histories
that give them meaning also see R. M. Van Dyke and S. E. Alcock, (eds.),
Archaeologies of Memory (Oxford 2003), 5.
(121) Ep. 8.18; concerning Domitius see R. Syme, ‘The Dating of Pliny’s Latest
Letters’, CQ 35 (1985), 177, 180–2.
(122) Ep. 3.1. For Corinthian ware’s popularity see e.g. Cic. Att. 2.1.11; Fin. 2.23;
Rosc. Am. 133; Tusc. 2.32; Verr. 2.2.46, 83; see B. Baldwin, ‘Trimalchio’s
Corinthian Plate’, CP 68 (1973), 46–7 for discussion; concerning Corinthian
bronzes in the larger context of Roman patterns of consumption see Wallace-
Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution (n. 10), 372–6. For Vestricius Spurinna see R.
Syme, Roman Papers Vol. VII (Oxford 1991), 541–50.
(123) Mart. 9.43; Statius, Silvae 4.6; cf. Mart. 9.44, 12.69; see Alsop, Rare Art
Traditions (n. 92), 206–7 for Vindex as a collector. Vindex also appears to have
owned works by Myron, Apelles, Polyclitus, Praxiteles, and Phidias; for general
discussion of the Lysippus statue see E. Bartman, ‘Lysippos’ Huge God in Small
Shape’, Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 73 (1986), 298–311; W. J.
Schneider, ‘Phidiae Putavi Martial und der Hercules Epitrapezios des Novius
Vindex’, Memnosyne, 54 (2001), 697–720; S. Lorenz, ‘Martial, Herkules und
Domitian: Büsten, Statuetten und Statuen im Epigrammaton liber nonus’,
Mnemosyne, 56 (2003), 566–84; C. McNelis, ‘Ut Sculptura Poesis: Statius,
Martial, and the Hercules Epitrapezios of Novius Vindex’, AJP 129 (2008), 255–
76; Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 265–70.
(124) For the appeal of its antique look see Alsop, Rare Art Traditions (n. 92),
196. Pliny does not mention the artist; his assessment of its appearance
indicated its age as ‘old and antique’ (vetus et antiquum), and possibly as
authentic too. On authentic versus counterfeit pieces in antiquity see D.
Emanuele, ‘Aes Corinthium: Fact, Fiction, and Fake’, Phoenix, 43 (1989), 350–4;
also see Phaedrus, Prologue 5.4–9, who notes the market for fakes of Praxiteles,
Myron, and Zeuxis. See too Hallett’s related discussion concerning copies in
Roman antiquity (‘Emulation versus Reduplication’ (n. 101), 419–21), which
argues that Romans could be just as happy with a fine replica as with an
Page 47 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
original; cf. 43 for his discussion of the case of Dubius Avitus, who commissioned
copies of cups to be made by Zenodorus originally by Calamis (Pliny, HN 34.47);
also see M. Marvin, The Language of the Muses. The Dialogue between Greek
and Roman Sculpture (Los Angeles 2008), 121–67.
(127) Plut. Luc. 42.1–4; see Casson, Libraries in the Ancient World (n. 54), 69; cf.
61–108 for Roman libraries in general; also see C. Edwards and G. Woolf
‘Cosmopolis: Rome as World City’, in C. Edwards and G. Woolf (eds.), Rome the
Cosmopolis (Cambridge 2003), 14–15.
(128) For Cicero’s table see Pliny, HN 13.92; for the statue of Fortuna see Cass.
Dio 58.7.2.
(129) Pliny, HN 34.11–12; see Emanuele, ‘Aes Corinthium’ (n. 124), 351; Wallace-
Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution (n. 10), 371–9 for discussion.
(130) Pliny, HN 35.26; see Galsterer, ‘Kunstraub und Kunsthandel’ (n. 6), 862 for
discussion.
(131) Listed in Pollitt, ‘Impact of Greek Art’ (n. 9), 162, who notes that ‘Crassus
paid 100,000 sesterces for some cups by the Greek engraver Mentor (fifth or
early fourth century BC); C. Gracchus is said to have bought some figures of
Dolphins for 5,000 sesterces a pound, Pliny, HN 33.147’. He also notes that
‘Lucullus was ready to pay … as much as a million sesterces, for a statue of
“Felicitas” by Arcesilaos’, noting that that was for a contemporary artist still
living. For a brief catalogue of expensive collectibles in antiquity see Bounia,
Nature of Classical Collecting (n. 62), 298; also see W. K. Pritchett, The Greek
State at War, 5 (Berkeley 1991), 107 for a list of the price’s Pliny notes were
paid for specific works.
(133) See Elsner, Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph (n. 119), 110 for objects
giving their owner distinction by virtue of the tradition in which they took part.
(134) See Baldwin, ‘Trimalchio’s Corinthian Plate’ (n. 122), for his short but
informative discussion of this episode; cf. Emanuele ‘Aes Corinthium’ (n. 124),
355.
Page 48 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
(135) On the importation of luxury as a moving target in our sources see Wallace-
Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution (n. 10), 346–7; for the consumption of luxury
objects and their relationship to Roman social identity, see in general Wallace-
Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution (n. 10), esp. 441–54.
(136) See Carey, ‘Problems of Totality (n. 6), 7–9 for Pliny the Elder’s attack on
the collection and consumption of luxury goods and decadence in the early
empire; for ‘consumerism and social anxiety’ in the Roman literary record, esp.
Pliny the Elder, see Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution (n. 10), 345–53.
(138) See Tac. Ann. 3.55; cf. the speech of Asinius Gallus, Ann. 2.33; see R. Syme,
Tacitus (Oxford 1958), 573, who notes that display was all the nobiles had left
after the republic.
(139) For a good discussion on consumption and luxury laws including the
theoretical background see Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution (n. 10),
329–38.
(140) Suet. Iul. 47; Marc Antony had similar tastes, and reportedly proscribed a
man to obtain a particularly precious jewel, Pliny, HN 37.82; see F. de Oliveira,
Les Idées politique et morales de Pline L’Ancien (Coimbra 1992), 182 for
discussion.
(141) Cic. Phil. 2.109, 3.30, 13.11; see Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n. 97), 344 for
discussion.
(142) See Pliny, HN 35.81–3. The panel perished by a fire in Augustus’ house in
AD 4.
(143) Suet. Aug. 72.3; see A. Mayor, The First Fossil Hunters. Paleontology in
Greek and Roman Times (Princeton 2000), 142–4 for Augustus’ paleontology
collection. Cf. the anecdote in Phlegon of Tralles concerning an embassy to
Tiberius with the tooth of an alleged hero over a foot long, FGrH 257 F36.14; see
R. Garland, The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-
Roman World (Ithaca 1995), 50 for discussion; also see J. F. Healy, ‘Pliny on
Mineralogy and Metals’, in R. French and F. Greenaway (eds.), Science in the
Early Roman Empire: Pliny the Elder, his Sources and Influence (Totowa NJ and
London 1986), 112–14 on the ancient interpretation and theory of fossils.
(144) Suet. Aug. 70.2: Augustus was ‘very desirous of expensive furniture and of
Corinthian [sc. bronzes]’, pretiosae supellectilis Corinthiorumque praecupidus.
See Baldwin, ‘Trimalchio’s Corinthian Plate’ (n. 122), 46, who notes that
Augustus ‘was allegedly dubbed Corintharius for proscribing owners of vasa
Corinthia which he coveted. Pliny, HN 34.6 claims Antony proscribed Verres for
Page 49 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
much the same reason’; cf. Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 205–6. For Nero’s taste
for Corinthian bronzes see Pliny, HN 34.48.
(145) Suet. Tib. 44.2; for Tiberius’ taste in art see Pliny, HN 34.62, Cass. Dio
55.9.6; see B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician (London 1976), 231 for discussion;
cf. A. Stewart, ‘To Entertain an Emperor: Sperlonga, Laokoön and Tiberius at the
Dinner-Table’, JRS 67 (1977), 84–5. For Tiberius’ proclivity towards erotic art see
J. R. Clarke, Looking at Lovemaking: Construction of Sexuality in Roman Art 100
B.C.–A.D. 250 (Berkeley 1998), 29.
(147) Pliny, HN 33.3–4; see T. McGinn, The Economy of Prostitution in the Roman
World: A Study and Social History of the Brothel (Ann Arbor 2004), 128–30 for
discussion. For two good discussions of the Warren Cup’s subject see J. R.
Clarke, ‘The Warren Cup and the Context for the Representations of Male-to-
Male Lovemaking in Augustan and Early Julio-Claudian Art’, ArtB 75 (1993),
275–94; J. Pollini, ‘The Warren Cup: Homoerotic Love and Symposial Rhetoric in
Silver’, ArtB 81 (1999), 21–52.
(149) In comparison we know little from the literary record about Caligula’s and
Claudius’ tastes; for Nero, in addition to his pillaging of Greek treasures during
his tour in 67 we hear also of a pair of drinking cups with scenes embossed from
Homer (Suet. Ner. 47.1), and a favourite terracotta statue of an Amazon by
Strongylion that he carried around in his retinue (Pliny, HN 34.82).
(150) Pliny, HN 34.62; see Hölscher, ‘Hellenistische Kunst’ (n. 4), 878 for the
larger context of this incident.
Page 50 of 51
Collecting and Acquisition
(151) See Stewart, Statues in Roman Society (n. 67); G. Houston, ‘Tiberius on
Capri’, GaR 32 (1985), 179–96; S. Rutledge, ‘Tiberius’ Philhellenism’, CW 101
(2008), 453–67.
(152) Tiberius himself was ‘collected’ in the end: Suet. Tib. 6.3, says that
childhood presents he received from Sex. Pompeius’ sister, Pompeia, including a
cloak, a broach, and some gold plaques, were still exhibited in his day at Baiae.
(153) For what Nero took from Greece see Pliny, HN 34.84; Pausanias 10.7.1,
10.19.2; Dio Chrysostomus, Orationes 31.148. See p. 273 for the question of
public versus private access to Nero’s Domus Aurea, its collection, and its reuse
by Vespasian. See Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 2), 255–9 for discussion of Nero’s
pillaging of Greece; also see p. 52.
(156) Mart. 12.15: Quidquid Parrhasia nitebat aula/ donatum est oculis deisque
nostris, ‘Whatever shone in Parrhasius’ hall/has been given to our eyes and to
our gods’; Martial goes on to attack Domitian as a proud king (superbi regis)
who reveled in luxury (luxus).
Page 51 of 51
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199573233.003.0003
Keywords: viewers, artefacts, visual culture, cultural values, elite, cultural property
Page 1 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
However, the subordinate classes stood as an audience to the elite’s desires and
expectations. Priests, orators, and generals noted for virtus set up the objects
that spoke to the mass of the Roman people. That same elite consequently
determined what was expected in terms of styles, settings, and the general
decorum that encompassed the display and viewing of cultural artefacts.
Educated Romans tended to be exclusionary in terms of how they understood
the nature of viewing and arguably set in place what we might term a ‘hierarchy
of the gaze’. Such stratification, in the opinion of Roman literati, depended
clearly on the level of the viewer’s education and sophistication and tended to
exclude those of humbler status. Yet despite this hierarchical perspective on
viewing, there were also certain attitudes and responses to cultural material that
were likely shared. Cultural objects on display in Rome were intended to
communicate to a wide audience on a variety of levels. Our elite sources, while
they occasionally represent the understanding of visual culture as a province of
the privileged, also reveal it as a point of consensus and integration within the
community and among viewers. The general ability of objects to communicate in
one way or another with the viewer may have motivated Cicero’s remarks (De
Or. 3.195) that all men have an intuitive sense that allows them to form a
judgement concerning what is appropriate in the execution of pictures, statues,
and other works. Supporting Cicero’s claim is the simple fact that the
exhibitions of noteworthy statuary by aediles in the Forum, the assorted images
generals displayed in triumphs, the painted porticoes adorned with statuary, all
were designed to curry favour with not only the citizen body but the city as a
collective whole. As was the case with architectural forms, cultural objects
Page 2 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
E. Thomas has recently noted that ‘The symbolic forms of Roman architecture,
then, established and sustained relations of domination between elites and non-
elites’; the same could be said of the property that served to ornament such
venues.6 However, the dominant reading, as we shall later see, was also ‘ranged
against the power of readers to generate new interpretations’.7 We will therefore
also consider the potentially ambiguous readings cultural material presented to
viewers in subsequent chapters. Our concern here is to show the division
between viewers based on social demarcation that had to be reconciled with the
need for cultural objects to speak to a broad audience. While the capacity for
such objects to communicate in wider terms was largely established through the
use, for example, of a relatively simplified set of iconographic or
representational forms (such as funerary busts, loricate statuary (i.e., adorned
with a breastplate), or symbols and objects associated with particular deities),
the meaning of such objects and the ability of various audiences to ‘decode’
them was almost certainly far more fluid.8
Finally, while we are here interested in the question of possible responses and
attitudes towards cultural property, of equal importance is the level of
knowledge Romans had of their own visual history. A fragment of Ennius (Scipio
10–11) asks, Quantam statuam faciet populus Romanus/ quantam columnam
quae res tuas gestas loquatur? ‘How great a statue will the Roman people
make?/ How great a column (p.82) to speak of your achievements?’ The extent
to which cultural objects literally ‘spoke’ to individuals in Rome is indicated by
the extent to which they enter the language of metaphor and description in the
literature as a point of reference in authors such as Petronius, Ovid, and others.9
The question for us is how Romans (and others) understood the language of the
great variety of cultural artefacts in the city. Admittedly, this topic is enormous,
particularly the question of response. Let me therefore emphasize that this
discussion does not pretend to be exhaustive and focuses specifically on a
limited range of responses and issues pertaining to viewer accessibility and
expectation.
Page 3 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
treasures, the ability to appreciate them, and the knowledge of cultural heritage
in general was not the sole domain of the privileged classes, as will become
clear in this discussion. It does bear mentioning, though, that the distinction
drawn between the interested or educated observer as opposed to the more
casual onlooker is one our sources, specifically Cicero and Plutarch, do make.
The dichotomy is best expressed in Plutarch (Mor. 575B), who referred to two
types of viewers (specifically of painting): the more common individual will look
at the general impression the painting gives and then walk off having just taken
away a mere sketch or outline of the whole, whereas the more discerning viewer
will observe with greater critical judgement, scrutinizing details and critiquing
that which is poorly done. The ability to critically analyse, view, or understand
was a means by which (p.83) distinctions could be made between elites and
non-elites, thereby reaffirming elite identity and power.11
At the top of those who knew best how to appreciate art and were connoisseurs
of it were the artists themselves. As Elsner has pointed out, this may be due in
no small part to the ancient view that artists claimed a ‘special access to the
truth’ of both the human mind and form.12 Pliny the Younger was certainly
among those who privileged the artist among critics (Ep. 1.10.4), asserting that
an artist is the best judge of a painting or sculpture, and whose letter also
implies deference to professional (such as it was) opinion as opposed to those of
the mere critic. Pliny’s uncle drove home the point in a well-known anecdote:
Alexander the Great famously gave a pretentious disquisition on painting in
Apelles’ studio, only to elicit the artist’s admonition that the boys grinding the
colours were laughing at him.13 That the artist had the most critical eye was
something Cicero similarly asserted (Fin. 2.115), and we have already noted
Verres’ trust of artistic judgement in the course of his looting of Sicily.14 After
the artists themselves came the famous collectors who had built a reputation of
discriminating taste (see pp. 64–9). Critics no doubt abounded, as Plutarch’s
Moralia (346A–B) shows when one viewer compares Parrhasius’ portrait of
Theseus with Euphranor’s, with an implied preference for the latter. Euphranor
himself was the author of a treatise entitled De Symmetria et Coloribus (‘On
Symmetry and Colours’) and was just one of many artists who wrote on their
craft, none of which are extant.15 However the existence of such treatises on art
by artists themselves doubtless reinforced the artist’s auctoritas.
In second place was the elite class, which, from at least the third century BC on,
had come to value (and collect) Greek art in particular. During the period of the
middle republic it appears that painting, at least briefly, had even become a part
of a young man’s education. Holliday has noted that the cognomen Pictor may
indicate a lack of embarrassment about painting and the arts in general during
this period and that painting in the republic had become a part of the
educational (p.84) curriculum but fell out of favour after Pacuvius.16 The initial
impetus towards such interest may have been Valerius Messalla’s commission of
a painting depicting the campaign against Tarentum in 265 BC that was
Page 4 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
displayed in the senate.17 While painting vanished from the curriculum for a
time, it conceivably returned by the early empire, since we find that Hadrian,
Nero, and the fictional children of Trimalchio’s guests in Petronius’ Satyricon all
received hands-on education in it.18 If one did receive such education then we
would expect one to claim greater authority in their ability to critique, although
this claim to authority is offset by a cultural dynamic whereby in Roman society,
at least in the political sphere, too much knowledge of art could prove an
embarrassment.19 This appears merely a public pose, however, since self-styled
art critics abounded among the Roman elite. We need only consider those
discussions concerning the decline of art in Petronius (Satyricon 88), Vitruvius
(7.5), and Pliny (HN 14.2–6) to appreciate that among Rome’s educated art
criticism flourished. The situation is perhaps best illustrated in Philostratus the
Elder’s Imagines, where, in imagining a visit to a gallery in Neapolis, he has the
viewer (who acts as the teacher too), praise the collection and particularly the
fine eye of the one who assembled it.20
In addition to the critiquing of artistic works, the ability to read topography and
cultural objects was arguably yet another source of empowerment for the elite.
It gave them access to an understanding of history, and, given the significance of
history as a political tool and an instrument of governance, ensured the
perpetuation of their power and privilege. As was the case with art works, the
varying levels of knowledge depended not just on one’s education but values as
well. Cicero gives us a fictional though plausible example of this in the opening
of (p.85) the fifth book of his De Finibus, where the interlocutors express their
wonder at and appreciation of the topography of ancient Athens (where the
dialogue takes place), a topography that brings to mind particular aspects of the
city’s history and culture corresponding to the values of the individual viewer.21
Hence, Quintus Cicero expresses his admiration for Sophocles as they pass by
Colonus Hill (5.3), while Athens puts Atticus in mind of Epicurus. Atticus in turn
notes the powerful stimulation of the imagination and the recollection of famous
men that a renowned place such as Athens creates, and goes on to recall that he
once visited Metapontum and refused to go to his lodging until he visited
Pythagoras’ house (5.4). Athens’ orators and statesmen were what excited
Lucius Cicero, the dialogue’s third interlocutor. For Lucius a visit to Phalerum to
see where Demosthenes used to practice oratory and a pilgrimage to Pericles’
tomb were imperative, and he confessed to feeling overwhelmed by Athens’
historical monuments. As Gregory notes in his discussion of this passage,
‘Places, buildings, pictures, even the association of names, all these served to
remind the elite Roman of the historical past and of his Graeco-Roman
heritage’.22
This is not to say that the ability to appreciate Rome’s heritage was exclusively
elite. As Vasaly’s study on Cicero has shown, Cicero could refer to at least the
better known topographical features in Rome whose associations would be
immediate to many Romans. Similarly, in Livy, Manlius could appeal to the
Page 5 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
Capitoline that he saved or Horatius’ father to his son’s spear in their respective
trials, both as a means to evoke a particular set of Roman values (sacrifice and
valour). Though both episodes are problematic, they nonetheless represent
plausible reactions to Rome’s physical patrimony. Monuments and artefacts
constituted a reflection of something shared by the community, to which Roman
society could collectively relate.23 Indeed, as Sailor has shown, from the
perspective of Tacitus at least, one of the key indicators of communal collapse in
the civil war of 69 was the destruction of the Capitoline and the loss of any
semiotic significance for the soldiers of the monuments and sacred buildings
within the city.24
(p.86) It is worth noting that in these cases it is not the historical accuracy or
the furthering of knowledge that is of interest, but rather the emotive or
evocative power of monuments to support a particular system of values that is at
stake. In this way, memorials, monuments, and the various objects associated
with the great men of the past become integral to the perpetuation of memory,
hence, power, in antiquity. Cicero in fact, in the De Inventione noted that
memory ensured the recollection of virtus, which encompassed iustitia, fortitudo,
and moderatio (‘justice’, ‘courage’, and ‘temperance’), through which Rome had
proven itself worthy to rule. Since virtus is a martial value on which much of the
auctoritas of the ruling elite was based, memory and power were in a sense
directly linked. In addition, the use of visual markers as an analogy and tool for
memory practice among the elite intelligentsia certainly reflects a genuine
reality concerning mnemonic markers in Cicero’s day amongst the more general
population, which relied on monuments and topography rather than written
signifiers when navigating the city.25 Quintilian discusses memory in similar
terms.26 Memory—and power—of necessity was literally inscribed on the city,
hence the minds of its inhabitants.
In general, Athens, Rome, and their monuments recalled for Cicero and others
the memory of worthy men of the past and had a greater impact on the mind
than even hearing or reading about their deeds, making the reality of the past
more vivid, an observation reflecting that of other Roman writers.27 While
Cicero is here speaking of Athens, he also notes that it applies to Rome as well
through the character of Piso, who recalls that ‘so great a force of recollection is
present in places that, not without cause, has the instruction of memory been
drawn out from them’ (tanta vis admonitionis inest in locis; ut non sine causa ex
iis memoriae ducta sit disciplina, Fin. 5.2), referring specifically to his gazing
upon memorials of men such as Cato the Elder, Scipio, and Laelius.28 The
remark makes explicit an assumption that arguably reflects the potential for
topography to function similarly to Roman imagines at a funeral (see also p.
106): that is, to instruct Romans (p.87) in what is worthy of remembrance in
the hope that they also will act accordingly if they desire commemoration.
Elsewhere Cicero states quite explicitly that it was not so much the artworks, as
the very places famous men lived, sat, argued, and were buried that delighted
Page 6 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
the mind with recollection.29 The notion of the imago as both a statement of
Roman values and as something that reaffirms them is discussed in similar terms
in Cicero’s Pro Archia (30):
Many of the foremost men have eagerly left statues and images, not of
their minds but of their bodies; ought we not to prefer far more to leave an
effigy of our counsels and virtues shaped and refined by the highest
talents? (consiliorum relinquere ac virtutum nostrarum effigiem nonne
multo malle debemus summis ingeniis expressam et politam?)
As Leen has noted, effigiem … expressam et politam is a phrase that one can use
rhetorically to refer to the composition of a speech or to the creation of an actual
image, indicating an understanding ‘that realities can be manufactured’.30 In the
De Legibus and De Finibus that reality is one created, and in turn consumed by
the dominant elite. It is, after all, Scipio and Demosthenes who impress Piso and
L. Cicero, creating an exclusive echo chamber.31
Cicero’s remarks in the Pro Archia and elsewhere are supported by Tacitus, who,
like Cicero, observes that historically significant sites, whether important for
Greek or Roman identity, had a special attraction. While Cicero never states as
much specifically, as noted above, he certainly implies that historical sites could
be virtual pilgrimage destinations, having something of a quasi-religious
attraction for the viewer. Tacitus indicates a similar phenomenon in his telling of
Germanicus’ eastern tour (Ann. 2.53–4) when he reports that the sight of the
monuments at Nicopolis, in western Greece, moved Germanicus with the
ambiguous memory of the conflict between his great uncle, Augustus, and his
grandfather, Marc Antony (‘there was a great image there of things sad and
happy’, magnaque illic imago tristium laetorumque). He subsequently toured the
rest of Greece and Asia, desiring to visit its famous cities and oracles, which
included a stop at Ilium both out of historical sentiment and religious devotion.
His own identity and family history, Rome’s Greek heritage, and Rome’s Trojan
origins create a nexus of associations that Germanicus attempted to make real
through his visits to the actual sites, and to experience that ‘pleasure of
recollecting’ to which Cicero had alluded.
(p.88) Needless to say, to travel and appreciate such places did (and still does)
indicate a position of privilege within society. So too did the education that
opened the path to a deeper appreciation and understanding of both their Greek
and Roman heritage. Such education allowed not just for a deeper reading and
understanding of the history of a given site or monument, it also permitted
alternative, even allegorical readings of such sites that reached beyond the
superficial. Plutarch, for one, speaks of the symbolic interpretation of some of
the iconography associated with certain deities.32 Later on, Lucian makes a clear
distinction between the educated and uneducated viewer in this regard.33 How
accessible a ‘symbolic’ reading of a particular artefact was to its audience, how
Page 7 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
While we have cast our net only after Greek exempla, we nonetheless know that
some images carried in the triumphal processions were allegorical in nature (see
pp. 199–204). The image of Macedonia in the painting from the villa of P. Fannius
Synistor at Boscoreale (fig. 3.1) gives us one possible alternative out of several
for how such personifications were depicted.35 Allegorical reading of this sort is
not to be confused with the general expectations of the iconography of particular
figures that were popular and well-attested in the artistic (and literary) record.36
(p.89)
A certain ‘standardized’
iconography likely helped viewers
to identify Bacchus, Apollo,
Hermes, Diana, and other figures
as such. In addition, as J. Rüpke
has noted, a certain level of
religious knowledge will have
been socially transmitted by
various means (such as
participation in family rituals), and
will have had a role in an
individual’s level of
understanding.37
(p.90) Allegorical readings
also raise the more general
though very important question
of larger cultural or historical
connections that could be made
by viewers. For example, we
note that ekphrases in ancient
Fig. 3.1 Roman provinces were often
writers were not infrequently
depicted allegorically as female
intended to highlight or
personifications, usually with specific
underscore central themes
iconographic attributes identifying them
within the work in which they
as specific provinces. The province here
were embedded; the reader or
depicted is generally thought to be that of
listener would be expected to
Page 8 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
Page 9 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
The process of fetishizing particular objects is closely related to the process that
has been referred to as ‘sacralization’. Certain works, by virtue of a privileged
status either in their physical context or their place in the literary record are
rendered ‘sacred’ in their own rights.45 By virtue of their privileged position, the
objects, whether they previously enjoyed a religious context or not, are
‘respiritualized… as aesthetic objects’.46 They are no longer ‘living’ pieces, but
‘are wrenched out of their own true contexts and become dead to their living
time and space in order (p.92) that they may be given an immortality within
the collection’.47 As already noted, much material once brought to Rome was
consecrated, therefore, literally sacrosanct; but rendering cultural material
sacred was also accomplished simply by virtue of setting it apart, passing it from
the profane world to one in which it was deemed extraordinary and special. This
is a phenomenon that is more apparent for collections that adorned porticoes
and galleries as opposed to statues that were ultimately set up in temples and
became objects of direct religious veneration—objects with which, in other
words, Romans had daily ‘ordinary’ contact and which continued to have an
active life. In this sense, as Stewart has noted, such material occupied a liminal
space between art and religious objects.48
The ‘sacred’ aspect of cultural material was reflected in the expected ‘norms’ of
behaviour for those who frequented collections, something that had, in the right
venue, the potential to constitute a virtual public ritual, and to create an
experience in which everyday life and its social expectations were turned around
(a phenomenon that still abides arguably to this day with certain expectations
and unwritten codes governing the conduct of the museum visitor).49 As Elsner
points out, the religious ‘ritual-centered attitude to images in antiquity…
influenced both ways of seeing and thinking about art’ that was not confined
merely to images of a religious nature or to a religious context.50 Indeed, as
Favro has noted, the carefully ‘choreographed’ context in which objects were
exhibited in general ‘can provide some consistency by establishing set physical
relationships and a uniform ambience’.51 As a ritual, a certain level of
‘performance’ on the part of the viewer was demanded. It may be with this in
mind that two sources indicate that viewing will best take place in silence. Pliny
the Elder explicitly notes that despite the profusion of artworks in Rome, the
noise of the city made the contemplation and admiration of such works
difficult.52 Yet another indication—though only that—that an appropriate
decorum must be maintained (p.93) is the passage in Petronius (Satyricon 90)
in which Eumolpus finds himself the object of scorn by the patrons of an art
gallery for his attempt to recite verse while others try to take in the gallery’s
paintings.53 Doubtless, as Duncan compellingly asserts, the nature of display
would in a sense create a ‘dramatic field’ that ‘invites performance’ from the
viewer.54 The ritualistic, performative nature of such visits and the expectation
of silence and contemplation is further indication of the sacred nature (we think
of the ritual silence that attended some religious rites and the desire to avoid ill-
Page 10 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
omened utterances in antiquity) and values imposed on such objects and the
power contained in them.
The painting implicitly frightened Encolpius because of its realism. That a work
of art should strive towards a naturalism imitative of life was a standard
expectation expressed in our authors in antiquity.55 In addition, our sources
indicate certain expectations concerning line, colour, presentation, and display,
though realism receives a preponderance of attention. While the collective
literary voice that expressed a preference for realism in antiquity is
predominantly elite, this is not without its problems.
Part of the difficulty is the privilege given to realism (the quality of similitudo,
‘likeness’ or, in the case of copies, aemulatio, ‘imitation’) by our literary sources,
something that we will explore shortly.56 Realism, or perceived realism, was the
(p.94) ‘desired norm’ when Romans (or Greeks for that matter) viewed a work
of art, and has not gone unnoticed by art historians.57 The term realism, it
should be noted, is used here with the understanding that it is a very
controversial and problematic concept in its application towards our
understanding and assessment of cultural artefacts, particularly painting and
sculpture, the style of which can be potentially driven as much by ideological
dynamics as any concern for ‘realism . As such, it constitutes a value judgement,
and how much of a concern it was to those beside the very small sample of
opinion we find in our literary sources is very much open to question.58 Our own
understanding of the ancient view of realism, however, is often at variance with
what we would consider ‘realistic , and raises numerous problems of definition.
Clearly, the heroic male nude after the Polyclitan canon (see fig. 3.2), or the
female form modelled on Praxiteles’ Aphrodite of Cnidos (fig. 3.3) represent
‘naturalistic’ models albeit in an idealized form (or with an intensified
naturalism).59 But what of the grotesque baby Hercules from Hadrian’s villa (fig.
3.4)? Or the Nilotic mosaic at Palestrina with its odd sense of scale (fig. 3.5)? Set
Page 11 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
against the numerous portrait busts of so many matres and patres familias in the
veristic style (see fig. 3.7), can we call such works ‘realistic’? And who is to say
which was more generally preferred?60
As we shall soon see, those who did not strive for realism came in for occasional
criticism. Yet it should be noted that what we (and the Romans) would consider a
wide variety of styles lived side by side, with some styles privileged above others
in the literary account, even if the surviving material record tells a more
complicated and nuanced story. We will address the literary (p.95)
(p.96)
Page 12 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
(p.97)
Page 13 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
(p.98)
Page 14 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
(p.99) Still more explicit is Plutarch’s demand for realism and naturalism
expressed in his discussion of Apelles’ and Lysippus’ portraiture of Alexander
the Great where he notes (Mor. 335A–B) that vividness and naturalism—however
these were understood—were the two aspects of their works which elicited a
visceral response from viewers. In fact, according to Plutarch someone went so
far as to inscribe verses on Lysippus’ statue that the bronze was eager to speak.
Page 15 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
sponge left a mark that, to Protogenes’ eyes, made the foam look quite realistic
(HN 35.102–3). Moreover, it is a virtual common-place in Pliny that realism was
closely associated with similitudo and (on some occasions) even the ability to
deceive (as the dog had deceived and surprised Encolpius at Trimalchio’s
house).63 Perhaps the most famous story in this regard is of the contest held
between Parrhasius and Zeuxis. The latter executed a painting of grapes so
realistic that some birds swooped in to try to eat them; Parrhasius, however,
painted a curtain so life-like that even Zeuxis was deceived, asking his rival to
reveal his new painting behind the curtain before realizing his error and
admitting defeat (HN 35.65).
Petronius too, though in a work of fiction and through the mouth of Encolpius
(Satyricon 83), expressed his admiration for some works by Protogenes so real
that ‘they contended with the veracity of nature itself’, and a masterpiece by
Apelles called The Goddess on One Knee concerning which Encolpius remarks
‘the lines of the images were of so subtle a nature and precise that you might
believe that the subjects’ very soul’s had been painted’. The same picture
depicted an eagle carrying off Ganymede to heaven, and elsewhere a ‘dazzling
white’ (candidus) Hylas disgusted by a lascivious Naiad. The painting also
portrayed Apollo cursing his hands and decorating his unstrung lyre with a
flower after the death of Hyacinthus. The picture’s erotic content elicited
Encolpius to comment that love too, affects the gods. While all of these subjects
are related to Encolpius’ own (neurotic) experiences, what is striking about the
passage is that it seems that realism and eithopoieia—the ability to convey
character and emotion through painting—are the qualities which draw
Encolpius’ attention and which appear to move him the most as well (perhaps
not a surprising response given his own inclination to be emotionally
overwrought).66
Page 16 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
The emotive effect of realism is remarked by Pliny as well, who noted that a
lame figure (possibly Philoctetes) by the sculptor Pythagoras ‘could make the
viewer himself sense that he was suffering with the wound’.67 The remark is
reflective of an ugly rumour that circulated concerning Parrhasius’ depiction of
Prometheus’ torments. Parrhasius stood accused of purchasing a captive from
Olynthus and having him tortured to represent his subject more vividly.68 Such a
desire for realism, in which the very character and soul of the subject is
expressed in the work, is perhaps most strikingly and romantically embodied in
the sexual attachments viewers made with images, a phenomenon raised to a
virtually iconic (p.101) status in Ovid’s story of Pygmalion, though it is attested
periodically throughout our sources.
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
of painting, and excoriates (p.102) contemporary artists with their taste for
fantastic architecture and phantom constructions that would—quite literally—
not hold up in reality (7.5.3–4; see fig. 3.6).71 As Elsner has pointed out, not
everyone agreed.72
Before we leave our discussion on realism, it is worth noting that particularly for
painting, but also for any artwork in general, placement was an added
consideration, and more than one author remarks that it is essential that there
be good light and that the viewing be accessible. To do otherwise might
undermine the work’s quality or alter its effect (Cic. Brut. 261). Seneca the
Younger was adamant that a picture have the proper light so that it might give
optimal pleasure to the viewer (Epistulae 7.65.17; De Beneficiis 2.33.2), while
Vitruvius was very specific about proper light for good viewing, and felt northern
exposure preferable (6.4.2, 6.7.3).73 Strong has noted that Pliny, for one,
observed that porticoes, scholae, and exedrae in particular, offered good lighting
and perspective for exhibiting artworks.74 Well before Pliny, Horace (Ars Poetica
361–5) had noted that some pictures were better in certain light than others,
some viewed better from afar, others close up. The question of distance and the
viewer’s ability to view easily the more elevated art work on a monument is a
matter that has preoccupied modern scholars: how did Romans view, for
example, the more elevated portions of Trajan’s Column? It was also a problem
recognized by the ancients. Pliny tells us that the caryatids on M. Agrippa’s
Pantheon were of good workmanship and also praises the sculptures on the
pediment of the structure, but goes on to note that they were less well-known
because of the height of the pediment, which made them difficult to see (HN
36.38).
Two of our sources indicate that the location and the subject of a particular
artwork should suit one another as well, specifically in a religious context. Thus,
Seneca the Elder finds it peculiar that paintings with certain untoward subjects,
such as the adulteries of various deities, found their way into temples
(Controversiae 10.5.14). Nor did he find the subject of Hercules slaying his
children fit for a religious setting. Strong notes that in general an artwork’s
subject would be related to the specific cult, although beginning in the late
republic profane works with no such relation began to appear inside temples
themselves.75 (p.103)
Page 18 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
Communal Viewing
According to some literary
sources, the stereotypic mass
response to cultural objects was
very different from what we find
among elite viewers as depicted
in Cicero’s De Finibus. Polybius,
for example, specifically noted
the army’s disregard for
artworks and votive offerings at
the sack of Corinth (39.3),
where as an eyewitness he
claims that he saw men dicing
on paintings that had been Fig. 3.6 This frescoed cubicle (so-called
flung on the ground, including cubicle ‘E’) from the Villa della Farnesina
Aristides’ Dionysus as well as shows the kind of delicate, ‘unrealistic’
Hercules in Torment with architecture that Vitruvius excoriated as
Deianeira’s Robe.76 Cicero is in reality non-functional. Museo
similarly dismissive of those Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle
who lack a general Terme, Rome.
understanding of material
culture, including both works of
art and the monuments around them which rendered such material meaningless
(Att. 6.1.17). This generally elitist take on the ability of most to appreciate fine
artworks is reflected in the admittedly less reliable Juvenal, who speaks of the
rough and ready soldier of old, who treated artworks harshly out of ignorance,
breaking up fine silver cups to use as trappings for their armour and horses
(11.100–7).
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
Claudius freedman and Agrippina the Younger’s consort, while the venerable
Verginius Rufus’ tomb was already overgrown with thickets.79 The possibility
that images could assert one’s authority and intimidate the viewer (even a
relatively sophisticated one), finds support in Cicero’s Verrine orations, where
Cicero asserts that Verres sought to forestall his accusers by the erection of
equestrian statues in Rome, thinking that no one would call him to account when
he saw that Sicily’s merchants and farmers had honoured him with statuary
(Verr. 2.2.167–8). Perhaps the most famous instance of such stupefaction occurs
in Ammianus Marcellinus, who relates the awestruck wonder of the emperor
Constantius on his first visit to Rome in AD 357 (16.10.13–15). Monuments,
inscriptions, cultural objects, all were employed in the service of power and in
the construction of its legitimacy and authority, a point Horace understood
implicitly when he subversively ridiculed those whose reactions were precisely
the response Rome’s ruling elite desired.
Concordia Imaginum
This was particularly the case with imagines, which were in general deemed
worthy of respect and veneration by a broad swathe of Roman society. Horace’s
and Cicero’s remarks concerning the deferential response to imagines cited
above are plausible enough. Of course, part of the intent of imagines and tituli
were to impress by their very nature, and it is easy as one’s eyes pass over the
vast array of statuary in collections in the Vatican or Capitoline to forget how
powerful such images were for the ancients.81 Images, particularly statuary, but
naturally religious monuments as well, were not just objects used by the political
elite to legitimate their authority, but were themselves objects of veneration by
elites and non-elites alike, a subject explored extensively by H. Flower in both of
her studies.82 Sentiment of a kindred nature may be detected in the reservations
relatively sophisticated (even arguably sceptical) individuals such as Dio
Chrysostomus and Pliny the Elder expressed concerning imagines; both
disapproved of disfiguring the heads of statuary through substitution.83 It should
be remarked that respect was not always the rule of the day. Suetonius states
that Augustus ordered Neptune’s image omitted from a procession of the gods
Page 20 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
as punishment for a storm he caused (Aug. 16.2), while under Tiberius, after
Germanicus’ untimely death, people reacted en masse by vandalizing temples,
altars, even their own Lares in a show of extreme mourning (Calig. 5).84
(p.106) Perhaps the most famous instances of the universal respect accorded
to imagines, aside from images found in what would appear a clear and obvious
religious context, (such as a statue of Jupiter in his temple on the Capitoline),
are the imagines displayed in a funerary context, possibly represented in our
artistic record by the togate statue of a venerable Roman appearing to hold the
imagines of his ancestors (fig. 3.7).85 In such a context, Polybius, Sallust, and
Tacitus all refer either to their potential for exhorting men to virtus or as
vehicles for perpetuating memory.86 Pliny the Elder himself, as Carey notes, is
illustrative of the power of the imago to evoke memory with a view to the
perpetuation of mos maiorum, something we will explore in greater detail in the
following chapter.87 For now, it bears noting that Pliny remarked in his
discussion of libraries the setting up of imagines ‘of those immortal spirits who
speak to us in these places’ (HN 35.9–11).88 To preserve the image of the man,
according to Pliny, was to confer immortality.
The public context in which such imagines were often displayed was an
opportunity for the aristocracy to instruct a public audience in a set of virtues
which its audience could in turn share and strive to emulate.89 The role of the
audience was participatory: the participation of the viewer in the value system
expressed by the commemoration of a particular set of those values ensured the
status of those in power but also included the participation of the group in their
support. It was one of the central rituals, given its public nature and its
presumably mixed audience, that served as a central negotiating point in which
elite and non-elite could subsume their differences by partaking in the
recollection of a (p.107)
Page 21 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
Page 22 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
In general, the respect and reverence for imagines as something sacred was
necessarily universal. Moral law, based on a religious foundation, was
considered (p.110) central to Roman society. Such a foundation, built on the
pax deorum, was a key component not simply of religious life, but of the state
and of the Romans’ ability to function as a civil society, at least according to
Page 23 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
Polybius (6.56) and Cicero (Leg. 2.15, 26–8).102 The display of such images and
shared Roman attitudes towards them served to validate elite authority and
notions of the Roman self that likely extended beyond the elite, since it helped in
re-enacting an earlier action through exhortation to pietas, virtus, and the like.
The religious or quasi-religious attitude towards imagines and the sense of
obligation, of pietas, that they instilled in the aristocracy was mirrored by the
religious veneration we hear of among the non-elites and created a sense of
communal solidarity re-enacted not just through specific rituals, but in shared
attitudes.
Page 24 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
While we may question how many viewers had the skills to ‘decode’ ancient
works of art (or other cultural objects for that matter), it is doubtful that the
sensation of pleasure was the exclusive province of a particular class, but rather
a universal response elicited from interested viewers. There are indications in
our sources that individuals from all walks of life were enamoured, if we may use
Page 25 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
the term, of particular works of art. We note, for example, that a passage in the
Justinianic Digest (21.1.65) admonished that it was a fault of some slaves to
continually want to sit and carefully look at paintings, and warns the buyer of
slaves to be wary of those who like to stop while on their errands and spend (p.
113) excessive amounts of time gazing at artworks.109 The admonition makes
no sense unless we understand that there were some from the servile class who
were acknowledged to derive pleasure from viewing artistic works. In addition,
as noted previously (p. 71), Tiberius provoked public outrage at his removal of
Lysippus’ Apoxyomenos from the Baths of Agrippa, and there were vociferous
protests in the theatre, including chants of ‘Bring back the Apoxyomenos!’.110
Why the mass outcry were it not that it had a devoted public following?
The pleasure derived from works of art reaches its pinnacle in tales about erotic
attachment. One of the loci classici for such tales (in addition to the numerous
ones that surround Praxiteles’ Cnidian Aphrodite) is that of Pygmalion related by
Ovid.111 Similar tales find their way into supposedly more ‘historically based’
accounts, including, to mention just some of the more prominent ones, Livy,
Valerius Maximus, Pliny the Elder, and Athenaeus, who all recount similar
stories. Athenaeus relates (13.605f–606a) that Cleisophus of Selymbria fell in
love with a statue (a work of Ctesicles) in the temple at Samos (presumably in
the Heraion), an incident related in Adaeus of Mytilene’s work On Sculptors .112
Valerius Maximus in a similar anecdote concerning Praxiteles’ Aphrodite of
Cnidos (a work he describes as quasi spirantem, ‘almost breathing’) also notes
the erotic attachment one viewer developed for the work (8.11.ext.4).113 In a
similar episode, Pliny the Elder remarks that by the Temple of Felicitas was a
group of Thespiades, one of which, if we can believe Varro, captured the fancy of
a Roman knight, one Junius Pisciculus, who fell in love with it (HN 36.39).
Emperors, (p.114) such as Tiberius, may not have been immune from similar
attractions.114 The ultimate effect is to put on display an object of intense desire,
at the same time frustrating and negating that desire as a result of the (usually)
sacred nature of the work.115
Page 26 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
Page 27 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
have conveyed a message that the owner of the house was a man of wealth and
status. It was perfectly understandable on the other hand, that Encolpius would
need to be given an account of a painting that depicted a combat of local
gladiators. More approachable (provided one was literate) were the scenes from
Trimalchio’s own life, in part because each scene was accompanied with an
inscription. Their arrangement, in chronological order along a portico, will have
helped in reading them.123
Such written narrative, however, while it could assist the viewer with the
comprehension of the monuments and exhibitions scattered throughout the city,
was no guarantee of understanding. The relationship between object and text in
antiquity is one much discussed by scholars in literary terms, and as we noted,
poems (such as those we find in abundance in the various Greek anthologies)
and inscriptions existed for specific objects, though to what extent objects in
general were ‘labeled’ is problematic.124 In relative terms, however, there exists
a substantial body of epigrammatic and epigraphic evidence for cultural
objects.125 Naturally principes and grandees would want to advertise their
achievements and did so through a variety of media, including statue bases and
other forms of written dedications, such as the one Hadrian composed to
celebrate two votive cups made from the horn of wild bulls set in gold, spoils
from his campaigns against the Getae that he gave as votives to Casian Zeus in
his temple at Antioch (p.117) (Anthologia Palatina 6.332). This intersection of
the visual and textual as an expression of power appears most starkly in the
Roman triumph. Triumphatores would use plaques with written texts in large
lettering to supplement the tabulae (pictorial representations of landscapes and
battle scenes).126 It was also with this in mind, no doubt, that Augustus in the so-
called ‘Hall of Fame’ in his forum containing the statuary of famous Romans (the
summi viri) used written narrative to commemorate their achievements—and no
doubt to shape the interpretation and narrative concerning each.127 In addition,
Pliny the Elder tells us that after Augustus set up Apelles’ Aphrodite
Anadyomenē in the Temple of Divus Julius he added to it a series of Greek verses
that praised the work (HN 35.91).128 While visual language and literacy will
have taken precedence, text clearly played a role, as the extant corpus of
inscriptions on such bases indicates.129 As has been noted by Bowman and
Woolf, such inscriptions and texts in and of themselves constituted a vital
expression of power.130 Yet how such texts were integrated with the object was a
far more complex process, one that, as Bergmann has noted, will have required
both visual assessment and the ability to understand what the text was trying to
communicate concerning the object.131
The very presence of text, however, itself an indicator of power and privilege, in
addition to the space an object occupied and the visual language to which it laid
claim, served as an authorizing signifier for the creation of legitimacy for the
displayer who attempted further to control meaning through context.132 The (p.
118) presence of text purely as an indication of power ought not to be confused,
Page 28 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
however, with a wide range of literacies, the nature of which is a vexed and
controversial matter for ancient Rome. In general though, one suspects that
when publicly inscribed texts were inaccessible to the viewer, as noted above,
there were always those willing to help (and perhaps show off and impress in the
process).133 This is not to imply that images needed text to be meaningful,
though surely on a certain level their ‘controlled meaning , originating from an
authorial source and expressed frequently through inscriptions, if it was to be
retrieved by as many viewers as possible, will have required assistance.
We know from Cicero, for example, that in Syracuse there were mystagogi
(‘guides’) who showed visitors around. After Verres’ vicious plundering of the
city, they showed tourists what artworks had been where prior to Verres’ theft
(Verr. 2.4.131).134 Plutarch attests to the existence of guides at Delphi and
actually relates an argument with a tourist (named Basilocles) and Philinus, who
acted as a guide (Mor. 394E). The guides were known as periēgētai (Mor. 395A;
cf. 400D) and gave detailed tours, including the interpretation of inscriptions
and the discussion of nuances of various artworks. In the passage in Plutarch,
the periēgētēs gets involved in a detailed discussion concerning the colour of
bronzes at Delphi, and then spins a yarn about a golden statue King Croesus had
dedicated of the woman who baked his bread (Mor. 401E), although in this
instance the periēgētēs is exposed as uneducated. There were also guides who
gave tours of the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, who told viewers to shield their
eyes lest they (p.119) be blinded when looking at Menestratus’ Hercules and
Hecate.135 As the Plutarch passage indicates however, just how well educated
such guides were, and just how accurate their information was, is questionable.
Such guides are perhaps best attested in Pausanias, although he avoids the use
of the word periēgētai in favour of exēgētai.136
If guides were lacking, there was always the chance that a less informed but
appreciative onlooker could meet one of greater expertise through chance
encounter, such as we see in Petronius (Satyricon 88–9), which, while a fictional
Page 29 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
And when some woman will inquire about the names of the kings,
About what places, what mountains, what waters are carried in the
procession,
Answer everything, and not just the things someone asks.
And the things you don’t know pretend you know well.
This one is the Euphrates, a reed bound to its forehead.
The one who has the blue lock of hair hanging down is the Tigris.
Make these Armenians; this one is Persian, descended from Danaë.
That one is a city in the valleys of the Achaemenids.
That one and that one generals; and be sure to mention what their
names are;
Give the true ones if you can, if not, make up something suitable.
It is worth noting that at times even the most educated Roman confronted
serious gaps as regards the cultural memory of their own city, gaps no guide
could fill. We consequently find conflicting traditions or lack of knowledge
concerning local artefacts and monuments.140 For example the Lapis Niger,
while thought by many to be Romulus tomb, was by an alternative tradition
thought to be that of Faustulus, killed during the civil strife between Romulus
and Remus supporters, or even the tomb of Hostius Hostilius, killed during the
Sabine war.141 Similarly, Plutarch, discussing a statue of a woman near the
Forum notes confusion over its identity (Mor. 250F): is it of Cloelia or Valeria?
Ovid could also cite varying traditions concerning a statue of Anna Perenna
(Fast. 3.601–74), but the diverse traditions surrounding its identification and
significance were numerous according to the poet.142 Holliday also notes that
there was confusion too on such monuments as the tombs of the Horatii, the
Tigillum Sororium, the statue of Horatius Cocles, the column of Minucius, and
the Busta Gallica.143 Finally, Wiseman has discussed a variant tradition
Page 30 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
concerning a monument near the Circus under white paving stones called ‘The
Pyre of the Nine Tribunes’. Did it commemorate
If Roman visual culture was about identity, power, and its reinforcement, then
access to its language was vital. Inscriptions, individuals with local knowledge,
or simply more literate passers-by, all likely served to assist the general viewer
in (p.121) reading visual culture’s less accessible ‘passages’. Iconography
would be expected to be clear and pointed in order to speak as explicitly as
possible to the viewer: hence, the caduceus for Mercury, the crow for Corvus.
Access, however, even to what may appear the most obvious subject, should not
always be assumed, even for a literate viewer. The understanding of visual media
in Rome will have required a communal effort, not always, but certainly on some
occasions, in which certain viewers will have likely acted as an intermediary
between the viewer and the object. He or she will have become a part-time
facilitator in the preservation of memory and the creation of traditions around
particular objects.
Page 31 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
virtus or pietas) for the good of the community. At the same time it almost goes
without saying that, inasmuch as there are as many potential views as there are
viewers, the possibility for subversive interpretations and resistant readings was
ever present. It is with the specific use of the material that reflected these and
similar ideologies that the remainder of this study will concern itself (p.122) .
Notes:
(1) For response and meaning as something contingent see pp. 3–4.
(2) To cite but a sampling, see R. B. Bandinelli, ‘Arte Plebea’, DialArch 1 (1967),
7–19; A. Vasaly, Representation: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory
(Berkeley 1993); J. Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer. The Transformation of Art
from the Pagan to the Christian World (Cambridge 1995); J. Elsner, (ed.), Art and
Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge 1996); Elsner, ‘Image and Ritual: Reflections
on the Graeco-Roman Appreciation of Art’, CQ 46 (1996), 515–31; H. I. Flower,
Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (Oxford 1996); P. J.
Holliday, ‘Roman Triumphal Painting: Its Function, Development, and
Reception’, ArtB 79 (1997), 130–47; P. Zanker, ‘In Search of the Roman Viewer’,
in D. Buitron-Oliver (ed.), The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in
Greece and Rome, Studies in the History of Art Vol. 49 (Washington DC 1997),
179–92; J. R. Clarke, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans: Visual Representations
and Non-Elite Viewers in Italy, 100 B.C.–A.D. 315 (Berkeley 2003); T. Hölscher,
The Language of Images in Roman Art (Cambridge 2004); J. Elsner, Roman Eyes.
Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and Text (Princeton 2007).
(3) See Hölscher, Language of lmages (n. 2), 9 n. 14; also see p. 7: ‘We can no
longer approach works of art exclusively from the standpoint of production, as
the expressions of artists or patrons, but we must also examine them as forms of
communication—that is, as a factor in the collective life of a society’.
Page 32 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
(7) See A. K. Bowman and G. Woolf, (eds.), Literacy and Power in the Ancient
World (Cambridge 1994), 7, who also note that the restriction of writing and
texts to an empowered elite was able ‘to impose an “authorized” reading’.
(9) See e.g. Petronius, Satyricon 126 where he compares a girl’s smile with
Praxiteles’ Diana. For the reverse metaphor of a read (or spoken) text as a
monument see e.g. Cic. Fam. 5.12.1; Horace, Carmina 3.30.1; Livy, Praefatio 10;
Tac. Agr. 2.1. For discussion see T. P. Wiseman, ‘Monuments and the Roman
Annalists’, in I. S. Moxon, J. D. Smart, and A. J. Woodman (eds.), Past
Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing (Cambridge 1986),
87–100, esp. 88; see M. K. Jaeger, Livy’s Written Rome (Ann Arbor 1997), 15–29
and A. Feldherr, Spectacle and Society in Livy’s History (Berkeley 1998), 1–50 for
this phenomenon in Livy; also see Thomas, Monumentality (n. 4), 5–6, 168–70 for
the connection between monuments and memory and the Roman conception of
the word monumentum.
(10) See Clarke, Art … Ordinary Romans (n. 2), 7–9 for a theoretical discussion of
elite versus non-elite viewers; also see R. M. Van Dyke and S. E. Alcock, (eds.),
Archaeologies of Memory (Oxford 2003), 8 for discussion concerning the
‘restrictive’ meaning of objects among social groups; see Thomas,
Monumentality (n. 4), 229–30 for discussion of elite versus non-elite responses to
architecture, specifically in Lucian, De Domo.
(11) See Clarke, Art … Ordinary Romans (n. 2), 4–7 for a good discussion of this
distinction; also see N. Slater, ‘“Against Interpretation”: Petronius and Art
Criticism’, Ramus, 16 (1987), 166 for the various traditions of art criticism in
antiquity; cf. J. J. Pollitt, The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History, and
Terminology (New Haven and London 1974), 11.
(12) See J. Elsner, Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph (Oxford 1998), 244
citing inter alios Philostratus Maior, Imagines 1 proem 1; Philostratus Minor,
Imagines proem 3; for an excellent general discussion of connoisseurship with
emphasis on Pausanias and Lucian see Elsner, Roman Eyes (n. 2), 49–66.
(13) There are two versions of this story, one in Pliny, HN 35.85–6, one in Plut.
Mor. 472A, who makes it not Alexander but Megabyzus.
Page 33 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
(15) Pliny, HN 35.128; for the theory of colour in Greek and Roman art see J.
Gage, Colour and Culture: Practice and Meaning from Antiquity to Abstraction
(London 1993), 14; see W. D. Coulson, ‘The Nature of Pliny’s Remarks on
Euphranor’, CJ 67 (1972), 323–6 for Euphranor’s place in the history of ancient
artists.
(16) See Pliny, HN 35.77; Plut. Aem. 6.8–9; for its loss of favour see Pliny, HN
35.20; for discussion see P. J. Holliday, The Origins of Roman Historical
Commemoration in the Visual Arts (Cambridge 2002), 20; E.S. Gruen, Culture
and Identity in Republican Rome (Ithaca 1992), 132.
(18) Petronius, Satyricon 46; Suet. Ner. 52; S.H.A. Hadr. 16.10; cf. 14.8. Also see
Aur. Vict. Caes. 14.6; cf. S.H.A. Ant. Pius 4.9 for Aurelius’ interest; for painting as
an instructional tool see N. Bryson, ‘Philostratus and the Imaginary Museum’, in
S. Goldhill and R. Osborn (eds.), Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture
(Cambridge 1994), 255.
(19) See A. Leen, ‘Cicero and the Rhetoric of Art’, AJP 112 (1991), 231, who notes
that Cicero contradicts his professed public ignorance of art through his evident
knowledge of individual artefacts in the Verrines and who notes that G.
Showerman (‘Cicero’s Appreciation of Greek Art’, AJP 25 (1904), 306–14) takes
at face value Cicero’s professed ignorance; see also p. 57 n. 94.
(20) For a good brief discussion of the history and reception of Philostratus’
Imagines, esp. concerning the authenticity of the collection, see Bryson,
‘Philostratus’ (n. 18), 257; Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 2), 21–48. For
the possibility of the collection’s thematic arrangement see K. Lehmann, ‘The
Imagines of the Elder Philostratus’, ArtB 23 (1941), 16–44; cf. Bryson,
‘Philostratus’ (n. 18), 262–3. For general discussion see e.g. M. Conan, ‘The
Imagines of Philostratus’, Word and Image, 3 (1987), 162–71; O. Schönberger,
‘Die “Bilder” des Philostratus’, in G. Boehm and H. Pfotenhauer (eds.),
Beschreibungskunst-Kunstbeschreibung: Ekphrasis von der antiker bis zur
Gegenwart (Munich 1995), 157–73; J. Elsner, ‘Making Myth Visual: The Horae of
Philostratus and the Dance of the Text’, MDAI(R) 207 (2000), 253–76.
(21) For the De Finibus in the context of place description see Vasaly,
Representation (n. 2), 28–32; C. Edwards, Writing Rome. Textual Approaches to
the City (Cambridge 1996), 28–30. For Cicero’s discussion in its greater context
of Roman attitudes towards Greece in general see S. E. Alcock, Archaeologies of
the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments, and Memories (Cambridge 2002), 66–8.
Page 34 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
also see Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 2), 125–55 on identity and place in
Pausanias; A. J. B. Wace ‘The Greeks and Romans as Archaeologists’, Bulletin de
la Société Royale d’Archéologie d’Alexandrie, 38 (1949), 21–35 points out that
this interest in cultural significance and even preservation did not lead to
excavation and applied archaeology; also see D. E. Strong, Roman Museums
(London 1994), 6.
(23) See Vasaly, Representation (n. 2), 15–17 for discussion; see e.g. 36–8, 99–
100, on Cicero’s appeal to the statue of Jupiter Stator in his temple during his
orations against Catiline.
(25) Something that constitutes the subject of several surveys. See F. Yates, The
Art of Memory (London 1966), 2–12 on Cicero’s mnemonic techniques in the De
Or. and in the Rhetorica ad Herennium; also see D. Favro,‘Reading the Augustan
City’, in P. J. Holliday (ed.), Narrative and Event in Ancient Art (Cambridge
1993), 232–4, with discussion of Rhetorica ad Herennium 3.16–24; cf. D. Favro,
The Urban Image of Augustan Rome (Cambridge 1996), 5–11; Alcock,
Archaeologies (n. 21), 21–3.
(26) See Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 11.2.17–22; for discussion see Yates, Art of
Memory (n. 25), 2–3; J. Onians, ‘Quintilian and the Idea of Roman Art’, in M.
Henig (ed.), Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire
(Oxford 1990), 4–8, and Classical Art and the Cultures of Greece and Rome (New
Haven 1999), 178, 193–9; also see Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 2), 77–
80 for his discussion of memory and the house in Quintilian.
(27) Holliday, Origins (n. 16), 130–1 observes that Cic. De Or. 2.357, Horace, Ars
Poetica 180–2, and Val. Max. 5.4.ext.1 all remark on visual media’s potential for
assisting memory.
(28) Cf. Fin. 5.6; see Edwards, Writing Rome (n. 21), 17–18 for discussion; see
Van Dyke and Alcock, Archaeologies of Memory (n. 10), 5–6 for discussion of
memory and the experience of place.
(29) Leg. 2.4; see Edwards, Writing Rome (n. 21), 18 for discussion; cf. Vasaly,
Representation (n. 2), 33, who notes that ‘Cicero’s emotional attachment to
places that spoke to him of his own history and identity reflects the deeper
connections of Romans to places in Rome of communal symbolic significance’.
(30) See Leen, ‘Cicero and the Rhetoric of Art’ (n. 19), 232 for discussion.
(31) For a fine theoretical discussion of how memory is constructed and shared
within a given social order see P. Connerton, How Societies Remember
(Cambridge 1989), 3.
Page 35 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
(32) Mor. 381D–F; for discussion of allegory in ancient visual culture see M. L.
Thompson, ‘The Monumental and Literary Evidence for Programmatic Painting
in Antiquity’, Marsyas, 9 (1960–1), 36–7; Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 2),
10, who notes that various modes of interpretation—allegorical, literal, symbolic,
and deconstructionist—existed side by side. For a basic study of Plutarch’s
response to images see C. Clerc, ‘Plutarche et la culte des images’, Revue de
l’histoire des religions, 70 (1914), 107–24.
(33) Lucian, De Domo 6 and 21; for discussion see Elsner, Imperial Rome (n. 12),
181.
(34) For the tortoise see Plut. Mor. 142D; for the frogs 399F; for the rooster
400C. Various explanations were proposed for the latter two: the palm’s frogs
possibly indicated spring’s arrival, while Apollo’s rooster conceivably symbolized
the dawn and Apollo’s role as the sun god.
(35) See Holliday, Origins (n. 16), 112; Holliday, ‘Roman Triumphal Painting’ (n.
2), 136–7; see I. Östenberg, Staging the World: Spoils, Captives, and
Representation in the Roman Triumphal Procession (Oxford 2009), 199–212 for
an excellent discussion of the pitfalls of assuming allegorical as opposed to
literal interpretation in the artistic record, based on a discussion of the depiction
of cities.
(36) See e.g. Ovid who implies that Diana was depicted a particular way by
painters: ‘Such are the legs of Diana portrayed, girded up/when she pursues
powerful beasts, herself more powerful’, Am. 3.2.30–1; see Elsner, Roman Eyes
(n. 2), 248–9 for a brief but interesting discussion on the diverse modes of
representation of various deities and the significance of such variation.
(37) See J. Rüpke, Religion of the Romans. Translated and edited by R. Gordon
(Cambridge and Malden Mass. 2007), 12.
(38) For a detailed discussion concerning links between the theme of a work and
ekphrasis see J. A. Heffernan, Museum of Words: The Poetics of Ekphrasis from
Homer to Ashbery (Chicago 1993), 10–46 with particular focus on the
connections between Achilles’ shield and the Iliad as a whole, and its inter-
textual relationship with Vergil’s Aeneid; see esp. 22–36; also see R. Thomas,
‘Vergil’s Ekphrastic Centrepieces’, HSCP 87 (1983), 175–84 for a related
discussion.
Page 36 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
Traditions: The History of Art Collecting and its Linked Phenomena Wherever
These Have Appeared (New York 1982), 201–2; cf. V. Andó, Luciano critico d’arte
(Palermo 1975), 80–7 esp. 82 n. 319 for a detailed list.
(41) On the ancient theoretical view of art, especially relating to specific artists
and styles see Hölscher, Languages of Images (n. 2), 92–8; Elsner, Roman Eyes
(n. 2), 51–8. Cf. S. Settis, ‘Did the Ancients Have an Antiquity? The Idea of
Renaissance in the History of Classical Art’, in A. Brown (ed.), Language and
Images of Renaissance Italy (Oxford 1995), 44–6 on the development and nature
of ‘art histor/ in antiquity. On the meaning of maiestas, pondus, verum, and
pulchritudo see Hölscher, Language of Images (n. 2), 95–8; cf. Elsner, Imperial
Rome (n. 12), 244. For style as a conveyor of meaning see A. Kuttner, ‘Some New
Grounds for Narrative: Marcus Antonius’ Base (the Ara Domitii Ahenobarbi) and
Republican Biographies’, in P. J. Holliday (ed.), Narrative and Event in Ancient
Art (Cambridge 1993), 213.
(42) See Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 2), 15–16.
(43) See Hölscher, Language of Images (n. 2), 10–21, esp. 14–15, who discusses
the temporal collapsing in Roman visual culture of the diverse styles, Classical
and Hellenistic, and how they coexist simultaneously. For the ‘Classical’ as a
basis for ‘the standard’ of artistic criticism see ibid., 119. Such categorization by
nature made the work rare or ‘Classical’; see Alsop, Rare Art Traditions (n. 40),
73–4, 201, who notes that the ‘cut-off’ period for the Romans was the fourth
century, and that, despite the canonization of the Classical, Apelles and Lysippus
represented the peak; also see Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 2), 15–16
for a related discussion.
(46) G. W. Stocking, (ed.), Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material
Culture, History of Anthropology, 3 (Madison Wis. 1985), 6.
Page 37 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
dedicated at Comum, Ep. 3.6; Elsner, Roman Eyes (n. 2), xv notes in general the
capacity of objects to demarcate space as sacred.
(49) See in general C. Duncan, ‘Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship’, in I.
Karp and S. D. Lavine (eds.), Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of
Museum Display (Washington DC 1991), 90–2, and ‘The Art Museum as Ritual’,
in J. C. Berlo and R. B. Phillips (eds.), ‘The Problematics of Collecting and
Display, Part 1’, ArtB 77 (1995), 6–24, esp. 11 for the ritualistic nature of the
contemporary museum visit.
(50) J. Elsner, ‘Image and Ritual’ (n. 2), 531; for a more detailed discussion see J.
Elsner, ‘Between Mimesis and Divine Power: Visuality in the Graeco-Roman
World’, in R. S. Nelson (ed.), Visuality Before and Beyond the Renaissance
(Cambridge 2000), 60–3; for the visual experience of the viewer in a sacred
context see Elsner, Roman Eyes (n. 2), 13–26.
(52) HN 36.27. See S. Carey, ‘The Problems of Totality: Collecting Greek Art,
Wonders, and Luxury in Pliny the Elder’s Natural History’, JHC 12.1 (2000), 4 for
discussion of the Pliny passage.
(53) Only an indication because we cannot be certain whether the object of scorn
is his bad verse, the noise he makes, or both.
(55) See Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 2), 16–17; cf. Elsner, Roman Eyes
(n. 2), 1–11; for realism in Petronius see F. M. Jones, ‘Realism in Petronius’, in H.
Hoffman (ed.), Groningen Colloquia on the Novel, 4 (1991), 105–20.
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
(58) See Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 2) 17–18 for discussion; Elsner’s
intent in the first section of his study (15–124) is in fact to reconsider Pliny’s
view of naturalism through a direct examination of the artistic record.
(59) Stewart, Statues in Roman Society (n. 48), 97–8 notes rightly that naturalism
applied frequently to the portrait, ‘but not more broadly with the portrait statue
since the body type is often idealized and heroic.
(60) See Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 2), 1–13 for the problems of
‘naturalism’ versus abstraction and viewer response to both.
(61) Translation from the Loeb edition by F. G. Babbitt; cf. Plut. Mor. 346F–347A.
The passage looks back to the beginning of Aristotle, Poetica 1448b1.
(62) Pliny, HN 35.155–6. For discussion of realism in Pliny see J. Isager, Pliny on
Art and Society: The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art (London 1991),
136–40, who notes Pliny’s demand for similitudo; see esp. 137; S. Carey, Pliny’s
Catalogue of Culture: Art and Empire in the Natural History (Oxford 2003), 105–
11. On the question of art occupying a liminal space between art and life see W.
Steiner, The Colors of Rhetoric: Problems in the Relation between Modern
Literature and Painting (Chicago 1982), 5–10.
(63) See e.g. HN 35.23; cf. HN 35.88; see Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n.
2), 17–18; on realism’s relationship to deception in antiquity see Elsner, Roman
Eyes (n. 2), 124–8, 191–2, 196–9; also see Slater, ‘“Against Interpretation”’ (n.
11), 167.
(65) Cited in Lactantius, Divinae institutiones 1.22.13. For the significance of the
verb credunt here as reflecting realism and Lucilius’ debt to Hellenistic
ekphrases see A. Laird, ‘Ut figura poesis: Writing Art and the Art of Writing
Augustan Poetry’, in J. Elsner (ed.), Art and Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge
1996), 80.
Page 39 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
both traditional and current tastes, was something that, by the nature of its
deception, was itself a reflection of decadence.
(67) HN 34.59; see Gordon, ‘The Real and the Imaginary’ (n. 57), 10, who notes
that ‘citations of this kind could be almost indefinitely multiplied’, citing other
passages where ancient authors remark the realism or living quality of statuary.
Cf. e.g. Propertius 2.31.8; Pliny, HN 34.79, 36.13.
(68) Seneca the Elder, Controversiae 10.5; see H. Morales, ‘The Torturer’s
Apprentice: Parrhasius and the Limits of Art’, in J. Elsner (ed.), Art and Text in
Roman Culture (Cambridge 1996), 182–209 for discussion.
(69) For Lucian and realism see Andó, Luciano critico d’arte (n. 40), 75–80, cf.
61–75; for realism in Philostratus see Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 2),
21–39, esp. 28–39.
(70) Cf. Cic. De Or. 3.98 where he also remarks the inherent attraction of the
unpolished and obsolete (horrido obsoletoque) style despite the colourful nature
of contemporary works; on Cicero’s general notions concerning painting and
sculpture and the language he uses to describe the arts in general see M.-L.
Teyssier, ‘Cicéron et les arts plastiques, peinture et sculpture’, in R. Chevallier
(ed.), Présence de Cicéron (Paris 1984), 67–76.
(71) For the larger historical and cultural context of Vitruvius criticism see
Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 2), 49–58, 63–4; Onians, Classical Art (n.
26), 219–24.
(72) Beyond those who clearly appreciated and commissioned such ‘abstract or
‘fantastic’ works, Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 2), 63 cites the orator
Papirius Fabianus, for whom all art was illusion.
(75) Ibid., 248 notes that the Portico of Metellus appears to have been the first
building in Rome designed specifically to show a ‘profane’ work of art (Lysippus’
Alexander group); that may or may not be true in a strict legal sense, but, if we
take our lead from Cicero and others, there was no such thing as a purely
profane image, see p. 108.
Page 40 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
(77) Pliny, HN 35.25; he also tells us that paintings were commonly displayed in
the Forum, though he indicates that by his day the practice had ended.
(78) The sentiment also finds a place in Diogenes Laertius 6.72 who remarks that
Diogenes the Cynic attacked popular honours awarded to men of noble birth; see
Thomas, Monumentality (n. 4), 71 for discussion.
(79) Pliny, Ep. 7.29, 8.6 with particular scorn saved for the honours bestowed by
senatorial decree, which included fifteen million sesterces and the praetor’s
insignia; for Verginius’ life and career see R. Syme, Roman Papers Vol. VII
(Oxford 1991), 512–20.
(82) H. I. Flower, Ancestor Masks (n. 2), and H. I. Flower, The Art of Forgetting.
Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture (Chapel Hill 2006).
(83) See Pliny, HN 35.4; Dio Chrysostomus, Orationes 31 esp. 31.155, 43, 47–53,
71, 99, 105–6, 112, 155; see D. Kinney, ‘Spolia, Damnatio, and Renovatio
Memoriae’, MAAR 42 (1997), 135 for discussion; cf. Isager, Pliny on Art and
Society (n. 62), 115–16; it was not illegal, however, as Kinney notes, to replace
such heads except possibly in cases of the princeps (noting Tac. Ann. 1.74),
though the case Tacitus relates in this instance was dismissed.
(85) On the sanctity of cult images, with specific focus on Cicero as a source, see
M. Miles, Art as Plunder. The Ancient Origins of Debate about Cultural Property
(Cambridge 2008), 171–3; for imagines in a funerary context see F. Dupont, ‘Les
morts et la mémoire: Le masque funèbre’, in F. Hinard (ed.), La mort, les morts
et l’au-delà dans le monde romain (Caen 1987), 167–72; Flower, Ancestor Masks
(n. 2); cf. J. Bodel, ‘Death on Display: Looking at Roman Funerals’, in B.
Bergmann and C. Kondoleon (eds.), The Art of Ancient Spectacle (New Haven
1999), 259–81 for a related discussion.
(86) See e.g. Polybius 6.53; Sallust, Bellum Iugurthinum 4; Tac. Agr. 46; also see
Pliny, HN 35.6–8 for the imagines and their place in the Roman house and the
discussion by Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture (n. 62), 139–41 for their
function as conservators of memory. For their role in stimulating the young to
acts of virtus see Flower, Ancestor Masks (n. 2), 13–14; for their role at public
Page 41 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
funerals see 91–127; also see Gruen, Culture and Identity (n. 16), 152–6; A.
Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution (Cambridge 2008), 219.
(87) See Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture (n. 62), 151–6 for discussion; also see
Onians, Classical Art (n. 26), 168–70.
(89) Such as the funerals of the great which could be heavily attended; see Tac.
Ann. 1.8 for the crowds at Augustus funeral and the concern for ‘crowd control ,
with the memory of Caesar’s funeral looming. The case was similar for grandees
in the republic, as in the case of Clodius’ riotous funeral in January of 52; see
Asconius, Commentary on Cicero Pro Milone 32–3; Cass. Dio 40.48–9.
(90) In this sense it represented the sort of intersection that V. Zolberg, ‘“An Elite
Experience for Everyone”: Art Museums, the Public, and Cultural Literacy’ in D.
J. Sherman and I. Rogoff (eds.), Museum Culture. Histories, Discourses,
Spectacles (Minneapolis 1994), 49–65 examines, whereby elite culture intersects
with a non-elite public.
(91) See Val. Max. 8.15.2; this despite Scipio’s eschewing of such honours; see
Gruen, Culture and Identity (n. 16), 121–2 for discussion.
(92) Verr. 2.2.158; Syracuse was not alone: Tauromenium, Tyndaris, and Leontini
also tore down Verres statues (Verr. 2.2.160); for discussion see Miles, Art as
Plunder (n. 85), 184–5.
(93) Out of his collection of diverse imagines, the poet Silius Italicus gave Vergil’s
particular attention (Pliny, Ep. 3.7.8); cf. Seneca the Younger, Epistulae 7.64.9–
10, who noted the incitamenta animi that imagines could arouse; see Stewart,
Statues in Roman Society (n. 48), 256 for discussion.
(94) See Pliny, Ep. 1.17 for Titinius Capito’s admiration of Brutus and Cassius;
Tac. Ann. 16.7 for C. Cassius Longinus’ fatal admiration of them; Ann. 3.76 for
their notable absence at the funeral in AD 22 of Junia Tertulla, Cassius’ widow;
for discussion see Gregory, ‘“Powerful Images”’ (n. 22), 92.
(95) For discussion see D. Freedberg, The Power of Images: Studies in the
History and Theory of Response (Chicago 1989), 82–98, who notes that in
numerous cultures the act of consecration renders the image divine and ‘makes
the image work’; also see Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 2), 88–97 on
viewing and the sacred. For the tensions between the animate and inanimate
Page 42 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
nature of divine iconography see Gordon, ‘The Real and the Imaginary (n. 57), 8–
10; for a good discussion of the ‘living’ and miraculous nature of statuary,
especially cult statuary, see Rüpke, Religion of the Romans (n. 37), 73–4.
(96) For Phidias’ Zeus see Pausanias 5.11.9; Plut. Aem. 28.5; Dio Chrysostomus,
Orationes 12.52–3; for discussion see Isager, Pliny on Art and Society (n. 62),
152; Gruen, Culture and Identity (n. 16), 246; Nasrallah, Christian Response (n.
56), 230–2.
(97) Plotinus, Enneades 5.8.1 (On Intelligible Beauty); cf. e.g. Aelius Aristides,
Sacred Discourses 3.47; Artemidorus of Daldis, Oneirocritica 2.39; see Elsner,
Imperial Rome (n. 12), 205 for discussion.
(98) Nasrallah, Christian Response (n. 56), 121; also see Gordon, ‘The Real and
the Imaginary’ (n. 57) for a good discussion on the ‘divine’nature of images; see
Elsner, Roman Eyes (n. 2), 11, 22–6; see esp. 228–35 for discussion specifically
on the power of the statue of Artemis of Ephesus.
(99) Augustine, De civitate Dei 8.23; cf. p. 174 on the statue of Caecilia or
Tanaquil from which metal shavings were taken.
(100) See D. Feeney, Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts, and
Beliefs (Cambridge 1998), 76–114.
(101) Ann. 3.36; the statues were, however, of Caesars, hence divine in nature, as
opposed to statues simply of orators or magistrates; conversely, up until now
accusers were still unsuccessful in any prosecution against those who had, in
any way, profaned a statue of the Divine Augustus; see Tac. Ann. 1.73; F. R. D.
Goodyear, The Annals of Tacitus. Volume II (Annals 1.55–81 and Annales 2)
(Cambridge 1981), 153–7 for discussion. For a good succinct example and
discussion of the divine nature of the imperial image see Elsner, Art and the
Roman Viewer (n. 2), 170; for statuary and asylum see Elsner, Roman Eyes (n. 2),
11–12.
(102) On the visible presence of the gods and their role in social and legal life,
see Elsner’s excellent discussion about Artemis of Ephesus in Achilles Tatius’
Leucippe and Clitophon (Roman Eyes (n. 2), 234–5).
(103) Fin. 2.115; on the Romans’ abiding admiration for Phidias and Polyclitus in
particular see Mart. 9.24; cf. 10.89 on Polyclitus’ Juno which the poet says would
elicit Phidias’ envy and would have won Paris’ judgement on Ida.
(104) Mor. 18A–B. It was with this in mind that Plutarch asserts that the subject
per se does not commend the painting, but the virtuosity in imitating the action
depicted; for discussion of Timomachus’ Medea see Isager, Pliny on Art and
Society (n. 62), 120; the various copies in Campania show her seated or
standing, and the question arises concerning which (if any) faithfully represents
Page 43 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
(105) Mor. 674A; see Holliday, Origins (n. 16), xix; cf. 18 for a good discussion of
this passage.
(108) Also see e.g. Lucretius 2.1–6; Vergil, Aeneid 1.202–6; cf. Homer, Odyssey
12.212.
(110) Pliny, HN 34.62; see Stewart, Statues in Roman Society (n. 48), 142 for
discussion in the context of artwork as public property; on the Apoxyomenos see
N. Cambi, ‘The Athlete Cleaning a Strigil’, in M. Michelucci (ed.), Apoxyomenos.
The Athlete of Croatia (Milan 2006), 20–33.
Page 44 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
(111) For a detailed discussion see J. Elsner and A. Sharrock ‘Ovid’s Mimesis and
the Myth of the Real: Ovid’s Pygmalion as Viewer’, Ramus, 20 (1991), 149–82;
Elsner, Roman Eyes (n. 2), 113–31; for a general discussion that encompasses a
history of arousal by images (including a brief analysis of the episode of
Pygmalion) see Freedberg, Power of Images (n. 95), 317–44; for a good general
discussion of the Cnidian Venus and viewer response see Nasrallah, Christian
Response (n. 56), 250–68. For general discussion concerning naturalism and the
erotic see J. Elsner, ‘Naturalism and the Erotics of the Gaze: Intimations of
Narcissus’, in N. B. Kampen (ed.), Sexuality in Ancient Art (Cambridge 1996),
247–61; ‘Between Mimesis and Divine Power: Visuality in the Graeco-Roman
World’, in R. S. Nelson (ed.), Visuality Before and Beyond the Renaissance
(Cambridge 2000), 45, 48–52; Roman Eyes (n. 2), 1–11.
(112) The incident is also mentioned in a comedy by Alexis called A Picture, and
an unknown work by the comedian Philemon; see CAF 2.312, 2.521. For Adaeus
see Athenaeus 5.210b.
(113) Cf. Pliny, HN 36.20; see too Lucian, Amores 13–17; for an excellent
extended discussion see N. Salomon, ‘Making a World of Difference: Gender,
Asymmetry and the Greek Nude’, in A. O. Koloski-Ostrow and C. L. Lyons (eds.),
Naked Truths: Women, Sexuality, and Gender in Classical Art and Archaeology
(London 1997), 197–219.
(114) See pp. 70–1 for discussion of Tiberius’ erotic taste in art. For imperial
erotic proclivities see C. Vout, Power and Eroticism in Imperial Rome (Cambridge
2007), passim, but esp. 52–112 concerning the erotic allure of Antinoös,
Hadrian’s lover.
(115) For a similar effect on the consumer in the modern museum see S.
Greenblatt, ‘Resonance and Wonder’, in I. Karp and S. D. Lavine (eds.),
Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display (Washington DC
1991), 49.
(116) Elsner, Roman Eyes (n. 2), 188–96. For the larger relationship to the
Satyricon of Encolpius as viewer see Slater, ‘“Against Interpretation”’ (n. 11),
passim.
Page 45 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
(118) See Elsner, ‘Seductions of Art’ (n. 66), 30–4, who notes that Petronius’
depiction of Encolpius’ experience is not only subversive of the assumptions we
find in Pliny, but ‘reverses, satirises and parodies the whole structure of erotic
attachment which comes from romance [such as Daphnis and Chloe, or Leucippe
and Clitophon] by its constant theme of homoerotic rather than heterosexual
love’. On Encolpius’ psychological state as a precondition for how he views the
paintings see Elsner, Roman Eyes (n. 2), 184–93. For the psychological aspects of
the projection of viewer onto viewed see F. Baekeland, ‘Psychological Aspects of
Art Collecting’, Psychiatry, 44 (1981), 52; cf. Slater, ‘“Against Interpretation”’ (n.
11), 169, who, concerning Encolpius in the pinacotheca, remarks that ‘The
experience of the mirabilis seems to be one of identification, a feeling of
involvement in the scenes represented .
(119) For a discussion of the Lucian passage see Elsner and Sharrock, ‘Ovid’s
Mimesis’ (n. 111), 156–8; Elsner, Roman Eyes (n. 2), 117–20; for Lucian’s
discussion of artworks in general see S. Maffei, Luciano di Samosata: Descrizioni
di Opere d’Arte (Turin 1994); for a discussion on the erotically charged sculpture
itself and the reactions it famously evoked see A. Stewart, Art, Desire, and the
Body in Ancient Greece (Cambridge 1997), 97–106.
(120) And on the part of private collectors especially; see Baekeland, ‘Aspects of
Art’ (n. 118), 51, who observes that ‘many collectors like to fondle or stroke the
objects they own or to look at them over and over from every angle, both up
close and at a distance’. Also see J. Clifford, ‘Objects and Selves—an Afterward’,
in G. Stocking (ed.), Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material
Culture, History of Anthropology, 3 (Madison Wis. 1985), 239, who notes that ‘a
“proper” relation with objects (rule-governed possession) presupposes a
“savage” or deviant relation (idolatry or erotic fixation)’.
(121) Favro, Urban Image (n. 25), 231 notes that images acted as a text all could
access, learning about Roman politics ‘not only from speeches and graffiti, but
also from artwork, buildings, and places’. For the language of architecture and
its ability to communicate with a wide audience see above, n. 4.
(123) For discussion see J. Bodel, ‘Trimalchio’s Underworld’, in J. Tatum (ed.), The
Search for the Ancient Novel (Baltimore 1993), 237–59. Straight chronological
narrative in Roman visual media is not to be assumed however; see V. Huet,
‘Stories One Might Tell of Roman Art: Reading Trajan’s Column and the Tiberius
Cup’, in J. Elsner (ed.), Art and Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge 1996), 9–31,
esp. 16 for discussion of the lack of ‘narrative flow’ in Trajan’s Column.
(124) For a good discussion on the relationship between image and text see Z.
Newby and R. Leader-Newby (eds.), Art and Inscription in the Ancient World
(Cambridge 2007), 1–16, esp. 12–14.
Page 46 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
(127) As with other inscriptions, some were used as sources by Roman historians,
such as Valerius Maximus, who mined Augustus’ inscription for an anecdote
about King Tullius (3.4.3); cf. Pliny for his use of an inscription under Scipio
Aemilianus’ statue in Augustus’ forum (HN 22.13). For ancient historians’ use of
inscriptions see J. Bodel, ‘Epigraphy and the Ancient Historians’, in J. Bodel (ed.),
Epigraphic Evidence. Ancient History from Inscriptions (London 2001), 1–56,
esp. 41–5. Wiseman, ‘Monuments’ (n. 9), 90 notes the lack of reliability of such
inscriptions (particularly of the honorific sort) citing Cic. Att. 6.1.17 (who noted
specifically the misleading nature of the inscriptions of Q. Metellus Scipio on his
maiores’ statues) and Livy 4.16.3–4, 8.40.4.
(128) Cf. e.g. Pliny, HN 35.115: at the Temple of Juno at Ardea the painter
inscribed verses on his paintings.
(129) For the modern triumph of text over object in contemporary museum
displays see B. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, ‘Objects of Ethnography’, in I. Karp and S.
D. Lavine (eds.), Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display
(Washington DC 1991), 394.
(130) For the legitimization of power through public texts and inscription see A.
K. Bowman and G. Woolf (eds.), Literacy and Power in the Ancient World
(Cambridge 1994) 6–8; see R. Miles, ‘Communicating Culture, Identity and
Power’, in J. Huskinson (ed.), Experiencing Rome. Culture, Identity, and Power in
the Roman Empire (London 2000), 35 for a related discussion concerning the
conferring of legitimacy and power through titles.
(131) See B. Bergmann, ‘A Painted Garland: Weaving Words and Images in the
House of the Epigrams in Pompeii’, in Z. Newby and R. Leader-Newby (eds.), Art
and Inscription in the Ancient World (Cambridge 2007), 60–101.
(132) See Bowman and Woolf, Literacy and Power (n. 130), 8: ‘Monumental texts
may exercise power through their location in space and the way they look. A
particular layout might be associated with a particular political system’.
(133) For a general discussion of the problems in ancient literacy and our
understanding of graphocentric literacy see Bowman and Woolf, Literacy and
Page 47 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
Power (n. 130), 1–16; they argue for a wider literacy than previously assumed,
although they omit discussion of visual literacy per se.
(134) See Strong, ‘Roman Museums ’ (n. 73), 260 for discussion.
(135) Pliny, HN 36.32; see Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 73), 260 for discussion,
where he also notes that ‘a good story usually increased the value’ of an
artefact, citing Juvenal 6.156–7; Statius, Silvae 4.6.59–88 (on a statue of
Hercules belonging first to Alexander, then to Hannibal, and finally to Sulla).
(136) For periēgētai in Pausanias see C. P. Jones, ‘Pausanias and His Guides’, in S.
E. Alcock, J. F. Cherry, and J. Elsner (eds.), Pausanias. Travel and Memory in
Ancient Greece (Oxford 2001), 33–9.
(137) See Elsner, ‘Seductions of Art’ (n. 66), 35 for discussion of the passage; for
its subversive nature see esp. 36–7; also see Elsner, Roman Eyes (n. 2), 188–96
for an excellent treatment of the place of Eumolpus in the context of Roman
viewing.
(138) Holliday, ‘Roman Triumphal Painting’ (n. 2), 146 notes (addressing
specifically tituli during triumphal processions) that, given the limitations of
written communication in the context of public communication in antiquity, the
literate elite would have assisted in reading such inscriptions.
(139) Holliday, ‘Roman Triumphal Painting’ (n. 2), 146; also see Stewart, Social
History of Roman Art (n. 56), 123–5, who grapples with the problem of the level
of political understanding for the ‘ordinary viewer.
(140) See Holliday, Origins (n. 2), 203 for discussion; for a good theoretical
discussion about ancient gaps in historical memory, the new interpretations that
arose as a result, and their larger social significance, see R. Bradley, ‘The
Translation of Time’, in R. M. Van Dyke and S. E. Alcock (eds.), Archaeologies of
Memory (Oxford 2003), 221–27.
(141) See Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.87.2, 3.1.2; Festus 184L; Pseudo-Acro’s scholia
to Horace’s Epodes 16.13 citing Varro.
(142) For the cult of Anna Perenna see T. P. Wiseman, ‘The Cult Site of Anna
Perenna: Documentation, Visualization, Imagination’, in L. Haselberger and J.
Humphrey (eds.), Imagining Ancient Rome: Documentation–Visualization–
Imagination, JRA Supplement 61 (Portsmouth RI 2006), 51–61.
(144) See Wiseman, ‘Monuments’ (n. 9), 88–9 for discussion who notes ‘We
cannot simply assume that accurate knowledge of the true nature of such
monuments survived till the beginning of the Roman historiographical tradition’.
Page 48 of 49
Viewing, Appreciating, Understanding
For the ancient citations see Val. Max. 6.3.2; Festus 180L; Cass. Dio 5.22.1 =
Zonoras 7. 17.
(145) See Holliday, Origins (n. 2), 203, who notes that by the end of the republic
the Roman elite cast its achievements in Hellenistic style ‘increasing the power
of the imagery for an international audience’.
Page 49 of 49
Displaying Domination
Displaying Domination
Spoils, War Commemoratives, and Competition
Steven H. Rutledge
DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199573233.003.0004
Keywords: ancient Rome, cultural objects, artefacts, conquest, Roman society, imperial domination
Hasdrubal’s shield, Mithridates’ gem studded war chariot, and the statue of
Victory presented by the Syracusans in 216 BC, were but a few of the cultural
objects within the city that celebrated an aggressive militarism and the
attendant domination of others that became a hallmark of Roman cultural
identity. Such material objects were used to form and diffuse a collective
memory and ideology within the Roman elite and beyond; they were also a
means by which social reality was created and reinforced, transmitting Roman
values and interests. The face of the city reflected in particular the military and
diplomatic power of the state and the elite, and was also a place where their
politically competitive ethos was expressed in visual terms. All of this has been a
subject of general theoretical interest for some time.1 Holliday’s study on visual
culture, for example, has explored how certain elite activities, such as sacrifice,
presiding at games and festivals, or other civic occasions, were all
commemorated by the Roman nobility and deemed worthy of such remembrance
as an ‘additional means by which the Roman elite attempted to construct social
Page 1 of 37
Displaying Domination
Amongst Rome’s small ruling clique there was fierce rivalry in an effort to win as
much political clout as possible, often through success in warfare. Consequently,
what was frequently deemed worthy of remembrance was the violent
appropriation of power by the aristocracy based on armed conquest. The result
was a material culture in which objects for display abounded that were directly
connected with warfare: these included shields, war standards, chariots, as well
as paintings, statuary, and other visual media, commemorating military
campaigns. When not celebrating overtly violent domination, the hegemony that
Rome grew to enjoy both as an indirect and direct result of conquest, was
recalled through a variety of historical memorabilia scattered throughout the
city recalling political patronage and a variety of beneficia. None of these objects
was politically neutral. As concerns the elite, the political structure in which
they lived, as Holliday notes, was ‘a compelling impetus for the development of
the arts of self-promotion’.3 The result was at times the contentious use of visual
media, as the city became a vast political pamphlet in which cultural artefacts
became a part of the argument over claims to political power and prestige.
Spoils
The power and authority of the senatorial class, and later the imperial house,
depended in no small part on success in warfare. In an honour society such as
Rome where one’s political survival also depended in part on one’s prowess in
battle, it was all important to publicly exhibit reminders of that success. To
possess the materiel of the enemy was to possess his power, and to augment (p.
125) one’s own.4 It meant stripping the enemy naked of any physical or divine
protection, and in turn to dress, to adorn, to secure one’s self and the city. Such
display was a means of transforming violence experienced on the field of battle
into the realm of the aesthetic, a transformation explored in a brief study by
Hölscher.5 Display of artefacts commemorating battle allowed Romans to gaze,
to appropriate by making an object previously owned by another their own, to
render aesthetic by transforming cultural objects not meant specifically for
display into works of art, or into a part of the city’s visual narrative. Such
exhibition also reaffirmed and approved Roman identity by virtue of the
underlying values such display implied. At the same time, the sacred context in
which captured material was sometimes displayed reaffirmed Roman values of
pietas and confirmed the superiority of Rome’s deities and religiosity, values
that, even if the elite did not themselves always hold without question (as vividly
Page 2 of 37
Displaying Domination
Spoils taken directly from enemy dead have pride of place in Rome’s earliest
historical record. This begins from the outset with the first king, Romulus, and
the spolia opima, initially dedicated in the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius—Rome’s
first temple, dedicated to Jupiter ‘who smites’ (or ‘carries out on a funeral
pyre’).6 The tradition of the spolia is well-known but a brief review is instructive:
according to tradition Romulus dedicated the spoils he took from King Acron of
Caenina after he slew him in battle. Only men who had slain an enemy king in
hand-to-hand combat were allowed to dedicate the spolia opima, and this
happened only two more times in Roman history after Romulus, when A.
Cornelius Cossus killed Lars Tolumnius, king of Veii in 428 BC, and when M.
Claudius Marcellus killed Viridomarus, king of the Insubres (in Gaul) in 222 BC.
The last of these, Marcellus (according to Plut. Marc. 6–8) reportedly dedicated
the armour (of gold and silver) by cutting a giant oak, fashioning it in the shape
of a tropaeum, hanging the armour on it, and carrying it in triumph.7 While the
tradition of the (p.126)
Page 3 of 37
Displaying Domination
houses in a similar manner. Pliny (HN 35.6–7) tells us that the houses of the
great had spoils fastened to them as a part of their décor—especially on the
outside—and that it was not permitted, even for a new buyer, to take them down;
as a result ‘houses celebrated eternal triumphs’ (triumphabantque … aeternae
domus).10 The houses of Q. Lutatius Catulus and Pompey the Great were famous
in this regard.
From an early date such arms included the shields of the defeated, or those
commissioned by a triumphator with portraits, and became a common means to
display one’s military success and valour. Livy for one relates that, after a battle
with the Samnites in 309 BC in which the dictator L. Papirius Cursor triumphed,
Papirius used the shields of the vanquished, considered remarkable for their
gold inlay, to decorate the Forum (Livy does not state whether this was a
permanent or temporary display, though likely the latter).11 Such spoils could be
remarkable both for their appearance and by virtue of the enemy from whom it
was taken. Thus L. Marcius, who defeated Hasdrubal in 212 BC in Spain,
reportedly displayed in his triumph a silver shield weighing 137 pounds with a
portrait of the defeated Carthaginian general on it (Livy 25.39.12–17), possibly
resembling the sort of image we find on the clipeus situated on a base between
two trophies (see fig. 4.2); the shield likely belonged to the general himself.12 It
is almost certainly the same shield that hung in the Capitoline until the fire of 83
BC (and known as the Marcian shield).13 Examples of how these might have
been exhibited are attested in the cubiculum of the villa at Boscoreale, where a
captured shield is depicted as hung on the exterior of a residence (see fig. 4.3).14
The arms would have been available, therefore, for any passers-by to view (and
such artefacts will have possibly displayed inscriptions as to their origin as well).
(p.128)
Page 4 of 37
Displaying Domination
(p.129)
Page 5 of 37
Displaying Domination
Page 6 of 37
Displaying Domination
monuments (see fig. 4.4).19 It may have been these or different columns
according to Servius (who says they were set up in honour of Augustus and
Agrippa) that were adorned with rostra from Augustus’ Egyptian campaign that
Domitian subsequently moved from the Forum or Palatine to the Capitoline (In
Georgica 3.29). This was different from the Augustan rostrum, also decorated
with rostra from Actium, next to which stood an archaic statue of Hercules in a
tunic—Augustus’ placement of the rostrum next to the statue will have had the
conveniently added effect of simultaneously reminding Romans of Augustus’
toils in achieving such conquests and of his defeat of Marc Antony (Pliny, HN
34.93).20 As was the case with the Gallic torques, that the rostra were in the
political heart of the city was (p.131)
Page 7 of 37
Displaying Domination
ship to Apollo.23 It has (p.132) been conjectured that Perseus’ ship was kept in
the navalia, presumably a large series of sheds near the Tiber.24
Captured enemy standards are also a relatively well-attested item for display, a
tradition in place from at least the middle republic on (see previously p. 129).26
Cassius Dio (55.10.3–4) and Suetonius (Aug. 29.2) both tell us that Augustus
intended that any who held triumphal honours dedicate their sceptre and crown
(and other triumphal tokens, presumably in the form of spolia) in the Temple of
Mars Ultor in his new forum. Standards captured from the enemy were also
dedicated there, something he himself did when he set up the Roman standards
lost at Carrhae in 53 BC (which he had retrieved in 20 BC), although prior to the
completion of his new forum in 2 BC they were displayed in the Temple of Mars
Ultor on the Capitoline, a dedication celebrated on his coinage (see fig. 4.5).27
Standards were also deposited which had been recovered from the Dalmatians
in the Second Dalmatian War (which started in 34 BC, App. Ill. 28) in the Portico
of Octavia. Suetonius in the same passage cited above reports that, up until the
time of Vespasian, the Temple of Mars Ultor was the repository of all triumphal
tokens taken by victorious generals in accordance with Augustus’ injunction. (p.
133)
Page 8 of 37
Displaying Domination
Page 9 of 37
Displaying Domination
feet).32 Years later when Nero returned from Greece and entered the city in
triumph he drove the same chariot Augustus had used in his own triple triumph
(Suet. Ner. 25.1). While uncertain as to the chariot’s location, the Capitoline or
the Temple of Mars Ultor are likely candidates for its residence. And,
considering the wording of our sources, it is entirely likely that it was a part of
the triumphator’s right to dedicate his chariot to Jupiter. That literal vehicle of
triumph was perhaps the most powerful symbol of domination, and deposition on
the Capitoline would be quite fitting. The values instilled into and imposed upon
such objects, their aspirational nature, as it were, is attested by Nero’s desire to
drive Augustus’ own chariot, and by the symbolic power of placing Caesar’s (p.
135) chariot facing Jupiter. Finally, taken on purely symbolic grounds, the
acquisition and display of such regal chariots as that of Mithridates or the king
of the Goths creates a twofold triumph in a sense, of triumphator over
triumphator.
In the period of the principate, display of enemy spoils was not merely limited to
the foreign or the exotic. The domination of domestic foes, thwarted from within,
was equally celebrated when the occasional assassination or conspiracy gone
awry motivated emperors to set up vows for their salvation. Cassius Dio
(59.22.7) and Suetonius (Calig. 24.3) report that Caligula dedicated three
daggers in the Temple of Mars Ultor when the conspiracy of Cn. Lentulus
Gaetulicus (aided by Aemilius Lepidus) was foiled in AD 39. Thirty years later
during the civil wars of 69, Vitellius celebrated his defeat of his rival Otho in a
similar fashion by sending the dagger with which Otho had committed suicide to
the Temple of Mars, though not in Rome but at Colonia Agrippinensis (Suet. Vit.
10.3). Four years before, in the wake of Piso’s conspiracy, Nero dedicated a
dagger taken from one of the conspirators, Flavius Scaevinus, placing it in the
Capitoline and dedicating it to Jupiter the Avenger.33 In addition, Nero rewarded
M. Cocceius Nerva, the future emperor, and Ofonius Tigellinus, his villainous
Praetorian Praefect, with the honour of statues in the palace and triumphal
effigies in the Forum for their part in crushing the conspiracy.34 The three
instances in which the daggers were set on public view looked back to the
republic, in which control of enemy spoils equalled a symbolic possession of
their power, but was also now uniquely a province of the principes, who since
the time of Augustus publicly celebrated the ferocious vengeance exacted from
their opponents both foreign and domestic.
Commemoratives
Such display of spoils needs to be distinguished from commemorative statues,
monuments, and a diverse array of objects and material that did not consist of
spoils of the vanquished, but rather of memorials set up specifically to recall
deeds of valour or benefactions bestowed on the city and its people.
Commemoration of this sort stretched back to Rome’s deep past, since we hear
that somewhere along the triumphal route stood a statue of Hercules so archaic
that the mythical king Evander was thought to have dedicated it (Pliny, HN
Page 10 of 37
Displaying Domination
(p.137) Success in one’s office could earn one the honour of a statue as well. T.
Seius’ aedileship (345 BC) was particularly memorable for the practical
accomplishment of supplying the public grain at a discounted price; his statue
was therefore erected on both the Palatine and Capitoline (Pliny, HN 18.16). The
honour was not without precedent. L. Minucius Augurinus (who managed to
convict Spurius Maelius), when tribune of the plebs an eleventh time (456 BC),
reduced the price of grain for a period of twenty days, and the people in return
voted him a statue that stood on the Porta Trigemina (Pliny, HN 18.15). Both
cases are remarkable as instances of commemoration of the aristocracy as
benefactors of those who stood outside the Roman power structure, or on its
margins. Such commemoratives served as reminders of the protective power of
the elite, reaffirming their own sense of worth, both for themselves and their
dependents.
Statuary such as Corvus’ will have been ubiquitous in Rome, whether in front of
the Temple of Castor and Pollux, with its commemorative equestrian statue of Q.
Marcius Tremulus (for his victory over the Hernici in 306 BC, Livy 9.43.22), or
the statue on the Capitoline of M. Aemilius Lepidus, dedicated after he had
saved the life of a fellow citizen in battle (which represented him in a boy’s gown
Page 11 of 37
Displaying Domination
with a bulla (a protective pendant worn around the neck to protect young boys))
and which had been set up by senatorial decree (Val. Max. 3.1.1).40 To cite but
one further example, the author of the lives of the two Gallieni (S.H.A. Gall. Duo
19.4) states that a statue of Gallienus’ grandfather had remained, to his day, at
the base of the Palatine at the front of the Via Sacra (between the temples of
Antoninus and Faustina and Vesta near the Arch of Fabius) with an inscription
Gallieno iuniori (‘to Gallienus the Younger’). Such commemorations supposedly
served, in this case, as a historical source for the biographer of the two
Gallieni.41 More importantly however, it will have served as a means for
Gallienus in his capacity as a usurper to legitimize his authority by attesting to a
pedigree through ancestral imagines (as well as written text). A similar situation
may have obtained for two of the short-lived emperors of AD 69. Suetonius
reports that Galba, upon becoming emperor, set up a tablet in the forecourt of
the palace with his family genealogy which traced its roots back to Jupiter on his
father’s side and Pasiphae on his mother’s, while Vitellius’ statue on the rostrum
also may have traced out an illustrious family lineage.42
(p.138) Cultural material of this sort shared an intent similar to the imagines
paraded at Roman funerals, which had the power to exhort to virtus (see pp.
106–7), and were intended to perpetuate the ideology of power and aristocratic
control. Thus Pliny (Ep. 2.7), to cite but one example, praises a triumphal statue
of Vestricius Spurinna (and his son Cottius who died while he was abroad), and
says that such a reward will spur young men (presumably of the right class) to
deeds of valour.43 This is not to imply that the audience for such visual
representations was exclusively elite, far from it. Given the ubiquity of such
imagines it would be wrong to limit the audience that visually ‘read’ them, just
as it would be wrong to assert that a particular image carried a single exclusive
meaning. Such images arguably reflected the collective muscle of Roman
manpower and its deployment through force, something not lost on its Roman
audience regardless of class distinctions.
Displaying Domination
the ‘shielding protection’ of the clipeus’ dedicator and the strength of the victor
in stripping away the enemy’s defense, rendering him vulnerable.
Beginning in the third century BC (and, very likely, before), painting came
increasingly into vogue as a means to advertise one’s achievements. Among the
(p.139)
Displaying Domination
western exterior of the Curia Hostilia a painting was commissioned depicting the
victory of M’. Valerius Messalla over King Hieron and the Carthaginians (Pliny, HN
35.22). It was later part of the Basilica Porcia.53 Much later the emperor Maximinus
displayed paintings in a similar venue outside the senate house that depicted his
campaigns against Germania.54
At the height of the Second Punic War Ti. Sempronius Gracchus chose a rather
atypical subject after his defeat of Hanno near Beneventum in 214 BC. After his
victory, the townspeople welcomed him and laid out meals in the open courts of
(p.141)
Page 14 of 37
Displaying Domination
For those about whose display we are informed, there is something to be said
about the location of these paintings. The Aventine, for example, had close
associations with the plebeian class, which had seceded there en masse during
its agitation against the nobility in the so-called struggle of the orders. Its
various temples pertained to personal health and welfare, or liberation, and
included those dedicated to Liber (Bacchus), Libertas, and Ceres.60 Moreover as
noted, L. Mummius dedicated a number of paintings there after the sack of
Corinth, including Aristides’ Dionysus in the Temple of Ceres. Both deities were
closely associated with the plebs.61
(p.143) The Capitol, where the triumphing general’s victory procession ended
culminating in sacrifice, was an aptly chosen site for dedicating pictorial
commemoratives.62 We hear, for example, that L. Scipio Asiaticus put a picture
in the Capitol of his victory over Antiochus III in Asia in 190 BC (which
reportedly annoyed his brother Africanus since his son was taken prisoner in the
battle).63 Not much later, Aemilius Paullus, a patron of Pacuvius, commissioned
paintings in the Temple of Hercules in the Forum Boarium that likely will have
commemorated an event associated with Aemilius Paullus’ military successes
(Pliny, HN 35.135). In addition, Aemilius also brought the famous painter
Metrodorus of Athens with him to commemorate his victories.64 In the late
republic, according to Appian (Mith. 117), at Pompey’s triumph over
Mithridates, images were carried in the procession of Mithridates fighting, then
defeated, then put to flight:
Even the besieging of Mithridates, and the night when he fled, and the
silence were represented. Finally it was shown how he died, and the
daughters who perished with him were depicted also, and there were
figures of the sons and daughters who died before him, and images of the
barbarian gods decked out in the fashion of their countries.65
Scholars have long assumed that these were paintings, and this may well be the
case, but it has recently been suggested that such images could have actually
been models, or scenes against which actors re-enacted the events.66 The
images, if they were in the nature of scene paintings or statuary, likely found
their way to the Capitoline with some of Mithridates’ other treasures, or were
possibly used to adorn the portico of Pompey’s theatre.
Page 15 of 37
Displaying Domination
Displaying Domination
Page 17 of 37
Displaying Domination
First and foremost among these objects were the diverse treaties of peace or
friendship found throughout the city. Such recorded material was not
inconsequential to the Romans, and it is worth noting that Vespasian, after the
Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus’ destruction by fire in AD 69, meticulously carried
out a recovery project involving the restitution of nearly three thousand tablets
valued for both their historic and aesthetic characteristics (Suet. Vesp. 8.5):
He undertook that three thousand bronze tablets that had perished by fire
at the same time be restored and that copies be sought out from
everywhere possible, the fairest and most ancient instrument of empire on
which were contained almost from the beginning of the city decrees of the
senate and plebs concerning an alliance, treaty, or privilege conceded to
anyone.
The passage indicates that both the beauty of the material and the contents
were notable in their own right; bronze was the preferred, though not the only
medium for preserving public historical records of this sort, and the number of
treaties and pacts set in bronze and other material was so substantial (as the
Suetonius passage indicates) that there is no need for anything more than a few
general words about them here.
The earliest such artefact is attested in the monarchy, when Tarquin made peace
with Gabii. The terms of the treaty were on display in the Temple of Semo
Sancus on a shield of wood covered with the hide of a sacrificial bull with the
peace terms inscribed on it.70 From the time of the republic, one of the earliest
such relics was a column of bronze which stood behind the rostrum in the Forum
inscribed with a treaty made with all the Latins and struck by Spurius Cassius
and (p.148) Postumus Cominius in 493 BC.71 In 340 BC the equestrians of
Page 18 of 37
Displaying Domination
Campania were granted Roman citizenship and a bronze tablet was affixed
(appropriately) to the Temple of Castor and Pollux in memory of the event (Livy
8.11.16); they were given citizenship reportedly because they refused to assist
the Latins against the Romans. Later on, in Polybius’ day, Romans could read the
treaty between Rome and Carthage, an agreement made in the time of Pyrrhus’
invasion (279 BC). It was preserved on bronze tablets next to the Temple of
Jupiter Capitolinus in the quaestors’ treasury (Polybius 3.26.1). And in Caesar’s
time, Josephus says there was a decree on the Capitoline that renewed a treaty
of friendship between the Romans and Jews (commemorating Hyrcanus’
assistance to Caesar in Egypt); the decree noted a gift of a gold shield worth
50,000 gold pieces (AJ 14.146–7). The Romans themselves kept a catalogue of
such treaties on rolls made of linen known as the lentei libri kept in the Temple
of Juno Moneta (Livy 4.7.11–12). These contained not only the various treaties
struck by Roman officials but a list of Roman magistrates on record as well.
Apart from the obvious recording of treaties, among the more common tokens of
friendship and esteem were crowns and statues. In the course of Rome’s history,
the collection of gold crowns offered by various states or individuals, as
Östenberg has recently illustrated, was formidable.72 One of the earliest records
of such a dedication (to cite but one example) is that of the Latins and Hernici
who paid homage to Rome (for ‘good government’ and the ‘restoration of
harmony’) by presenting a gold crown to Jupiter on the Capitol. Livy (3.57.7)
says the crown was small due to the resources of both states at the time (449
BC). Such crowns constituted symbolic recognition of the superiority of Roman
strength and a desire for protection under Rome’s aegis. The dedication of the
Hernici was consequently just the first (as far as we know) of numerous gold
crowns various states dedicated in the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.73 The
crown and its location are both significant. First, the crown itself was not merely
(p.149) the symbol of royal power (Rome acting as the world’s regent), but also
of victory. Deposited in Jupiter’s temple, whose cult on the Capitoline was where
every victory culminated in triumph, such objects stood as a testament to Roman
power and to bringing outsiders within the sphere of that power (and protection)
on both a human and divine level.
Crowns of this sort may have been second only to the statues that recalled
friendship between Rome and other allied states, such as the statue of Victory a
delegation brought from Syracuse in 216 BC.74 The senate put the 220 pound
gold statue, considered a good omen at the time, in the Temple of Jupiter on the
Capitoline (Livy 22.37). Equestrian statues were a particular honour: to cite but
one example, Cassius Dio (70.2.3) says that when King Pharasmanes of Iberia
visited Rome, the emperor Antoninus Pius set up an equestrian statue to him in
the Temple of Bellona. The sincerity of certain dedications were no doubt subject
to some scrutiny, as will have been the case with the gold statues of Verres that
Page 19 of 37
Displaying Domination
the Sicilians had set up to him in Rome in token of friendship, a joint offering of
the Sicilian people, according to the inscription.75
More exotic gifts are recorded from the East. These include a golden vine worth
500 talents that Aristobulus, the ruler of the Jews, gave to Pompey while in
Damascus in 64–63 BC which he deposited in the Temple of Jupiter on the
Capitoline, along with a crown the Egyptians gave to him at the same time worth
4000 gold pieces (Joseph. AJ 14.34–6). In the empire, tokens of amicitia from far
afield appear to have been amassed. Thus, Aurelian (S.H.A. Aurel. 29.1–3) was
said to have deposited a short woolen garment, a gift of the King of Persia that
had come from India and of such purple hue that all others paled in comparison.
Such gifts were not immune from the avaricious grasp of Roman officials with
their voracious appetite for finery. Cicero reports that two sons of King
Antiochus of Syria had brought a beautiful lamp stand to the city adorned with
gems and intended for dedication in the Temple of Jupiter. However, the
reconstruction of the temple after the fire of 83 BC was not yet complete, and
they decided to take the lamp stand back to Syria with them with the promise to
return (p.150) in order to dedicate it at the proper time. According to Cicero,
the corrupt Verres got wind of their intent and appropriated it.76
Cultural property of this stamp, taken in its totality, bore witness to the
numerous alliances and friendships the Roman state formed with outside powers
and hence to its influence and might. The appropriation of material not taken by
force but given in friendship made Roman power a visual reality within the city,
and re-contextualized, say, a simple crown into a comprehensible expression of
Roman imperium. States offered crowns, gold, and purple cloth as tokens of
obsequium to the Roman state and its people. Such gifts and dedications stood
as a visual testament to the desire of others to become a part of the Roman
sphere or as an acknowledgement of its might, and thereby reaffirmed Roman
identity and legitimized Roman power.
Page 20 of 37
Displaying Domination
rubble (Plut. Mor. 559D). Similarly, Plutarch tells us that when Aratus took
Sicyon he destroyed a number of portraits of ‘the tyrants’, and was barely
prevented from destroying a portrait of Aristratus (a contemporary of Phillip II,
Arat. 13). It was the work of Melanthus (who executed it reportedly with Apelles’
assistance) and depicted Aristratus standing next to a chariot of (p.151)
victory. It was saved by the intervention of Neacles (a friend of Aratus), who
tearfully pleaded with him to spare it.78
The political competition over such monuments turned more blatant and more
violent during the late republic. The case of King Bocchus is instructive in this
regard. Bocchus dedicated some statues to Victory on the Capitoline (a base of
which still survives in the Capitoline Museum, see fig. 4.11), and a golden statue
group which depicted his handing over Jugurtha to Sulla, a monument replicated
on Sulla’s signet ring, and on coinage from the period (see fig. 4.12) which
allows us to conjecture the group’s appearance. Marius, stung by the visual
reminder of a victory which he believed rightly his, later tried to remove the
work by force but failed.80 Ultimately it was allowed to stand and Sulla’s
memory left its mark on the city (and he was further honoured with a gilded
equestrian statue, App. B Civ. 1.97). Clearly, Marius and Sulla elicited strong
sentiments in their followers—we need think only of the commission made for
Marius (Plut. Mar. 40.1) by a man named Belaeus who had helped Marius flee
the Sullans at Miturnae; it was a (p.152)
Page 21 of 37
Displaying Domination
Displaying Domination
The violent reaction imagines could elicit, and the political undertones that
permeated such violence continued into the principate. We hear, for example,
that Agrippina the Elder’s imagines and those of her son Nero were paraded (p.
154) around the streets in AD 29 at the height of Sejanus’ persecution of both
mother and son.85 A similar demonstration took place with the imagines of
Nero’s wife, Octavia, in AD 62 during her persecution by Nero.86 When Aemila
Lepida was on trial under Tiberius, a similar spectacle took place when the
woman, besieged by accusers, entered Pompey’s theatre and gestured to the
monumenta et imagines of her ancestors around her, reminding the people of
her illustrious lineage and arousing the mob’s sympathy.87 These are merely a
few of the numerous other examples one could cite, and examined in Gregory’s
study of the use of imagines as symbols around which fierce political passions
could occasionally become inflamed.88
If images could be used as political rallying points, the Romans were also fully
aware that other images, especially pictorial representations, could be used for
similar political ends, such as canvassing for office, arguing court cases,
attacking a political or legal opponent, or the passing of various laws and
legislation—frequently with mixed results. We have already noted the case of L.
Scipio who offended his brother Africanus by displaying a painting of his victory
over Antiochus III because Africanus’ son had been taken prisoner during the
war. Almost half a century later L. Hostilius Mancinus, the first of the
commanders in the Third Punic War to force an entrance into Carthage,
displayed in the Forum a city plan of Carthage with representations of the
attacks on it, all the while standing by the image and describing to the people
the assault on the city and the details of the siege in order to court popularity for
the consular elections (an office he won, for which he reportedly incurred the
enmity of Scipio Aemilianus).89
In the late republic we know that Cato the Younger (Plut. Cat. Min. 43) spoke
against the extension of the command of the first triumvirate and the re-
allotment of provinces; afterwards the mob was incited to violence, and pelted
Pompey’s statues. Nearly a decade later, Appian (B Civ. 2.101) relates the
Page 23 of 37
Displaying Domination
The people… groaned over their domestic ills, especially when they saw
the picture of L. Scipio, the general-in-chief, wounded in the breast by his
own hand, casting himself into the sea, and Petreius committing self-
destruction at the banquet, and Cato torn apart (p.155) by himself like a
wild beast, [while] they applauded at the deaths of Achillas and Pothinus,
and laughed at the flight of Pharnaces.90
One wonders whether Caesar intended such a sympathetic response for his
Roman adversaries, or if it was something unexpected.91 An equally emotional
display is reported when Verres exhibited his loot from Asia and Achaia (Cic.
Verr. 2.1.59–60). There happened to be in Rome at the time delegations from the
cities of both provinces whose members, upon seeing the various images taken
away from their sanctuaries, burst into tears, with some exclaiming that the ruin
of Rome’s friends and allies was at hand, since such things were displayed in the
Forum itself, where once those who had wronged allies were prosecuted.92 The
powerful impact of visual representations when pleading at court did not escape
the notice of Roman jurists. The exploitation of visual images in legal settings
actually had a long history in Rome. Cicero, for example, relates the case of
Aulus Gabinius against Lucullus in 67 BC: Gabinius brought a picture of
Lucullus’ Tusculan villa to attack his luxurious way of life with a view to exciting
the mob to indignation (Cic. Sest. 93). Nearly a century and a half later,
Quintilian tells us that lawyers were still bringing paintings into court to
illustrate the crimes of defendants in order to sway the jurors’ emotions.93
The disgust that the imagines of certain men could elicit abided into the empire.
Pliny the Younger, as noted (p. 104) derided the monument to Claudius’
freedman Pallas, in part because he attributed Pallas’ achievements not to merit
but to fortune (something he found particularly frustrating), and derided the
inscription as ridiculous, indicative only of waste and the rascality of Pallas.
Much later, Ammianus Marcellinus (14.6.8) voices his disapproval of certain men
receiving the honour of a statue, citing an anecdote of Cato the Elder who, when
asked why he did not have one, responded that he preferred to have people
wonder why one who so deservedly merited a statue did not have one, than that
they grumble that one without merit did.94 Intense, even harsh reactions were
expected towards imagines. With this in mind it is remarked as noteworthy that
Octavian was magnanimous in his response to a statue of Brutus that stood in
Mediolanum in which he took no offence (though he initially rebuked the city for
harbouring an adversary, before finally allowing the statue to stay because they
(p.156) had shown fides to a friend even in adversity).95 In the extreme the
reaction could famously effect the destruction of such imagines, and both
Page 24 of 37
Displaying Domination
popular unrest and so-called damnatio memoriae could result in either the
spontaneous or calculated erasure of a man’s presence and memory.96
The relationship between visual culture and political competition was not always
violent however. Triumphal processions and the displays of spoils beforehand in
venues such as the Circus Flaminius arguably constituted among the most
tangible forms of political competition, and translated into enormous prestige
and political clout for the triumphator.97 However the relationship could take
more subtle forms as well, such as the display put on by a young man as aedile,
just starting off on his cursus honorum. Caesar famously gave a display during
his aedileship of the gladiatorial armour and other equipment used in his games;
it will have been on a grand scale, since if we can believe Suetonius (Iul. 10.1),
the display was spread throughout the Comitium, the Forum, its basilicas, and
the Capitoline. Cicero’s friend C. Claudius borrowed Praxiteles’ Eros from Sicily
during his aedileship; as patron of the Messanians, C. Claudius was careful to
restore the statue afterwards, though it was subsequently carted off by Verres
according to Cicero (Verr. 2.4.6).98 In an ironic twist, Verres’ depredations
rendered him a resource as a lender to young, aspiring aediles (Cic. Verr.
2.4.126). Not everyone was so careful to return such statuary as was Claudius.
Domitius Calvinus borrowed statues from Augustus for a temporary show at the
Regia that he had restored, then cheekily refused to return them (Cass. Dio
48.42). Two other contemporaries of Cicero, Murena and Varro, during their
aedileship had some fine frescoes on brick walls in Sparta cut away, sent to
Rome, and displayed in the Comitium because they were of exceptional quality
(Pliny, HN 35.173); again there is no indication of return.
Displaying Domination
Notes:
(1) In the area of classical antiquity, on how art, ritual, and symbol (sometimes in
the form of objects) interact to support the empowered, see N. Hannestad,
Roman Art and Imperial Policy (Aarhus 1986), 9–14; P. Zanker, The Power of
Images in the Age of Augustus. Translated by Alan Shapiro (Ann Arbor 1988); P.
J. Holliday, The Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration in the Visual Arts
(Cambridge 2002); T. Hölscher, The Language of Images in Roman Art
(Cambridge 2004), 47–57. For how objects carry symbolic value and their role in
public competition amongst the elite see R. L. Gordon, ‘The Real and the
Imaginary: Production and Religion in the Graeco-Roman World’, in R. L. Gordon
(ed.), Image and Value in the Graeco-Roman World: Studies in Mithraism and
Religious Art (Brookfield Vt. 1996), 23.
(2) Holliday, Origins (n. 1), 194; cf. P. Connerton, How Societies Remember
(Cambridge 1989), 4, who asserts that knowledge of the past and recollected
knowledge tend to be conveyed by ritual performance, something in a sense true
for the Romans, who relied on mos maiorum. On the ‘construction’ of the Roman
nobilitas (and a definition of the term) through its ethos and mode of life see F.
Goldmann, ‘Nobilitas als Status und Gruppe – Überlegungen zum
Nobilitätsbegriff der römischen Republik’, in J. Spielvogel (ed.), Res publica
reperta. Zur Verfassung und Gesellschaft der römischen Republik und des
frühen Prinzipats (Festschrift Jochen Blecken) (Stuttgart 2002), 45–66, esp. 57;
see 62–6 for the connection between imagines and the creation of the nobility as
a distinct group nobilitas; also see A. Afzelius, ‘Zur Definition der römischen
Nobilität in der Zeit Ciceros’, ClMed 2 (1938), 40–94; ‘Zur Definition der
römischen Nobilität vor der Zeit Ciceros’, ClMed 7 (1945), 150–200. For more
theoretical discussions on the construction of reality by elites, see e.g. the series
of essays in H. A. Millon and L. Nochlin (eds.), Art and Architecture in the
Service of Politics (Cambridge Mass. 1978); D. Castriota, (ed.), Artistic Strategy
and the Rhetoric of Power: Political Uses of Art from Antiquity to the Present
(Carbondale 1986); R. I. Rotberg and T. K. Rabb, (eds.), Art and History. Images
Page 26 of 37
Displaying Domination
and Their Meaning (Cambridge 1988). For a discussion on the social background
to the display of commemoratives that depict ritual see R. M. Van Dyke and S. E.
Alcock, (eds.), Archaeologies of Memory (Oxford 2003), 4; also see A. Feldherr,
Spectacle and Society in Livy’s History (Berkeley 1998), 1–50; cf. S.
MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley 1981); J. Elsner,
Roman Eyes. Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and Text (Princeton 2007), 29–48.
(7) See Plut. Marc. 8; also see Propertius 4.10; Livy 4.32.4,11; Val. Max. 3.2.5;
Silius Italicus 1.133, 3.587, 12.280; Florus 1.20.5; Cass. Dio 54.8.3; Aur. Vict. De
Vir. Ill. 25.1–2; CIL 10.809. For an excellent discussion concerning who had the
right to dedicate the spolia see J. Rich, ‘Augustus and the spolia opima’, Chiron,
26 (1996), 85–127; for a general study of the Roman war trophy and victory
monuments see G. Ch. Picard, Les Trophées romains (Paris 1957); Östenberg,
Staging the World (n. 4), 19–30, esp. 19–20; see Hölscher, ‘Transformation’ (n.
5), 31–3 for the development of the battlefield tropaeum beginning in the late
second century BC.
(8) See H. I. Flower, ‘The Tradition of the spolia opima: M. Claudius Marcellus
and Augustus’, ClAnt 19 (2000), 34–64, who suggests it was something that
occurred at key points in the historical period and that Marcellus was
instrumental in the origin of what became an ‘urban legend’; for a related
discussion see M. Beard, The Roman Triumph (Cambridge Mass. 2007), 293.
(10) Pliny also states that they had paintings of the maiores on the outside of
houses. See J. Isager, Pliny on Art and Society: The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the
History of Art (London 1991), 116 for discussion; for related discussion see S.
Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture: Art and Empire in the Natural History
(Oxford 2003), 149; K. E. Welch, ‘Domi militiaeque: Roman Domestic Aesthetics
Page 27 of 37
Displaying Domination
(11) Livy 9.40.16. The latter because Livy states that it became the custom of the
aediles to decorate the Forum in such a way when carriages with images of the
gods were pulled through it.
(12) See M. Jaeger, Livy’s Written Rome (Ann Arbor 1997), 122–7.
(13) Pliny, HN 35.14. Certain Greek communities had a similar custom; the
Athenians hung Spartan shields captured at Sphacteria in 425 BC on the Stoa
Poikile in their agora; see Pausanias 1.15.4; J. Camp, The Athenian Agora.
Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens (London 1986), 71–2 for discussion.
(15) On the subject of Gallic spoils, esp. gold torques, see Östenberg, Staging the
World (n. 4), 108–11.
(16) It was also reportedly the only thing worn by the Celts in battle, and
therefore represented a symbolic stripping of the enemy, thereby rendering him
vulnerable.
(17) Livy 8.14.12; Florus 1.5.10; see F. Coarelli, Il Foro Romano I: periodo arcaico
(Rome 1983), 39–42, 47 for discussion.
(18) There were other such monuments within the city, including one set up in
the Forum by M. Antonius, who triumphed over the Cilician pirates in 100 BC
with L. Valerius Flaccus, Cic. De Or. 3.10; see Zanker, Power of Images (n. 1),
41–2; W. M. Murray and P. M. Petsas, ‘Octavian’s Campsite Memorial for the
Actian War’, TAPS 79 (1989), 118–19; A. Kuttner, ‘Some New Grounds for
Narrative: Marcus Antonius’ Base (the Ara Domitii Ahenobarbi) and Republican
Biographies’, in P. J. Holliday (ed.), Narrative and Event in Ancient Art
(Cambridge 1993), 206; for discussion of rostra exhibited throughout the city
see Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 4), 54–7.
(20) For the various rostra in the Forum see Pliny, HN 16.8. For toil and Augustan
ideology see p. 242 with n. 64; for Hercules, Augustus, and Antony see pp. 242–
3.
(21) The proverbial and metaphorical governing of ‘the ship of state’ became a
virtual cliché in Roman antiquity; see e.g. Horace, Carmina 1.14.
Page 28 of 37
Displaying Domination
(22) Cf. Livy 45.35.3; for a detailed description of the flag ship of a Greek
monarch and its luxury see Athenaeus 5.207c (a description of Hieron II’s ship).
It was Cn. Octavius who won the naval victory over Perseus, Festus 188L. See P.
Gros, ‘Les premières générations d’architectes héllenistiques à Rome’, in
Mélanges J. Huergon, L’ltalie préromaine et la Rome républimine. Melanges
offers à Jaques Huergon, Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome (Rome 1976),
388 with n. 3 for discussion; for a good general discussion of visual display in
naval triumphs (and for Cn. Octavius) see Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 4),
47–50, esp. 50.
(24) See Livy 42.12, 45.35.3; see Coarelli, Il Campo Marzio (n. 23), 345–60; LTUR
3.339–40.
(25) For a brief discussion of Rome’s Trojan heritage see C. Edwards, Writing
Rome. Textual Approaches to the City (Cambridge 1996), 63–6, who focuses on
Aeneas’ tour of the city; also see pp. 160–5.
(26) For display of enemy standards see Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 4), 38–
41.
(27) Cass. Dio 54.8.3 mentions a temple of Mars Ultor on the Capitoline in which
the standards of captured enemies were also set; see Zanker, Power of Images
(n. 1), 108–9; D. Favro, The Urban Image of Augustan Rome (Cambridge 1996),
88–9; LTUR 3.230–1. See S.H.A. Aurel. 28.5 for a literary description of such
standards (cf. p. 285).
(28) Cass. Dio 51.22.1–3 says the statue was from Tarentum and that ‘the spoils
of Egypt’ were also used to decorate the Temple of Julius Caesar and of Jupiter
Capitolinus as well; he also remarks that despite Cleopatra’s defeat her
splendour was still visibly evident throughout the city (as in her magnificent
pearls that adorned the ears of Venus in the Pantheon, Pliny, HN 9.119–21); at
51.17.6 he further notes that the Romans were enriched after her defeat since
they acquired a great deal of material she herself had looted from sacred sites.
(29) For discussion of the display of enemy chariots see Östenberg, Staging the
World (n. 4), 30–8; cf. 95–6.
Page 29 of 37
Displaying Domination
(32) Cf. Cass. Dio 43.21.2; see M. Gelzer, Caesar. Politician and Statesman
(Cambridge Mass. 1968), 278–9 for discussion; also see C. Nicolet, Space,
Geography and Politics in the Early Roman Empire (Ann Arbor 1991), 39; below
p. 198.
(33) Tac. Ann. 15.74, who also states that Nero subsequently built a temple to
Salus, and a memorial in the temple from which Flavius Scaevinus had taken the
dagger—either from the Temple of Salus or from the Temple of Fortuna, both in
Ferentinum, Tac. Ann. 15.53.
(34) Tac. Ann. 15.72; cf. Ann. 14.12: in the wake of Agrippina the Younger’s
murder in AD 59 the senate celebrated Nero’s ‘deliverance’ from his mother’s
‘plot’ by voting a gold statue of Minerva to stand next to that of the princeps in
the senate.
(35) For the nature and appearance of the triumphal garb worn by Roman
generals and emperors see Beard, The Roman Triumph (n. 8), 225–33.
(36) Livy 2.10.12. Aulus Gellius 4.5.1–5 also notes the statue, though he says it
was moved after being struck by lightning to a more elevated area on the lower
slope of the Capitoline in the northwest part of the Forum.
(38) See Stewart, Statues in Roman Society (n. 37), 8 for statuary’s
commemorative as opposed to aesthetic role; cf. Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of
Culture (n. 10), 139, who notes Pliny’s observation that an imago is intended to
perpetuate the memory of its subject and lauds its ability to do so, citing HN
Page 30 of 37
Displaying Domination
(39) Cf. pp. 116–18. Augustus famously had his own res gestae inscribed before
his mausoleum; before his time Decimus Brutus, a patron of the poet Accius and
notable general of his day, had laudatory verses of the poet adorning the
entrance of one, though possibly several temples in Rome; see Cic. Arch. 27; Val.
Max. 8.14.2.
(42) For Galba see Suet. Galb. 2; cf. Vit. 1.2, 3.1. Such attempts at visual display,
intended to assert legitimacy and authority, will have been all the more urgent in
the civil strife of AD 69.
(43) He also adds that he is happy to have a statue of Cottius at which to look,
stating that it would be a pleasure to contemplate the statue of a young man of
the highest quality. Pliny adds that such statues recall fame and distinction, as
well as form and face.
(44) See H. I. Flower, Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture
(Oxford 1996), 75 for discussion in their larger context as imagines; for the
Temple of Bellona see LTUR 1.190–3.
(45) Though Pliny does imply that these may have had images of those who
actually used the shields, and we cannot be absolutely certain that these do not
rightly constitute enemy spoils as opposed to commemorative objects. See
Isager, Pliny on Art and Society (n. 10), 117 for discussion.
(46) See Zanker, Power of Images (n. 1), 95–7 for discussion; for the religious
significance of the virtues celebrated on the shield in their larger Augustan
context see J. R. Fears, ‘The Cult of the Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology’,
ANRW 2.17.2 (1981), 884–8.
(47) For the development of the genre of Roman triumphal painting see e.g. G.
Zinserling, ‘Studien zu den Historiendarstellungen des römischen Republik’,
Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller Universität Jena, 9 (1960),
403–48; G. A. Mansuelli, ‘Γραϕαὶ καὶ σχήματα τω̑v γϵγοvóτωv (App. Punic. 66)’,
RdA 3 (1979), 45–58; P. J. Holliday, ‘Roman Triumphal Painting: Its Function,
Page 31 of 37
Displaying Domination
(48) See Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 16.3.6; cf. Cic. Tusc. 1.4; Val. Max. 8.14.6, who
notes that Fabius had signed his name to the painting. For discussion see Isager,
Pliny on Art and Society (n. 10), 118; E. S. Gruen, Culture and Identity in
Republican Rome (Ithaca 1992), 92. On the Temple of Salus see LTUR 4.229–30.
(49) See Holliday, Origins (n. 1), 19, 30–1 for discussion of some of the earliest
historical painting citing Festus 228L.
(50) Similarly, the corrupt C. Lucretius Gallus dedicated pictures taken during his
conquest of Greece (Boeotia) in 170 BC in a temple of Aesculapius in Antium
(Livy 43.4.7).
(51) See Gruen, Culture and Identity (n. 48), 90 for discussion.
(52) For Vortumnus see p. 36; for the picture see Festus 228L; for discussion see
Gruen, Culture and Identity (n. 48), 87, 90; Holliday, ‘Roman Triumphal
Painting’ (n. 47), 136; for the temple see LTUR 5.213–14; see above p. 36 n. 17.
(53) Holliday, Origins (n. 1), 198 argues that Messalla’s painting may have
resembled the Alexander mosaic in its composition; cf. Holliday, ‘Roman
Triumphal Painting’ (n. 47), 135; Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 4), 192–3; for
the Curia Hostilia in general see LTUR 1.331–2.
(54) S.H.A. Max. 12.10–11; see Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 4), 195.
(55) See Festus 108L; see Gruen, Culture and Identity (n. 48), 94 for discussion.
(56) For the ideological associations between the painting’s subject and the
Temple of Jupiter Libertas see Holliday, Origins (n. 1), 32, who notes the work’s
innovative subject; for the temple see LTUR 3.144.
(57) App. Pun. 66; see Holliday, Origins (n. 1), 136–7 for discussion.
(59) See Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 4), 194; see 248–9, where the display
of paintings in a processional context is noted as problematic, given the flat two-
dimensional presentation along a parade route.
(60) For the importance of the site to outsiders in our sources see e.g. Livy 1.33,
2.28.1, 3.50–4, 3.67; App. B Civ. 1.26; Plut. C. Gracch. 15.1; Aur. Vict. De Vir.Ill.
21.3; Augustine, De civitate Dei 3.17; later in the empire, as is indicated by
Trajan’s residence there, it became a neighbourhood of the elite; see LTUR
1.147–50. For discussion of the Aventine and its plebeian associations see M.
Torelli, Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs (Ann Arbor 1992), 99
Page 32 of 37
Displaying Domination
noting esp. Liber, Libera, and Ceres; T. J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy
and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 B.C.) (London
1995), 261–3; T. P. Wiseman, Remus. A Roman Myth (Cambridge 1995), 114; B.
Spaeth, The Roman Goddess Ceres (Austin 1996), 92.
(61) For a general discussion of Ceres’ cult see H. Le Bonniec, ‘Le culte de Cérès
à Rome des origines à la fin de la république’. Études et Commentaries 72 (Paris
1958); also see Spaeth, The Roman Goddess Ceres (n. 60), 81–102; M. Beard, J.
North, and S. Price, Religions of Rome, Volume 1: A History (Cambridge 1998),
64–6; for the temple’s location see LTUR 1.260.
(62) See Atilius Fortunatianus’ De Saturnio in Keil, Gramm. Lat. 6, p. 293–4; see
Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 4), 197 for discussion.
(63) See Pliny, HN 35.22; see Gruen, Culture and Identity (n. 48), 105–6;
Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 4), 193 for discussion.
(64) See Holliday, Origins (n. 1), 32, who notes that Hellenism was then having its
heyday in Rome; cf. Holliday, ‘Roman Triumphal Painting’ (n. 47), 142 for
discussion of Metrodorus and of Aemilius’ patronage of artists and literati to
celebrate his triumph.
(67) Pliny, HN 35.108; Plancus served under Caesar in the Gallic and Civil Wars;
he later served under Marc Antony in the East but eventually went over to
Octavian’s side; see Broughton, MRR 3.146.
(68) For display of captives in triumphs see Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 4),
275–9.
(71) See Cic. Balb. 53; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6.95; Livy 2.33.9; see Cornell,
Beginnings of Rome (n. 60), 299–300 for discussion. On the ubiquity of such
bronze inscriptions, see Joseph. AJ 14.188, 14.266 (esp. on the Capitoline); Suet.
Vesp. 8.5.
(73) To cite but a few of the numerous gold crowns—all of varying number and
weight—see Livy 7.38.1–2 (from the Cathaginians’ celebrating the Roman
success against the Falisci in 342 BC); Livy 32.27.1 (presented in 198 BC by
Page 33 of 37
Displaying Domination
King Attalus I of Pergamum); Livy 36.35 (from King Philip V of Macedon after
the defeat of Antiochus in 191 BC); Livy 43.6.5–6 (from the city of Alabanda in
Asia in 170 BC and, in the same year, from the Lampsacans—both had sided with
Rome against Macedon and were hopeful of receipt into Roman amicitia); Livy
44.14.3 (from Pamphylian envoys in celebration of a renewal of amicitia; cf. the
Rhodians who did the same when trying to regain Rome’s friendship after they
had cast their lot with King Perseus of Macedon (Livy 45.25.7)). The tradition of
bestowing crowns as gifts abided into late antiquity. Hence S.H.A. Prob. 15.4
says that Probus requested that the senate deposit golden crowns that various
communities in Gaul had bestowed upon him in the Temple of Jupiter
Capitolinus.
(74) On the cult of Victory and its prominence in the republic see S. Weinstock,
‘Victoria’, RE 2, Reihe 8 (1955), 2501–42; T. Hölscher, Victoria Romana.
Archäologische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Wesensart der römischen
Siegesgöttin (Mainz 1967); J. R. Fears, ‘The Theology of Victory at Rome:
Approaches and Problems’, ANRW 2.17.1 (1981), 736–826; Beard, North, and
Price, Religions of Rome (n. 61), 69.
(75) Cic. Verr. 2.2.114. The Romans were also not averse to perpetuating the
memory of the opposite sort of behaviour in which the basic fides that governed
Roman relations with others had been breached and inimicitia rather than
amicitia commemorated. Hence four statues of envoys, C. Fulcinius, Cloelius
Tullus, Spurius Antius, and L. Roscius, murdered while on embassy to Fidenae in
437 BC, stood on the rostrum in the Forum; see Livy 4.17.1–6.
(76) Cic. Verr. 2.4.60–71; see A. Vasaly, Representation: Images of the World in
Ciceronian Oratory (Berkeley 1993), 114–17 for discussion.
(78) For similar visceral reactions to artwork in the Greek tradition see e.g. Plut.
Mor. 336C–D when Crates the Cynic exclaimed upon seeing a golden statue of
the famed courtesan Phryne at Delphi that it was an akrasias tropaion, ‘a trophy
of intemperance’.
(79) Livy 40.34.4–5; Val. Max. 2.5.1, who adds that it was the first gilded statue
of a living person in Italy. Pietas, as was the case with other abstractions, such
as Felicitas, Concordia, Honos et Virtus and others, were honoured with temples
in particular during the middle republican period, see Fears, ‘Cult of the
Virtues’ (n. 46), esp. 864–9; Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome (n. 61),
62, 69, 90; also see J. Rüpke, Religion of the Romans. Translated and edited by R.
Gordon (Cambridge and Malden Mass. 2007), 55, 78, who notes that such
Page 34 of 37
Displaying Domination
abstractions ‘reflected in their very names the ideals of an élite that both went
to war and performed religious functions’; for pietas as both a personal and
collective value see J. Champeaux, ‘“Pietas”: piété personelle et piété collective à
Rome’, Bulletin de l’Association G. Budé, 48 (1989), 263–79.
(80) See Plut. Mar. 32.2; Sull. 6.1–2; see H. I. Flower, The Art of Forgetting.
Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture (Chapel Hill 2006), 90 for
discussion, who argues rightly that the monument will have been dismantled
after Marius’ and Cinna’s seizure of power in 86 BC; cf. Gregory, ‘“Powerful
Images”’ (n. 77), 93 for the conflict between Sulla and Marius over imagines.
Later, during Caesar’s aedileship in 65 BC (against the opposition of the nobles),
he dedicated a statue of Marius and of Victories with trophies and inscriptions
commemorating Marius’ defeat of the Cimbri; see Velleius Paterculus 2.43.4; see
Gregory, ‘“Powerful Images”’ (n. 77), 90 for discussion. For Sulla’s propaganda
efforts see E. S. Ramage, ‘Sulla’s Propaganda’, Klio, 73 (1991), 93–121.
(81) For Catulus see Val. Max. 6.3.1c; cf. Cic. Cael. 78; Dom. 102, 103, 114; Verr.
2.4.126; Varro, De Re Rustica 3.5.12; LTUR 4.119; for Marius see Cic. De Or.
2.266; cf. Pliny, HN 35.25; Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 6.3.38. Plut. Mar. 23.5
also notes that Q. Lutatius Catulus displayed a bronze bull that was sacred to the
Cimbri as a trophy in his house.
(82) For the whole episode see Cic. Dom. 111–12; see B. Berg, ‘Cicero’s Palatine
Home and Clodius’ Shrine of Liberty: Alternative Emblems of the Republic in
Cicero’s De Domo sua’, in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, 8
(1997), 122–43 for a good discussion of the significance of the incident for
Cicero; for its religious and political context see Beard, North, and Price,
Religions of Rome (n. 61), 114–15; A. Lisdorf, ‘The Conflict over Cicero’s House:
An Analysis of the Ritual Element in Cicero’s De Domo Sua’, Numen, 52 (2005),
445–64; for the cult of Libertas see Fears, ‘Cult of the Virtues’ (n. 46), 869–75.
(83) Plut. Brut. 9.8; cf. Cass. Dio 43.45.3–4, who also notes that Caesar’s statue
had also been added to the group that constituted the seven kings and Brutus.
Also see p. 291 for discussion.
(84) See also Cic. Phil. 2.26; Cass. Dio 43.45.4, 44.12.1; see Gregory, ‘“Powerful
Images”’ (n. 77), 91 for discussion.
(85) Tac. Ann. 5.4; see Gregory, ‘“Powerful Images”’ (n. 77), 90 for discussion.
(86) Tac. Ann. 14.61; see Gregory, ‘“Powerful Images”’ (n. 77), 96 for discussion.
(87) Tac. Ann. 3.23; see A. Rouveret, ‘Tacite et les monuments’, ANRW 2.33.4
(1991), 3091 for discussion.
Page 35 of 37
Displaying Domination
(88) Including e.g. the parading of Galba’s imagines in the wake of Vitellius’
victory and Otho’s suicide at the Ceralia in April 69, Tac. Hist. 2.55; see Gregory,
‘“Powerful Images”’ (n. 77), 90 for discussion; cf. Galba’s use of the imagines of
Nero’s victims when addressing the troops and mounting his revolt in Spain,
Suet. Galb. 10.1; see Gregory, ‘“Powerful Images”’ (n. 77), 89 for discussion.
(89) Pliny, HN 35.23; for discussion see Isager, Pliny on Art and Society (n. 10),
119; Holliday, ‘Roman Triumphal Painting’ (n. 47), 145; Östenberg, Staging the
World (n. 4), 193.
(91) See Gregory, ‘“Powerful Images”’ (n. 77), 94 for discussion of the mob’s
reaction to the images in Caesar’s triumph; cf. Holliday, Origins (n. 1), 145–6;
Edwards, Writing Rome (n. 25), 62; also see Hölscher, ‘Transformation’ (n. 5),
38–9 for audience reaction to the paintings in both of Pompey’s triumphs as well.
(92) See Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 23), 82–94 for a discussion of the Sicilian
reaction to their plundered property; cf. Jaeger, Livy’s Written Rome (n. 12), 127–
30 for a good discussion of cultural objects’ (specifically the spoils Marcellus
took from Syracuse) ability to stimulate variously invidia, miseratio, or
misericordia, citing Livy 26.32.4–5.
(93) Institutio oratoria 6.1.32; see Holliday, Origins (n. 1), 18; for a related
discussion see Holliday, ‘Roman Triumphal Painting’ (n. 47), 145.
(95) See Plut. Comparison of Brutus and Dion, 5. Also see Cass. Dio 53.32.4 for
Augustus’ indulgence towards L. Sestius despite his keeping images of Brutus;
see Gregory, ‘“Powerful Images”’ (n. 77), 92 for discussion.
(96) See e.g. Tac. Hist. 1.36; Suet. Tib. 13.1; Plut. Galb. 26.4; Cass. Dio 63.25; see
Gregory, ‘“Powerful Images”’ (n. 77), 95–7 with n. 64–6 for discussion; for good
general treatments of the subject see E. Varner, Mutilation and Transformation:
Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture (Leiden 2004); Flower, The
Art of Forgetting (n. 80).
(97) As would the various temples in the area of the Circus Flaminius; see e.g.
Pliny, HN 36.26; the area included numerous shrines, such as those to Mars (see
LTUR 3.226–9) and Neptune (see LTUR 3.341–2) in Circo; for the Circus
Flaminius’ relationship to the triumph see Livy 39.5; Plut. Luc. 37.2; for
discussion see E. La Rocca, ‘Sul Circo Flaminio’, ArchLaz 12 (1995), 108–10.
Page 36 of 37
Displaying Domination
Page 37 of 37
Constructing Social Identity
Steven H. Rutledge
DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199573233.003.0005
Keywords: artefacts, cultural materials, Roman values, commemoratives, Roman society, houses
With few exceptions, ancient historians filled their scrolls with accounts of wars,
battles, and triumphs, and it is not surprising that a large proportion of
memorabilia was directly concerned with military and imperial success. There
were however, events, personalities, and sites that were integral to Rome’s
history and identity that were not directly associated with warfare yet demanded
commemoration. Such commemoratives variously reinforced and expressed
particular sets of values in their ideal sense for public consumption. Three
significant categories that encompassed and preserved historical memory stand
out in particular and were concerned with what we might arguably consider
more ‘domestic’ forms of historical commemoration: artefacts that dated to early
in Rome’s history that were reflective of Roman pietas; commemoratives that
Page 1 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
celebrated a variety of roles for women in Roman society and their place in it;
and finally, the Roman house, specifically, houses of men who had had a powerful
influence in shaping Rome’s history. To classify such memorabilia under the
rubric of ‘domestic’ is not to argue that any of these categories were wholly
disassociated from matters military. All three commemorative forms were at
various times and in various ways connected with Rome’s fiercely competitive
elite and its triumphalist ideology. Pompey the Great’s house, for example, was
important in part by virtue of his accomplishments as a successful general,
although numerous houses of the great preserved the memory of kings,
historians, and emperors without direct associations with Roman conquest.
Memorabilia of this sort were vital for the visual record they presented of
Rome’s history and for the expression of what Romans believed were important
qualities for defining oneself as Roman. Cultural relics from Rome’s early
history, for example, stood as a testimony to some of the Roman’s most
(nominally) cherished virtues, most importantly pietas which Romans themselves
felt had a significant role in the military success so important for the power and
identity of Rome’s ruling families. In turn, elite families expressed their power
not merely through war memorabilia as discussed in the previous chapter, but
through their houses, and used them to advertise their benefactions and military
triumphs, as (p.160) well as express their prestige and dignitas.1 Some of those
houses, in turn, became places of historical value in their own right, integral to
Rome’s collective memory and to its cultural patrimony. While the role of women
within the elite was often marginal (at least in the public realm), they
nonetheless played an important role in the life and history of the state so that it
was impossible not to give them recognition. Frequently however, were they to
have any form of acknowledgement, they were forced either to appropriate more
ostensibly ‘masculine’ virtues, or to give a physical, symbolic indication of
submission to or support of Roman power and to represent ideal Roman notions
concerning the role of women.2 Collectively such objects and sites will have
presented a variety of socio-historical narratives which instructed Romans about
their past and about the values that collectively created and transmitted a
uniquely Roman identity.
Constructing Social Identity
(p.162)
Constructing Social Identity
Palladium to the Romans, while Ovid, in passing, claimed its origins were from Troy
(Fast. 6.424). Dionysius of Halicarnassus concurs (Ant. Rom. 1.68–9, 2.66.5), stating
that the Palladium was contained in the Temple of Vesta and acted as a talisman, (p.
163) keeping Rome safe.12 He asserts that it was brought by Aeneas from Troy and
assures his readers that Odysseus and Diomedes had stolen a mere copy, a tale
immortalized in a statue group (part of a series of scenes from the life of Odysseus) at
Tiberius’ villa at Sperlonga (fig. 5.2).13 Dionysius further remarks that the Vestal
Virgins kept other unspecified relics that the uninitiated were prohibited from viewing
(Ant. Rom. 2.66.6). Later on Servius and Silius Italicus both state that the Palladium’s
theft precipitated Troy’s fall, though Silius reports a version in which Diomedes gave
the original Palladium to Aeneas at Lanuvium.14 What is suspicious concerning the
claims of Strabo, Dionysius, and Ovid is that all are writing under Augustus, a time
when the first princeps was working vigorously to create associations between Rome,
his own dynasty (and its claim to power and legitimacy), and Troy. The competing
claims, attributing the Palladium’s origins to Numa, may have taken a backseat under
Augustus who will have had an interest in emphasizing its Trojan origins since he
traced his own ancestry to Aeneas, Anchises, and Venus. Moreover his great uncle,
Julius Caesar, had already seen fit to display Aeneas with the Palladium on his coinage
(see fig. 5.3).
Much later, Procopius gave a corner) was commemorated on the Ara
version of the Palladium’s saga Pacis (dedicated by Augustus in 12 BC),
that resembles Silius’, with and underscores the perennial
Diomedes handing over the importance of these deities, not merely
original to Aeneas at the behest for the survival of individual Roman
of an oracle (De Bello Gothico households, but for the legitimacy of the
5.15.9–14).15 The artefact Roman state. H: 1.55 m. Museum of the
became a centre of dispute later Ara Pacis, Rome.
in the empire. The Byzantines in
the fourth century AD asserted
that the emperor Constantine had dug up the genuine statue while constructing
his forum in Constantinople, and the Palladium and its authenticity briefly
became a focal point of contention between the two cities for ruling auctoritas.16
The Palladium was a cornerstone of Roman power and success. It was
meticulously protected even during fire, and the survival and strength of the city
was believed to depend on it.17 That it was a symbolic football tossed (in legend)
between the Trojans and the Greeks, and later a genuine object of contention
between the Greek East and Latin West is no coincidence or surprise. It was
believed to protect Roman greatness, hence the various claims upon this
important talisman.18 The Penates (p.164)
Page 4 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
(p.165)
Page 5 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
Equally revered was Romulus’ humble residence on the Palatine, the so-called
casa Romuli, the first in a long series of houses resided in by Roman grandees
deemed of sufficient historical significance to merit preservation. Yet there was
some controversy amongst Romans concerning the site of Romulus’ residence,
since an alternative tradition located it on the Capitoline, where a second casa
Romuli was maintained in the area Capitolina.22 Indeed, Vitruvius noted its
archaic appearance since it had a thatched roof as did, according to Vitruvius,
other temples on the arx (2.1.5; for reconstruction of the hut see fig. 5.4). The
alternative tradition is not necessarily a matter of confusion but of ideology. In
our sources Romulus is noted both for his military prowess and for his pietas,
Page 6 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
and the modest house also served to underscore the ancient Roman value of
frugalitas (‘thrift’). To situate his house, therefore, on the Palatine, where
Rome’s political power players always had their residences, and on the
Capitoline, the centre of the state cult and Rome’s religious core, attests to both
the virtus and pietas of Rome’s founder (as does the conservation of the spolia
opima, concerning which see pp. 125–6) and establishes from its inception that
these were qualities desirable in Rome’s leading men.23 Moreover, like a Greek
heroön dedicated to the founder of some colony, the casa Romuli was carefully
tended, and although it burned down several times throughout Rome’s history,
was always rebuilt.24 In the same way, the ficus Ruminalis was always watched
for any signs of change and the wilting of the tree was always considered ill-
omened.25 However the analogy of Romulus’ house as heroön is certainly more
apt for his tomb, which was believed to be located (perhaps not coincidentally)
at yet another political centre, the (p.167)
Page 7 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
always a place dedicated to outsiders, to those who stood beyond the Roman
power structure, and it would not be surprising if such ‘Otherness’ were
reflected in the material culture and topography of the site.
The conflict between Romulus and Remus was the event which founded the city;
that foundation was based on augury, something that was to become a vital
component of the Roman state (as most vividly reflected in Octavius’ adoption of
the name Augustus).28 In terms of cultural artefacts, in addition to the actual
sites of his birth, life, and burial spot, the dead Romulus left little behind except
his lituus, which he used (in marking off templa in the heavens) to take the
auspices when he founded the city, and which was kept in the Curia Saliorum
Palatinorum in a sacrarium.29 The same sources record that the lituus
miraculously survived a fire during the city’s sacking by the Gauls, and Cicero
could give a description of the staff (a crook with a slight curve at the top that
resembled a trumpet and derived its name from just such an instrument). The
preservation of such an object will have attested to Romulus’ pietas, and to his
observance of the proper augural procedures in the establishment of the city,
procedures that subsequently had to be strictly followed before any significant
political or military action took place.
Page 8 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
The pietas of Rome’s ancient kings was given additional proof by various
venerated objects or statues of remarkable antiquity. Hence, Romulus’
successor, Numa, reportedly dedicated a statue of Pythagoras in the Comitium,
which Livy interpreted as indicating a relationship between Pythagorean
mysticism and Numa’s proverbial pietas (Livy 1.18.1–2).37 Subsequently, two
other artefacts dating to Numa’s reign came to light in the second century BC,
Page 9 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
As noted in the introduction, the sacred objects and monuments preserved from
Rome’s past constructed for the Romans visible and tangible reminders of their
pietas. The success and survival of the state both in domestic and military affairs
depended heavily on the proper performance and regulation of religious rituals
and institutions that were invariably in the hands of a few powerful families.
Consequently, the founder in particular must receive the proper show of respect
in order for the city to thrive, and various cultural objects or sites (the casa
Romuli and the ficus Ruminalis) function as indicators of the state’s wellbeing.45
Equally if not more important are the various objects that preserved the memory
of the vital religious institution of augury, always a key to the success of the
ruling elite in warfare and in political life in general, a success that also helped
to ensure their political domination at home through the assertion of their
dignitas and auctoritas. For the most part, the topographical location of the
various sites and objects throughout the city that recalled these characteristics
was equally significant: the competing claims for the house of Romulus on the
Capitoline or Palatine and its religious importance, the location of Naevius’
whetstone or Romulus’ tomb in the Comitium, the ever-present reminder of
Page 10 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
(p.174) The reinforcement of a ‘safe’ and traditional feminine paradigm for the
Romans is found in one of the earliest artefacts preserved in the city, the distaff
and spindle of Gaia Caecilia (also known as Tanaquil), the virtuous wife of
Tarquinius Priscus, preserved in the Temple of Semo Sancus (a deity that was
also an outsider since it was of Sabine origin).52 Caecilia received
commemoration in the same temple with a bronze statue; pilgrims reportedly
removed filings from her girdle as a talisman against illness.53 Pliny, quoting
Page 11 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
Varro, says that the wool on the distaff and spindle (which he asserts was
Tanaquil’s) was preserved at least in Varro’s day, as well as a royal robe woven
by her and worn by King Servius Tullius.54
Three things in particular reported in our sources are striking about the statue.
First, the importance attributed to it and the reason it finds itself in Pliny’s work
(and in the temple) is not that the artefact stands on its own merit as a fine art
object per se; instead its importance derives from its subject, Gaia Caecilia. She
is not an independent entity, but rather stands in her husband’s shadow, and it is
due to Tarquinius’ fame that Caecilia establishes her own reputation. Second, it
is not by virtue of any independent, creative accomplishment in its own right
that earns her a memorial; instead it is the simple fact of obedience, of loyalty to
her husband that is celebrated here. Third, the role of Caecilia as healer is
reflective of a woman’s role as sorceress, witch, or administrator of poison that
we find throughout Roman culture and the literary record, something clearly
indicated by her ability to heal through the very stuff of which her statue is
made. That Caecilia held a distaff will have had the further ideological function
of reinforcing the role of the ideal Roman woman, serving as a reminder of the
proper activity for a Roman matron who stayed at home and made home-spun
cloth. Augustus as a sign of ancient familial virtue reportedly wore such home-
spun cloth (Suet. Aug. 73), and Livy famously reports that when Collatinus and
the sons of Tarquin discovered Lucretia she was spinning wool by lamp-light
(Livy 1.57). Much later, when Domitian started to construct his forum (a project
completed under Nerva), one of the key ideological themes was the virtuous
construct of the ideal Roman woman, reinforced by the myth of Minerva and
Arachne, a myth (p.175)
Page 12 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
Later on a seated statue of Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi, was set up in the
Portico of Metellus.57 Cornelia, from an ancient noble family, the mother of two
sons to whom she famously referred as ‘her jewels’ (Val. Max. 4.4 pr.), will have
very likely been depicted in such a way as to recall her devotion and service to
her family and her children whom she taught to serve the state.58 Her fecundity
and her dedication to her children’s upbringing were well-known, and made her
a good candidate for public commemoration. Caecilia, Cornelia, and Claudia
Quinta—we can only conjecture how such statues might have looked in
appearance; perhaps, at least as concerns Caecilia and Claudia, they were
similar in form to those found in Herculaneum (see fig. 5.8), recently discussed
by Trimble in her study of statue types of women in early imperial Italy. Such
statue types, Trimble notes, were designed to bring to mind ‘exposure and
revelation…by the depiction of modesty and concealment’.59 Trimble further
remarks the tension such a depiction creates between desire and restraint,
between the idealized feminine trait of modesty that also holds out the promise
of fecundity, qualities that the statue, particularly the fine one now in Dresden,
goes a long way towards representing. We can well imagine that the ideology
driving such depictions, if (p.177)
Page 13 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
(p.178)
Page 14 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
Page 15 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
Tarpeia was infamous for the citadel’s betrayal to Titus Tatius, king of the
Sabines, and his men in return for what they wore on their left arms, hoping to
extract their gold rings. Instead she was crushed under the weight of their
shields, which they also bore on their left arms. Her tomb however recalled a
more noble intent than the popular legend told in Livy: her request was not out
of greed, but aimed at disarming the enemy and leaving them vulnerable.63
(p.180) Less ambiguous was the tradition surrounding Cloelia’s encounter with
the Etruscans, by whom she had been captured when they attacked the city
under the leadership of Lars Porsena. Cloelia, thinking of the integrity of her
family, led an escape of captive Roman women from the Etruscan camp and
made her way back by swimming the Tiber. She was honoured with the
remarkable distinction of an equestrian statue at the summit of the Via Sacra
(Livy 2.13.11).64 Livy is right to note the unusual nature of the honour.
Equestrian statues were reserved for men by virtue of their role as warriors in
Roman society, and as such the statue represents the assumption of a masculine
trait by Cloelia—indeed, it is by virtue of that masculine trait and her action in
the course of war that she was deemed worthy of commemoration from the start.
Both Tarpeia’s and Cloelia’s memorials recollect and celebrate their fortitude,
courage, devotion, or resourcefulness in the state’s service. In Cloelia’s case,
moreover, as Stewart has pointed out, the location, ‘at the busiest point,
celeberrimo loco, on the Sacra Via in Rome’ was ‘an image that should put the
young men in their litters to shame’.65 If we accept Stewart’s view then we can
imagine that the desire to outstrip the likes of a Cloelia will have been all the
more imperative for the statue’s male viewers. More than that, however, such
memorials (in which women ‘cross-dress’ and assume masculine traits), as
Kampen has noted, will have destabilized gender categories and provoked
thinking for the Romans about ‘the permeability of boundaries’ that rendered
identity ‘fluid’.66 They held out the possibility that women could ‘hold their own’
in the traditionally male domain of war and set their own lives at risk. Cloelia
and others of her ilk, as Stewart notes, doubtless created a sense of male anxiety
amongst the less battle-hardened men.
Less felicitous was the Tigillum Sororium that commemorated the murder of a
sister by the sole surviving brother of the Horatii, who had slain the Curiatii of
Alba Longa in set combat.67 The sister had dared to weep for one of the Curiatii,
her lover, in her brother’s moment of triumph for which he murdered her. He
expiated his crime by passing under the yoke, a beam that spanned a branch of
the Via Sacra.68 The ‘yoke’, along with the tomb of his sister and two altars, one
on (p.181) one side to Juno Sororia, another on the other to Janus Curiatius,
stood nearby. The monument in this case represents an area of negotiation
between the demands of family and the state, of personal honour set against
personal desire and loss, and of the demands of the dead and the grief due to
them set against celebration and victory. While it ostensibly reminds one of
Horatius’ transgression and punishment, it simultaneously recalls his triumph as
Page 16 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
well, reinforced (coincidentally) by the location of the site on the Via Sacra,
where triumphal processions marched. At the same time, it offers an alternative
narrative to the moment of triumph, since the precondition for military triumph
is tragedy, something the Tigillum Sororium vividly reflects. It thus offers the
possibility of an alternative reading of the dominant paradigm, since it gives a
tragic, as opposed to a purely triumphalist interpretation of armed conflict.
As noted above, however, better attested were artefacts recalling the role of
Roman women in the preservation of the state from both war and plague. The
Temple of Venus Calva (‘the bald’) represents yet another example of a
commemorative that celebrated masculine power and identity at the expense of
the feminine. Concerning the temple’s cult statue, two alternative traditions
survive. The aedes famously housed a marble statue with bronze hair, according
to one version of the story, to honour the Roman women who gave up their hair
during the siege of the Capitoline by the Gauls to make bowstrings and catapult
cords.69 An alternative version of the story, however, maintained that Ancus
Marcius’ wife set up the statue as a thanks offering to Venus for salvation from
an epidemic in which Roman women lost their hair (which was subsequently
restored).
The first version is the more remarkable and interesting one, since in that tale’s
version (to which the majority of our sources adhere), the women were forced to
relinquish a central trait of feminine identity, long hair. In a sense, by so doing
the women took on a male identity and their sacrifice enabled them literally to
arm their men and to become a weapon in the defense of the state. In addition,
while we ought not to press the point too far, it nonetheless bears noting that
baldness was also symbolic of liberation and allows the possibility of a ‘resistant
reading’ of this particular object. Freedmen shaved their heads and became
enfranchised as citizens.70 It is possible, in this sense, to understand baldness as
a sort of liberation and as one of the symbolic (though not actual) fields of the
(p.182) possibilities of empowerment for Roman women. Even if we do not
wish to press this point too far, their assistance to the state holds out the
underlying possibility of empowerment, since to partake of military service
meant the potential for a political voice.
The first version concerning Ancus’ wife naturally implies a very different
reading, since the ‘celebration’ of the women’s cure for baldness offers the
reassurance that this central sexual trait for Roman women had been restored
and that Roman women will remain in their proper sphere. They will not be
liberated from male hegemony but subordinated to it and in their proper place—
hence, the bronze hair noted in our sources, possibly because it was on a marble
statue and will have stood out. A resistant and destabilizing reading of the
statue, or a reassuring one, both were possible depending on the version of the
tale one chose to accept.
Page 17 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
The version of the statue of Venus Calva that attributes it to Ancus Marcius’
wife, however, stands in the context of what must have been numerous
dedications set up by women throughout the city in the wake of ominous signs
and portents. To cite but one example, Livy (21.62.8) says that after portentous
omens in 217 bc a statue of Juno was dedicated by the matronae of Rome on the
Aventine (of bronze), presumably in the Temple of Juno on the Aventine. The
temple itself was subsequently struck by lightning in 207 bc while twenty-seven
virgines were practicing a hymn that was to be sung in order to expiate two
portentous births (that of a hermaphrodite and a newborn who looked like a four
year old child). The priests took this as a sign for married women to collect
contributions from their dowries to make and dedicate a golden bowl to Juno.
When the actual procession of the twenty-seven maidens was finally held, two
cypress statues were also carried in the ceremony and deposited in her temple
(Livy 27.37).71
While the dedications and depositions of material in this case honoured uxorious
virtue and service to the state, these were not the only qualities celebrated in
women: idealized beauty entered into the picture—sometimes literally and with
paradoxical results. Hence Flora, Pompey the Great’s favourite courtesan,
famous for leaving bite marks on his neck, graced the walls of the Temple of
Castor and Pollux. Caecilius Metellus, commissioned to restore the temple,
reportedly had Flora’s portrait painted on account of her remarkable beauty.72
More famously, Caesar had a golden statue of his paramour Cleopatra set up in
the Temple of Venus Genetrix (see pp. 228–9; fig. 5.9). Caesar reportedly put it
next to that of Venus where it stood until Appian’s time (B Civ. 2.102).
(p.183)
Page 18 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
Constructing Social Identity
results in a destabilized reading, since she holds out the potential for resistance
to that ideology even as she is integrated into its visual record, undermining
Roman virtus and frugalitas by enticing the viewer to a desire for eastern luxury
which Romans deemed so subversive.74
Although such artefacts were intended to publicly assert the predominant male
ideology over the feminine, what lurks beneath are varying degrees of tensions
and contradictions. While women in a commemorative context frequently are
coopted into the male sphere, they also offer the potential for resistance to it.
Certainly, monuments such as those commemorating Caecilia’s distaff or Claudia
Quinta are designed to reaffirm ideas on the part of Roman men concerning the
(p.185)
Page 20 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
existence of the house as a famous landmark or entity in its own right indicates
at the core something concerning the esteem in which the powerful were held,
and in which they held themselves. The house was similarly a place for display
and presentation. It was a means to assert one’s power, one’s political
programme, and one’s connection with the people in terms of benefits; houses of
the powerful were consequently viewed as important in their own right.75
We have already noted the decorating of the house with arms and other spoils,
as well as the sort of private collections that the elite would use for their
adornment. In addition, a house might show off an illustrious lineage in its
atrium in the form of ancestral imagines, or contain biographical depictions of
the dominus of the familia, as was the case with Trimalchio in Petronius’
Satyricon (fiction, to be sure, but a real enough scenario). However the house
also functioned as a repository for other cultural artefacts and served to remind
other Romans of the beneficia bestowed on the city and its people by the great
families whose doors were open to the public. Yet it is important to note that the
house represents a somewhat more liminal ambience for display than, for
example, a temple, since it fluctuates between a public and private space.76
Questions of access and display and the tension between the two are not always
easy to ascertain, and access could vary from individual to individual.
Nonetheless, Roman houses—of Romans both living and dead—had a powerful
pull on the (p.187) Roman imagination, and some were duly famous in light of
their owners or the cultural material on display in them.
The roles that Romulus, Publicola, and Cincinnatus variously filled are arguably
mirrored in the action of the great men of the late republic, whose memories and
deeds were also perpetuated, in part, through their homes. We hear, for
example, that Q. Lutatius Catulus, victor along with Marius over the Cimbri, had
a house that could well have been considered a proper public site; Cicero noted
Page 21 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
the spoils that were on display on it, as did a number of other sources.79 Most
famous from this period, however, was the house of Pompey the Great, which
appears to have long held a special place in Roman sentiment if we can believe
Plutarch, who remarks the general distress at Marc Antony’s treatment of the
house—and the company he kept there in comparison to Pompey.80
(p.188) Later the emperor Tiberius occupied it (Suet. Tib. 15.1), though it
survived even into the third century, when it was still known as the domus
rostrata because it was adorned with the beaks of the pirates’ ships Pompey
captured during his campaign against them in 67 BC. Although a source whose
accuracy is often dubious, the Historia Augusta relates that the house was later
owned by the Gordiani (Gord. Tres 2.3, 3.6–8) until it was taken over by the
imperial treasury in the time of Philip the Arab. The same source also relates
that Gordian had an admirable picture of a wild beast hunt executed to adorn
the house which he had presumably given during his aedileship (when he
reportedly gave one spectacle a month paid for out of his own pocket). The
language of the author of the lives of the three Gordians implies that there was
public access to the painting and house, since he states that ‘even now’ (etiam
nunc) the picture showed two hundred stags with antlers in the shape of the
palm of a hand, along with stags from Britain, thirty wild horses, one hundred
wild sheep, ten elk, one hundred Cyprian bulls, three hundred red Moorish
ostriches, thirty wild asses, one hundred and fifty wild boars, two hundred
chamois, and two hundred fallow deer, all killed on the sixth day of the games.
Such detailed commemoration of games was not atypical in antiquity, for
Numerian displayed on the Palatine a painting of a similar nature.81 While the
source is problematic, it nonetheless becomes somewhat more plausible when
set in the larger context of pictorial commemoration of such benefactions that
stretched back to the republic, when, according to Pliny, C. Terentius Lucanus
started the practice of having paintings made of gladiatorial shows and having
them exhibited in public.82 Similarly, among republican aristocrats the house of
Pompey’s rough contemporary, the historian Sallust, survived quite late into
antiquity and was preserved as a site, though it was partially destroyed during
the Gothic sack in AD 410.83 That Procopius deemed it worthy (p.189) of note
is a testament to the power such houses had over the Roman imagination, even
quite late.
Beginning with the empire, the homes and birthplaces of the emperors
sometimes turned into historical sites or shrines in their own right. Suetonius
reports that the first princeps was born in the Ox Heads (Aug. 5), a place in the
district of the Palatine, and that a shrine set up after his death marked the spot;
the house at Nola where Augustus died was made into a shrine as well (Cass.
Dio 56.46.3–4). The house at the Ox Heads was later owned by Gaius Laetorius,
a patrician, and the part of the building in which Augustus was born was
subsequently consecrated by senatorial decree.84 Later, the small and dingy
slum house where the emperor Titus was born was also a site open to the public
Page 22 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
(Suet. Tit. 1). It was the same case for his brother and successor Domitian, who
converted his birthplace, a house on Pomegranate Street, into a temple of the
Flavians (Suet. Dom. 1.1). The house where Trajan lived on the Aventine prior to
his adoption by Nerva may have been a proper site too, since it finds a place in
the catalogue of the fourteen regiones, but that is all we hear of it.85 It is
recalled as the place where he lived on the Aventine (a good neighbourhood
where members of the aristocracy resided) before Nerva adopted him.
Again, while we always need to be dubious of its historical accuracy, the Historia
Augusta presents a reasonably plausible scenario in which the houses of later
emperors became tourist attractions in their own right, at least when set in the
larger historical and social context noted above. Hence Pescennius Niger’s
house was reportedly still visited when his vita was written a century after his
death (S.H.A. Pesc. Nig. 12.4–8), known by the name the Pescenniana and
located in Campo Iovis (whose site is unknown). The house was said to contain a
room with his statue sculpted out of Theban marble, given to him by the
Thebans of Egypt, which was further inscribed with an epigram. The praefects
and magistri officiorum proposed that the attendant verses be erased after his
death, but the emperor Septimius Severus forbade it, stating that he wanted
them to stand as a testament to the valour of the man he had conquered, and
also attesting to his own virtus. We also hear that Tetricus the Younger, one of
the thirty pretenders (S.H.A. Tyr. Trig. 25.4) had a house that was well-known on
the Caelian Hill between two groves and looking towards a temple of Isis. Of the
house the author states it was still pulcherrima, and had a well-known mosaic
depicting the emperor Aurelian bestowing the praetexta and senatorial rank on
the elder and younger Tetricus, in turn receiving from them a sceptre, a garland
crown, and an (p.190) embroidered robe. The two Tetrici invited Aurelian
himself to a banquet when they dedicated the work. The house of the late Roman
emperor Balbinus (S.H.A. Max. 16.1) was also on view in the Carinae (near
where Pompey’s house also stood), still then great and powerful, and owned by
the emperor’s descendants (magna et potens et ab eius familia huc usque
possessa). Nor was Pompey’s family the only one whose memory was still
recalled through the physical existence of their domus in late antiquity. The
house of the Quintilii was still renowned, as we hear from the biographer of the
emperor Tacitus (S.H.A. Tac. 16.2–4) who further notes that Tacitus’ portrait was
on display in the house and depicted him in five different dispositions in a single
panel: in a toga, a military cloak, armour, a Greek chlamys, and in the vestments
of a hunter. One writer of epigram reportedly derided the picture stating: ‘Non
agnosco senem armatum, non chlamydatum…sed agnosco togatum’, ‘I don’t
recognize the old man in arms, nor the one in the chlamys … but I recognize the
one in the toga’.
The powerful emotional place of the house in aristocratic life is further indicated
not only by the survival of such houses, but also by the tradition in the literary
record of the destruction of the houses of those who had attempted to harm the
Page 23 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
Roman state.86 The tradition started from very early on with the alleged
attempted coup by the consul of 486 BC, Spurius Cassius. According to tradition,
Cassius started a programme of land distribution (Livy 2.41.10–11) and was
subsequently accused of aiming for a return of the monarchy.87 In the version
Livy reports, he was executed and his estate confiscated; Livy says that a statue
was made out of the proceeds and dedicated to Ceres (in her temple on the
Aventine according to Pliny who also states that it was the oldest statue of Ceres
in Rome) and inscribed as ‘a gift of the Cassian family’.88 His house was pulled
down, and according to Livy it was the open space in front of the Temple of (p.
191) Tellus. Livy’s story has been considered one that Flower has rightly argued
away as anachronistic in terms of the ‘erasure of memory’, something that
belongs to a later period. In an equally dubious episode, the Romans reportedly
took similar action in the case of Spurius Maelius, who aimed at revolution in
440 BC. Livy (4.16.1) reports that when Maelius’ plot failed he was captured and
executed, his house demolished, and the space kept permanently vacant and
called the Aequimaelium.89 As Flower notes, the Roman explanation may have
simply functioned as an explanation ‘out of whole cloth to explain the
topography of the Aequimaelium’.90 A similar vacant spot was kept on the
Palatine, where Vitruvius Vaccus, a resident of Fundani, had a house. His abode
was flattened after his involvement in hostilities against Rome.91
Constructing Social Identity
the virtues of war and political monopoly by the elite. Houses, in a sense,
became a place both of inclusion and exclusion simultaneously, celebrating the
collective achievement of the state while at the same time reinforcing the
dominant power that wielded exclusive control over the res publica.
Recollecting Romanitas
Cultural objects that commemorated Rome’s pietas, by virtue of their antiquity,
were fundamental not merely to Roman identity and its affirmation, but, as the
case of the Palladium shows, even to the survival of the state. From earliest
times such objects recalled Roman origins and educated Romans about their
ancient patrimony and their divine mission, reflecting a key aspect of Roman
identity and a central basis for Rome’s power. While women often stood outside
the Roman power structure (at least publicly), their role in Rome’s story was too
powerful to ignore completely; yet their history, when told, instructed citizens
about the acceptable or ideal roles women were to play in Roman society, while
simultaneously holding out alternative possible ‘resistant’ narratives, or
integrating them into the sphere of male power, destabilizing the normative
boundaries of Roman society. Yet such narratives were necessary or possible
only because of the supreme dominance of the male elite that found expression
not just through military and religious monuments, but through the very houses
in which they dwelled. Those houses, moreover, became yet another means by
which historical memory was preserved within the city, even until quite late. A
remarkable array of material communicated a particular set of values, and in
turn constructed the collective historical persona of Rome’s people. Taken in
sum, the disparate cultural fragments—of Romulus’ lituus, of Pompey’s house in
the Carinae, of Tanaquil’s distaff and spindle in the Temple of Semo Sancus—
composed the history of the Roman experience and reflected the Roman sense of
self.
Notes:
(1) See p. 64.
(2) The role of women and the representation of their lives in their totality were
naturally not up for consideration in Roman antiquity. For the place of womens’
histories in modern museum theory (and museums in general) see e.g. E.
Carnegie, ‘Trying to Be an Honest Woman: Making Women’s Histories’, in G.
Kavanagh (ed.), Making Histories in Museums (London 1996), 54–65; for the
subject of cultural and ethnic diversity in the same context see N. Merriman and
N. Poovaya-Smith, ‘Making Culturally Diverse Histories’, in G. Kavanagh (ed.),
Making Histories in Museums (London 1996), 176–87.
Page 25 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
(4) For Rome as a ‘sacred landscape’ see H. Cancik, ‘Rome as Sacred Landscape
and the End of Republican Religion in Rome’, Visible Religion: Annual for
Religious Iconography, 4 (1985), 250–65, esp. 253, where he remarks on Rome’s
‘visible religion’ in the form of Roman monuments, cultural objects, and the
vestments and accoutrements for public rituals.
(5) For this temple see Varro, De Lingua Latina 5.54; Livy 45.16.5; Augustus, Res
Gestae 19; Servius, In Aeneidem 3.12; LTUR 4.75–8; on the early introduction of
the Dioscuri and their Greek origins see Beard, North, and Price, Religions of
Rome (n. 3), 12; for the identification of the Penates with the Dioscuri see K.
Galinsky, Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome (Princeton 1969), 154–7.
(6) On the connections between the two cults see G, Radke, ‘Die dei Penates und
Vesta in Rom’, ANRW 2.17.1 (1981), 343–73; Vesta was a deity who was notably
significant for Augustus, who had a shrine to her on the Palatine and from whom
he claimed descent, see Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome (n. 3), 189–
91; for his claim to descent see A. Fraschetti, Roma e il principe (Rome and Bari
1990), 331–60; D. Feeney, The Gods in Epic: Poets and Critics of the Classical
Tradition (Oxford 1991), 205–24.
(7) For discussion of Aeneas’ sacrifice on the Ara Pacis see P. J. Holliday, ‘Time,
History, and Ritual on the Ara Pacis Augustae’, ArtB 72 (1990), 549–51; J. Elsner,
Art and the Roman Viewer. The Transformation of Art from the Pagan to the
Christian World (Cambridge 1995), 194–9; for the connections made by Julius
Caesar with his Trojan ancestry and the mythical Trojan past see A. Erskine,
Troy between Greece and Rome: Local Tradition and Imperial Rome (Oxford
2001), 17–23, 35–6.
(9) See M. Bettini, ‘Ghosts of Exile: Doubles and Nostalgia in Virgil’s Parva Troia
(Aeneid 3.294ff.)’, ClAnt 16.1 (1997), 8–33; for a good discussion of the cult itself
see A. Dubourdieu, Les origines et le développement du culte des Pénates à
Rome. Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome, 118 (Rome 1989).
(10) Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.69; Ov. Fast. 6.419–22; on the Palladium in general
see LTUR 5.128–9; other Trojan relics included Aeneas’ boat, see p. 132.
(11) See Erskine, Troy between Greece and Rome (n. 7), 141–2 on the conflicting
tradition in Strabo.
Page 26 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
(12) Also see Cic. Phil. 11.24; it was kept in the inner sanctum of Vesta’s temple;
Livy 26.27.14; see Silius Italicus 13.79–81 for its protection against the Gauls in
390 BC. See Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome (n. 3), 3, 53–4 for
discussion.
(16) See S. Bassett, The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople (Cambridge
2004), 205–6 for discussion.
(17) For its survival in the fire of 241 BC and its rescue by L. Caecilius Metellus,
the pontifex maximus, see Cic. Scaur. 48; Ov. Fast. 6.436–54.
(18) It—or a copy—may have been on the Palatine by the fourth century, as CIL
10.6441 suggests; for statuary as talisman see C. A. Faraone, Talismans and
Trojan Horses. Guardian Statues in Greek Myth and Ritual (Oxford 1992),
passim.
(19) For discussion see Erskine, Troy between Greece and Rome (n. 7), 15–43;
see 245–53 for the patronage of Ilium under the Caesars.
(20) Varro, De Lingua Latina 5.54; Pliny, HN 15.77; Plut. Rom. 4.1; Festus 332–3L;
Servius, In Aeneidem 8.90; cf. Livy 1.4.5; Ov. Fast. 2.411; also see LTUR 2.249.
(22) See Vergil, Aeneid 8.654; Seneca the Elder, Controversiae 2.1.5. For a
detailed discussion see A. Balland, ‘La Casa Romuli au Palatin et au Capitole’,
RÉL 62 (1984), 57–80, who argues that the conflicting tradition is the product of
Augustan ideology: the house on the Palatine was associated with Romulus qua
founder of the city while the Capitoline residence was the domus regia. For the
confusion also see C. Edwards, Writing Rome. Textual Approaches to the City
(Cambridge 1996), 32–42 with a detailed discussion of the hut in the literary
tradition; cf. P. Pensabene, ‘L’area sud-ouest del Palatino’, in M. Cristofani (ed.),
La grande Roma dei Tarquini (Rome 1990), 86–90; see too E. Thomas,
Monumentality and the Roman Empire. Architecture in the Antonine Age (Oxford
2007), 22, who argues that Augustus’ intention in emphasizing the hut was to
contrast the monumental nature of his building programmes; also see in general
LTUR 1.241–2 for Romulus’ hut on the Palatine and Capitoline.
Page 27 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
(23) For the wide array of associations the hut carried, see Edwards’ discussion
Writing Rome (n. 22) cited above; she also notes that it will have had larger
ideological implications for Roman notions concerning frugalitas, with Seneca
the Elder, Controversiae 1.6.4 noting the dwelling’s humble nature; cf. Livy
5.53.8; Ov. Fast. 3.183–8; Seneca the Younger, Consolatio ad Helviam 9.3.
(24) See e.g. Cass. Dio 48.43.4 for its destruction in 38 BC; it burned again in 12
BC, according to legend, after crows dropped meat freshly plucked from a
sacrificial fire, see Cass. Dio 54.29.8.
(25) See e.g. Tac. Ann. 13.58 in which the tree portended Nero’s murder of his
mother Agrippina.
(26) Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.87.3; cf. 1.85.6; Plut. Rom. 9.4, 11.1; Aur. Vict. OGR
23.2; LTUR 1.241–2.
(27) Varro, De Lingua Latina 5.152; Plut. Rom. 23.3; Festus 496L.
(28) A name linked to the very word augur, as well as augescere; see I. Gradel,
Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford 2002), 112–15.
(29) See Cic. Div. 1.30–1; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 14.2.2; Val. Max. 1.8.11; Plut.
Rom. 22.1–2; Cam. 32.5; LTUR 1.335–6.
(30) Aulus Gellius 4.6.1–2; Cass. Dio 44.17.2; Servius, In Aeneidem 7.603; cf.
Obsequens 6, 44, 44a, 47, 50.
(31) For the nature and appearance of the triumphal chariot see M. Beard, The
Roman Triumph (Cambridge Mass. 2007), 222–5.
(32) See Livy 1.20.4, who speaks of the ancilia; also see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom.
2.70–1; Plut. Numa 13; for discussion of the priests who carried the shields and
the shields themselves see T. Schäfer, ‘Zur Ikonographie der Salier’, JdI 95
(1980), 342–73.
(34) Cic. Div. 1.33; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 3.71.5; Livy 1.36.5; cf. Pliny, HN 15.77;
for discussion see M. Scarsi, ‘Neque Atti Navii nomen memoria floreret tam diu’,
BStudLat 35.2 (2005), 401–39, who argues that the commemoration’s purpose is
to construct a second foundation myth based, like Romulus’ first foundation, on
augury.
Page 28 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
(35) For the puteal, statue, and implements see F. Coarelli, Il Foro Romano I:
periodo arcaico (Rome 1983), 28–31; for discussion of the episode of Naevius
and the whetstone and its larger religious and cultural significance see R. M.
Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy Books I –V (Oxford 1965), 151; G. Piccaluga,
‘Attus Naevius’, Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni, 40 (1969), 151–208; M.
Beard, ‘Acca Larentia gains a son: myth and priesthood at Rome’, in M. M.
MacKenzie and C. Rouech (eds.), Images of Authority (Cambridge 1989), 41–61;
Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome (n. 3), 23–4.
(36) Procopius calls them the Moirai, three ancient statues of Sibyls which stood
by the rostra, De Bello Gothico 5.25.19–20. They were believed to be set up by
Tarquinius Priscus; see Pliny, HN 34.22; also see p. 179.
(37) It was one of several statues adorning the Comitium in the republic,
including those of Marsyas and Alcibiades; see Coarelli, Il Foro Romano (n. 35),
87–119; for the relationship between Pythagoras and Numa see M. Storchi,
Numa e Pitagora: sapientia constituendae civitatis (Naples 1999); for a good
discussion of the Marsyas statue and its significance see Thomas, Monumentality
(n. 22), 147–8.
(39) Plutarch notes Servius’ special affinity for Fortuna and states that he
dedicated numerous temples to her throughout the city; see Mor. 281D–E; cf.
Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.27.7; the temple was near the Temple of Mater Matuta in
the Forum Boarium; for Servius’ various temples to Fortuna, see F. Coarelli, Il
Foro Boario. Dalle Origini alla Fine della Repubblica (Rome 1988), 253–77, 301–
28; for the proximity of the Temple of Fortuna to Mater Matuta see F. Castagnoli,
‘Il culto della Mater Matuta e della Fortuna nel Foro Boario’, StRom 27 (1979),
145–52; Coarelli, Il Foro Boario, 205–328; for a detailed study of the cult of
Fortuna see J. Champeaux, Fortuna. Recherches sur le culte de la Fortune à
Rome et dans le monde romain des origines à la mort de César, 2 vols.
Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome, 64 (Rome 1982–7); see A. Passerini, ‘Il
concetto antico di Fortuna’, Philologus, 90 (1935), 90–7 for a related discussion.
(40) Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.40.7; Livy 24.47.15; Ov. Fast. 6.613–25, 569–72; Val.
Max. 1.8.11.
(41) See Varro apud Nonium 278 L; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.27.7; cf. 4.40.7; Ov.
Fast. 6.613–26; Val. Max. 1.8.11; Cass. Dio 58.7.2; cf. Pliny, HN 8.197, 36.163.
They were home-spun made by Tanaquil, though possibly by Caecilia; for the
toga praetexta as integral to Roman identity, see A. Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s
Cultural Revolution (Cambridge 2008), 43; for the temple in general see LTUR
2.278.
Page 29 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
(42) For oil as a preservative see p. 298; for the woolen fillets see Macrobius,
Saturnalia 1.8.5.
(43) The four horse chariot on the pediment, also made of clay, was possibly
Vulca’s work too. For the statue see Pliny quoting Varro, HN 35.157. He says
that Pasiteles had already perfected clay modelling in Italy, but that Vulca was
also a master in this medium. See T. N. Gantz, ‘Terracotta Figured Friezes from
the Workshop of Vulca’, OpRom 10 (1974–5), 1–22; A. Andrén, ‘In Quest of
Vulca’, RPAA 49 (1976–77), 63–83; G. Colonna, ‘Tarquinio Prisco e il tempio di
Giove Capitolino’, PP 36 (1981), 41–59 for discussion of Vulca and his workshop.
(44) And we emphasize early history here, in light of Beard’s recent study on
triumphatores; she doubts whether triumphing generals in the late republic
tried to emulate Jupiter with red paint; see Beard, The Roman Triumph (n. 31),
225–33. She also questions the nature of the dress, arguing that the general’s
clothing was likely not taken directly from Jupiter’s statue.
(45) For a general study of the attention received by the various founders of
Rome, including Aeneas, Romulus, and Quirinus, see B. Liou-Gille, Cultes
‘héroique’ romains. Les fondateurs (Paris 1980).
(46) For an interesting discussion concerning the interplay between past and
present with monuments and objects see J. Elsner, ‘From Pyramids to Pausanias
and Piglet: Monuments, Travel, and Writing’, in R. Osborne and S. Goldhill
(eds.), Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture (Cambridge 1994), 229.
(47) See K. Milnor, Gender, Domesticity, and the Age of Augustus: Inventing
Private Life (Oxford 2005), 31–2 for discussion; for Muria see CIL 6.10230.
(49) See N. B. Kampen, ‘Social Status and Gender in Roman Art: The Case of the
Saleswoman’, in E. D’Ambra (ed.), Roman Art in Context. An Anthology (New
York 1993), 115–32.
(50) See J. Trimble, ‘Replicating the Body Politic: The Herculaneum Women
Statue Types in Early Imperial Italy’, JRA 13 (2000), 41–69; also see M. B. Flory,
‘Livia, and the History of Public Honorific Statues for Women in Rome’, TAPA
123 (1993), 287–308; both discuss the public commemoration of members of the
imperial family and the break this represents with the republican past.
(51) See J. Fentress and C. Wickham, Social Memory (Oxford and Cambridge
Mass. 1992), 137–43, esp. 138; G. Porter, ‘Seeing through Solidity: A Feminist
Perspective on Museums’, in S. MacDonald and G. Fyfe (eds.), Theorizing
Museums. Representing Identity and Diversity in a Changing World (Cambridge
1996), 103–26, who argues that the representation of women’s roles in museums
Page 30 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
is generally not as fully developed or active as those of men, and that women
remain voiceless; also see C. Duncan, Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art
Museums (New York 1995), 102–33 with specific focus on the MoMA.
(52) For Semo Sancus’ Sabine origins see Varro, De Lingua Latina 5.66; Ov. Fast.
6.213–18; also see p. 147 with n. 70. The god’s sphere was the protection of
oaths; for the temple, its history, and location, see LTUR 4.263–4.
(53) Also see Plut. Mor. 271E; Paulus ex Festo 85L; see G. Lahusen,
Untersuchungen zur Ehrenstatue in Rom: literarische und epigraphische
Zeugnisse (Rome 1983), 33 for discussion of Caecilia’s statue. Cf. Pliny, HN 7.20:
King Pyrrhus’ toe, which miraculously survived cremation reportedly could cure
inflammation of the spleen; it was put in a temple, though Pliny does not say
which; also see Plut. Pyrrh. 3.4; for discussion see R. Garland, The Eye of the
Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World (Ithaca 1995),
103. Similarly Pyrrhus’ thumb was still kept, HN 28.34; where and whether it
had the same miraculous heeling powers Pliny does not say.
(54) HN 8.194; the robe was in the Temple of Fortuna Seiani, concerning which
see LTUR 2.278.
(55) See E. D’Ambra, Private Lives, Imperial Virtues: The Frieze of the Forum
Transitorium in Rome (Princeton 1993) for an extensive study of the forum and
its relationship to this subject. For the feminine virtue of wool-working see
Milnor, Gender, Domesticity (n. 47), 29, 31, 215–16. Milnor’s study collects a
great deal of material on the ideological function of the representation of
women’s roles, esp. in a domestic context; see e.g. 99–102 for her discussion of
the depiction of the story of Pero and Mycon in the House of Lucretius Fronto in
Pompeii.
(56) For the fires in 111 BC and AD 3 see Val. Max. 1.8.12; for Claudia see Livy
29.14.5–14; Ov. Fast. 4.225–344; Pliny, HN 7.120; Herodian 1.11; for Claudia and
the introduction of the Magna Mater see F. Bömer, ‘Kybele in Rom’, MDAI(R) 71
(1964), 130–51; M. J. Vermaseren, Cybele and Attis; the Myth and the Cult
(London 1977) 41, 57; T. P. Wiseman, Clio’s Cosmetics: Three Studies in Greco-
Roman Literature (Leicester 1979), 94–9; J. Gérard, ‘Légende et politique autour
de la mère des dieux’, RÉL 58 (1980), 153–75; for the statue see Lahusen,
Untersuchungen zur Ehrenstatue (n. 53), 34.
(57) See Lahusen, Untersuchungen zur Ehrenstatue, (n. 53) 96; Pliny, HN 34.31.
(58) See Plut. Ti. Gracch. 1; C. Gracch. 4.2–4, who notes that the people so
honoured her that they awarded her the bronze statue; for Cornelia’s devotion to
her family, children, and their education see Tac. Dial. 28.5–6. On her
Page 31 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
(59) Trimble, ‘Replicating the Body Politic’ (n. 50), 65–6; the tension between
revelation and concealment abided into late antiquity; for a related discussion
see J. Elsner, Roman Eyes. Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and Text (Princeton
2007), 218–19 on the Projecta casket.
(60) Also called the Tria Fata, Procopius, De Bello Gothico 5.25.19; see LTUR
5.856; cf. above p. 170.
(61) See Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.62; Pliny, HN 13.88; Aulus Gellius 1.19;
Lactantius, Divinae institutiones 1.6; for discussion of the episode see J. Gagé,
Apollon romain. Essai sur le culte d’Apollon et le développement du ‘ritus
Graecus’ à Rome des origines à Auguste. Bibliothèque des Ecoles françaises
d’Athènes et de Rome, 152 (Paris 1955), 24–38, 196–204, 432–61, 542–55, 677–
82; K. Latte, Römische Religionsgeschichte, Handbuch der
Altertumswissenschaft vol. 4 (Munich 1960), 160–1; G. Radke, ‘Quindecimviri’,
RE 24 (1963), 114–48; H. W. Parke, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical
Antiquity (London 1988), 190–215; Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome
(n. 3), 62–3.
(62) As such, they sometimes attained quite a level of influence, as with the
prophetess Martha, a Syrian woman in whom Marius put great stock, Plut.Mar.
17.1–3; see also the parallel in ancient Germanic society observed by Tacitus
with Veleda, Hist. 4.61, 4.65, 5.22, 5.24.
(63) Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.38; also see Livy 1.11.6–9; Ov. Met. 14.775–7; Fast.
1.260–2; Val. Max. 9.6.1; Plut. Rom. 17.2–5; Aur. Vict. De Vir. Ill. 2.5–6; Servius,
In Aeneidem 8.348; cf. Propertius 4.4; Silius Italicus 13.839–43. B. W.
Boyd,‘Tarpeia’s Tomb. A Note on Propertius 4.4’, AJP 105 (1984), 85–6 suggests
that Propertius’ aetiological explanation connected her name to the place
negatively.
(64) Also see Pliny, HN 34.28–9; for discussion see Coarelli, Il Foro Romano (n.
35), 36; Lahusen, Untersuchungen zur Ehrenstatue (n. 53), 109; for a good
recent discussion of Cloelia as a figure embodying (in part) the values of the
community see M. Roller, ‘Exemplarity in Roman Culture: The Cases of Horatius
Cocles and Cloelia’, CP 99 (2004), 1–56.
(67) See Coarelli, Il Foro Romano (n. 35), 111–18 for the location of the Tigillum.
Page 32 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
(68) On the common legend associated with the Tigillum and the expiation of
Horatius see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 3.22.7; Livy 1.26.13; Festus 380L; Aur. Vict.
De Vir. Ill. 4.9. Livy 1.26.14 also describes her tomb (of squared stone) located
where she was murdered; see LTUR 5.74–5; J. Richardson, A New Topographical
Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore and London 1992), 400.
(70) See the scholiast to Lucian, De Mercede conductis 1–2, Hermotimus 86, who
states ‘Slaves who obtain their freedom shave their heads since they appear to
have escaped servitude’s storm, as do people saved from a shipwreck’ (Nonius p.
848, Lindsay); see J. Winkler, Auctor & Actor. A Narratological Reading of
Apuleius’ Golden Ass (Berkeley 1985), 224–7 for discussion. See Elsner, Roman
Eyes (n. 59), 254–9, 283–7 for a good discussion on reading cultural resistance in
Roman visual media; cf. Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (n. 7), 8 for resistant,
subversive, and deconstructionist readings of Roman art objects.
(71) See Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome (n. 3), 82 for discussion.
(75) See S. Hales, The Roman House and Social Identity (Cambridge 2003), 41–
50 for a good general discussion; cf. P. J. E. Davies, ‘“What Worse than Nero,
What Better than his Baths?”: “Damnatio Memoriae” and Roman Architecture’,
in E. Varner (ed.), From Caligula to Constantine (Atlanta 2000), 37, who has also
noted the importance of Roman aristocratic homes, citing the case of Scipio
Africanus in Val. Max. 2.10.2; cf. the house of Livius Drusus, Velleius Paterculus
2.14.3; similarly, for Cicero’s house as a memorial see S. Hales, ‘At Home with
Cicero’, GaR 47 (2000), 44–55; also see S. Treggiari, ‘Home and Forum: Cicero
between “Public” and “Private”’, TAPA 128 (1998), 1–23 and ‘The Upper-Class
House as Symbol and Focus of Emotion in Cicero’, JRA 12 (1999), 33–56 for the
house as a symbol of honour and success; see too A. Bounia, The Nature of
Classical Collecting. Collectors and Collections, 100 BCE–100 CE (Ashgate
2004), 157–60; for the location of Cicero’s house (and his rival Clodius’) see S.
M. Cerutti, ‘The Location of the Houses of Cicero and Clodius and the Porticus
Catuli on the Palatine Hill in Rome’, AJP 118 (1997), 417–26.
Page 33 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
(77) For Tarquinius see Solinus 1.26; cf. Pliny, HN 34.29; see Coarelli, Il Foro
Romano (n. 35), 35–7; T. P. Wiseman, Unwritten Rome (Exeter 2008), 271–92 for
discussion; see Solinus 1.21–6 (who may have relied on Varro) for the remaining
kings; see Coarelli, Il Foro Romano (n. 35), 56 for discussion. According to
tradition, the Sabine king Tatius had his house in arce on the Capitoline where
the Temple of Juno Moneta later stood; Numa had one initially on the Quirinal,
then later (appropriately enough) near the Temple of Vesta in Regia; Tullus
Hostilius had a house in Velia where later stood the Temple of the Penates;
Ancus Marcius’ was located in summa sacra via where the Temple of the Lares
stood; Tarquinius Priscus’ was ad Mugoniam portam supra summam novam
viam; Servius Tullius’ on the Esquiline supra clivum Urbium; and finally
Tarquinius Superbus had his on the Esquiline supra clivum Pullium ad Fagutalem
lacum.
(78) Publ. 20.2; for the decree see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.39.4.
(80) Also see Velleius Paterculus 2.77.1; Suet. Gram. 15.1; Florus 2.18.4; Cass.
Dio 48.38; S.H.A. Gord. Tres 3.6; Aur. Vict. De Vir. Ill. 84.3. Plut. Ant. 21.2–3 esp.
notes the distress caused by Antony’s purchase and occupation of the house,
remarking specifically the men of dubious character he entertained there; also
see Cic. Phil. 2.67–8.
(81) S.H.A. Carus 19.1–2 says that during the reign of Carus, Carinus, and
Numerian games were given ‘distinguished by novel events’ (such as bears
acting in a farce, a rope walker, one hundred horn blowers, and mechanical
scaffolding) depicted in paintings near the Palatine. Gordian’s own house
appears to have been a site for a time as well (S.H.A. Gord. Tres 32.1), and the
author of his vita notes its beauty but says nothing more.
(83) Procopius, De Bello Gothico 3.2.24. Sallust’s house was near the Salarian
Gate and was set ablaze, but was only half burnt; the rest was preserved and
survived even into the sixth century. The Anthologia Planudea (Crinagoras) 40
says that it was found near the Tres Fortunae where there were three temples,
those of Fortuna Primigenia, Fortuna Publica Populi Romani, and Fortuna
Page 34 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
Publica Citerior. For the location of the house see K. J. Hartswick, The Gardens of
Sallust: A Changing Landscape (Austin 2004), 8–10; also see LTUR 3.79–81.
(84) Cf. Suet. Aug. 6: at Augustus’ childhood home in Velitrae his nursery was
still kept as a shrine which no one could enter lest they be seized by a sudden
terror. For Augustus’ birthplace and boyhood house see Davies, ‘“What Worse
than Nero?”’ (n. 75), 37.
(86) For a general discussion of how buildings, houses, and other edifices built
for or by the condemned were treated, see Davies, ‘“What Worse than
Nero?”’ (n. 75), 31–42; see esp. 38 for discussion of Maelius, Cassius, and
Manlius; also see in general K. Mustakallio, Death and Disgrace. Capital
Penalties with Post Mortem Sanctions in Early Roman Historiography (Helsinki
1994).
(87) See, inter alios, Cic. Rep. 2.60; Diodorus Siculus 11.37.7; Dion. Hal.
Ant.Rom. 8.68–80; Livy 2.41; Val. Max. 5.8.2, 6.3.2; Florus 1.17.25; Cass. Dio
5.19. For an excellent discussion of the problems of damnatio memoriae in this
case see H. I. Flower, The Art of Forgetting. Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman
Political Culture (Chapel Hill 2006), 48–9; cf. E. Gabba, ‘Studi su Dionigi
d’Alicarnasso: La proposta di legge agraria di Spurio Cassio’, Athenaeum, 42
(1964), 29–41; Ogilvie, Livy Books I–V (n. 35), 337–45; E. Gabba, ‘Dionigi
d’Alicarnasso sul processo di Spurio Cassio’, in Atti del primo Congresso
internazionale della Società italiana di Storia del diritto (Florence 1966), 143–53;
A. Lintott, ‘The Tradition of Violence in the Annals of Early Rome’, Historia, 19
(1970), 18–22; T. P. Wiseman, ‘Topography and Rhetoric: The Trial of Manlius’,
Historia, 28 (1979), 32–50; T. J. Cornell, ‘Rome and Latium to 390 B.C.’, in The
Cambridge Ancient History2 7.2: The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C. (Cambridge
1989), 264–81; The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to
the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 B.C.) (London 1995), 253–5, 263, 271.
(88) HN 34.15. There may have been more than one statue of Ceres offered up,
since Dionysius, relating the same story (Ant. Rom. 8.79.3), uses the plural.
(89) See also Val. Max. 6.3.1c; cf. Cic. Dom. 101; Varro, De Lingua Latina 5.157;
Diodorus Siculus 12.37.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 12.4.6; Livy 4.15.8–16.1;
Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 3.7.20; Aur. Vict. De Vir. Ill. 17; for discussion see
Ogilvie, Livy Books I–V (n. 35), 550–7; M. Jaeger, Livy’s Written Rome (Ann Arbor
1997), 42.
(91) Livy 8.20.8. From the proceeds of the material bronze discs were set up in
the Temple of Semo Sancus, concerning which see p. 174 n. 52. Why Vitruvius
Page 35 of 36
Constructing Social Identity
had a house in Rome, though himself from Fundani, is unclear; see S. P. Oakley,
A Commentary on Livy Books VI –X, Vol. 2 (Oxford 1998), 602–6 for discussion of
the incident; on the two versions of his punishment see S. P. Oakley, A
Commentary on Livy Books VI–X, Vol.2 (Oxford 1997), 82; for his house see LTUR
2.215.
(94) See S. Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture: Art and Empire in the Natural
History (Oxford 2003), 149, who also notes the imagines in the atrium, records of
res gestae in the tablinum, and booty on the doors that collectively made the
domus itself a commemorative monument.
Page 36 of 36
The Monster and the Map
DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199573233.003.0006
‘The world and the city of Rome occupy the same space.’
The peripheral boundaries of Rome’s empire were ever places of chaos, disorder,
and danger, of the fantastic or of the marvelous.1 There was no lack of authors to
record such marvels in antiquity. Augustine in The City of God refers to books of
curiosities, primarily of the aberrant human sort (16.8). Pliny indicates that
Cicero wrote a book on marvels (Cicero in admirandis, Pliny, HN 31.12), and
Varro, Cicero’s contemporary, may have undertaken a similar work and
influenced Pliny’s encyclopaedia.2 Licinius Mucianus, the governor of Syria who
had assisted Vespasian’s elevation to power and was Pliny’s contemporary wrote
a history of Vespasian’s eastern campaign during the Jewish War, part of which
included a digression on exotica (Pliny, HN 19.12; cf. 16.214–15). We get a taste
of how such exotica might be integrated into a literary or historical work in
Tacitus’ treatment of the appearance of a phoenix under Tiberius (Ann. 6.28), or
Caesar’s discussion of the fauna of German forests (Bellum Gallicum 6.25–8).
Mucianus apparently also wrote a book devoted solely to mirabilia.3 The next
generation produced some equally prominent writers in the genre, including
Page 1 of 30
The Monster and the Map
Licinius Sura, (p.194) one of the most prominent members of Trajan’s court
(Pliny, Ep. 4.30, 7.27), and Plutarch, who wrote a work titled De Curiositate,
(which was not about curiosities per se, but about the nature of curiosity and
that which attracts it, including the grotesque).4 L. Ampelius, who can only be
placed between the time of Trajan and Diocletian, left a Liber Memorialis, which
includes the only clear description of the Great Altar of Pergamum extant.5 The
genre was popular and abided into late antiquity and beyond.6
Arguably much of Pliny belongs to the same genre, in particular book seven,
with its catalogue of things wondrous and strange in virtue of their size, age, or
other unusual qualities. Such wonders are only known to us through texts
written by those who tended to view the world as a place of potential danger
that needed to be subdued, controlled, and observed. The taming of this chaotic,
strange world was achieved visually through mapping the world as well as
putting its strangeness, its ‘Otherness’ on display. As the Romans appropriated
the world’s territory and its resources, so too did they appropriate its
aberrations, abnormalities, and perceived dangers, all of which had the power to
create a dynamic tension by which Roman rule was simultaneously reaffirmed
and called into question.7 The collection of maps and the world they embraced
showed the Romans the land they dominated and reflected the identity such
conquest had served to create—a collective identity on its face of invincibility
and domination.8 To be made safe, the world ultimately had to be made
aesthetic, something symbolized through cartographical depictions and all their
permutations. The ability to know the world, to visualize and measure it as
something contained in the securely ordered and sacred space of the city, within
Rome’s imperium, and in turn within the inviolable pomerium, made the world
Roman, knowable, and controllable.
The Monster and the Map
Page 3 of 30
The Monster and the Map
indicative of possession of the place as well.22 Rome took the world’s measure by
its conquests, and Rome itself was in turn measured by the world it possessed.
It is not too far to state that the notion of the map, and with it domination, was
embedded in Rome’s topography and historical memory in the most absolute
sense. Consequently, even the very names of some of the streets, the most basic
topographical phenomenon in Rome after its hills, walls, and famous cloacae,
reflected the diversity of Rome’s dominion. Thus Dionysius of Halicarnassus
(Ant. Rom. 5.36.4) notes that the Vicus Tuscus was so called because members
of the Etruscan community settled and resided there after the battle of Cumae in
474 BC; the street was marked by a statue of Vortumnus, a divinity that was an
Etruscan import, according to Roman tradition (see p. 36 with n. 17). The Vicus
Cyprius was so called because the Sabines settled there after admission into the
city as citizens and named it ‘for the good omen’. Similarly, the Vicus Africus was
named for the hostages from Africa who were kept under guard there during
one of the Punic Wars (Varro, De Lingua Latina 5.159). There were doubtless
more streets that reflected Rome’s domain; the most obvious one in this regard
(p.198)
Page 4 of 30
The Monster and the Map
language; hence the connection between monstrum and monstrare (‘to show’).25
To know that which was strange or fearful was no longer to fear it. (p.199) As
the process of mapping implied knowing and subduing, similarly, to map the
world’s wonders was to render them no longer distant or fearful but familiar and
by so doing to make the power over them complete. Natural wonders or
monstrosities had the potential to function not only as a symbolic domination
over the world’s people, but over the natural world itself.
Page 5 of 30
The Monster and the Map
(p.201)
Page 6 of 30
The Monster and the Map
Page 7 of 30
The Monster and the Map
Page 8 of 30
The Monster and the Map
Page 9 of 30
The Monster and the Map
carried in a general’s triumph (Pis. 60), and Ovid clearly implies the allegorical
depiction of certain figures in the description of a triumphal procession in his
Ars Amatoria (1.223–4, see p. 119), while Silius Italicus in the Punica (17.635–42)
refers to (p.207) Scipio’s triumphal procession and remarks on an image of
Carthage lifting her hands to heaven and images of Spanish cities.43 As
Östenberg admonishes however, whether such depictions were paintings,
models, or statues is subject for contention, and we need to exercise caution.44
When we are told that Marcellus paraded in his ovatio cum simulacro captarum
Syracusarum (Livy 26.21.7 ), or that M. Fulvius Nobilior displayed in his house
an image of Ambracia (Livy 38.43.9), we cannot assume exactly how and in what
medium they were portrayed.45 Regardless, the function of such programmes
and displays was not far different from those of similar modern exhibitions.
Hooper-Greenhill notes that displaying objects creates a hierarchy of value and
power even in our own contemporary milieu:
The same could be said of the eclectic array of objects brought into the city in
antiquity, but the ‘imagining of the limits and peripheries’ is perhaps most
vividly embodied in the allegorical depictions of the provinces. As if to
emphasize Rome’s imperial domination, a statue of Hercules Melqart, taken
from Rome’s supreme foe, Carthage, stood in front of the entrance to Augustus’
Portico ad Nationes (Servius, In Aeneidem 8.721). If the sculpture programme
was in keeping with Roman practice that we see elsewhere (as on Hadrian’s
temple), presumably the individual nations will have been allegorized as women
with attributes particular to the individual provinces or peoples.47 If such were
the case, the Hercules at the portico’s entrance will have served symbolically to
keep in line, with his superior strength, Rome’s subjects; he will have kept
conquered peoples literally ‘in their place’, confined within the bounds of this
empire in miniature that celebrated Augustus’ vast conquests. He will have
further emphasized the labour—a theme that frequently arises in Augustan
literature and visual art—that it took to confine and keep the nations within the
boundaries of the portico and the Empire.48 According to Pliny, the statue of
Hercules was also one before which the Carthaginians used to offer human
sacrifice (HN 36.39). An artefact with such a history and in such a context holds
out a number of potential interpretations: the barbarism of the enemy as
opposed to the civilizing force of (p.208) Rome is one; the statue could also
signify the Roman people’s ‘labours’ in achieving their empire; potentially it
could even signify a recognition of the barbarism (as a Carthaginian, hence
foreign object) and violence of imperial conquest, a conquest now completed
with Augustus. Hercules Melqart, therefore, becomes simultaneously
Page 10 of 30
The Monster and the Map
Aside from the exhibition of rare animals or their remains, there was a decided
interest in what we might term the monstrous: natural wonders extraordinary
for their size or the story behind them. The first instance we hear of this sort of
phenomenon was when a large creature was set on display during the First
Punic War, when a number of sources tell us that the Romans encountered an
enormous serpent in North Africa at the river Bagradas. According to Valerius
Maximus (1.8 ext. 19), the creature (reportedly 120-feet in length) was killed
with great difficulty by Atilius Regulus’ men. Its skin was impossible to
penetrate, it crushed many men in the coils of its tail, and finally was killed with
a barrage of spears and catapults; its body putrefied and its stench forced the
Romans to move their camp. The skin was ultimately removed and sent to Rome
as a trophy.53 Pliny (HN 8.37) says that the 120-foot skin, along with its jawbone,
Page 11 of 30
The Monster and the Map
was still on display in an unspecified temple in Rome in his day. Though his
account is unclear, Pliny also implies that the remains of an enormous polypus
mollusk (octopus, squid, or cuttlefish?) were kept as a curiosity in Rome (HN
9.93). The creature was captured in Baetica when M. Lucullus was governor
there and found to weigh 700 pounds; a member of Lucullus’ staff, Trebius
Niger, wrote an account of the episode and noted the fierceness of the animal
and the difficulty in capturing it.
The Monster and the Map
Dionysus in the gardens, was three feet long.56 Perhaps in keeping with his
antiquarian interests, the emperor Claudius exhibited two mythical creatures
during his reign, a phoenix displayed in the Comitium and a hippocentaur
(preserved in honey).57 Such displays will have made even (p.211) the supra-
natural a real and tangible reality; in addition, they will have had the effect of
validating and appropriating Greek (and, in the case of the phoenix, Egyptian)
‘mythological’ creatures into the Roman sphere—proof not just of Roman control
of territory, but also of a larger cosmic field that transcended human history and
time, reflective of Rome’s own destiny which transcended both.
Humans
(p.212) Human wonders were also on prominent display in ancient Rome,
although arguably what made them wonders was their transcendence from the
realm of the human due to their size, physical deformity, or other similar
reasons.61 In Roman terms, such individuals were considered monstra or
mirabilia in their own right (according to Pliny’s categorization), terms that in
more antiquated discourse might at one time have been translated as ‘freakish’.
It was this status as mirabilia that gave them their place in Pliny’s catalogue,
subjecting them not only to the gaze of the viewer, but to the reader as well,
reinforcing their status as non-Romans. The Latin terms used to describe such
phenomena and their translations are problematic, and can imply specific value
judgements in their own right. As Stewart has noted, the English term ‘freak’
constitutes a negative and devalued response to anything that stands outside of
Page 13 of 30
The Monster and the Map
several operative cultural norms: the so-called ‘natural’ world, any accepted
cultural milieu, or, potentially, beyond one’s territory.62 Moreover, as a number
of scholars have remarked, human ‘freaks’ specifically were (and still are)
displayed to reaffirm the spectator’s ‘normalized’ status and to mark out that
which is ‘aberrant’.63 While the Latin term mirabilia may not carry precisely the
same negative connotations (though monstrum certainly does), it still implies in
the context of the present discussion that which is trans-normative, that stands
outside generally approved Roman cultural norms, and carries the same
negative implications as the term ‘freakish’.
Such supra normative spectacles could include people of unusual size or simply
of note-worthy fame who constituted wonders or attractions in their own right.
Pompey the Great had such human curiosities memorialized in the statuary
programme in his theatre.64 One of these included a woman from Tralles named
Eutychis who had given birth to thirty children and subsequently had her funeral
pyre carried by the twenty who survived. Alcippe was also commemorated in
Pompey’s theatre, a woman who had reportedly given birth to an elephant.65 On
record, too, are a number of human specimens of unusual size, (p.213) both
living and dead: hence we hear that under Claudius a man named Gabbara was
brought to Rome from Arabia who was reportedly nine feet nine inches tall.66
Similarly, under Augustus two people named Pusio and Secundilla, each over ten
feet tall, had their bodies preserved in tombs in the Horti Sallustiani to be gazed
at ‘as a marvel’ (miraculi gratia).67 On the opposite end were two Roman
equestrians, Manius Maximus and M. Tullius each three feet tall, still on display
after their deaths.68
Nor were the living free from such curiosity. Augustine reports that just before
the Goths attacked and destroyed Rome a woman of very tall stature was in the
city and frequently mobbed by crowds wherever she went (De civitate Dei
15.23). Similarly, those of great age (Pliny, HN 7.158) or of celebrated reputation
could attract travellers to the city, such as the pilgrim from Gades who travelled
to Rome just to get a glimpse of Livy.69 A similar scene was enacted in that age
when a group of piratical chieftains ventured to Liternum to get a view of
Augustus, ‘as it were expecting some divine benefit’ (quasi caeleste aliquod
beneficium expetentes, Val. Max. 2.10.2). Finally, we note that the emperors
themselves kept those with abnormalities as a form of entertainment for their
pleasure, such as Nero’s courtier Vatinius, ‘among the foulest spectacles of his
court…with his twisted body and his scurrilous witticisms’ (inter foedissima eius
aulae ostenta…corpore detorto, facetiis scurrilibus).70 It was, in the end, a
perverse reminder of what was Roman, what was un-Roman, and ultimately,
what was to be considered human, what a monstrosity—and as such worthy to
be put on display (monstrari).
Page 14 of 30
The Monster and the Map
Plants
In addition to the human and animal, lesser or even inanimate objects, such as
plants, trees, and precious spices were also the subjects of interest and wonder
(p.214) within the city.71 Such display will have been reflective of something
well-established by the Roman elite and picked up in the literary sources, and
that is the domination of resources by Rome’s imperial machine.72 The natural
world and man’s relationship with it is not neutral for the Romans; rather the
natural world is for the Romans to survey and exploit. As one scholar of Pliny’s
Natural History (from which we get much of our information) has observed,
Pliny’s erudition has no air of inquiry about it, but is instead redolent of a survey
with a view to use.73 Here again moreover, as was the case with the animal and
human, size, age, or the exotic nature of an object as well as other attributes,
could render something a curiosity. Pliny states that the largest tree ever seen in
Rome was a 120 foot long larchwood with a uniform thickness of two feet.
Tiberius exhibited it in the naumachia, where it lasted until AD 59 when Nero
built a vast amphitheatre of wood (HN 16.201). Tiberius’ larchwood broke the
previous record held by a tree Agrippa deposited in the porticoes of the
Diribitorium ‘left over from the timber used for the voting office’; it was one
hundred feet long with an eighteen inch thickness.74 Pliny also tells us (HN
12.111) of a more exotic tree that Vespasian displayed in his triumph in AD 70
when he and Titus exhibited balsam trees on the Capitoline for the first time
from Judaea and further states that ever since Pompey the Great, (presumably
exotic) trees had figured into Roman triumphal processions.75 In addition,
Vespasian was the first to dedicate both in the Capitoline and in the Temple of
Peace crowns of cinnamon surrounded with embossed gold. Pliny further states
(HN 12.94) that a cinnamon root of great weight was dedicated in the Temple of
Divus Augustus on the Palatine (built by his wife Livia); it was placed in a golden
bowl (aureae paterae) and he says that drops distilled from it annually and
hardened into grains, and that this continued until the temple was destroyed by
fire. Unusual plant specimens were not the sole province of emperors; well
before the advent of Augustus, Pompey had also assembled a novel array of flora
in the form of living specimens in the city.76
(p.215) Beyond size and provenance, age also served to make flora unique, and
there were a number of such trees in the city that became the object of
veneration or wonder as a result of their age. There were, for example, three
very old lotus trees in Rome (Pliny, HN 16.235–6), one in the precinct of Juno
Lucina dating to 375 BC (which apparently predated the foundation of the
temple, according to Pliny), a lotus tree in an uncertain location called the hair
tree, since it was where Vestal Virgins brought offerings of their hair, and one in
the area of the Vulcanal which, according to Pliny’s source (Masurius) was the
same age as the city.77 Pliny also notes that a cypress of equal age stood nearby
and fell near the end of Nero’s reign and was left lying where it was. Still older,
in fact, purportedly predating the city, was a Holm oak on Vatican Hill to which
Page 15 of 30
The Monster and the Map
was attached a bronze tablet with Etruscan characters (HN 16.237). Similarly,
objects made of wood of great age were considered equally remarkable; this was
especially the case for cult statues, such as one of Veiovis made from cypress
wood which in Pliny’s day could be dated back nearly three hundred years to
193 BC.78 Whether for their great age, their exotic origins, or their enormous
size, the trans-normative nature of these objects rendered them things of
wonder and were reflective of the same trans-normative qualities of the entity
that possessed and exhibited them.
and putting the pieces accurately together and fitting them one to the
other, she sewed up the whole body; then, displaying to the sculptors, she
bade them represent in a bronze statue the fate which had befallen her
Page 16 of 30
The Monster and the Map
husband. So the artists straightway made the statue. The woman then took
it and set it up on the street leading up to the Capitol, on the right as one
ascends thither from the Forum, and it shows both the features and the
fate of Domitian, even to the present day.82
However, well before Justinian, and before Domitian for that matter, the
Empire’s monstrosity was at times reflected in the visual representation of its
leadership, starting with colossal statues of Augustus (though not necessarily in
his lifetime).84 While there had indeed been colossal statuary in Rome prior to
this period, it predominately was of deities, and many were Greek imports.85 The
trend arguably reached its climax under Nero with his colossus that eventually
gave the Flavian amphitheatre—a meta-monstrosity in its own right—its name,
and with his massive portrait on a 120 foot high piece of linen, a feat never
before attempted.86 But Nero, as Tacitus remarked (Ann. 15.42), was not one to
feel constrained by nature’s limitations.
(p.218)
Page 17 of 30
The Monster and the Map
all things, something surely at work in Tiberius’ case, but (p.219) also for Roman
gigantism in general.89 Indeed, even the sources that attempt to catalogue and contain
the giant that Rome had become turn into unwieldy monstrosities as a result of their
consumption of a superabundance of over-sized data. As noted above, numerous
scholars have remarked the size, the unwieldiness, the seeming incoherence, the sheer
monstrosity of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History.90 Strabo has recently been similarly
set in the context of the very colossi about which he writes, and he himself refers to his
work as a kolossourgia.91 Yet as Edwards observes, Rome and the world it sought to
consume could never be contained, measured, or sated, since as Pliny notes, it was
restrained by neither temporal nor spatial constraints.92
Hence, by its very nature, the monster violates and transcends itself, as Rome
grasps beyond the boundaries not only of the world but of time. For Rome even
the vague, nebulous legends of the past—aged trees under which Romulus
suckled, the Greek hero Orestes, Scaurus’ monster from Jaffa—stand in its
grasp; that which is outside of human experience Rome reduces to a part of its
imperial endeavour, thereby reflecting Rome’s own divine, timeless nature. Of
course, the timelessness of Rome’s imperium sine fine (Vergil, Aeneid 1.279)
proved as mythological as the origin of some of the relics it so avidly consumed.
(p.220)
Notes:
(1) As has been illustrated by Romm’s 1992 study, and as is encapsulated in the
title of such fictional works as Antonius Diogenes’ Wonders Beyond Thule; see J.
S. Romm, The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought (Princeton 1992), 202–14
for discussion.
(2) Pliny, HN 7.75; cf. 7.85; see E. Pernice and W. H. Gross, ‘Die griechischen und
römischen literarischen Zeugnisse’, in U. Hausmann (ed.), Handbuch der
Archäologie: Allgemeine Grundlagen der Archäologie (Munich 1969), 483 for
discussion; for Pliny the Elder’s sources see 481–92. For a good discussion of
mirabilia in Pliny see J. Isager, Pliny on Art and Society: The Elder Pliny’s
Chapters on the History of Art (London 1991), 186–203; see 46 for their role as
memorabilia; cf. J. F. Healy, Pliny the Elder on Science and Technology (Oxford
1999), 63–70; S. Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture: Art and Empire in the
Natural History (Oxford 2003), 79–91. On writers of mirabilia in Pliny’s day see T.
Murphy, ‘Pliny’s Naturalis Historia: The Prodigal Text’, in A. J. Boyle and W. J.
Dominik (eds.), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (Leiden 2003), 305. For
Pliny’s predecessors see Carey (above, 18) citing Cato the Elder’s Praecepta ad
filium, Varro’s Antiquitates and Disciplina, and Celsus’ Artes. For Cato’s work see
E. S. Gruen, Culture and Identity in Republican Rome (Ithaca 1992), 77–8.
(3) See T. Murphy, Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in the
Encyclopedia (Oxford 2004), 57, 60–1 for discussion of Mucianus’ work; also see
Pernice and Gross, ‘Zeugnisse’ (n. 2), 484. On Mucianus as a source for Pliny see
B. Baldwin, ‘Pliny the Elder and Mucianus’, Emerita, 63.2 (1995), 291–301.
Page 18 of 30
The Monster and the Map
(4) Its title was Peri Polupragmosunēs, On Busybody-ness (see Mor. 517F, 521B–
D); in it Plutarch criticizes those who gawk at the sensational or grotesque
instead of fine artworks. Also see Mor. 520C for Plutarch’s bazaar of human
monstrosities; see M. Beagon, Roman Nature: The Thought of Pliny the Elder
(Oxford 1992), 10–11 for discussion.
(5) See Pernice and Gross, ‘Zeugnisse’ (n. 2), 461; for general discussion of
Ampelius’ work see M. P. Arnaud-Lindet, ‘Le Liber Memorialis de L. Ampélius’,
ANRW 2.34.3 (1997), 2301–12.
(6) See N. Purcell, ‘The City of Rome’, in R. Jenkyns (ed.), The Legacy of Rome: A
New Appraisal (Oxford 1992), 427–9.
(7) See S. Carey, ‘The Problems of Totality: Collecting Greek Art, Wonders and
Luxury in Pliny the Elder’s Natural History’, JHC 12.1 (2000), 5 for discussion of
the bond between conquest and the importation of mirabilia, ‘Now, instead of the
Roman Army going to the ends of the earth, the ends of the earth come to
Rome’.
(9) On this ‘dialectic of the monster’ see J. A. Heffernan, ‘Looking at the Monster:
“Frankenstein” and Film’, Critical Inquiry, 24.1 (1997), 136–7. For ‘the monster’
in Roman society see C. A. Barton, The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The
Gladiator and the Monster (Princeton 1993), 85–106; see esp. 85–90 for what
constituted the curiosus in ancient Rome.
(10) For a good discussion of ‘world acquisition’ in the context of collecting see
K. Melchionne, ‘Collecting as an Art’, Philosophy and Literature, 23.1 (1999),
150.
(11) For the city and the ‘wonder’ it evokes see C. Edwards, Writing Rome.
Textual Approaches to the City (Cambridge 1996), 97–102.
(12) Starting with Homer’s Thersites; for discussion see Barton, Sorrows (n. 9),
164–6.
(13) See A. L. Motto and J. R. Clark, ‘The Monster in Seneca’s Hercules Furens
926–939’, CP 89 (1994), 269–70 for the literary background of the monster as
transgressor; see Barton, Sorrows (n. 9), 174 for a related discussion.
(14) See A. Locher, ‘The Structure of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History’, in R.
French and F. Greenaway (eds.), Science in the Early Roman Empire: Pliny the
Elder, His Sources and Influence (Totowa NJ and London 1986), 20 for Pliny’s
Page 19 of 30
The Monster and the Map
work as ‘a literary monstrosity’; cf. M. Vegetti, ‘Lo spettacolo della natura. Circo,
teatro e potere in Plinio’, Aut Aut, 184–5 (1981), 120–2, who notes that the text
literally is a monster, remarking in particular the cruel and savage—the
monstrous—nature of certain aspects of Pliny’s catalogue; see too M. Vegetti,
‘Zoologia e antropologia in Plinio’, in Plinio il Vecchio sotto il profilo storico e
letterario. Atti del Convegno di Como 1979 (Como 1982), 130, who called it ‘un
incubo popolato di fugure e spettacoli meravigliosi e terribili’; also see A.
Wallace-Hadrill, ‘Pliny the Elder and Man’s Unnatural History’, GaR 37.1 (1990),
81, who notes the unnatural and transgressive nature of Pliny’s work; E.
Thomas, Monumentality and the Roman Empire. Architecture in the Antonine
Age (Oxford 2007), 214 remarks in general the monumental nature of the
catalogue in antiquity, beginning with Homer’s catalogue of ships in the Iliad’s
second book.
(15) See Murphy, Pliny (n. 3), 14. For Murphy’s excellent discussion of Pliny’s
geography see 129–64; also see 1–2 where he notes his work was ‘patterned
after that vast empire that has made the universe available for knowing’; also
see 5 for Pliny as a triumphalist text. For the encyclopaedia as encompassing the
world, see A. Dihle, ‘Plinius und die geographischen Wissenschaft in der
Römischen Kaiserzeit’, in Tecnologia, economia e società nel mondo romano
(Como 1980), 121–37; A. Rouveret, ‘Artistes, collectionneurs et antiquaries:
l’histoire de l’art dans l’encyclopédie plinienne’, in E. Pommier (ed.), L’Histoire
de l’histoire de l’art de l’antiquité au XVIIIe siècle (Paris 1995), 51; Carey, Pliny’s
Catalogue of Culture (n. 2), 33–40 for the connection between the geographic
and taxonomic range the work covers, and empire. For the larger Greek and
Roman background to Pliny’s geography see R. French, Ancient Natural History
(London 1994), 114–41.
(16) On the oikoumenē and its extent see Nicolet, Politics (n. 8), 39–40, 104.
(18) See French, Ancient Natural History (n. 15), 216 for discussion; for the
natural world tamed in a triumphal context and set under the Roman gaze see I.
Östenberg, Staging the World: Spoils, Captives, and Representation in the
Roman Triumphal Procession (Oxford 2009), 274–5.
Page 20 of 30
The Monster and the Map
(20) On Rome’s ‘absorption of the world’ as synonymous with the mundus itself
see C. Edwards and G. Woolf, ‘Cosmopolis: Rome as World City’, in C. Edwards
and G. Woolf (eds.), Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge 2003), 2–3; cf. Carey,
Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture (n. 2), 99–101. See Carey, ‘Problems of Totality’ (n.
7), 10 for Pliny as a microcosm of Rome. The city itself was mapped in turn in
the form of the Marble Plan set up in the Forum of Peace under Septimius
Severus; see R. H. Darwall-Smith, Emperors and Architecture: A Study of Flavian
Rome (Brussels 1996), 55–8; J. Trimble, ‘Visibility and Viewing on the Severan
Marble Plan’, in S. Swain, S. Harrison, and J. Elsner (eds.), Severan Culture
(Cambridge 2007), 368–84; also see A. Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural
Revolution (Cambridge 2008), 301–12, who notes that this was but one in a
series of such city plans displayed in Rome.
(22) See Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture (n. 2), 82; cf. 79–80 for discussion of
how Pliny’s syntax in discussing Roman possession and display of art emphasizes
Roman ownership.
(23) Streets could preserve historical memory in general. The Vicus Sceleratus
(actually a section of the Clivus Orbius) leading up to the Esquiline, was perhaps
the most (in)famous of these, since it commemorated Tanaquil’s abuse of her
father’s (King Tullius’) body after his assassination when she ran over it with a
chariot. See Varro, De Lingua Latina 5.159; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.39.3; Livy
1.48.6–7; Ov. Fast. 6.609–10; Val. Max. 9.11.1. The city gates seemed also to
function as repositories of memory, see Varro, De Lingua Latina 5.163–5.
(24) For a discussion of the numismatic evidence for these statues see P. Zanker,
The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Translated by Alan Shapiro (Ann
Arbor 1988), 40–1; also see Cass. Dio 43.14.6.
(25) See S. Stewart, On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the
Souvenir, the Collection (Baltimore 1984), 108, who also notes its ostensible if
not actual connection with moneo, a verb of warning, presumably against
imminent threat.
(26) For Roman cartographical depictions see Nicolet, Politics (n. 8), 98–111; cf.
C. Nicolet, ‘Rome dans la carte: Cartes de Rome’, in F. Hinard and M. Royo
(eds.), Rome. L’espace urbain et ses représentations (Paris 1991), 9–16; for
topographical and cartographical paintings in the republic see P. J. Holliday, The
Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration in the Visual Arts (Cambridge
2002), 105–8, who observes that the Palestrina mosaic may take as its model a
painting of this genre, though also notes that there are objections; cf. P. J.
Holliday, ‘Roman Triumphal Painting: Its Function, Development, and
Reception’, ArtB 79 (1997), 138–9; for a detailed study of the mosaic see P. G. P.
Page 21 of 30
The Monster and the Map
(27) Nicolet, Politics (n. 8), 111 notes that this sort of painting had its origin in
the triumphal pinakes with topographical depictions; for the Temple of Tellus in
general see LTUR 5.24–5.
(28) For the ‘Freudian’ element to such collecting, in which the provinces could,
conceivably, be understood as women substituting for erotic conquests see J.
Forrester, ‘ “Mille e tre”: Freud and Collecting’, in J. Elsner and R. Cardinal
(eds.), The Culture of Collecting (Cambridge Mass. 1994), 232–3; for the
provinces on Hadrian’s temple see C. Parisi Presicce, ‘Le rappresentazioni
allegoriche di populi e province nell’arte romana imperiale’, in M. Sapelli (ed.),
Provinciae fideles: Il fregio del tempio di Adriano in Campo Marzio (Rome 1999),
83–105; I. M. Ferris, Enemies of Rome. Barbarians through Roman Eyes (Stroud
2000), 83–5, who argues that they represent a consolidation of conquest after
Trajan’s expansion; for a good discussion of the temple’s construction and its
larger architectural context see Thomas, Monumentality (n. 14), 32–4.
(29) See Holliday, ‘Roman Triumphal Painting’ (n. 26), 137–8; Östenberg, Staging
the World (n. 18), 193–6 for discussion; see p. 36 n. 17 for the Temple of Mater
Matuta.
(31) As in, for example, Caesar’s detailed geography of Gaul that precedes his
conquest; see Caesar, Bellum Gallicum 1.1; for Britain see Tac. Agr. 10; for
discussion see Rutledge, ‘Tacitus in Tartan’ (n. 17); Clarke, ‘An Island Nation’ (n.
17); for the connection between geography and warfare see S. Mattern, Rome
and the Enemy. Imperial Strategy in the Principate (Berkeley 1999), 41–66; for
the relationship between imperial texts and geography see Nicolet, Politics (n.
8), 101 where he notes the possible link between Agrippa’s commentarii and his
map.
Page 22 of 30
The Monster and the Map
(32) See Murphy, Pliny (n. 3), 14 for a discussion of Pliny’s encyclopaedia as a
form of legitimate institutional knowledge in this regard; see 20, 22–4, where
Murphy observes that Rome takes centre stage. Also see Carey, Pliny’s
Catalogue of Culture (n. 2), 17–40 on Pliny as an encyclopaedia of the world, esp.
21, for Pliny’s work as representing its own universe or ‘totality’, ‘so that along
with the contents of the world, totality itself becomes a subject which must be
catalogued in its entirety’; also see Carey, ‘Problems of Totality’ (n. 7), 5, who
notes that Pliny’s text ‘transforms the world into an inventory of Roman
possessions’; cf. E. Schulz, ‘Notes on the History of Collecting and Museums’,
JHC 2.2 (1990), 205–6; see for a general discussion P. Grimal, ‘Encyclopédies
antiques’, CHM 9 (1965), 459–82; A. Roncoroni, ‘Plinio enciclopedista’, in A.
Roncoroni (ed.), Plinio e la natura (Como 1982), 9–13.
(33) See Nicolet, Politics (n. 8), 9, who also notes the use of maps mentioned in
Velleius Paterculus during the campaign against Maroboduus in AD 6.
(34) Also see Cass. Dio 55.8.3–4. See Holliday, ‘Roman Triumphal Painting’ (n.
26), 137, who believes the map would have been painted. For the connection
between Agrippa’s map and Strabo’s geography, see Nicolet, Politics (n. 8), 8;
also see 7–9, 95–122 for a detailed discussion; for its place in the Augustan city
see R. Moynihan, ‘Geographic Mythology and Roman Imperial Ideology’, in R.
Winkes (ed.), The Age of Augustus (Interdisciplinary Conference held at Brown
University April 30–May 2, 1982) (Louvain-la-Neuve 1982), 149–62; D. Favro,
The Urban Image of Augustan Rome (Cambridge 1996), 116; see Carey, Pliny’s
Catalogue of Culture (n. 2), 64–7 for the influence of Agrippa’s map in Pliny’s
encyclopaedia. For its affirmation of domination see D. Favro, ‘Reading the
Augustan City’, in P. J. Holliday (ed.), Narrative and Event in Ancient Art
(Cambridge 1993), 245. For a bibliography of conjectures concerning this map
see K. Brodersen, ‘Terra Cognita. Studien zur römischen Raumerfassung’,
Spudasmata, 59 (1995), 269–70; also see 275–86 where he suggests not a map
proper but an inscription listing distances. For the portico in general see LTUR
4.151–3.
(35) For further reference to Agrippa’s map (in his discussion of geography) see
4.78, 81, 83, 91, 102, 105, 5.9–10, 65, 102, 6.37, 39, 57, 136–7, 164, 196, 207,
209, all of which usually include distances from one point to the next or the total
miles of a given region—e.g. the length of a coastline or the total circumference
of an island or peninsula or continent (cf. Caesar, Bellum Gallicum 1.1). In 6.40
Pliny refers to maps of regions sent home from the front, referring specifically to
those during the campaign in Armenia under Nero.
(36) See Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture (n. 2), 47–61 for the discussion of the
use of catalogues on Roman monuments, such as the Res Gestae or Augustus’
victory trophy over the Alpine tribes at La Turbie; for the list in Augustus’ forum
Page 23 of 30
The Monster and the Map
(38) Vitruvius 8.2.6; see Nicolet, Politics (n. 8), 99–100 also citing Granius
Licinianus 10.2; for the Atrium Libertatis see LTUR 1.133–5.
(39) For this passage in its larger context of Roman geography see Nicolet,
Politics (n. 8), 111.
(40) See Servius, In Aeneidem 8.721; cf. Septimius Severus who ordered bronze
images of all subject nations arrayed in their national garb to be carried at
Pertinax’s funeral, Cass. Dio 75.4.5; see Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 18),
217 for discussion. For ‘collecting countries’ see J. Elsner and R. Cardinal (eds.),
The Culture of Collecting (Cambridge Mass. 1994), 2: ‘Empire is a collection of
countries and of populations; a country is a collection of regions and peoples;
each given people is a collection of individuals, divided into governed and
governors—that is, collectables and collectors’. For a discussion of the
representation of provinces in Rome also see M. Jatta, Le rappresmtazione
figurate delle provincie romane (Rome 1908); L. Houghtalin, ‘The Represenation
of the Roman Provinces’, diss. Bryn Mawr College (1993); H. Cancik, ‘Die
“Repraesentation” von “Provinz” (nationes, gentes) in Rom’, in H. Cancik and J.
Rüpke (eds.), Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion (Tübingen 1997),
129–43; Ferris, Enemies of Rome (n. 28), 59 on the Augustan portico’s similarity
with Aphrodisias’ Sebasteion.
(41) See Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n. 36), 207 for discussion; cf. P. Liveriani,
‘“Nationes” e “civitates”, nella propaganda imperiale’, RhM 102 (1995), 219–49;
Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 18), 217–18, who suggests that wood and other
lighter materials are likely candidates for images that had to be carried;
Nasrallah, Christian Response (n. 30), 76–7.
(42) Coponius sculpted the statues, Pliny, HN 36.41. For discussion see Carey,
Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture (n. 2), 62–3; Nicolet, Politics (n. 8), 32 notes that the
statuary constituted a virtual res gestae; Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 18),
219 cautions against assuming the statuary programme was based on anything
similar in his triumph in 61 BC.
(43) For discussion see C. Edwards, ‘Incorporating the Alien: The Art of
Conquest’, in C. Edwards and G. Woolf (eds.), Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge
2003), 65; Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 18), 200.
(44) See Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 18), 199–212 for discussion.
(45) Ibid., 208–12; see 212–14 for the depiction of cities in general.
Page 24 of 30
The Monster and the Map
(47) See Edwards ‘Incorporating the Alien’ (n. 43), 65–6 on Augustus’ programme
and its context.
(49) See Carey, ‘Problems of Totality’ (n. 7), 5; Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture (n. 2),
84–5 where Carey notes that many of the mirabilia in Pliny’s catalogue come
from places most distant from ‘the centre’.
(50) As Murphy, Pliny (n. 3), 160–4 notes, the ‘science’ involved little more than
who was the ‘first’, for example, to display exotica. For the distinction between
the types of knowledge spectacles of this sort impart as opposed to the museum
(with its more rational basis) see T. Bennett, The Birth of the Museum: History,
Theory, Politics (New York 1995), 3–5.
(51) For aviaries in antiquity, see L. R. Johnson, Aviaries and Aviculture in Ancient
Rome, PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park (1968).
(52) For discussion concerning the larger context of Pliny’s narrative on zoology
see Vegetti, ‘Zoologia e antropologia’ (n. 14); L. Bodson, ‘La zoologie romaine
d’après la NH de Pline’, in J. Pigeaud and J. Oroz (eds.), Pline L’Ancien: témoin de
son temps (Salamanca and Nantes 1987), 107–16.
(54) Compare Augustus’ forum, concerning which Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n.
36), 203 has observed that the variety of marbles imported from throughout the
Empire represents a use of material that in and of itself constitutes a statement
of imperial world dominion.
(55) Cf. Pliny, HN 5.128; see J. Boardman, ‘“Very Like a Whale”—Classical Sea
Monsters’, in A. Farkas (ed.), Monsters and Demons in the Ancient and Medieval
World (Mainz 1987), 77 for discussion.
(56) Procopius, De Bello Gothico 5.15.8 alternatively states that the boar’s tusks
were in Beneventum in his day and worth seeing; they reportedly measured
three spans around and formed a crescent.
(57) Pliny, HN 10.5, 7.35; everyone knew, however, that the Claudian phoenix was
a fraud; also see Cass. Dio 58.27.1; Pliny further notes a phoenix’s appearance
under Tiberius (his source was Cornelius Valerianus), as does Tacitus, although
Pliny dates the appearance to AD 36, Tacitus to AD 34 (Ann. 6.28); for Tacitus’
dating of the episode see E. Keitel, ‘The Non-Appearance of the Phoenix at
Page 25 of 30
The Monster and the Map
Tacitus Annals 6.28’, AJP 120 (1999), 429–42. For reports of natural wonders to
emperors see Murphy, Pliny (n. 3), 198–9.
(58) Cf. the Palladium discussed above, pp. 162–5; also see e.g. Roma Quadrata, a
chapel (sacellum) on the Palatine in front of the Temple of Apollo, which served
as a repository for the objects considered of good augury for the state when it
was founded; the sacellum was still extant in AD 204 (CIL 6.32327); see Ov. Tr.
3.1.31–4; Joseph. AJ 29.3.2; Festus 258L; LTUR 4.207–9; see A. Grandazzi, ‘La
Roma quadrata: mythe ou réalité’, MÉFRA 105 (1993), 493–545 for discussion.
(60) See Livy 1.45.4–5; Val. Max. 7.3.1; Plut. Mor. 264C–D; Aur. Vict. De Vir. Ill. 7;
the temple also sported the oldest sundial in Rome; see Censorinus, De Die
Natali 23.6; for the temple see A. Alföldi, Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor
1960), 106–7; A. Momigliano, ‘An interim report on the origins of Rome’, JRS 53
(1963), 95–121; C. Ampolo, ‘L’Artemide di Marsiglia e la Diana dell’Aventino’, PP
25 (1970), 200–10; M. Gras, ‘Le temple de Diane sur l’Aventin’, RÉA 89 (1987),
47–61; see Green, Roman Religion (n. 59), 87–111 for a discussion of the
relationship between Diana of the Aventine and her cult site in Aricia; see in
general LTUR 2.11–13.
(61) For a general study of this subject see R. Garland, The Eye of the Beholder:
Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World (Ithaca 1995).
(62) See Stewart, On Longing (n. 25), 109–10; cf. S. M. Pearce, On Collecting. An
Investigation into Collecting in the European Tradition (London 1995), 317, who
notes that the ‘freak’ stands outside so-called ‘normal’ cultural parameters.
(63) See Stewart, On Longing (n. 25), 109; for a related discussion see N.
Humphrey, ‘The Illusion of Beauty’, in N. Humphrey (ed.), Consciousness
Regained (Oxford 1984), 121–37; Pearce, On Collecting (n. 62), 317.
(64) Pliny, HN 7.34; see Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture (n. 2), 98 for
discussion.
(65) Pliny, HN 7.34; on Alcippe see Garland, Eye of the Beholder (n. 61), 54 citing
Phlegon of Tralles (who may or may not be referring to Pompey’s theatre) and
also citing ‘four pairs of conjoined twins, a boy with the head of a dog, and a
stillborn infant allegedly born to a male homosexual’ (FGrH 257 F36.20, 23, 25).
(66) Pliny, HN 7.74–5; see Barton, Sorrows (n. 9), 86 for Gabbara in his context
among other curiosities, including the dwarf Cinopas and a diminutive liberta
belonging to Augustus’ daughter, Julia.
Page 26 of 30
The Monster and the Map
(67) Pliny, HN 7.75; see Garland, Eye of the Beholder (n. 61), 54 for discussion; cf.
Carey, ‘Problems of Totality’ (n. 7), 5; see K. J. Hartswick, The Gardens of Sallust:
A Changing Landscape (Austin 2004), 19 and her study in general for the Horti
Sallustiani and its collection.
(68) Pliny, HN 7.75; see Garland, Eye of the Beholder (n. 61), 54 for discussion;
also see Carey, ‘Problems of Totality’ (n. 7), 5.
(69) Pliny, Ep. 2.3.8; the living themselves could further act as commemoratives
of Rome’s past, as was the case, arguably, with the descendants of the orator
Hortensius, whose impoverished family was given financial support from the
imperial purse so that so illustrious a family might not go extinct, see Tac. Ann.
2.37.
(70) Tac.Ann. 15.34; for Vatinius also see Mart. 10.3.4, 14.96.1; Juvenal 5.46–8;
the ‘defect’ was said to be a long nose (Mart. 10.96). For other such characters
see Horace, Sermones 1.5.52 (for Sarmentus), and Juvenal 5.4 (for Gabba at the
court of Augustus); Tac.Ann. 12.49 and Juvenal 4.13–31 (for Paelignus and
Crispinus at the court of Claudius); Claudius’ own infirmities were the butt of
jokes at Caligula’s court (Suet. Calig. 23.2; Suet. Tib. 61). For emperors keeping
company with ‘the monstrous’ see Garland, Eye of the Beholder (n. 61), 45–58.
(71) See R. Chévallier, ‘Le bois, l’arbre et la forêt chez Pline’, in J. Pigeaud and J.
Oroz (eds.), Pline L’Ancien: témoin de son Temps (Salamanca and Nantes 1987),
147–72 for a general discussion of plant life in this context, esp. forests and
trees; see 164–7 for trees of a particularly marvellous sort; for trees in triumphal
displays see Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 18), 184–8.
(72) See e.g. the speech of Calgacus in Tac. Agr. 30–2 where he clearly views the
domination and appropriation of resources, both natural and human, as an
inherent aspect of Roman imperialism; see Rutledge, Tacitus in Tartan’ (n. 17),
76–81 for discussion.
(74) Pliny, HN 16.200; for Agrippa’s tree see Pliny, HN 36.201; Cass. Dio 55.8.4;
for discussion see Thomas,Monumentality (n. 14), 215.
(75) Pliny, HN 12.111; see Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 18), 186–8.
(76) Pliny, HN 12.20, 111, 25.5–8; see A. Kuttner, ‘Culture and History at
Pompey’s Museum’, TAPA 129 (1999), 345–50 for discussion.
(77) There were a number of important sites also associated with both the fig and
laurel in Rome. The ficus Navia was a sacred tree in the Forum with a bronze
statue of Lupa nursing Romulus and Remus nearby and not to be confused with
the ficus Ruminalis, Pliny, HN 15.77; there was also a self-sown fig in the Forum
Page 27 of 30
The Monster and the Map
associated with the olive and vine, HN 15.78; on the Palatine was a laurel that
according to tradition grew spontaneously the day of Augustus’ birth with the
leaves of which he crowned himself during triumphs, Servius, In Aeneidem
6.230. In addition, there was a massive vine from a single stem that shaded the
Portico of Livia and produced twelve amphorae of wine annually, HN 14.11
(citing Cornelius Valerianus).
(78) Pliny, HN 16.216; cf. p. 67 for Cicero’s long-lived citrus wood table.
(79) See Stewart, On Longing (n. 25), 86 for the giant as a paradoxical consuming
force.
(81) For this corporeal aspect of the city see E. J. Gowers, ‘The Anatomy of Rome
from Capitol to Cloaca’, JRS 85 (1995), 23–32; cf. Edwards, Writing Rome (n. 11),
82–5 for Rome as a body with the Capitoline as its head. For reassurance of
domination see Stewart, On Longing (n. 25), 110, who notes ‘On display, the
freak represents the naming of the frontier and the assurance that the
wilderness, the outside, is now territory’; cf. 73 for the giant as ‘a mixed
category; a violator of boundary and rule; an overabundance of the natural and
hence an affront to cultural systems’.
(83) But equally fitting, as J. Onians, Classical Art and the Cultures of Greece and
Rome (New Haven 1999), 235 notes, for the last of the Flavians who oversaw the
completion of the vast amphitheatre whose sole function was as a place to
entertain viewers by hacking the bodies of men and beasts. On the figurative
dismembering and fragmenting of the city in late antiquity and into the Middle
Ages see Edwards, Writing Rome (n. 11), 25–6, 89–95.
(84) For the colossus of Augustus see Mart. 8.44.6–8 who indicates that it was
near the Temple of Mars (aedemque Martis et colosson Augusti curris).
(85) See e.g. Livy 9.44.16 for a giant Hercules erected on the Capitoline after the
victory over the Samnites in 305 BC; Pliny, HN 34.43 for a giant Tuscan style
Page 28 of 30
The Monster and the Map
statue of Apollo in the library of the Temple of Divus Augustus; Pliny, HN 34.43,
who relates that in 293 BC after Spurius Carvilius conquered the Samnites he
had a statue of Jupiter (on the Capitoline in Pliny’s day still) made from the
breastplates, greaves, and helmets of the enemy; from the left over metal filings
Spurius had a statue of himself made that stood before the image; see Gruen,
Culture and Identity (n. 2), 88. For a brief history of colossal statuary in Rome
and the architectural venues that housed them see now Thomas, Monumentality
(n. 14), 4, 208; cf. 150 where Thomas notes that size was also a reflection of
political power. P. Stewart, Statues in Roman Society. Representation and
Response (Oxford 2003), 152 notes that later Alexander Severus brought ‘artists
from everywhere to erect many colossi in Rome and “suitably adorning” the
Temple of Isis and Serapis with statues’ (see S.H.A. Alex. Sev. 26.4, 25.9, 26.8).
(86) See Pliny, HN 35.51–2. When finished it was in the Gardens of Maius (in
Maianis hortis), though later struck by lightning and burned. See L. R.
Richardson, A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore and
London 1992), 199, who believes that the fact that the portrait and the colossus
were both 120 feet indicates a relationship between the two. For discussion
concerning Nero’s colossus, see P. Howell, ‘The Colossus of Nero’, Athenaeum,
46 (1968), 292–9; C. Lega, ‘Il Colosso di Nerone’, BullCom 93.2 (1989–90), 339–
78; Carey, Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture (n. 2), 156–76; for its context in Pliny’s
political thought see F. de Oliveira, Les Idées politiques et morales de Pline
l’Ancien (Coimbra 1992), 181; also see R. R. R. Smith, ‘Nero and the Sun-God:
Divine Accessories and Political Symbols in Roman Imperial Images’,JRA 13
(2000), 532–42 (with his review of M. Bergmann, Die Strahlen der Herrscher:
Theomorphes Herrschbild und Politische Symbolik in Hellenismus und der
Römischen Kaiserzeit (Mainz 1998)), esp. 536–7 for discussion of Pliny’s
treatment of the statue. Pliny may well have known the architect of the colossus,
Zenodorus; J. Reynolds, ‘The Elder Pliny and His Times’, in R. French and F.
Greenaway (eds.), Science in the Early Roman Empire: Pliny the Elder, His
Sources and Influence (London 1986), 6–7.
(87) For the giant as a symbolic figure for luxury, overabundance, and
consumption see Stewart, On Longing (n. 25), 80–2.
(88) The work was a thanks offering from fourteen Asian cities for earthquake
relief. See CIL 10.1624 = ILS 156, a copy of the colossus’ base in Rome from
Puteoli; also see Tac. Ann. 2.47, 4.13; Pliny, HN 2.200.
(89) Stewart, On Longing (n. 25), 70; for general discussion see 70–103.
(90) See n. 14 above. The vast size of Pliny’s work is echoed by his collection of
statistical data; see Nicolet, Politics (n. 8), 9–16; Purcell, ‘City of Rome’ (n. 6),
423–5; Edwards, Writing Rome (n. 11), 99–100; Carey Pliny’s Catalogue of
Culture (n. 2), 45–7. For the lack of coherence and the enormity of Pliny’s work
Page 29 of 30
The Monster and the Map
see Murphy, Pliny (n. 3), 34; for Pliny’s own emphasis on its extraordinary length
see the praefatio to book 18 and M. Beagon, ‘Burning the Brambles: Rhetoric
and Ideology in Pliny, Natural History 18 (1–24)’, in D. Innes, H. Hine, and C.
Pelling (eds.), Ethics and Rhetoric. Classical Essays for Donald Russell on his
Seventy-Fifth Birthday (Oxford 1995), 118. A similar thought is found in Livy’s
praefatio when he refers to his undertaking as an immensi operis.
(92) See Edwards, Writing Rome (n. 11), 100: ‘Pliny describes the world itself as
aeternum, “everlasting”, and immensum, “immeasureable”, qualities he goes on
to attribute to Rome’. Part of this breaking of temporal limits is inherent in the
very nature of the cultural objects gathered in Rome; see Pearce, On Collecting
(n. 62), 170, who notes that ‘The material nature of objects means that they, and
they alone, have the capacity to carry the past physically into the present’. For
the ability of objects, particularly the antique, to suppress time and master the
temporal forces of birth and death see J. Baudrillard, The System of Objects
(London 1996), 76.
Page 30 of 30
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199573233.003.0007
The concept of great men collecting and displaying culturally valuable material
in Rome was virtually an organic concept embedded in Roman institutions and
cultural practices. The ceremony of the triumph is perhaps most illustrative of
this ‘organic’ quality, with its importation and display of cultural artefacts from
conquered peoples, as well as material such as statues and other such images
manufactured specifically to celebrate the occasion that were subsequently
exhibited in different locations throughout the city.1 Lists were drawn up,
sometimes very elaborate ones, that catalogued the material in the triumphs of,
to cite the most spectacular examples, M. Fulvius Nobilior (after Ambracia),
Aemilius Paullus (after Pydna), Pompey the Great (upon his return from Asia),
Julius Caesar (over Gaul, Egypt, and the kings Juba and Pharnaces), and
Vespasian (after his defeat of the rebellion in Judaea).2 On some occasions prior
Page 1 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
to triumphs there were temporary displays of the spoils in the Circus Flaminius
in the southern Campus Martius.3 The material was then put on permanent
exhibition in a variety of venues, and scholars have noted that individual
porticoes and temples would have constituted museums in their own right.4
Most collections accrued haphazardly over time, with little in the way of any
organizing principles. (p.222) There were on occasion, however, coherent
collections during the republic that were intended to reflect the values and
accomplishments of the triumphator through a nexus of connections among its
objects, such as that in the portico to Pompey’s theatre.5 Such collections and
venues emerged naturally from the self-advertising nature of the Roman
aristocracy.6
As the city entered the imperial period, the tendency towards coherent,
programmatic collections becomes more apparent. Collections became less a
product of the aggregate historical and cultural dynamics of the city-state,
certainly less a product of political competition among the elite, and more a
reflection of the individual ruling family and its interests. The reflection of
Roman identity and history through the display of cultural property was
narrowed down from a series of ruling families to a single household. Certain
Page 2 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Yet it does not have the same significance as the imperial collections we find, or
for that matter, as the previous ones from the republic, since it appears the
collection was created based on purely aesthetic considerations. The time of the
republican grandee who competed for power, as Asinius knew well, had
vanished. He had no stake to play in a political environment that was no longer
as competitive as it once had been, nor did he have any agenda to promote. If
anything, Asinius’ collection will have been absorbed into Augustus’ attraction
towards Hellenic culture and his use of it in the context of visual display within
the city. That does not preclude the possibility of other readings, it is merely to
note that the power to use the city as a means towards visual self-promotion was
now to be in the control of the princeps, to serve his purposes as a place to
legitimize his power and consolidate his authority.13 While the collection
consisted of numerous ‘prestige objects’, and constituted a display of Pollio’s
beneficence (and was recognized as such), it also needs to be understood in the
context of Augustus’ encouragement of other similar projects, such as the
Temple of Apollo Sosianus or the Theatre of Balbus, an encouragement that in
and of itself is tell-tale of the emperor’s potentia.14
Page 3 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(p.225)
Page 4 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
from Pliny by starting our discussion with Caesar, who represents a historical
transition from republican war-lord to imperial princeps.
Page 5 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
power is a force that was connected with earthly domination (p.229) throughout the
literary record in authors such as Vergil and Catullus, where geographic conquest and
domination is literally measured by and associated with sexual conquest.21 The
symbolic value of such an association may have been reinforced by a collection of gems
Caesar also dedicated in his temple (Pliny, HN 37.11), since jewellery was often
associated with the realm of the feminine (in this context, with Venus and Cleopatra
again). Caesar’s choice of precious gems for dedication also supports his reputation in
the literary record as a fastidious man who was excessively fond of clothes, liked to
dress in finery, and was something of a dandy.22 The close association of the feminine
aspects of the programme, taken in conjunction with his own personality and this
particular dedication, further constitutes an apt reflection of Caesar’s occasionally
ambiguous sexuality (underscored by his affair with Nicomedes, the King of Bithynia,
Suet. Iul. 49). In addition, both the statue (of Cleopatra) and the cuirass (of pearls)
serve as an intersection between love and war, reminiscent of the conquest of Egypt
and his invasion of Britain, but also of Caesar’s romantic adventurism. The objects
measure and express the extent of imperial and erotic conquest, and arguably beyond,
since Cleopatra’s statue was cast in gold, a material saved almost exclusively, up until
this period, for divinities (see fig. 5.9).23
Caesar’s conquest, then, is not of the illustration), the Forum
merely on a physical (both Transitorium (started by Domitian though
sexual and military) scale, but sometimes called the Forum of Nerva),
rather is raised to a far higher and Vespasian’s Forum of Peace. Museo
plane, one that is on a quasi-if della Civiltà Romana, Rome.
not actually divine level, adding
another dimension to his
relationship with Venus Genetrix, who, after all, was not always merely the
goddess of love. She was also associated, as we find in Lucretius (1.1–27 who
calls her Aeneadum genetrix, ‘creator of Aeneas’ clan’, in the very first line),
with a power over the earth that is near complete.24 Her domination both in
Lucretius’ poem and in Caesar’s temple to her reflects Caesar’s own dominion as
well, since her epithet ‘Genetrix’ connects Caesar to Venus both ancestrally, and
in her capacity as earth’s regent. Her imperiousness is mirrored in Caesar’s
bronze statue on the Capitoline which had the globe at its feet (possibly similar
to that shown in fig. 6.1) with the (p.230) inscription added that he was a
demigod.25 His vast dominion that encompasses the world arguably corresponds
to his ancient lineage, indeed, his ancient birthright, which stretched all the way
back to Venus, a lineage that encompassed the bounds of both divine and human
history.
Caesar’s forum made two important qualities we associate with the man—lover
and conqueror—indivisible. The connection was made explicit and complete
when Augustus later constructed his own forum, with its temple of Mars, in
conjunction with Caesar’s: it served as a symbolic ‘wedding’ between Rome’s
mother and father, between the elements of love and strife, between
regeneration and warfare, and obliquely referred to the role of both as Rome’s
new ‘founders’.26 The two seemingly opposite elements are in fact inseparable
Page 6 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
here because of the occasion on which Venus’ temple was vowed, on the eve of
Pompey’s defeat at Pharsalus (hence a martial context). That, too, may well
explain why we have here not a temple to Victrix but Genetrix, astutely avoiding
use of Pompey’s Venus at the same time reflective and reminiscent of the
vanquished, since the temple was a product of Caesar’s further conquest.
In addition, Caesar adorned the front of his temple with two famous paintings by
Timomachus, his Ajax and Medea (see fig. 3.8).29 According to our sources,
Caesar chose the paintings himself, though it is uncertain when they were added
to the forum. As was the case for any Roman of his class, they naturally will have
reflected his taste for Greek art, however, they could not have helped but to
offer possible readings that will have served as commentary on more current
events. Consider the Ajax, which depicted his madness (which ended in suicide).
The Romans were familiar with the tale and, more than likely, the Sophoclean
model on which it will have been based.30 After 46 BC, it will have been
impossible for contemporary viewers to look at the work without the death of
Cato coming to mind, Caesar’s great enemy, who chose suicide rather than
surrendering to his nemesis.31
Yet how the audience will have understood that event is not easy to ascertain,
though a variety of possibilities presented themselves to the viewer. A ‘pro-
Caesarian’ reading could understand the picture as depicting, metaphorically,
the blind madness on the part of his enemies—a madness that, like Sophocles’
hero, served only to bring disgrace upon Caesar’s opponents. A more ambiguous
reading would perhaps be more sympathetic towards Cato, who held his honour
at too high a price to live among men he considered morally duplicitous.32 A
Page 7 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
The subject of Medea obviously offered the viewer more than one interpretation
beyond the simple plot of the story.34 The painting represented Medea
contemplating the murder of her children, and the work was unfinished (and for
that reason admired all the more).35 The very subject could not have helped but
to evoke associations with the statue of Cleopatra within: Cleopatra
overwhelmed and charmed both Caesar and Marc Antony; indeed, by repute she
was the quintessential bewitching, exotic easterner, like her mythological
counterpart from Colchis. Taken as a collective triad Venus, Cleopatra, and
Medea formed a group in the archetypal realm of the feminine: Venus as love
goddess/mother, Cleopatra as queen/consort, and Medea as beguiling witch.
They encompassed and reigned in the realm of heaven, of earth, and mediated in
between, reflecting the extent of Caesar’s own reach, ultimately, as conqueror,
high priest, king, and demigod.36 One can imagine that Caesar would have been
delighted to have left behind such a memory. His detractors, though, will have
doubtless read all of this somewhat differently: in Venus one saw too Caesar’s
effeminacy, and in Cleopatra and Medea his weak surrender to amorous
appetites and ‘feminine wiles’. The Medea presents the ambiguous and
disturbing reading, too, of mother and murderess, a reflection of Caesar as Pater
Patriae, but also as the murderer of the republican patria of which he was
parent.37
The reading of other ‘Caesarian’ artefacts we find is no more stable, since they
offer the potential for resistant readings even as they attempt to establish an
official discourse. In the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, for example, Caesar’s
sella curulis (‘seat of consular honour’) and crown (possibly that famously
refused at the Lupercalia) were on display for all to see (fig. 7.4).38 Ostensibly
these objects projected Caesar’s power and his forbearance, although such
symbols are potentially ambiguous and allow for various interpretations: do
these tokens of royal power advertise Caesar’s refusal to become king? Do they
advertise his potential to have seized supreme power? Or perhaps it advertised a
power he in fact already (p.233)
Page 8 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Page 9 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
capacity as ‘mother’), while the motif of birth also ties Augustus to both Caesar
and Venus qua Genetrix as he ushers in the birth of a new age and further
advertises his ties to his adoptive father.45
In addition, Apelles, as was the case with Lysippus, was associated with
Alexander; he was reportedly the only painter allowed to execute Alexander’s
portrait, and was certainly the biggest ‘name’ in the world of ancient painting.
Conveniently, Apelles was one of Augustus’ favourite artists. While that certainly
motivated his choice, the fact remains that Caesar’s ancestry, and by implication
Caesar himself, was to be commemorated by the same artist, and by tradition
the only artist aside from Lysippus permitted to portray Alexander. It is perhaps
no accident in this regard that Alexander’s favourite sculptor originally executed
the equestrian statue in Caesar’s forum. The overall effect of these associations
is to destabilize if not collapse the boundaries between Greek and Roman,
between past and present, and in so doing to colonize all with a Caesarian
identity and message of power.
Page 10 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
conjunction with the fabric of Greek culture, creating a unique form of Augustan
classicism and identity.
The mark Augustus left on the city has proven an irresistible subject for
numerous scholars, most notably Zanker, Galinsky, Favro, and Jaeger.47 There
(p.236)
Page 11 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
with their lives for their his wife; on the left is the Temple of the
treachery against the sons of Magna Mater.
Aegyptus, itself significant
given Augustus’ campaign
against Cleopatra), and on the subjects carved on the doors.59 The doors also
depicted the Gauls being (p.240)
Page 13 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
The terracotta plaques that also adorned the precinct will have driven home the
point. One of them in particular, which shows Apollo competing with Hercules
over a tripod (fig. 7.7), is especially telling. Antony not only associated himself
with Bacchus, but with Hercules as well.62 The conflict between Antony and
Page 14 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Octavian was to take on divine dimensions. Here too for Augustus, it was a
matter of barbarism versus the forces of civilization, since he famously remarked
that Antony had ‘gone native’, lamenting according to Cassius Dio (50.25.3) that
he no longer dressed as a Roman but wore the vestments of barbarians and was
in thrall to a prostitute. Augustus portrays himself as the embodiment of
civilization, while his rival Antony stands as its opponent, and the works here fit
in the context of the visually competitive environment that we also see during
the republic.
As noted, set above all were two chariot groups. On the temple itself there was
that of the sun, which was not merely a symbol of Apollo, but also, as Galinsky
notes, of the Hellenistic kings, while the Latins in fact traced their descent back
to Sol.63 On the propylea, the group of Apollo and Artemis impended over this
Augustan world. Both groups stood as a reaffirmation of the divine and cosmic
order, and their protection against barbarism. At the same time, however, such
reaffirmation rests on the need for something to be contained, of a latent
menace.64 The result is a destabilized reading that perpetuates the need for a
powerful centralized control, a form of rhetoric—here expressed in visual terms
—that reasserts the need for strength even as it creates a sense of instability,
(p.243)
Page 15 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
In this instance, given the structure’s restoration date of 32 BC, it seems very
likely that Augustus’ emphasis on Apollo was intended to offset Antony’s close
identification with Bacchus, a scenario all the more likely when we consider the
relative absence of Bacchus in Augustan collections, and for that matter artistic
programmes in general. Favro has pointed out too that Sosius was initially
Antony’s ally and that the temple had been intended to set forth a competing
claim of victory, hence prestige. Sosius had earned a triumph for his war against
the Jews (celebrated in September of 34 BC after he installed Herod in power in
37), and was renovating the building next to the Portico of Octavia. The agonistic
motivation behind Sosius’ renovations could not be clearer, though in the end
(p.245)
Page 16 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Page 17 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
the Augustan age. The temple’s collection thereby creates an alternate history,
in which a resistant reading is possible: Apollo may be the healer—Medicus—as
was (in a sense) Augustus; but he also brings destruction and death, something
Niobe’s tale grimly illustrates.
Page 18 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(p.248)
Page 19 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Page 20 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Page 21 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
burn and enlighten, and would ensure the continued spread of romanitas and of
Hellenism.75
The upper storey, consisting of open galleries, were supported by caryatids and
alternated with shields carrying the heads of divinities (such as the still
surviving Zeus Ammon, see fig. 7.13). Set at the back was the Temple of Mars
Ultor (‘the avenger’) vowed on the eve of the battle of Philippi in 42 BC, where
the two leading conspirators against Caesar, M. Brutus and C. Cassius, perished.
Three cult statues stood in the temple: Mars flanked by Venus and Caesar,
known from a relief in Algiers (fig. 7.14).78 The construction material used to
build both the temple and forum was as rich and ambitious as the programme of
sculpture or the collection itself, and equally significant. Galinsky, for example,
has noted that the material, such as the various types of marble used from the
East, Italy, and North Africa, reflected the extent of Rome’s domination not just
over other peoples but their natural resources too, that is, literally over the
world.79
The collection within the temple and its forum appears to have been carefully
assembled, weaving together a tale of war and empire, and promising the
perpetuity of both. Let us first consider the material objects collected and
exhibited in the forum and temple complex. Augustus dedicated the Roman
standards, lost by Crassus at Carrhae in 53 BC and now retrieved back from the
Parthians, in the Temple of Mars Ultor itself (see above p. 133 and fig. 4.5).80
Julius Caesar’s sword was also placed in the temple (Suet. Vit. 8.1), as were (p.
252)
Page 22 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Page 23 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Page 24 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
The literal artefacts of triumph and vindication associated with the Temple of
Mars, such as Caesar’s sword or the votive chariot are therefore complemented
by a diverse array of artistic masterpieces, such as Apelles’ Alexander, with
whom, as noted, Augustus associated himself on the Palatine. While the
connection with Augustus to Caesar and Alexander as conquerors has been the
subject of frequent discussion, it has less often been observed that Alexander’s
war was arguably also a war of revenge against the Persians, now replaced by
the Romans with the Parthians. The motif of vengeance was similarly evoked by
Athena’s statue, whose place in the forum was a direct result of Augustus’
vindication against Antony.87 The assemblage of Greek cultural objects therefore
intertwines Roman with Greek history, with Augustus and the summi viri
becoming enmeshed in Greek historic and cultural achievements.
Page 25 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Yet the ethos of the collection remains uniquely Roman. The forum constituted
the ultimate procession of the imagines, and as such constituted a grand
funerary monument set permanently in front of a public audience, whose
orations set in stone and bronze delivered an eternal eulogy to the viewer. The
summi viri arguably acted as imagines exhorting the viewer to deeds of virtus in
war, whose divine patron Mars stood imposingly over the scene. In the Temple of
Mars, the Roman senate deliberated on matters pertaining to war, and from its
precinct generals and armies set out.88 Also at the temple, Roman boys were
literally made men, since it was where a young man assumed his toga virilis and
(p.257) was enrolled as a citizen; as a vir his role was to go out and display his
vir-tus on the field of battle. As more than one scholar has noted, the forum was
the visual realization of the Aeneid’s famed underworld procession in book six,
itself exhortatory in nature.89 The cumulative impact of the collection was to
perpetuate power, imperium sine fine and to keep Furor impius literally under
the watchful gaze of the Roman senate that met here to discuss war. Pausanias
tells us that ‘the statue of Athena meets those entering’. It was an apt reminder
that not only looked back to the Greek past, but to the Roman present in which a
powerful princeps drawing on the collective sagacity of the senate reflected the
wisdom and military prowess the warrior goddess embodied. If Athens was
indeed the ‘school of Hellas’, Rome was now the ‘school of empire’.
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Page 27 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
assumed to be Juno’s, and vice versa. The highlight of the collection will have
been the Aphrodite by Phidias that stood outside the portico, a statue, according
to Pliny eximiae pulchritudinis (‘of remarkable beauty’, HN 36.14). There was
also an Aesculapius and Diana by Cephisodotus, the son of Praxiteles (HN
36.24). Pliny tells us the collection also included a statue of Cupid holding a
thunderbolt, attributed to both Scopas and Praxiteles, but whose model, it was
agreed, was Alcibiades (Pliny, HN 36.28)94 In addition, (p.260)
Page 28 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
prominent pieces of sculpture in the collection. It will have formed a link, as had
the caryatids in Augustus’ forum, between the Roman present and the classical
Greek past, between Augustus’ divine lineage and his role as the imperial patron
and protector of Greek culture. The Phidian statue will have also given
audiences a preview of what was inside the complex. It was no ordinary
assemblage, but a who’s who of celebrated artists of antiquity whose names in
and of themselves would have lent prestige to the collection.
If Augustus’ lineage in the world of gods was given primacy of place, his position
in the world of men and of history was a close second. Once inside the portico
the viewer was confronted with what must have been the striking sight of the
Granicus group noted above, a group that once again associated Augustus with
Alexander. The group was reinforced by the presence of Antiphilus’ portrait of
Philip, Alexander, and Athena. Just in case the message was lost, the theme of
conquest and victory was underscored by the deposition of Gabinius’
standards.95 Augustus’ own imperial success now looked back to and bound
itself with the historical precedent of Alexander as well as to the divine
patronage of Aphrodite and Athena (who again here, stood as a guardian of
culture). Such imagery prefigured vividly the nexus that was to come later on in
his forum between culture and violence, though here there will have been a
relationship between the objects that raised the possibility of an ambiguous
reading: Lysippus’ and Antiphilus’ creations are cultural achievements in their
(p.262) own right, but particularly in the case of Lysippus’ Granicus group,
that creation is predicated on force and destruction, commemorating as it did
the death of Alexander’s companions in the heat of battle. Culture and conquest,
violence and the creative impulse, join here in a Danse Macabre, a ghoulish
dialectic of selfgeneration in which the precondition for culture is violence, with
much of that culture consisting of the representation of that very violence in
visual forms.
Indeed, the Granicus group as a text would have presented the viewer with
further ambiguities. Poised in the front of the portico, the group arguably stood
guard as protectors of Juno Regina and Jupiter Stator, as well as the precinct as
a whole. That precinct encompassed a lengthy chronological spectrum of art
(and artists), of subjects (in particular Hellenistic ones), of divine powers, in
conjunction with aesthetic beauty. In this sense, violence stands as a protector,
even spreader, of culture, a reasonable enough association given Alexander’s
(and for that matter, Augustus’) accomplishments. In regard to the temples they
fronted, we recall that Jupiter Stator was himself the ‘Stayer of Flight’, the deity
that made one of Rome’s earliest initial conquests (against the Sabines) possible
and was resonant with the Romans even in Augustus’ day (and arguably beyond)
in this regard.96 By tradition he had assisted Romulus in one of Rome’s earliest
battles, and in his capacity as Stator was one of the deities instrumental to
Roman success; events on the Granicus, in which Alexander’s companions had
Page 29 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
saved the day, were thereby tied with an event in Roman history and the two, in
a sense, became one.
Conversely, Juno was the deity most hostile to the Romans’ ancestors, the
Trojans, and most protective of the Greeks (as we see most famously in the
Aeneid). She arguably fulfills this role here as well, standing as a divine
protectress over important Greek cultural treasures. Her revenge promised by
Jupiter, her neighbour and consort, that the Greeks, despite Aeneas’ success,
would once again prevail, has here, however, been both broken and fulfilled. The
horsemen indeed are indicative of the supreme success of Hellenism, having
spread Greek culture first to India and the East, and now to Hesperia and the
West. The Granicus group in this sense threatens to subdue the very temples
they guard. At the same time they are now safely tamed, set in their new Roman
abode, just one among many of the Greek cultural treasures taken after Greece’s
final humiliation in 146 BC, a mocking reminder to Juno of her ultimate
submission to Jupiter’s divine will. (p.263)
Augustus Collected
Taken as a whole, the three
Augustan collections were
reflective of the princeps’
personality. The temple
dedicated to the godhead of
Divus Augustus, stood as a
summation of his life, and as a
visual reflection of the other
collections in general.97
Lehmann long ago conjectured Fig. 7.17 Plan of the Temple of Divus
concerning the arrangement of Augustus after Lehmann. 170. A gold
the collection based on a series statue of Victory; 171. A clay statue of a
of epigrams by Martial (14.170– child; 172. The Apollo Sauroctonos; 173.
82), and we here follow A painting of Hyacinthus; 174. A marble
Lehmann’s hypothesis Hermaphrodite; 175. A painting of Danaë;
concerning the order of the 176. A German war mask; 177. A
display (see fig. 7.17).98 Hercules in Corinthian bronze; 178. A
Praxiteles’ Corinthian bronze clay Hercules; 179. A silver Minerva; 180.
sculpture, the Apollo A painting of Europa; 181. A marble
Sauroctonos (‘lizard slayer’, Leander.
Mart. 14.172, fig. 7.18) and two
Hercules figures (one a
Corinthian bronze of Hercules as an infant strangling the serpents, another of
him in clay) may have stood on either side of Nicias’ painting of Hyacinthus
(Mart. 14.173), dedicated (p.264)
Page 30 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Page 31 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
In terms of the connection to Augustan policy and ‘themes’ from his own time as
princeps, the abundance of terracotta in the collection is striking, a material we
know was favoured by Augustus as ancient and venerable, evocative of the
pietas that stands out as a singular mark of his reign, such as we see in the fine
archaizing head of Apollo from the Palatine (fig. 7.19; see above, p. 248). In an
echo of his forum, we here again see Minerva standing watch over a world in
miniature represented by a diverse array of cultural objects that encompass a
historical span from the archaic period of Greek culture into the present,
embodied in the talisman of the German war mask, set, as was the case of the
Gauls in the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine, on the threshold, reflecting the
dangers that lurked on the boundaries of empire, dangers made frighteningly
apparent by the victory of Arminius in the Teutoberg forest in AD 9.
(p.266)
Page 32 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Page 33 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
know that Thrasyllus and Tiberius had a close life-long relationship. Moreover,
while restoration certainly began in 7 BC (Cass. Dio 55.8.2), the year before
Tiberius went into self-imposed exile to Rhodes, the temple was not dedicated
until 16 January, AD 10, well after Tiberius’ return.102 In addition, we know that
Tiberius took an active concern in the selection of the temple’s collection; an
offhand remark by Pliny also indicates that Augustus may have had less
involvement in it than Tiberius, since he notes that Augustus made ‘a gift’ of four
obsidian elephants to the temple. Certainly one can and should read Augustus
into this collection; but the personality of Tiberius, himself an eager collector of
Greek cultural objects (see pp. 70–3), left its mark equally if not more so, on this
monument.
The collection is all the more remarkable if one considers that Tiberius was
notorious for his want of civilitas, and that part of this showed through his
reluctance to undertake building projects.103 Indeed, apart from the Temple of
Divus Augustus, his one major cultural project appears to have been the
restoration of the Temple of Concordia rededicated as Concordia Augusta, and
built from monies and spoils he obtained in his campaigns in Germany and Illyria
(which also paid for his restoration of the Temple of Castor and Pollux).104.He
remained actively engaged in the project, even while in exile in the East, for he
compelled the Parians to give up a particularly fine statue of Hestia in order to
(p.268) adorn the building.105 The temple and its collection made up a
complicated assemblage in which ancient political ideologies, familial relations
within the imperial house, and the interplay of the Greek and the Roman
mirrored back Tiberius’ own personality, and ultimately the tragedy of his reign.
The temple was first and foremost remarkable for its collection of Greek
memorabilia that, if we can believe our sources, included the following: the
aforementioned statue of Hestia (Vesta) from Paros, an Apollo and Juno by
Baton, a Latona with her twin offspring by Euphranor, an Aesculapius and
Hygeia by Niceratus, a Mars and Mercury by Piston, and a Ceres, Jupiter, and
Minerva by Sthennis.106 There were also paintings which included a bound
Marsyas by Zeuxis, a Liber Pater by Nicias, and a Cassandra by Theodorus.107
Additional objects included the above mentioned elephants presented by
Augustus (possibly, as Kellum observes, symbols of triumph and victory) and a
sardonyx belonging to Polycrates of Samos, a gift from Livia.108 If this
represents how the building was adorned at the time, it was a virtual pantheon,
with only two Olympians, Neptune and (perhaps remarkably) Venus, left off the
list (though their inclusion cannot be excluded if our list is incomplete).
Certainly the numismatic representation of the temple is something that itself
appears ‘busy’ by virtue of all the statuary depicted on the coin stamp (see fig.
7.20).109
Page 34 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
The temple looked back to the ‘republican’ ideology of concordia between the
orders and transformed it into one that was, as Kellum notes, dedicated to the
harmony within the imperial family, as well as that of the cosmos.110 The
relationship between Augustus, his family, and the larger world order will not
have been surprising for viewers familiar with the Temple of Apollo on the
Palatine. Like other monuments from the period, it sought to place the new
order in a larger historical and cosmic context. The history of the building itself
was relevant in this regard. It was established after the passage of the Licinian
laws in the early fourth century BC, representing a hard-won concord between
the plebs and patricians. Refurbished by L. Opimius in 121 BC after the first
serious disruption of Roman civic life following the ‘revolutions’ of the Gracchi
and their (p.269)
Page 35 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
the rhetoric of the building’s ideological content. The two paintings by the
renowned masters Zeuxis and Nicias depicted Marsyas and Liber Pater. Both
these deities were important for the plebs, with whom they were identified; in
addition, the presence of Liber Pater, a deity whose absence from Augustan
collections has been noted by Galinsky and others, may be a further indication of
the collection as a product of Tiberius’ own personality and predilections (whose
nickname, Biberius Caldius Mero, mocked his heavy drinking).115 It is perhaps
no coincidence in this regard that Tiberius conducted a number of restoration
projects on temples with similar plebeian associations, including those to Liber,
Libera, and Ceres (Tac. Ann. 2.49). The presence of such subjects amid
Hochkulture appears to reinforce the building’s original rhetoric as a whole, that
of concordia between the orders.
Tiberius’ interest in Concordia may have had a familial element as well. Cassius
Dio notes that Tiberius inscribed both his name and his brother’s on the temple,
and their names appeared together when the temple was finally dedicated either
in AD 10 or 12.116 According to Tacitus (Ann. 1.4), concerns were expressed
towards the end of Augustus’ reign that male members of the family would
potentially turn against one another when Augustus died and tear the state
apart, repeating the catastrophe of the late republic. Tacitus specifically alludes
to popular fears about Germanicus, Tiberius’ nephew, and to Drusus, Tiberius’
son. Tiberius’ commemoration of his brother Drusus may have been intended to
give reassurance over the harmony now between Germanicus and his own son
Drusus.117
As for the collection itself, such Greek masterpieces literally a stone’s throw
from the umbilicus, the centre of the city from which all the world was
measured, in a very real sense contains a Vergilian dimension of the tense
relationship between Greeks and the Romans, (as descendants of the Trojans
and as conquerors of the Greeks). There can now be concordia between the two
because Troy has exacted its revenge, and brought into its sacred heart the
spoils of its mortal (p.271) enemy, at the same time reconciling itself to its
cultural domination by Greece since that culture has been appropriated and
become an integral part of the Roman sphere. The reconciliation between the
two was reflected in the temple’s very construction, which was possibly a
combination of Roman money and motivation, but Greek planning and design.118
Given such cultural interplay, the potential for an ambiguous reading is
therefore as great here as in the Augustan collections. Although arguably
expressed in less violent terms than in the Portico of Octavia or the Temple of
Apollo on the Palatine, culture remains something that is conquered and
dominated but itself dominates in turn. The public could view and so
symbolically subdue that on which it gazed, while in turn its vanquished enemy
paradoxically colonized the Roman gaze by virtue of its very attraction and
centrality. The emphasis here, however, is not on force, but harmony. The careful
deployment of cultural objects constructing a narrative based on both violence
Page 36 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
One suspects that the collection was a project very dear to Tiberius. He was,
despite Nero’s reputation, perhaps the most avid philhellene of all our emperors
with the possible exception of Hadrian (see pp. 71–2). His taste for things Greek
and his conservatism both intersect here, since the collection and the rhetoric of
the building reinforced one another with its blend of Roman republican ideology
and Greek cultural identity, and in this sense is further reflective of Tiberius’
own court, with its mingling of Roman senators, Greek scholars, and diverse
amici. Unfortunately for Tiberius, the building merely added one more layer of
historical irony to his life and reign. In Tiberius’ final days all concordia between
himself and his family, the senate, his Praetorian Praefect (L. Aelius Sejanus),
and the people vanished. Consequently, while the collection stands as a genuine
reflection of Tiberius’ own personal tastes, interests, even his ideology
concerning the socio-political relationships he envisioned for a post-Augustan
society, it also functions as a Greek chorus, inviting the audience to muse on the
tragedy of his principate and his life. That life he ended more like a Hellenistic
monarch than a stalwart republican in the tradition of a Fulvius or a Mummius,
and was distinctly discordant from Concordia’s larger purposes.
To understand the collection, a few words concerning the new princeps are
necessary. In AD 70 Vespasian had a significant task to accomplish. He had to
establish the legitimacy of his imperial government in the wake of the bitter civil
Page 37 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
war that took place in 69 after Nero’s deposition and suicide in 68. In addition,
he had to reassert the sense of Roman control and confidence that the civil war
and (p.273) its attendant provincial revolts had shaken. He was also compelled
to look to the traditions and precedents set in place by the principate and follow
those if he was to maintain power. It was a careful balancing act, since
Vespasian was following close on the heels of Nero, an emperor who was
extremely unpopular with the senate, but whose reputation with the people at
large was far more favourable. His task—in which he succeeded admirably in the
end—was to court favour with both segments of Roman society.
Indeed, Vespasian’s forum did what Nero could not but what Augustus could:
create a monument that would recall his own military successes and combine it
with prestigious works that would establish his authority and legitimacy in visual
terms. To do this he looked to what by his day had been established as a
traditional, hence, legitimate use of a venue in the form of an imperial forum for
public display of material objects, distinctly rejecting Nero’s use of artwork for a
semi-private paradeisos.123 He thereby disassociated himself from Nero, at the
same time linking himself to Caesar and Augustus by constructing a new forum,
which was just one of several new projects he undertook, including the nearby
Flavian amphitheatre. He also borrowed another page from Augustus, not
building over any ancient buildings: here, however, he had the assistance of the
fire of 64 and, of course, Nero himself, who had taken advantage of the
catastrophe to begin construction on the Domus Aurea. In this sense, he was
declaring a novus ordo by building an entirely new structure on the site for
purely public enjoyment, while at the same time, by virtue of its distinct spatial
relationship with Augustus’ older forum, he literally aligned himself in a larger
topographical context with a popular predecessor (see map 7.1).
As for the collection itself, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, and others give us a
relatively detailed descriptions of its contents.124 Concerning the statuary
programme, Statius mentions the cult statue of Pax that Domitian dedicated
(Silvae 4.3.17), which may have been a replacement of the original (see fig.
7.21).125 Pliny also mentions (HN 36.27) a greatly admired statue of Venus by an
unknown artist. There was also a well-known painting by Naukydes of the (p.
274)
Page 38 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Page 39 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(p.277)
Page 40 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Page 41 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
The representations in the form of painted and other visual media of the
campaign paraded in the triumph will have likely also constituted a part of the
collection. These are described by Josephus who tells us that in Vespasian’s
triumphal procession an unspecified number of elaborate movable stage devices
(pēgmata) had been constructed, some of them three and four stories tall, many
of which were covered with tapestries interwoven with gold, and all with
Page 42 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
framework of gold and ivory.140 As was traditionally the case, many of the
depictions represented scenes from the war: the countryside’s devastation, the
slaughter of the enemy, captives, men in flight, walls demolished by siege
engines, fortresses overtaken, defeated suppliant enemies, temples on fire, and
houses destroyed. On each stage during the procession there was ‘the general of
the captured city (p.281) depicted in the attitude in which he had been taken’.
Josephus emphasizes the realism of the depictions on these tapestries
(hyphasmata), though he leaves it uncertain if these were all tapestries; it is
possible that some may have been paintings or other media.
The collection thus joined three worlds—in the form of defeated Judaea,
conquering Rome, and Hellenistic culture—both on a metaphoric and literal
level, and poses to us the inevitable question: how did the objects from these
three disparate cultures interact? As for the collection of classical material,
certain subjects will have decidedly resonated with the Flavian court and its
supporters. This is the case for the Venus Pliny had mentioned in particular.
During the conflict in 69, Vespasian had sent his son Titus to Paphos to consult
Venus’ oracle, which spoke favourably concerning his father’s chances of
success (Tac. Hist. 2.2–3). It is perhaps little wonder, then, that a masterwork
(albeit anonymous) was sought out for this particular deity. Her place will have
been important in terms of legitimizing the new court, granting it divine
approval. Venus too was the ancestor of the now extinct court of the Julio-
Claudians; as such, she will also have provided continuity and a link between the
previous dynasty that looked to establish its authority through divine lineage,
and the new one that also sought validation in part through her oracle.
Page 43 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(p.282) The large statue of the Nile will have been an equally important
reminder for Romans of his successful claim to the throne and succession.
Vespasian had been declared imperator on 1 July AD 69, in Alexandria, Egypt.
More than simply a reminder of his dies imperii (‘date of accession’) and the
place of his succession, the statue was also a vivid reminder of the direct
benefits Vespasian had bestowed on the Roman people themselves in that annus
terribilis. He had successfully secured the province, whose fertility fed the city,
and whose sixteen erotes sporting on the Nile god will have stood as a reminder
of his commitment to the city’s inhabitants. The Nile is further emblematic of
fertility, and its location in the Forum of Peace is perhaps no accident; the
association between peace and abundance is one found throughout the Augustan
programme as well. Indeed, as Noreña notes, Vespasian’s Forum of Peace will
have brought up associations with the Ara Pacis and Augustus’ own forum.143
The relationship is all the more readily apparent when we consider that
Vespasian’s was the first of the imperial fora built after Augustus’. From this
perspective the associations will have been unmistakable and stark. A
relationship, therefore, between Vespasian and Augustus established itself
through these various means and will have been readily appreciated by a Roman
audience.
The theme of legitimacy, and of the creation of a new order is picked up in yet
another sense by Protogenes’ masterpiece: Ialysus was the mythical founder of
Rhodes, and, as the founder of a new dynasty, viewers may have made the
connection between the Ialysus as such and Vespasian, who made it quite clear
early on that his sons would succeed him or no one, and that his reign signalled
the advent of a new order (Cass. Dio 65.12). In addition, a famous legend that
surrounded the work may have created yet another nexus between Greek and
Roman historical circumstances. As the painting was executed in the course of
Demetrius Poliorcetes’ long siege of Rhodes, so it was now admired and
displayed by the man who had accomplished (though more successfully) the long
siege of Jerusalem (a seemingly fanciful notion, unless we consider how well-
known Demetrius’ siege was in conjunction with the anecdote concerning the
painting’s execution in antiquity).144
The material from Judaea carried a more cosmic significance. This comes from
Josephus himself (BJ 5.216–19) who, in addition to relating the history of the (p.
283) objects, includes a summary of the symbolic significance of what he
believed to be the three most valuable pieces, the table, the lamp stand, and the
altar of incense: the seven branches of the lamps, explained Josephus,
represented the planets, while the twelve loaves on the table represented the
circle of the Zodiac and the year. The altar of incense adorned with thirteen
spices from sea and land, with which it was replenished, signified that all things
come from and are of God. Sea and land, space and time, and God and his
sacred implements: all were present symbolically within the forum along with,
we may presume, the visual narrative that related the history of how not only the
Page 44 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
The nexus of items displayed, the ancient law, the vessels of the Temple, the
symbolic nature of the spoils as representative of the cosmos and the divine,
even of nature itself, and, very likely, the narrative of their conquest, all
converge to create, as Josephus noted, a microcosm of the world, although a
particularly Flavian one.145 Scholars have long argued that it was the private
use of cultural objects and property by Nero that offended the senate and
Romans at large and that Vespasian tried to change this by making things more
public. Champlin’s recent study gives us an alternative perspective. There is
arguably more continuity with Nero’s regime than a break with it in Vespasian’s
collection. If we accept recent arguments that Nero’s Domus Aurea and its
complex was intended as a much more public facility than previously thought,
then Vespasian’s forum was just one part of an attempt to maintain and build on
what Nero had started. Nero was a lover of spectacles and one who provided the
city with them constantly. Both the Forum of Peace and the Colosseum built by
Vespasian’s sons served as complexes that were all about spectacle, and in the
case of the former, about the world, the divine, and the establishment of Flavian
power and legitimacy.
The Domus Aurea was similarly about the world, and was the supreme display of
a Hellenism gone wild, one that sought to identify itself with the grand monarchs
who succeeded Alexander.146 Vespasian’s forum rejected Nero’s brand of
Hellenism by seeking to tame and reinterpret it, to confine it back within the
bounds of the porticoes of the Forum of Peace, to make it a means by which
Vespasian’s own legitimacy could be read and the world understood, in short, to
establish rather than undermine his authority. Vespasian thus chose to follow a
path similar to that followed by Augustus, with whom he consciously (p.284)
associated himself, where conquest and culture, peace and triumph,
communicated the stability of the new order and the worth of the new
princeps.147As was the case with Mars Ultor, the Temple of Divus Julius, and
other assorted monuments and displays under Augustus, Vespasian sought in the
Forum of Peace, through the display of the spoils of war to establish his ‘military
credentials’ in visual terms.148 For good measure, Vespasian added an
exclamation point to his resumé as general with an expansion of the pomerium,
the fact that his victories included those over rebels and fellow Romans
notwithstanding.149 Finally, in case the message was lost, he closed the Temple
of Janus as had Augustus before him, itself a symbolic realization of the peace
his forum embodied.150 Vespasian’s forum was indeed a Flavian world in
Page 45 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
miniature: a world that had been subdued, collected, exhibited, and reassuringly
tamed by Vespasian and his son Titus. His forum was a reflection of that over
which he ruled: a microcosm of the empire that enclosed together Roman
conquest, Greek culture, and the cosmos, a world the Flavians had reassembled
after being torn asunder, and over which they, with the help of Venus, would be
the sole rulers. Emerging from the year of struggle, Vespasian had proven
victorious, like the wrestler Cheimon on display in his forum.
We have now come, like Sol himself, full circle. Aurelian ruled for five years,
among the most successful of the emperors who governed during the imperial
crisis of the mid-third century AD. Yet he still adhered to traditional practices,
whereby cultural objects could and did speak to the auctoritas of the princeps,
and served, by virtue of that auctoritas, to legitimate a claim to title, rule, and
power. His patron deity was not Venus, but the Sun, who both figuratively and
literally looked over his empire. That empire was one that asserted authority
over upstart eastern queens, as Augustus had three centuries before, and
asserted its domination through the exhibition of her insignia, of her military
and royal power, even of her gods: royal clothes that indicated her status, her
war standards, and the statues of Helios and Belos, the former having been
arguably restored or relocated to his rightful place, the Temple of Sol. And, like
the battle rams at Actium that Augustus used to adorn the Forum, even the most
powerful beasts of nature, elephants, had been metaphorically neutered, their
tusks on display ready to be reduced to a mere symbol of Roman power. Finally,
there was the dazzling (p.286) purple of India, surrendered by the Persian
Page 46 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
monarch that held out the token possibility that his royal power could eventually
be taken not in the form of some symbolic gift, but literally, and that the horizon
of Roman power could stretch clear to India. While the actual catalogue in the
Historia Augusta may be fanciful, the effect and significance of such collections
are not. Even in AD 274, Roman authors whether of history or historical fiction,
still thought in Vergilian terms of imperium sine fine. They had the visual
accoutrements to assure them of their power over empires, over the earth, its
people, and its cultures.
Notes:
(1) See now in general I. Östenberg, Staging the World: Spoils, Captives, and
Representation in the Roman Triumphal Procession (Oxford 2009) for the
triumph as display.
(2) For M. Fulvius Nobilior’s triumph see p. 40 with n. 32; for Aemilius Paullus
see pp. 40–1 with n. 34; for Pompey see Plut. Pomp. 45; App. Mith. 116–17; Cass.
Dio 37.21; see M. Beard, The Roman Triumph (Cambridge Mass. 2007), 7–14,
36–41; for Caesar see Suet. Iul. 37; Plut. Caes. 55.2; App. B Civ. 2.101–2; Florus
2.13.88–9; Cass. Dio 43.19; see M. Gelzer, Caesar. Politician and Statesman
(Cambridge Mass. 1968), 284; Beard, The Roman Triumph, 102–4, 136–7, 154–5;
for Vespasian see Joseph. BJ 7.132; Suet. Vesp. 12; Cass. Dio 65.12.1a; see M.
Beard, ‘The Triumph of Flavius Josephus’, in A. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik (eds.),
Flavian Rome. Culture, Image, Text (Leiden 2003), 543–58; F. Millar, ‘Last Year
in Jerusalem: Monuments of the Jewish War in Rome’, in J. Edmonson, S. Mason,
and J. Rives (eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford 2005), 101–29;
Beard, The Roman Triumph, 43–4, 93–6, 99–101, 151–3.
(4) See e.g. J. M. Beaujeu, ‘A-t-il éxisté une direction des musées dans la Rome
impériale?’, in Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres,
Nov.-Dec. (1982), 674 noting specifically the temples of Ceres, Castor and Pollux,
Diana, Fides, Apollo in Circo, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Venus Genetrix, Caesar,
Augustus, the Pantheon, the Curia, and the Forum of Augustus; cf. E. M. Orlin,
Temples, Religion, and Politics in the Roman Republic (Leiden 1997), 132 n. 60,
who cites also the temples of Liber and Libera, Salus, Honos and Virtus, and
Felicitas.
(5) For Pompey’s theatre see A. Kuttner, ‘Culture and History at Pompey’s
Museum’, TAPA 129 (1999), 343–73 for an excellent detailed discussion of the
collection that included paintings by Pausias (HN 35.126), Polygnotus (HN
35.58–9), and Antiphilus (HN 35.114); see G. Sauron, Quis deum?: l’expression
plastique des idéologies politiques et religieuses à Rome à la fin de la
République et au début du Principat (Rome 1994), 249–314 for a general
discussion of the theatre complex; see esp. 266–80 for how the theatre embodies
Page 47 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
‘l’heroisation’ of Pompey the Great; also see F. Coarelli, ‘Il complesso pompeiano
del Campo Marzio e la sua decorazione scultorea’, RendPontAcc 45 (1971/2), 99–
122; M. Miles, Art as Plunder. The Ancient Origins of Debate about Cultural
Property (Cambridge 2008), 231–7.
(6) For the development of such venues see E. Thomas, Monumentality and the
Roman Empire. Architecture in the Antonine Age (Oxford 2007), 2.
(7) Pliny, HN 35.66; Ov. Fast. 6.797–812; for discussion see P. J. Holliday, ‘Roman
Triumphal Painting: Its Function, Development, and Reception’, ArtB 79 (1997),
141–2, who notes the inextricable link between Fulvius’ programme in the
Temple of Hercules Musarum and his attempt to construct himself through a
nexus of ‘personal and national accomplishments through a complex
interweaving of artistic, literary, religious, and political elements’. For the
temple see L. R. Richardson, ‘Hercules Musarum and Porticus Philippi in Rome’,
AJA 81 (1977), 355–61; M. Martina, ‘Aedes Herculis Musarum’, DialArch (1981),
49–68; F. Coarelli, Il Campo Marzio. Dalle Origini alla Fine della Repubblica
(Rome 1997), 452–84.
(8) Cic. Arch. 27; for discussion see E. S. Gruen, Culture and Identity in
Republican Rome (Ithaca 1992), 109; also see above p. 207.
(9) For the collegium poetarum see Val. Max. 3.7.11; Pliny, HN 34.19; Juvenal
7.38; Porphyry on Horace, Sermones 1.10.38 and Epistulae 2.2.91; see E. G.
Sihler, ‘The Collegium Poetarum at Rome’, AJP 26 (1905), 1–21; Gruen, Culture
and Identity (n. 8), 109 for discussion.
(10) For his fasti see Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.12.16; see Gruen, Culture and
Identity (n. 8), 109–13 for discussion.
(11) For the location and function of the Atrium Libertatis see N. Purcell, ‘Atrium
Libertatis’, PBSR 61 (1993), 125–55. For the collection see G. Becatti, ‘Letture
Pliniane: Le opera d’arte nei monumenta Asini Pollionis e negli Horti Serviliani’,
in Studi in Onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni, vol. 3 (Milan 1956),
199–210; J. Isager, Pliny on Art and Society: The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the
History of Art (London 1991), 163–7; A. Bounia, The Nature of Classical
Collecting. Collectors and Collections, 100 BCE–100 CE (Ashgate 2004), 188–90;
Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 5), 238–40.
(12) Purcell, ‘Atrium Libertatis’ (n. 11), 144 argues that what has traditionally
been identified as Sulla’s Tabularium is in fact the Atrium Libertatis. He also
discusses its function as Rome’s first library (citing Ovid, Tristia 3.1.70–2); also
see L. Casson, Libraries in the Ancient World (New Haven 2001), 79–81 for a
related discussion.
Page 48 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(13) One could, for example, read the space as reflecting Asinius’ republican
sentiments noted in our sources; was it coincidence that he had devoted himself
to the Atrium Libertatis, and was associated with the essential quality of the
republic, especially given Pliny’s remark at HN 36.33, Pollio Asinius, ut fuit acris
vehementiae, sic quoque spectari monumenta sua voluit? If so, it evidently did
not matter to Augustus. For Asinius’ associations with libertas and
republicanism, see Horace, Carmina 2.1; Pliny, HN 36.33; Suet. Aug. 43.2; cf.
Macrobius, Saturnalia 2.4.21; see R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939),
5–7 for discussion; for his relationship to Augustus see A. B. Bosworth, ‘Asinius
Pollio and Augustus’, Historia, 21 (1972), 441–73; L. Morgan, ‘The Autopsy of C.
Asinius Pollio’, JRS 90 (2000), 65–68.
(15) Also see p. 58; see F. de Oliveira, Les Idées politiques et morales de Pline
l’Ancien (Coimbra 1992), 177–9 for discussion of Agrippa’s speech in the context
of Pliny’s political thought.
(16) For general discussion of the forum see C. Ricci, ‘Il Foro di Cesare’,
Capitolium, 8 (1933), 157–72, 365–90; R. Thomsen, ‘Studien über den
ursprünglichen Bau des Caesarsforums’, OpArch 5 (1941), 195–218; G. Fiorani,
‘Problemi architettonici del Foro di Cesare’, Studi topografia romana, 5 (1968),
91–104; J. C. Anderson, Jr. The Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora.
Collection Latomus 182 (Brussels 1984), 9–63; R. B. Ulrich, The Temple of Venus
Genetrix in the Forum of Caesar in Rome. The Topography, History, Architecture,
and Sculptural Program of the Monument (New Haven 1984); C. Amici, Il Foro di
Cesare (Florence 1991); R. B. Ulrich, ‘Iulius Caesar and the Creation of the
Forum Iulium’, AJA 97 (1993), 49–80; R. Westall, ‘The Forum Iulium as
Representation of Imperator Caesar’, RhM 103 (1996), 83–118; for the forum’s
larger urban context see Favro, Augustan Rome (n. 14), 67–73; for Caesar’s
specific associations here with Venus Genetrix see S. Weinstock, Divus Julius
(Oxford 1971), 80–7.
(17) App. B Civ. 2.68; the name change was possibly due to Pompey’s use of the
same name; for Venus Victrix and Pompey see Kuttner, ‘Pompey’s Museum’ (n.
5), 345–7; for the transition from Victrix to Genetrix see G. F. Koch, Die
Kunstaustellung (Berlin 1967), 82–5; K, Galinsky, Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome
(Princeton 1969), 186–8.
Page 49 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(18) Pliny, HN 34.18 says the temple contained a loricate statue of Caesar too;
Augustus dedicated the same or another, crowned with the Iulium Sidus, Cass.
Dio 45.7.1; also see Pliny, HN 2.93–4.
(19) For the corselet see Pliny, HN 9.116; cf. Suet. Iul. 47; for the earrings see
Pliny, HN 9.119–21; Cass. Dio 51.22.3; also see App. B Civ. 2.102 for Cleopatra’s
statues; see Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 1), 106–8 for discussion.
(21) Perhaps most vividly exemplified in the episode of Dido and Aeneas, but also
in Catullus’ invective against Lesbia in poem 11; for the nexus in Catullus
between Caesar, Lesbia, and geography see M. C. J. Putnam, Essays on Latin
Lyric, Elegy, and Epic (Princeton 1982), 15–19; for the connections between
sexual, geographic, and imperial conquest see Ov. Ars Am. 1.217–28 and the
attempt of the sexual predator to seduce a young girl through his knowledge of
geography at a triumph; see p. 119 for discussion.
(23) See pp. 182–4; for an excellent discussion of the statue and its significance
see D. E. E. Kleiner, Cleopatra and Rome (Cambridge Mass. 2005), 150–6.
(24) For Venus’ associations with Aeneas and the Julian line see Galinsky, Aeneas,
Sicily, and Rome (n. 17), 187, 219, 221; cf. p. 161 n. 7 for the connections
between Caesar and Troy.
(25) Cass. Dio 43.14.6; see M. Gelzer, Caesar (n. 2), 278; Weinstock, Divus Julius
(n. 16), 80–90; P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. translator
by Alan Shapiro (Ann Arbor 1988), 40–1; Favro, Augustan Rome (n. 14), 64–5; I.
Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford 2002), 69–72.
(26) For the association between the gens Julia and their ties to Venus and Mars,
see Zanker, Power of Images (n. 2), 193–201; for the conjecture that there was a
physical connection between the two fora, in which the supposedly phallic shape
of Augustus’ forum literally forms a conjugal relationship with Caesar’s, see B.
Kellum, ‘The Phallus as Signifier: The Forum of Augustus and the Rituals of
Masculinity’, in N. B. Kampen (ed.), Sexuality in Ancient Art (Cambridge 1996),
170–83.
(27) See Pliny, HN 8.155; Statius, Silvae 1.1.84–6; Suet. Iul. 61; see R. Garland,
The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World
(Ithaca 1995), 50 for discussion.
Page 50 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(28) For Caesar’s associations with Alexander see Suet. Iul. 7.1; Plut. Caes. 11.5–
6; Plutarch’s pairing of their biographies is itself indicative of the evident
connections between the two in antiquity. Pompey attempted to create similar
connections with Alexander; see e.g. Pliny, HN 35.131–2 for Nicias’ portrait of
Alexander in the Portico of Pompey; for Pompey’s associations see Plut. Pomp.
2.2, 46.1. Other Romans were also variously associated with Alexander; see R.
Syme, Tacitus (Oxford 1958), 470–1 for Germanicus’ (Tac. Ann. 2.73) and
Trajan’s (Cass. Dio 68.29.1, 68.30.1) associations with Alexander. Scipio
Aemilianus may have similarly connected himself with Alexander, see Miles, Art
as Plunder (n. 5), 98–9.
(30) Pacuvius and Accius both left plays entitled the Armorum Iudicium; Ennius
wrote an Aiax Mastigophorus; Augustus also made an unsuccessful attempt on
the subject, Suet. Aug. 85.2.
(31) For a similar association see C. Edwards, ‘Incorporating the Alien: The Art of
Conquest’, in C. Edwards and G. Woolf (eds.), Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge
2003), 60–2; cf. A. Stewart, Art, Desire, and the Body in Ancient Greece
(Cambridge 1997), 217–20 for a different view. For Timomachus’ Ajax see Ov. Tr.
2.528; Anthologia Planudea 83 (anonymous); Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 2.22.
(34) Consider how Cicero attacked Clodia in Cael. 18, using Medea as a
comparison; Romans could and did make immediate associations between myth
and current affairs.
(35) For reactions to the painting (or to copies) see Anthologia Planudea 135, 140
(anonymous); 136 (Antiphilus); 137, 141 (Philippus); 138 (anonymous); 139
(Julianus); 143 (Antipater); see Plut. Mor.18A for a description; for a detailed
discussion of the history of the painting and reaction to it see K. Gutzwiller,
‘Seeing Thought: Timomachus’ Medea and Ecphrastic Epigram’, AJP 125 (2004),
339–86.
(36) For Caesar as god see Weinstock, Divus Julius (n. 16), passim; Gradel,
Emperor Worship (n. 25), 54–72; for Caesar as king see Gelzer, Caesar (n. 2),
316–21; for his statue among those of the kings see p. 153; for the statues
themselves see LTUR 4.223–8; for Caesar as high priest see e.g. Suet. Iul. 13, 46;
Plut. Caes. 7.1, 42.2.
Page 51 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(37) For the title see e.g. Suet. Iul. 76.1; see 53 for Caesar as the destroyer of the
Republic.
(38) Cass. Dio 56.29.1 says that during the Augustalia a lunatic sat in Caesar’s
chair and donned his crown, indicating the objects might have been readily
accessible.
(39) Cass. Dio 44.7.1; on the connections between Caesar and Romulus as well as
Quirinus see Cic. Att. 12.45.2, 13.28.3; Cass. Dio 43.42, 43.45; see W. Burkert,
‘Caesar und Romulus-Quirinus’, Historia, 11 (1962), 356–76; Favro, Augustan
Rome (n. 14), 66, who notes that his ties to particular parts of the city were
designed to associate himself with the city’s founder.
(40) For a description of the Temple of Divus Julius, the cult statue and the Iulium
sidus, based on the numismatic evidence see Zanker, Power of Images (n. 25),
34–6.
(41) And Caesar exceeded even those; see Gradel, Emperor Worship (n. 25), 265
for discussion.
(42) Suet. Iul. 79; Plut. Caes. 61.4–9; Cass. Dio 44.6.1; for Augustus’ association
with Romulus see K. Scott, ‘The Identification of Augustus with Romulus–
Quirinus’, TAPA 56 (1925), 82–105; J. Gagé, ‘Romulus–Augustus’, MÉFR 47
(1930), 138–81; also see above p. 166.
(43) Ov. Ars Am. 3.401–2; Propertius 3.9.11; Pliny, HN 35.27, 91, 93; for ancient
responses see Anthologia Planudea 178 (Antipater); 179 (Archias); 180
(Democritus); 181 (Julianus); 182 (Leonidas of Tarentum). It was no longer in the
temple in Pliny’s time. For discussion see Isager, Pliny on Art and Society (n. 11),
121; K. Galinsky, Augustan Culture. An Interpretive Introduction (Princeton
1996) 349; for Caesar’s connection with Venus and his Trojan ancestry see p.
161 n. 7.
(44) On Augustus’ exploitation of his Trojan connections and Trojan myth see A.
Erskine, Troy between Greece and Rome: Local Tradition and Imperial Rome
(Oxford 2001), 15–30, 198, 234–5, 244, 255–6.
(45) For Julius Caesar’s place in Augustan Rome see J. J. Pollitt, ‘The Impact of
Greek Art on Rome’, TAPA 108 (1978), 167; P. White, ‘Julius Caesar in Augustan
Rome’, Phoenix, 42 (1988), 334–56; Favro, Augustan Rome (n. 14), 95–8. For the
return of the ‘Golden Age’ in Augustan art and literature see I. S. Ryberg,
‘Vergil’s Golden Age’, TAPA 89 (1958), 112–31; Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n.
43), 90–121; for a general discussion of notions of the ‘Golden Age’ in classical
antiquity see H. C. Baldry, ‘Who invented the Golden Age?’, CQ 4 (1952), 83–92.
Page 52 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(47) See e.g. M. K. Jaeger, The Poetics of Place: The Augustan Writers and the
Urban Landscape of Rome, PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley (1990)
for a good general study of the city and the literary tradition from the late
republic through the Augustan era; also see F. W. Shipley, ‘Building Operations in
Rome from the Death of Caesar to the Death of Augustus’, MAAR 9 (1931), 7–60;
P. Gros, Aurea templa: recherches sur l’architecture religieuse de Rome à
l’époque d’Auguste (Rome 1976), 18–19 on Augustus’ restoration of religious
buildings; Favro, Augustan Rome (n. 14).
(48) See Pliny, HN 35.27–8. The works included Nicias’ painting of Nemea
personified, seated on a lion holding a palm branch (with the artist’s signature
on it); Pliny also tells us that there was a noteworthy painting by Philochares
depicting an elderly father with his son.
(49) We give less attention to the Saepta Julia, a project of Agrippa’s. Dedicated
in 26 bc, its west portico was known as the Porticus Argonautarum, named from
a painting of the Argonauts, and was related to the Porticus Meleagri which
depicted the hunt of the Calydonian boar; see Cass. Dio 53.23.1–2, 53.27.1,
66.24.2; cf. Mart. 2.14.5–6 (for the representation of Jason), 2.14.16, 3.20,
11.1.12; scholia ad Juvenalem 6.154; LTUR 4.118–19. The Argonauts were an
appropriate commemorative for Agrippa’s naval victory at Actium, see Jaeger,
Poetics of Place (n. 47), 14. There were two statue groups in the Saepta, both by
unknown artists: Chiron teaching Achilles, and Pan teaching Olympus how to
play the pipes (Pliny, HN 36.29); see Zanker, Power of Images (n. 25), 142–3 for
discussion; for a detailed study of Agrippa’s building activities see F. W. Shipley,
Agrippa’s Building Activities in Rome (St. Louis 1933).
(50) Suet. Aug. 70.1; for the link between Augustus and Apollo see Galinsky,
Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome (n. 17), 209–10, and, Augustan Culture (n. 43), 215–16.
(51) For general discussions of the complex see J. Gagé, ‘Apollon impérial, Garant
des «Fata Romana»’, ANRW 2.17.2 (1981), 566–9; B. Kellum, ‘Sculptural
Programs and Propaganda in Augustan Rome: The Temple of Apollo on the
Palatine’, in R. Winkes (ed.), The Age of Augustus (Interdisciplinary Conference
held at Brown University April 30 – May 2, 1982) (Louvain-la-Neuve 1982), 169–
76; P. Zanker, ‘Der Apollotempel auf dem Palatin. Ausstuttung und politische
Sinnbezüge nach der Schlacht von Actium’, in K. de Fine Licht (ed.), Città e
Page 53 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
architettura nella Roma Imperiale. Atti del seminario del 27 ottobre 1981, Anal-
Rom Suppl. 10 (Odense 1983), 21–40; E. Léfevre, Das Bild-Programm des Apollo-
Tempels auf dem Palatin (Xenia 24, Konstanz 1989); Galinsky, Augustan Culture
(n. 43), 215–19; LTUR 1.54–7.
(52) See Propertius 2.31.3–4; Ov. Tr. 3.1.61; see Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n.
43), 220–2 for the links between the Danaids and the conflicts Augustus faced in
his early career. Cf. Kellum, ‘Sculptural Programs’ (n. 51), 173–5, who observes
that the Danaids were of ‘giallo antico, yellow marble splotched with bloodred’,
a suitable colour variation, she notes, for those who murdered their husbands.
For a discussion of the ambiguity the Danaids posed for the viewer (as dutiful
daughters and slayers of their husbands) see K. Milnor, Gender, Domesticity, and
the Age of Augustus: Inventing Private Life (Oxford 2005), 51–2, 64–6.
(53) Pliny, HN 36.32; for Avianius Evander’s work in metals see Horace,
Sermones 1.3.90–1; cf. Porphyrio’s scholion to this passage.
(54) See Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n. 43), 216–17; similarly, the three have a
place on one of the terracotta plaques taken from the precinct, see Zanker,
Power of Images (n. 25), 63–5; Favro, Augustan Rome (n. 14), 148; for a detailed
discussion of the Sorrento Base see L. J. Roccos, ‘Apollo Palatinus: The Augustan
Apollo on the Sorrento Base’, AJA 93 (1989), 571–88.
(55) Pliny, HN 37.11; Pliny in the same passage says that Scaurus, Sulla’s step-
son, was the first to own such a collection of gems; Pliny 37.13–14 also reports
that Pompey dedicated a dactyliotheca belonging to Mithradates on the
Capitoline; according to Pliny, Varro said Pompey’s was inferior to Scaurus’
collection. See p. 229 for Caesar’s collection; for the discussion of such jewels in
a triumphal context see Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 1), 105–8.
(56) The sons of Archermos, fl. 540 BC, whose work was quite popular and
favoured by Augustus, Pliny, HN 36.11–13.
(57) Pliny, HN 36.36; see F. Kleiner, ‘The Arch of C. Octavius and the Fathers of
Augustus’, Historia, 37 (1988), 347–57; Favro, Augustan Rome (n. 14), 100.
(58) On the literary response to the theme of revenge in Augustus’ forum and
building programme in general see Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n. 43), 211.
(59) Kellum, ‘Sculptural Programs’ (n. 51), 173 notes that the sons of Aegyptus
may have been represented by fifty equestrian statues, citing Scholia ad Persium
2.56, though given the late nature of the source these may have been a post
Augustan addition.
(60) Propertius 2.31.12–16; see A. Laird, ‘Ut figura poesis: Writing Art and the
Art of Writing Augustan Poetry’, in J. Elsner (ed.), Art and Text in Roman Culture
(Cambridge 1996), 83–5 for discussion of the Propertius passage and its
Page 54 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
intersection with Roman visual culture and Augustan ideology; see Galinsky,
Augustan Culture (n. 43), 219 for discussion of the doors. In addition to the tale
of Niobe, both Apollo and Artemis were associated with other famous tales of
retribution, such as (for Apollo) the stories of Marsyas and Corinna, and (for
Artemis) Acteon.
(61) And the Temple of Apollo was an appropriate place for such interplay of
boundaries, reflected in the deity itself: Apollo, Greek or Roman?
(62) For Antony as Hercules and Bacchus see Plut. Ant. 4.1–2, 24.3–4, 60.2–3;
App. B Civ. 3.16; see Kellum, ‘Sculptural Programs’ (n. 51), 172–3; Zanker, Power
of Images (n. 25), 44–7, 61–3, 245; Favro, Augustan Rome (n. 14), 98–100.
Antony made no secret about his bibulous devotion to Bacchus, writing a treatise
entitled De Ebrietate Sua, Pliny, HN 14.148.
(63) See Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n. 43), 219; Sol also has a place on the
breast plate of the Prima Porta Augustus, as do Apollo and Diana, underscoring
his interests here, see J. Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer. The Transformation
of Art from the Pagan to the Christian World (Cambridge 1995), 162–4.
(64) See Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n. 43), 118–22, who notes that the ‘Golden
Age’ of Augustus is not a utopian vision, but one grounded in the reality of toil,
even lurking danger. On the relationship of imperial architecture to the cosmic
see Thomas, Monumentality (n. 6), 16; the relationship is particularly apt for
Vespasian’s Forum of Peace, see pp. 280–3. On the prominent role given to
Artemis/Diana by Augustus and its theological significance see C. M. C. Green,
Roman Religion and the Cult of Diana at Aricia (Cambridge 2007), 34–54.
(65) See e.g. D. Spurr, The Rhetoric of Empire: Colonial Discourse in Journalism,
Travel Writing, and Imperial Administration (Durham NC 1993), 109–24 for a
good theoretical discussion of this process.
(66) See Gros, Aurea templa (n. 47); M. Beard, J. North, and S. Price, Religions of
Rome, Volume 1: A History (Cambridge 1998), 198–99. It was vowed due to a
plague (hence Medicus) and dedicated in 431 BC, see Livy 4.25.3, 4.29.7. For
the temple’s association with victory see F. Hinard, ‘C. Sosius et le temple
d’Apollon’, Kentron, 8 (1992), 57–72; Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n. 43), 383–4;
for the precedence that the Palatine temple eventually took over this one see
Gagé, ‘Romulus–Augustus’ (n. 42), 564–6; for its sculpture see E. La Rocca,
Amazzonomachia: le sculture frontale del tempio di Apollo Sosiano (Rome 1985);
for the temple in general see LTUR 1.49–54.
Page 55 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(70) For discussion see D. E. E. Kleiner, Roman Sculpture (New Haven 1992), 86;
cf. Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n. 43), 346–8; on the notions of Augustan peace
as embodied on the Ara Pacis see H. Kähler, ‘Die Ara Pacis und die augusteische
Friedensidee’, JdI 69 (1954), 67–100.
(71) For the larger context of which see in general M. Fullerton, The Archaistic
Style in Roman Statuary (Leiden 1990); also see Zanker, Power of Images (n. 25),
102–10; see 243–5 for Augustus’ predilection towards the archaic; also see
Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n. 43), 342–4; for Augustus’ attitude towards
religion in general see W. Speyer, ‘Das Verhältnis des Augustus zur Religion’,
ANRW 2.16.3 (1986), 1777–1805.
(74) See Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n. 43), 218, who suggests that Apollo as
citharode indicates Augustus’ desire to emphasize the arts of peace.
(75) For discussion of the lamp stand and its history see S. Carey, Pliny’s
Catalogue of Culture: Art and Empire in the Natural History (Oxford 2003), 83–
4, who notes that its display in the temple ‘mirrors its earlier history’: as it was
war spoil from Alexander’s capture of Thebes, and dedicated by him in Apollo’s
temple at Cyme, so now it stands under Augustus in Apollo’s temple on the
Palatine.
(76) The most thorough study of the forum is P. Zanker, Forum Augustum: Das
Bildprogramm (Tübingen 1968); also see J. Ganzert, ‘Der Mars Ultor Tempel auf
dem Augustusforum in Rom’, RhM 92 (1985), 201–19; Zanker, Power of Images
(n. 25), 210–15; T. J. Luce, ‘Livy, Augustus and the Forum Augustum’, in M. Toher
and K. Raaflaub (eds.), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of
Augustus and his Principate (Berkeley 1990), 123–38, with emphasis on the
relationship between the forum and Livy’s text; Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n.
43), 199; see 197–213 for general discussion; J. Rich, ‘Augustus’ Parthian
Honours, the Temple of Mars Ultor and the Arch in the Forum Romanum?, PBSR
66 (1998), 79–97; cf. Leach, The Rhetoric of Space: Literary and Artistic
Representations of Landscape in Republican and Augustan Rome (Princeton
1988), 205–6.
(77) For the inscriptions that accompanied each of the summi viri and stated
their accomplishments see Pliny, HN 22.13; Suet. Aug. 31.5; Aulus Gellius
Page 56 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
9.11.10; Cass. Dio 55.10.3; S.H.A. Alex. Sev. 28.6 (who says the statues were of
marble). The collection may have offered later emperors, such as Alexander
Severus, a proto-type for similar collections, see S.H.A. Alex. Sev. 25.9, and 26.4,
8; for discussion see P. Stewart, Statues in Roman Society: Representation and
Response (Oxford 2003), 152–3 with n. 137.
(78) See Zanker, Power of Images (n. 25), 196–7; Favro, Augustan Rome (n. 14),
127–8, 175.
(80) See pp. 132–3 with n. 27 for discussion. For the new temple’s celebration of
revenge against the Parthians see Ov. Fast. 5.579–96; see Rich, ‘Augustus’
Parthian Honours’ (n. 76), passim for discussion.
(82) Pliny, HN 35.94; see P. Zanker, ‘In Search of the Roman Viewer’, in D.
Buitron-Oliver (ed.), The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and
Rome, Studies in the History of Art Vol. 49 (Washington DC 1997), 185 for
discussion; cf. Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n. 43), 210; D. Kinney, ‘Spolia,
Damnatio, and Renovatio Memoriae’, MAAR 42 (1997), 136–7.
(84) Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n. 43), 204 is right to note the Periclean
inspiration for the programme, but it is more than a purely historical or political
reference back to Athens, and arguably carries divine associations. Caryatids
were also a part of Agrippa’s construction of the Pantheon years before, and the
connection between Athens and Rome was also reinforced by the sculptures that
adorned it; see p. 102; also see B. Wesenberg, ‘Augustusforum und Akropolis’, JdI
99 (1984), 161–85 for the connections between Classical Athens (specifically the
Acropolis) and Augustus’ building programme.
(85) See Zanker, Power of Images (n. 25), 195–201 for discussion; the pediment,
which had Mars at the centre flanked by Venus and Fortuna, and the whole
flanked by Romulus and Roma, is represented in a number of sources, perhaps
most notably on a frieze now in the Villa Medici in Rome.
(86) For the connection between Alexander and Augustus see D. Kienast,
‘Augustus und Alexander’, Gymnasium, 76 (1969), 430–56; G. C. Marrone,
‘Imitatio Alexandri in età augustea’, A&R 25 (1980), 35–41; Isager, Pliny on Art
and Society (n. 11), 121 with n. 394.
Page 57 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(87) The forum was a repository for cultural objects celebrating vengeance at
least into Caligula’s reign, see p. 135.
(88) See esp. Luce, ‘Forum Augustum’ (n. 76), for discussion of the relationship
between the summi viri, virtus, and Livy’s history; see M. Bonnefond, ‘Transferts
de fonctions idéologique: le Capitole et le Forum d’Auguste’, L’urbs, (1987), 251–
78, for its connection with military affairs under Augustus.
(89) See P. Frisch, ‘Zu den Elogien des Augustusforums’, ZPE 39 (1980), 91–8;
Luce, ‘Forum Augustum’ (n. 76); Galinsky, Augustan Culture (n. 43), 206.
(90) It was with similar military and diplomatic success in mind that Claudius’
successor, Nero, was voted the honour of a statue in the Temple of Mars Ultor
equal in size to that of the god after the Parthian evacuation of Armenia in ad 54,
Tac. Ann. 13.8.
(92) See Livy, Periochae 140; Ov. Tr. 3.1.69–70; Pliny, HN 35.114, 36.22, 28–9;
Plut. Marc. 30.6; Festus 188L; CIL 6.2347–49, 6.4431–35, 6.5192. M. Aemilius
Lepidus originally vowed the Temple of Juno Regina in 187 BC at the end of his
Ligurian campaign (Livy 39.2.11) and dedicated it in 179 when censor (Livy
40.52.1); the Fasti Antiates Maiores gives 23 December as its dedication day; see
LTUR 3.126–8 for a general discussion of the temple. On the problems of the
existence of a curia here see L. R. Richardson, A New Topographical Dictionary
of Ancient Rome (Baltimore and London 1992), 104. On the original portico’s
architects see Vitruvius 3.2.5; Pliny, HN 36.42–3; see P. Gros, ‘Les premières
générations d’architectes hellénistiques à Rome’, in Mélanges J. Huergon, L’Italie
préromaine et la Rome républicaine. Mélanges offerts à Jaques Huergon,
Collection de l’Ecole Françhise de Rome (Rome 1976), 394–7 for discussion of
the Metellan portico’s construction; see Isager, Pliny on Art and Society (n. 11),
160–2 for the collection of the Metellan and later portico; in general also see
LTUR 4.130–2 (for the Portico of Metellus) and 4.141–5 (for the Portico of
Octavia).
(94) There was in addition an Eros by Praxiteles that had been looted from
Thespiae by Caligula, returned by Claudius, and once more looted by Nero,
Pliny, HN 36.22; Pausanias 9.27.3; see Miles, Art as Plunder (n. 5), 254–5.
Page 58 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(95) Gros, Aurea templa (n. 47), 29 with n. 102 argues too that this was designed
to be a statement of imperial monopoly over triumphs.
(96) See Livy 1.12; it should be noted, however, that this was not the same
temple. This particular temple was vowed by Metellus during a moment of crisis
in his campaign in Macedonia in 146 BC and constructed immediately afterward;
see Val. Max. 7.5.4; Velleius Paterculus 1.11.3–5; Eutropius 4.14.2; see LTUR
3.157–9 for the temple within the Metellan portico; see LTUR 3.155–7 for the
older temple and the cult’s introduction into Rome and its development; for the
cult’s duration see Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome (n. 66), 260.
(97) See D. Fishwick, ‘On the Temple of Divus Augustus’, Phoenix, 46 (1992),
232–55 for discussion of the literary and numismatic evidence, which suggests
the temple was not fully completed and dedicated until Caligula’s reign; cf. LTUR
1.145–6 for its location between the Capitoline and Palatine hills. On the
deification of Roman emperors in general see L. R. Taylor, The Divinity of the
Roman Emperor, American Philological Association, Philological Monograph 1
(New York 1931, reprint 1975); Weinstock, Divus Julius (n. 16); Gradel, Emperor
Worship (n. 25); for a good succinct discussion see Beard, North, and Price,
Religons of Rome (n. 66), 140–9.
(98) See K. Lehmann, ‘A Roman Poet Visits a Museum’, Hesperia, 14 (1945), 269;
for discussion also see M. L. Thompson, ‘The Monumental and Literary Evidence
for Programmatic Painting in Antiquity’, Marsyas, 9 (1960–1), 60; Bounia,
Classical Collecting (n. 11), 233–6.
(99) See Pliny, HN 35.131; Lehmann, ‘A Roman Poet’ (n. 98), 264 notes that the
clay statue may be related to a famous Hercules fictilis noted in Pliny, HN 35.157
by the archaic Etruscan artist Vulca, concerning whom see A. Andrén, ‘In Quest
of Vulca’, RPAA 49 (1976–1977), 63–83.
(100) Lehmann, ‘A Roman Poet’ (n. 98), 261 argues that the Victory may relate to
Domitian’s triumph over the Germans, but also concedes that it could be earlier.
(102) Ov. Fast. 1.640–8; Cass. Dio 56.25; see Kellum, ‘The City Adorned’ (n. 101),
278 for discussion.
Page 59 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(103) For Tiberius’ reluctance to build see Tac. Ann. 3.72; Suet. Tib. 47.1; for
discussion of Tiberius’ building programmes in a larger imperial context see
Thomas, Monumentality (n. 6), 21.
(104) For the use of money from his German and Illyrian campaigns see Suet. Tib.
20. For a discussion of the history and contents of this temple in Tiberius’ day
see G. Becatti, ‘Opere d’arte nella Roma di Tiberio’, AC 25–6 (1973–4), 18–53
esp. 30–42 (with a discussion of the numismatic evidence for a conjectural
reconstruction of the statuary programme); cf. Kellum, ‘The City Adorned’ (n.
101), 278–9 for a related discussion.
(105) Cass. Dio 55.9.6; see 55.8.2 for the date of Tiberius’ exile and return.
(107) Pliny, HN 35.66, 131, 144; Kellum, ‘The City Adorned’ (n. 101), 278–83
discusses the possible arrangement of the programme. For the collection in the
Temple of Concord in general also see Isager, Pliny on Art and Society (n. 11),
159–60.
(108) Pliny, HN 37.4 says that the ring was set in a golden horn and ranked last in
a collection of highly esteemed gems; cf. HN 37.8. For the elephants in obsidian
see HN 36.196; see Kellum, ‘The City Adorned’ (n. 101), 283–7 for discussion.
(109) See Zanker, Power of Images (n. 25), 111 for discussion of the temple’s
exterior based on the numismatic evidence.
(110) See Kellum, ‘The City Adorned’ (n. 101), 278–9, who argues (279 n. 14–15)
that the various deities symbolically represented cosmic harmony citing Manilius
1.7–10, 1.247–57, 2.60–83, 440, 442, 444–6, 3.48–55.
(111) For the initial vow of the temple under Camillus in 367 bc see Ov. Fast.
1.641–4; Plut. Cam. 42.4, 43.2; nothing was built, however, until an aedicula to
Concordia in 304 BC by Cn. Fulvius (as aedile, Livy 9.46.6; Pliny, HN 33.19); for
the cult of Concordia under Camillus and in the early republic see A. D.
Momigliano, ‘Camillus and Concord’, CQ 36 (1942), 111–20; Fears, ‘Cult of the
Virtues’ (n. 101), 833–4; for Opimius’ new structure in 121 bc see App. B Civ.
1.26; Plut. C. Gracch. 17.6. See Kellum, ‘The City Adorned’ (n. 101), 276–8 for
the historical background.
(114) Kellum, ‘The City Adorned’ (n. 101), 294 believes the Ceres in the temple is
to be associated with Livia, citing CIL I2 p. 324; 10.7501; also see Dion. Hal. Ant.
Page 60 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Rom. 10.31–2; Livy 3.31.1. For discussion of the Aventine’s plebeian associations
see p. 142 with n. 60.
(115) For the ‘Biberius’ moniker see Suet. Tib. 42.1; for a good discussion of
Marsyas’ and Liber’s plebeian associations see M. Torelli, Typology and
Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs (Ann Arbor 1992), 103–6.
(116) Cass. Dio 56.25.1 gives AD 10 as the date, Suet. Tib. 20 gives AD 12;
Suetonius also notes that this temple and that of Castor and Pollux were
dedicated in Tiberius’ name and in that of his late brother, Drusus.
(117) To drive home the point of familial (and state) harmony, Livia also had
constructed a Temple of Concordia in her eponymous portico, Ov. Fast. 6.637–8;
on the fears of discord between the two despite apparent harmonious relations
see Tac. Ann. 2.43.
(118) See Kellum, ‘The City Adorned’ (n. 101), passim; the same was no doubt
true, however, for any number of buildings in the city. See e.g. Pliny, HN 36.42–3
on the architects of the Portico of Metellus; see Gros, Aurea templa (n. 47), 394–
7 for discussion.
(119) For the actual name of Vespasian’s forum see C. Noreña, ‘Medium and
Message in Vespasian’s Templum Pacis ’,MAAR 48 (2003), 25–6, who notes that
it was variously known as the templum (Pliny, HN 34.84; Suet. Vesp. 9.1), forum
(Ammianus Marcellinus 16.10.14; Symacchus, Epistulae 10.78), aedes (Aur. Vict.
Caes. 9.7,Ep. De Caes. 8.8), and temenos in Greek authors (Joseph. BJ 7.158;
Cass. Dio 65.15; Herodian 1.14.2), hieron in Pausanias (6.9.3) and additonally
Eireinaion in Cass. Dio 73.24.1.
(121) E.g. Zanker, ‘In Search of the Roman Viewer’ (n. 82), 187–8 argues that the
collection is a non-programmatic, incoherent assembly of objects; cf. Miles, Art
as Plunder (n. 5), 259–62.
(122) BJ 7.162; see C. Edwards and G. Woolf ‘Cosmopolis: Rome as World City’, in
C. Edwards and G. Woolf (eds.), Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge 2003), 2 for
the forum qua cosmos. It is worth noting that the all-encompassing nature of
Vespasian’s collection is reflected in Pliny’s equally inclusive Natural History at
Page 61 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
this period. As S. Carey has pointed out, (‘The Problems of Totality: Collecting
Greek Art, Wonders and Luxury in Pliny the Elder’s Natural History’, JHC, 12.1
(2000), 1–13), the text itself constitutes a reflection of the universal collection
and of the luxury of which Pliny was so critical.
(123) See E. Champlin, Nero (Cambridge Mass. 2003), 205–6 concerning the
public versus private nature of the Domus Aurea. Noreña, ‘Medium and
Message’ (n. 119), 29 accepts with qualification the general interpretation that
Vespasian sought to distance himself from Nero through the public rather than
private use of Greek art. On the possibility of a more public function for Nero’s
collection see K. E. Welch, The Roman Amphitheatre: From Its Origins to the
Colosseum (Cambridge 2007), 147–60.
(124) For discussion of these see Darwall-Smith, Emperors and Architecture (n.
120), 58–65, with an especially fine discussion of the temple’s cult statue (see
esp. 61–3); cf. Noreña, ‘Medium and Message’ (n. 119), 27; also see L. S.
Nasrallah, Christian Response to Roman Art and Architecture (Cambridge 2010),
161–4 for the interplay here of ‘peace and violence, culture and conquering’.
(125) See Noreña, ‘Medium and Message’ (n. 119), 39–40 for a critical discussion
of the numismatic evidence for the statue, who argues that the Pax type in the
denarius issue of AD 75 is most likely representative of its appearance.
(126) There were in fact two, one in Argos, another in Olympia; that in the forum
was from Argos (Pausanias 6.9.3), possibly located in the library, concerning
which see Aulus Gellius 5.21.9, 16.8.2; S.H.A. Tyr. Trig. 31.10.
(127) See Procopius, De Bello Gothico 8.21.11–14 for his description of the
collection. For Myron’s work here see Zanker, ‘In Search of the Roman
Viewer’ (n. 82), 187–8. For discussion of the bull in the numismatic record see
Darwall-Smith, Emperors and Architecture (n. 120), 61 noting that a heifer
appears on an aureus issue of 74, and in 76 on both aureii and denarii of
Vespasian and Titus (BMC 132, 176–8, 185–9), the later possibly intended to
commemorate the forum’s inauguration, although he notes that whether this
represents Myron’s calf as opposed to simply a sacrificial victim is problematic;
for related discussion see J. Isager, ‘The Composition of Pliny’s Chapters on the
History of Art’, AnalRom 6 (1971), 65.
(129) Noreiña, ‘Medium and Message’ (n. 119), 23; also see E. La Rocca, ‘La
nuova immagine dei fori imperiali: Appunti in margine agli scavi’, MDAI(R) 108
(2001), 197–201.
Page 62 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(131) Pliny, HN 36.58; see Darwall-Smith, Emperors and Architecture (n. 120),
60–1 for discussion of the statue (and cf. 140–2), who suggests that the Egyptian
material in the forum was associated with Vespasian’s acclamation as princeps in
Alexandria; for his acclamation there see A. Henrichs, ‘Vespasian’s Visit to
Alexandria’, ZPE 3 (1968), 51–80. For the depiction of rivers in a triumphal
context see Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 1), 215–18, 230–45.
(132) Pliny, HN 35.102–3; cf. Aelian, Varia Historia 12.41 which says Protogenes
spent seven years working on the piece; for Protogenes in Pliny see Isager, Pliny
on Art and Society (n. 11), 130–1.
(134) Concerning Titus’ sacking of the Temple and his involvement see T. D.
Barnes, ‘The Sack of the Temple in Josephus and Tacitus’, in J. Edmonson, S.
Mason, and J. Rives (eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford 2005),
133–7.
(135) See Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 1), 111–19; cf. S. Weitzman, Surviving
Sacrilege: Cultural Persistence in Jewish Antiquity (Cambridge Mass. 2005),
101–14 for discussion; for the destruction of the Temple and its larger
significance for the Roman elite see D. Sailor, Writing and Empire in Tacitus
(Cambridge 2009), 232–49.
Page 63 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
Kleiner, ‘The Study of Roman Triumphal and Honorary Arches 50 Years after
Kähler’, JRA 2 (1989), 195–206.
(138) Whether these were the same sacred objects presented to the Temple by
Ptolemy Philadelphus is uncertain, but remains a possibility (see AJ 12.78–83).
For Josephus’ elaborate description of the table of shew-bread designed for the
Temple by Ptolemy Philadelphus and other gifts he sent, see AJ 12.60–84; see
12.40–2 for Ptolemy Philadelphus’ other elaborate gifts. Some of this material
may well have been plundered and taken by Antiochus Epiphanes (AJ 12.248–55;
see 12.318 on the refurbishing of the Temple with new implements).
(140) BJ 7.139–47; see T. Murphy, Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in
the Encyclopedia (Oxford 2004), 114–15 for discussion; see p. 221 n. 2 for
Vespasian’s triumph; see Östenberg, Staging the World (n. 1), 253–5 for the
suggestion that the pēgmata were possibly ‘multi-media’ representations.
(141) See Tac. Hist. 4.12–37, 54–79, 5.14–26 for the most detailed account of the
revolt.
(142) For Vespasian’s commentarii see Joseph. Vita 342; see Syme, Roman
Revolution (n. 13), 178 for discussion.
(143) See Noreña, ‘Medium and Message’ (n. 119), 28, who also notes Pax’s
prominence in Vespasian’s coinage; on the place of Pax among the imperial
virtues raised to cult status under Vespasian see Fears, ‘Cult of the Virtues’ (n.
101), 899–902, who also notes its significant connections to the Augustan
programme; the theme of Pax under Augustus is a well-trodden path; see e.g.
Zanker, Power of Images (n. 25), 172–83 for discussion.
(144) See Cic. Orat. 5; Strabo 14.2.5, who says that it was still in Rhodes in
Augustus’ day, and so may well have been looted by Nero; Pliny, HN 35.81–3;
Plut. Demetr. 22.2–4; Mor. 183B; it was destroyed in Plutarch’s lifetime by fire.
(145) For the natural wonders making up a part of the collection see p. 214, with
n. 75.
(146) For the Domus Aurea as the world in small see Champlin, Nero (n. 123) 132.
Page 64 of 65
Imperial Collections and the Narrative of the Princeps
(147) Darwall-Smith, Emperors and Architecture (n. 120), 67 notes that the ‘bluff
no-nonsense image’ we find of Vespasian in Suetonius (Vesp. 12), is offset by his
larger patronage of art and culture; also see M. St. A. Woodside, ‘Vespasian’s
Patronage of Education and the Arts’, TAPA 73 (1942), 123–9 for a more cultured
side to Vespasian.
(148) See Darwall-Smith, Emperors and Architecture (n. 120), 67 for discussion.
It may have been for similar reasons that Vespasian undertook the restoration of
the Temple of Honos et Virtus, Pliny, HN 35.120; see Darwall-Smith, 69 for
discussion. In addition, triumphal arches were decreed to Vespasian and Titus
(Cass. Dio 65.7.2); see Aur. Vict. Ep. De Caes. 8.8 who notes in general
Vespasian’s building and restoration activities. For a general discussion of
Vespasian’s building programme see B. Levick, Vespasian (London 1999), 124–
34.
(149) Noreña, ‘Medium and Message’ (n. 119), 38 argues that the more dubious
aspects of Vespasian’s victories were irrelevant; the increased pomerium
advertised his military achievements all the same; for the importance of the
pomerium in the imperial period see M. Labrousse, ‘Le “pomerium” de la Rome
impéiale’, MÉFRA 54 (1937), 165–99; R. Syme, ‘The pomerium in the Historia
Augusta’, Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium, Antiquitas 4 series 13 (Bonn
1978), 217–31 = Historia Augusta Papers (Oxford 1983), 131–45.
(150) For Vespasian’s closing of the temple see Orosius 7.3.7; for Augustus’
closing see e.g. Augustus, Res Gestae 13; cf. Cass. Dio 51.20 (29 BC), 53.26 (25
BC); Orosius 6.22 (dated to 1 BC).
(151) The cult had been introduced under Elagabalus, see H. R. Baldus, ‘Zur
Aufnahme des Sol Elagabalus-Kultes in Rom, 219 n. Chr.’, Chiron, 21 (1991),
175–8; for the temple under Aurelian see H. Kähler, ‘Zum Sonnentempel
Aurelians’, MDAI(R) 52 (1937), 94–105; F. Coarelli, Roma (3rd edn., Rome 1983),
240–1; Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome (n. 66), 259; for a general
discussion see LTUR 4.331–3.
(152) See Beard, The Roman Triumph (n. 1), 321 for discussion of Aurelian’s
triumph in 274, which she views as exaggerated, though not ‘sheer invention’;
also see G. Zecchini, ‘I cervi, le amazzoni e il trionfo <<gotico>> di Aureliano’,
in G. Bonamente, F. Heim, and J.-P. Callu (eds.), Historiae Augustae Colloquium
Argentoratense, Historiae Augustae Colloquia ns 6 (Bari 1996), 349–58 for a
detailed discussion of Aurelian’s victory.
Page 65 of 65
Access and Upkeep
DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199573233.003.0008
The value Romans placed on the preservation of cultural artefacts and their
historical patrimony was long-lived. The age of certain objects (such as Romulus’
lituus), even if in fact its origins were unknown, indicates that this was true from
a relatively early date. The care such cultural objects received went back at least
as far as the Third Punic War, when Scipio took care to repatriate works looted
by the Carthaginians back to the Sicilians (see above pp. 53–5), and extended
throughout Roman antiquity, until quite late. The depth of importance for
Romans of their cultural patrimony is expressed in such episodes as Tacitus’
lamentation at the loss of culturally and historically significant material during
the fire in Rome in AD 64 (Ann. 15.41), and again during the destruction of the
Capitoline Temple of Jupiter five years later in 69 (Hist. 3.72). The concern for
preservation and upkeep abided into late antiquity, and it says much about
Roman values that, even as the city became increasingly depopulated and
Page 1 of 25
Access and Upkeep
impoverished, a desire abided among the city’s inhabitants for the preservation
of the reminders of Rome’s once glorious and now fading past. Perhaps as a
result of Rome’s growing loss of prestige as a political capital, which was
increasingly yielded to places such as Constantinople and Mediolanum, the
impetus to cling to reminders of imperial domination and its divine sanction
grew more intense. Procopius, for one (De Bello Gothico 8.22.5–16), reports that
as late as the sixth century, in the midst of the disasters of that period, the
Romans were eager to preserve and protect their valuable cultural treasures
‘that nothing of Rome’s ancient glory should be wiped out’. Even despite
barbarian sway, the Romans still conserved buildings and their adornments well
into the fifth and sixth centuries.
However such preservation required resources, as did the initial outlay for any
new project. The responsibility for this expenditure shifted between the state or
powerful individuals and families depending on the nature of the monument or
dedication. The imperative of preserving a monument or cultural artefact also
depended on whether or not the object had been consecrated (which many had)
or not. Because during the republic those charged with the various tasks
connected with the housing and conservation of cultural property were generally
the most powerful men in the state, construction often constituted an overtly
political act in which competition for prestige had a significant role.
Subsequently, during the (p.288) principate, the adornment of the city
occasionally created a field of contention between the senate and princeps,
where the tensions between emperors and senators sometimes played out. In
terms of upkeep and restoration, as Procopius notes above, and as we may
understand from Tacitus as well, much store was placed on cultural material
during the empire, and its restoration and preservation were a matter of civic
pride, and appear to have been a public trust. The case was similar with general
maintenance, security, and access; the civil infrastructure for such care appears
to have been extensive and the resources dedicated to it were by no means
slight.
Access and Upkeep
Page 3 of 25
Access and Upkeep
breeders (on what charge we do not know) to place a set of gilded shields on the
pediment of the Temple of Jupiter (Livy 35.10.12). Similarly, Livy tells us (38.35)
that in 188 BC the curule aediles, P. Claudius Pulcher and Ser. Sulpicius Galba,
dedicated twelve gilded shields on the Capitol paid for by fines imposed on grain
merchants for hoarding; in addition a statue of Jupiter was set up in the temple
at the direction of the decemviri, and a six horse chariot overlaid with gold was
set up by P. Cornelius on the Capitol stating it was the gift of the consul. Such
measures, particularly on the part of lower magistrates just entering their
cursus honorum, will have been reminders to the lower orders of their popular
administration of justice and will have commemorated their services given on
behalf of the populus Romanus. Such consecrated gifts will have further recalled
the pietas of a particular official and (possibly) been intended by the official to
assure the future favour of the gods and continuity of political success.
It was not always smooth sailing though. Cicero’s Verrine orations indicate the
problems that could arise in the construction of such new dedications. There
Cicero tells us (Verr. 2.2.141 cf. 2.2.146) that the censors had given Verres two
million sesterces for towns in Sicily to erect his statue. Not surprisingly, Verres
appropriated the funds and forced a number of towns to set up statues to him
out of pocket. As if that were not enough, according to Cicero (Verr. 2.2.150),
Verres also exacted money from farmers in Sicily to set up a number of gilded
equestrian statues (presumably of Verres himself) near a Temple of Vulcan in
Rome; the inscription on one of them stated that it was a ‘gift’ from the farmers
of the province.
Access and Upkeep
pontifical college, when the pontifex maximus (M. Aemilius Lepidus) gave his
opinion that he did not think the dedication could be properly carried out except
by the authority of the populus Romanus. As concerns the actual project itself, it
appears that senators could conceivably oversee the construction themselves, as
indicated by Cicero’s interest in the building of the Temple of Tellus, near which
he set up a statue of his brother, Quintus (Q Fr. 3.1.14).12
With the advent of the principate, the senate and individual members of the
aristocracy found it necessary either to work in conjunction with the emperor or
at his behest, though occasionally they competed to award such honours to the
princeps, helping to create what we might call a topography of adulatio
(‘flattery’) throughout the city. Temple construction, artistic programmes, and
the dedication of cultural artefacts had to be undertaken in cooperation with the
imperial house, and the privilege of such activity became for the most part the
exclusive province of the ruling family.13 The trend started with Julius Caesar.
Cassius Dio (43.45.3) says that the senate decreed that Caesar’s statue be set up
in the Temple of Quirinus with the inscription To the Invincible God and another
on the Capitol next to Rome’s ancient kings. Such a piecemeal approach did not
satisfy. Soon a senatus consultum decreed his statue be in every temple in the
city (Cass. Dio (p.292) 44.4.4), as well as on the rostra representing him as the
saviour of citizens.14 The senate, in fact, went so far as to grant Caesar the right
to locate his tomb inside the pomerium, and it continued to take the lead under
his successors in the decreeing of dedications designed to curry favour with the
princeps.15 Hence, after the battle of Philippi, the senate voted Octavian the
honour of a column topped with his statue cast in gold and wearing the garb he
wore upon entering the city after the campaign. The column was to be adorned
with the beaks of ships he had captured and it was to be erected in the Forum
(App. B Civ. 5.130; cf. fig. 4.4). Later, after Actium the senate decreed that the
foundation of the Temple of Divus Julius be decorated with the beaks of ships
taken from that battle (Cass. Dio 51.19.2). Augustus himself famously took
charge, often out of his own pocket, with beautifying the city, as did family
members, such as Octavia, who built her eponymous portico and her libraries
with the spoils of Augustus’ campaign against Dalmatia.16 However the burden
was frequently shared with prominent members of the senate, as was famously
the case with the Theatre of Balbus, the restoration of the Basilica Aemilia, and
the adornment of the Temple of Apollo Sosianus’ pediment with Greek sculpture
(see p. 224).
We know that prior to his acceptance of the title Augustus the senate voted
Octavian the honour of an equestrian statue on the rostrum in the Forum when
they were courting him to fight against Antony in 43 BC (Velleius Paterculus
2.61.3), but that later in his reign the excessive number of silver statues
dedicated to him by friends, flatterers, and well-wishers led him to melt them
down into coin.17 He subsequently used the money to present a gold offering in
the Temple of Apollo in his name and in the name of those who offered him the
Page 5 of 25
Access and Upkeep
silver statues (Augustus, Res Gestae 24). Augustus, though, was not the first to
eschew such honours. Scipio Africanus was similarly loathe to accept these sorts
of privileges, and forbade statues from being set up to him in the Comitium, on
the rostrum, in the Curia, on the Capitol, and in the shrine of Jupiter; he further
opposed a decree allowing his likeness (imago) exiting the Temple of Jupiter
Optimus Maximus in triumphal dress.18 Such honours could become a nuisance,
or, as (p.293) Augustus seems to have viewed it, a useless or embarrassing
expenditure. The emperor Claudius was of like mind.19 Disapproving of
extravagant outlay on statues and votive offerings on the part of private citizens,
and realizing that public buildings had become full of them in general, in AD 45
Claudius had them removed ‘elsewhere’ and forbade private citizens from such
dedications except by permission of the senate or unless a public work was
constructed or repaired at his expense (Cass. Dio 60.25.2–3).20 In neither
instance do we know the fate of the statues and dedications that were removed.
That Augustus and Claudius could act with so free a hand against imagines,
many of which were presumably sacred, was no doubt due in part to their de
facto position as pontifex maximus, who in the republic will have had some
control over such matters, as in 180 BC when C. Servilius, as pontifex, was
ordered to inspect the Sibylline books due to plague; he in turn ordered the
consul to vow gilded statues to Apollo, Aesculapius, and Salus (Livy 40.37.2).21
Similarly, Livy (26.34.12) relates that when the aristocracies of several
communities (Capua, Atella, and Calatia) of Campania were broken up and
resettled in the Second Punic War and the property of its leading men
confiscated, bronze statues and busts captured from the enemy were sent to the
college of the pontifices for them to decide whether the material was sacred or
profane. The emperor’s position as arbiter of state religion and sacred law put
Augustus and Claudius in the unique position of determining the fate of certain
pieces of cultural property. The princeps’ authority likely remained unchanged in
this regard in the course of the empire. It was such authority that possibly
motivated Pliny’s missive to Trajan (Ep. 10.8), in which he requested permission
to move some imperial statues he had inherited from various bequests from his
estate to Tifernum. He notes that he had intended to add Nerva’s statue and
gained his permission before Nerva’s death, and asks in this letter to add a
statue of Trajan himself, presumably because the ultimate authority for such a
decision rested with the emperor. As was the case with consecrated statues, the
princeps also reserved the right to make personal decisions on images that were
banned or dubious. Titinius Capito, for example, had to obtain permission from
the emperor (either Nerva or Trajan) to set up a statue of L. Junius Silanus (one
of Nero’s victims) in the Forum.22
Access and Upkeep
Yet the senate still had some say in the adornment of the city, though more often
than not, it was directed at honouring their patron, the princeps. The senate’s
willingness to grant such honours, if we can believe Tacitus, did not always
reflect well on that body. Senatorial competition could result in excess,
embarrassing an emperor such as Tiberius, who derided the senate for their
eagerness to honour Drusus, Tiberius’ son, for his holding of tribunicia potestas
with ‘images of the emperors, altars of the gods, temples, arches, and other
accustomed honours’ (Ann. 3.57). Tacitus saves his barbs in particular for M.
Junius Silanus, who proposed that all public and private monuments no longer
be dated with the consuls’ names, but by the names of those who held
tribunician authority. Later, in AD 41, Claudius tried initially to limit the number
of images dedicated to him, accepting only one each (in what context we are not
told) of silver, bronze, and marble (Cass. Dio 60.5.4). Claudius’ successor, at
least in the beginning, showed a similar modesty. In AD 55 Nero requested that
the senate allow the building of a statue of his father Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus
and his guardian, Asconius Labeo, though according to Tacitus (Ann. 13.10) he
refused offers of statues to himself in gold or silver. Yet another decree indicates
that the senate may have also had some say in the actual design of a dedication;
decreeing altars to Mercy and Friendship, the latter was stipulated that it have
statues of Sejanus and Tiberius on either side.25
Page 7 of 25
Access and Upkeep
patron, will have doubtless always worked in conjunction with the architect of
larger urban projects, such as the Forum of Augustus or Trajan’s Market.26
If we can trust Livy, in the republican period the censors saw to the restoration
and repair of public buildings through the distribution of public contracts.27
There are numerous instances of this in both the literary and epigraphic record
and needs little elaboration here. However, Augustus’ Res Gestae indicate that
buildings could stand in disrepair and neglect for some time (especially if the
family in charge of the monument had fallen into poverty), though occasionally,
according to Cicero (Div. 1.99), divine intervention could compel the restoration
ofpublic monuments, as was the case with the Temple of Juno Sospes during the
Social War, restored due to a dream of Caecilia, daughter of Q. Caecilius (p.
296) Metellus.28 The restoration of public monuments was not without its
problems, and again, Cicero offers us a window into the difficulties that could
arise if a dishonest official got his hands on a project. It was with this in mind
that Cicero devoted much attention in one of his Verrines (2.1.130–54) to Verres’
corrupt and criminal conduct in the restoration of the columns in the Temple of
Castor and Pollux. In the republican and even extending into the imperial period,
buildings and monuments that had been set up as commemorations by
individuals were the responsibility of that individual’s family and their
descendants. This was still the case with the advent of Augustus, who as noted
(p. 224) allowed others to adorn the city. Yet, by the time of his successor,
imperial oversight had started to make itself felt. Thus, under Tiberius, Aemilius
Lepidus felt compelled to ask senatorial permission to restore the Basilica Paulli,
a monument his noble ancestors had built. On the other hand, major monuments
of extinct republican families in need of restoration became the princeps’
responsibility, as was the case for the Theatre of Pompey, restored by Tiberius in
AD 22 (Tac. Ann. 3.72). Tacitus deliberately notes that Tiberius allowed Pompey’s
name to remain after his restoration. This was not the case for the Temple of
Concord whose restoration Tiberius personally undertook (see p. 267), and
which he dedicated with his brother, Drusus’ name inscribed on it. Emperors
Page 8 of 25
Access and Upkeep
generally took credit for repair and refurbishment depending on their own level
of vanity and the nature of the restoration; Hadrian, as with Tiberius and the
Theatre of Pompey, famously did not append his name to his restored version of
Marcus Agrippa’s Pantheon.
We are relatively well informed about the restoration of public buildings and
monuments, in no small part because they were durable and a substantial
number survive that tell us something about Roman techniques of construction
and restoration. Concerning the restoration and repair of cultural property we
are more in the dark. In the area of painting, outside of the literary record, we
have almost no information. One of the most obvious ways the Romans
apparently managed the deterioration of paintings was simple replacement. For
example, as noted in the previous chapter (p. 234), Augustus placed two famous
paintings by Apelles, the Dioscuri with Victory and the Venus Anadyomenē, in his
forum and the Temple of Divus Julius. By Nero’s day these had deteriorated to
such an extent that they were substituted with paintings (of unknown subjects)
by Dorotheus. Time was a natural destroyer for such works, although
incompetent attempts at restoration were also a potential hazard. A masterwork
by Aristides’ of Thebes in the Temple of Apollo (a tragic actor with a boy) was
ruined owing to a poor attempt at restoration when M. Junius as praetor
commissioned a painter who (p.297) was not very skilled to clean it for the
Ludi Apollinares.29 Cicero indicates for us what such restoration might have
entailed in an analogy he makes between a painting and the state (Rep. 5.1.2):
But our own age, although it accepted the state just as a renowned
painting, but now has neglected to restore it as it fades due to age
(evanescentem vetustate), not only has not cared to restore it with its
original colours (coloribus eisdem … renovare), but does not even care to
preserve its form (formam), and, as it were, its outlines (liniamenta
servaret).
Page 9 of 25
Access and Upkeep
Ceres was restored in 27 BC (after a fire in 31): the embossed work on the wall
(by two renowned artists, Damophilus and Gorgasus) was cut out and put in
frames (Pliny, HN 35.154), while the remaining paintings on the walls were
impossible to salvage.32 The fate of the newly restored material is unknown.
Cornelius Pinus and Attius Priscus are praised as painters of Vespasian’s newly
restored Temple of Honos et Virtus; while it is not absolutely certain that this
constituted a restoration project as opposed to an entirely new one, Pliny’s
language implies the possibility of the former.33
Statues, though more durable than painting, were also subject to deterioration
and damage. Cicero noted in the Philippics (9.14) the forces that could take their
toll on statuary, including weather, violence (presumably vandalism), and old
age. It was with such deterioration in mind that Statius, for example, could
assert (p.298) that an equestrian statue of Domitian would never suffer from
the force of time as other statues do (Silvae 1.91–8). Some materials were
naturally more fragile than others. To preserve chryselephantine statues such as
that of Olympian Zeus, oil could be used to protect its ivory; similarly, water was
sometimes employed as a moisturizer to preserve the statue of Athena on
Athens’ Acropolis.34 An archaic ivory statue of Saturn in his temple in the Forum
was similarly treated with oil to conserve it (Pliny, HN 15.32). But in terms of the
actual process and methodology of restoration we know little. We do know,
however, that statuary with minor damage was occasionally retouched with
wax.35 The famous collector, Avianius Evander was a successful art dealer who
managed to restore a decapitated statue of Diana by Timotheus in the Temple of
Apollo on the Palatine (Pliny, HN 36.32), but we have no discussion, again, of
methodology. However, there are ample broken and restored statues that clearly
indicate the use of concrete along with other adhesives, and in the case of
bronze, welding, which will have been the means used to repair damaged
statuary. Such welding must have been used in the modification of the Colossus
when Nero’s head was replaced with Commodus’ (and where Commodus was
portrayed as Hercules, with the addition of a bronze club and lion at the feet of
the statue).36 Such restoration in and of itself could be deemed worthy of
recording, as was the case with a statue of Minerva, restored after it was
damaged by fire.37 It could also provide political and even historical or
commemorative ‘insurance’ for oneself, as Cicero’s remark to Caesar, that by
restoring Pompey’s statues he had made his own (i.e., Caesar’s) more secure,
indicates.38
As was the case with paintings, some attempts to modify statuary were quite
detrimental, as when some restorers tried unsuccessfully to remove the gilding
from a statue of Alexander; some gilding remained in the cavities, ruining the
work’s beauty.39 For skilled restorers, however, there was the possibility of social
(p.299) recognition. Vespasian, for one, was generous to artists and paid well
Page 10 of 25
Access and Upkeep
the restorers of the Colossus and the Venus of Cos (consecrated in the Temple of
Peace and an apparent copy of Praxiteles’ renowned work).40
Our sources indicate that the responsibility for the general oversight of the
contents of public buildings, at least during the republic, was widely distributed
through several offices. Such care, as Strong notes, was first and foremost in the
charge of the censors, whose role in caring for sacred objects both Pliny (HN
34.30) and Livy (42.6) note, and who also appear to have been in charge of
inventory or to have appointed a commission of tresviri for the task.42 In addition
to the tresviri, it also appears, if we can trust Dionysius, that some of the
responsibility for the general care of sacred places was delegated to the aediles
(Ant. Rom. 6.90.3), although the initiative invariably started with the higher (p.
300) magistracies. Livy tells us that M. Aemilius Lepidus, as princeps senatus
and censor in 179 BC, contracted for the cleaning of the Temple of Jupiter
Capitolinus and the columns around it as well; Livy also says that he took down
from the columns the shields and military insignia that had been affixed to
them.43 In addition, Aemilius, along with his colleague in the censorship, M.
Fulvius, opened up numerous shrines and public places (sacella publicaque loca)
to the people which had been occupied by private individuals (40.51.1–3, 8).
According to Cicero, the consuls had similar authority over the care and
maintenance of such buildings, and he gives us some idea of how the work could
be delegated (Verr. 2.1.130–2): in 75 BC the consuls, L. Octavius and C. Aurelius,
had let out various contracts for temple maintenance. They did not have time to
certify all the cases, nor did the two praetors, C. Sacerdos and M. Caesius, to
Page 11 of 25
Access and Upkeep
whom the duty had been delegated. The senate decided that the new
contractors, C. Verres and P. Caelius, should be in charge of the oversight of the
completion of all the contracts (though as noted above (p. 296), according to
Cicero, Verres abused his power). The contractor for the Temple of Castor and
Pollux was P. Junius, who died during his tenure, having been in charge of
upkeep since 80 BC; the duty devolved to his son, who was still a minor. Verres
decided that the contract ought to be transferred to the boy’s guardian, L.
Habonius. According to Cicero, Habonius had to testify before Verres that he
was taking charge of the oversight with the temple in good condition, with no
statues or offerings missing.
The type of inventory Habonius submitted will not have been unusual, and the
keeping of such records in general will have been a necessary precursor for the
care and upkeep of buildings (sacred and non-sacred) and their contents. The
inventorying of goods taken in war ideally started at the source, with looted
material catalogued after a city’s capture (see p. 45). A similar process of
cataloguing in a civic context is indicated in Livy under the year 212 BC when
the senate and people had the praetor urbanus create a commission of five men
for examining ‘the sacred vessels’ and had another for making a record of
temple gifts, with yet another commission for temple repair (25.7); the inventory
may have been necessitated after monuments had been stripped of their
adornments after the Roman defeat at Cannae noted above. Varro (De Lingua
Latina 5.47) too clearly indicates that there were similar records of the city’s
monuments kept during the republic, including priestly accounts (ex Argeorum
Sacrificiis) which possibly listed a temple’s contents.44 A surviving papyrus
fragment from Egypt appears (p.301) to contain a similar itemized inventory of
statues, including their artists, and may even specifically mention the Farnese
Hercules.45
By the time of the principate, such inventories, and the offices attendant with
them, had become essential for the upkeep not merely of buildings but of their
contents as well. Suetonius indicates that the trend of establishing such offices
started with Augustus who created an office charged with the curam operum
publicorum or ‘care of public works’ (Aug. 37). The office is well attested in both
the literary and epigraphic record.46 The board of curatores, overseeing the care
of public buildings and shrines, continued with his successors. Hence, to cite but
one example, the future emperor Vitellius held a post as curator at one point, a
post at which Suetonius tells us he proved himself incompetent.47 In addition to
curatores there were sub-curatores known as procuratores operum publicorum
(ILS 1430). These various grades had their own individual functions and duties,
including, possibly, the cataloguing of individual buildings (sacred and public)
and their contents. Indeed, Strong conjectures that Vespasian’s censorship may
have included an attempt to account for works in Rome looted during Nero’s
tour of Greece in AD 67, a task undertaken by the curatores; the product of their
work may have furnished the basis for Pliny the Elder’s discussion of the various
Page 12 of 25
Access and Upkeep
artists and their works in his encyclopaedia.48 Tacitus’ father-in-law Agricola was
among those appointed by Vespasian in the interest of undertaking just such an
account, (ad dona templorum recognoscenda, ‘for reviewing gifts to temples’,
Tac. Agr. 6.5). A similar ‘catalogue’ may have been at hand for Tacitus, or at any
rate, one of Tacitus’ sources, in rendering his abbreviated account of those
monuments and works destroyed in the great fire of AD 64 (Ann. 15.41).
Moreover Pausanias conceivably had in mind curatores and procuratores when
he made a general reference to the ‘keepers of the wonders’ (hoi epi tois
thaumasin) in the city (8.46.5).49
It is likely that later in the empire such curatores became more specialized. As
Strong notes, under Antoninus Pius there was an imperial freedman who was
procurator of statues and paintings, and, under Antoninus and Commodus, an
official called an adiutor rationis statuarum (‘assistant in charge of recording
statuary’) and a procurator a pinacothecis (‘the procurator in charge of painting
galleries’).50 (p.302) The office of a pinacothecis however, appears to have
predated Antoninus, going back at least to the time of Trajan, and one suspects
before, since, as noted in Beaujeu’s study, an inscription pertaining to the
Temple of Aesculapius and Hygia refers to Flavius Apollonius as procurator
Augusti, qui fuit a pinacothecis (‘the procurator of Augustus in charge of
paintings’).51 Beaujeu notes too that there are indications of similar offices in
the hands of slaves in the imperial house early in the empire.52 Under Augustus,
for example, there existed a slave known as the a tabuliis (CIL 6.3970) and
another known as the a statuis (CIL 6.4032).53 Tiberius may have had a similar
office specifically for looking after images of the imperial family, an office ad
imagines.54 We hear too that a certain Larensis was the pontifex minor and the
procurator patrimonii, and that he was placed in charge of all the temples and
sacrifices by Marcus Aurelius, (as well as in charge of all the Greek and
‘national’ rites in Rome, Athenaeus 1.2a).55 Presumably, this entailed delegating
the supervision of upkeep of the material inside the temples as well. By the late
empire (ad 335–7) a curator statuarum is attested as a subordinate to the
praefectus urbi.56 Nearly twenty years later (356–7), Ammianus Marcellinus
(16.6.2) refers to a certain Dorus as nitentium rerum centurionem sub
Magnentio, that is, serving as centurion in charge of works of art in Rome.
Yet despite the relatively meticulous care as indicated by the various offices
pertaining to cultural property and artefacts in Rome (and its cataloguing), we
also know that it could prove inefficient.57 The sheer quantity of material, sloppy
record-keeping, and the regrouping or reworking of material all contributed to
the confusion concerning the identification of objects deemed culturally
significant. Pliny despaired at the situation in his own day, citing the vast
amount of material as problematic for its identification (HN 36.27). The problem
of an over-population of statuary—and its care and restoration—was an old and
(p.303) endemic one.58 As early as 179 BC M. Aemilius Lepidus cleaned out
the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, removing the statues around the columns.59
Page 13 of 25
Access and Upkeep
Twenty years later in 158 BC the censors, P. Cornelius Scipio and M. Popilius,
undertook a similar purge, removing all the statues of former magistrates except
those set up by decree of the people or senate.60 Cassius Dio remarked the vast
quantity of statuary that filled the city (60.25.2–3), referring to the ochlos (‘mob’)
of images in the early first century. Augustus also may have spruced up the
Capitoline of its clutter of statues, though his motive may have been to create a
programme more in keeping with his imperial forum, rather than simply to
neaten up the site.61
The result of this periodic cleaning and reassembling was that certain artworks
could no longer be attributed to their original, individual creators. Pliny notes
specifically the case of a statue of Venus that Vespasian had used to adorn his
new forum—an admirable work whose artist was unknown (HN 36.27). One of
the factors adding to the confusion was that statues could be brought to Rome
without their base and the identification of a given work could be lost in the
course of transport.62 Again, poor record keeping and importation methods
likely led to the confused identification over the artists and their works in the
Portico of Octavia, including a group of four satyrs, and another of two wind
goddesses spreading their robes like sails (Pliny, HN 36.29). It was equally
unknown who had sculpted the groups of Olympus and Pan and of Achilles and
Chiron that stood in the Saepta Julia, even though they were so esteemed that
those who guarded them put up surety of their lives for their safety (Pliny, HN
36.29). Pliny was equally uncertain whether Scopas or Praxiteles was the
sculptor of the dying children of Niobe in the Temple of Apollo Sosianus (HN
36.28). By late antiquity the bronze bull which may have been part of a fountain
in the Forum of Peace was identified variously as a work of Phidias, Lysippus, or
Myron.63 Such confusion was no doubt the result on occasion of reconfiguration.
Mummius, for example, inscribed statues of Philip II with the title of Zeus, and
(p.304) the titles Nestor and Priam on the statues of two Arcadian youths,
likely with the intent of reusing the statues in a new context64
Yet even in the waning days of the empire, there still was a concern to look after
Rome’s cultural and artistic heritage despite Constantine’s despoliation of the
city. Ammianus tells us (29.6.19) that Claudius Hermogenianus Caesarius, the
praefect in 374, spent his time in office concerned with the restoration of
numerous buildings or their improvement, a phenomenon that accelerated in the
fourth century.65 The desire at this late date to maintain Rome’s cultural
patrimony could be read in a number of ways. Continued civic pride, concern for
the city’s waning prestige, nostalgia for the historical and spiritual centre of the
Empire, all of these were surely at work. Refurbishment of the antiquities and
protection of cultural heritage will have put Rome’s patrimony at the forefront;
the expenditure of money and energy on its protection at a time when other
priorities demanded urgent attention indicates the value placed on Rome’s
cultural legacy.66
Page 14 of 25
Access and Upkeep
With so many cultural artefacts adorning Rome’s temples and public buildings,
how was access controlled and regulated, and how was such material protected?
Access to various areas in Rome could be opened or restricted, depending on the
nature of the site. Viewing access may have been relatively free, at least by day,
throughout much of the city, since Strabo says (5.3.8–9) in his description of the
Campus Martius that if one passed on to the Capitoline and saw the works of art
there, as well as those on the Palatine and Livia’s portico, that one would
become oblivious of all else outside. As concerns the Capitoline, there is reason
to believe that access here was at least occasionally restricted, or that at the
very least the place was closely guarded. Horace’s scholiast indicates that there
was a general keeper of the Capitoline’s temples, and Pliny mentions the suicide
of an aedituus on the Capitoline.67 Suetonius (Ner. 46.2) tells us of an occasion
in which Nero, wishing to fulfill some vows on the Capitol, was delayed until the
keys (Capitolii claves) could be found. Concerning access to Rome’s porticoes,
we are (p.305) not very well informed, though an inscription, the Tabula
Heracleensis indicates that the aediles and other magistrates (aedilium
[e]orumve mag(istratuom)) maintained control over access to and activities in
porticoes.68 These were no doubt duties aediles would delegate to lesser officers
(such as those noted in the inscription).69
Despite the general protection of the city’s myriad of statues and monuments,
their complete protection appears nearly impossible. Simply recall the graffiti on
the Temple of Concord after the death of C. Gracchus, the filets and diadem
placed on Caesar’s statues, the graffiti scrawled on the statues of M. Brutus’
eponymous ancestor, or that scribbled on statues against Nero for his
matricide.70 One of the rare though perhaps unsurprising exceptions to this rule
was when the senate voted that Caligula’s statues be guarded (Cass. Dio
59.26.3). We have no details on how this was to be put into effect, but it is likely
that the vigiles or night watch would have had responsibility for this task. Late in
the empire, we hear of an office called the comes Romanus, in charge of
protecting artworks from theft or defacement, but it is difficult to imagine that
something similar did not exist before then.71 We do know that vandalism was a
sufficiently serious matter that it fell under a charge of iniuria.72
The main caretakers for temples and their contents were officials known as
aeditui, who in general were probably public slaves and freedmen. While some
appear to have been in charge simply of opening and closing the doors, others
will have had more specific duties.73 Tertullian, for one, tells us that by law the
aedituus was responsible for sanctifying and purifying temples (De Pudicitia 16),
and this would accord with other sources which indicate the aedituus’ more
general duties elsewhere, such as Varro (De Lingua Latina 7.12), who simply
notes in vague terms that the word aedituus referred to one who was in general
charge of a sacred building. Elsewhere an aedituus (who prior to Cicero’s time
was called an aeditumus) was synonymous with the custos or ianitor templi, in
his capacity as the gatekeeper.74 Under Augustus and the empire, these officials
Page 15 of 25
Access and Upkeep
came from the rank of imperial freedmen, such as T. Flavius, the aedituus of the
Temple of Mars Ultor, known to us from a funerary inscription.75 According to a
(p.306) scholiast of Horace’s Satires, sometime in the reign of Augustus a
certain Petillius was given charge of looking after the Capitoline and its
treasures. Under his watch a crown was reportedly stolen; he was accused but
acquitted of the theft through Augustus’ intervention.76 It is entirely plausible
that Petillius will have been a freedman of the imperial house as was T. Flavius.
Not long after we hear of a certain Bathyllus, also an imperial freedman and the
aedituus of the Temple of Divus Augustus and Augusta on the Palatine.77 A
freedman of Claudia Antonia’s, Philippus Rusticus, apparently held an office
known as the a sacrario, an office to which we also have reference in an epitaph
to Successus Valerianus who held the identical title (a sacrario divi Aug[ugsti])
in addition to the title of aedituus.78 In addition to freedmen, it appears that
servi publici could still fulfill the duties of aeditui. Thus Strabo refers to
hierodouloi, and later Tacitus at least implies that a servuspublicus controlled
access to the Temple of Vesta.79 On the whole, however, based on the epigraphic
record, it seems reasonable to assume that most aeditui were freedmen; indeed,
Tacitus notes (Ann. 13.27) that numerous assistants to the priests and
magistrates, doubtless among them aeditui and the like, were recruited from
among the city’s liberti. In addition to servi publici and aeditui, there existed, at
least on a local level, palaestritae (‘managers of gymnasia’) who could also have
responsibility for access and daily upkeep, as well as general accounts of
statuary.80
On the whole, the aedituus who held the keys to the place was in charge of a
relatively secure, though by no means impregnable structure, and theft was a
problem, even though temples and public buildings were protected with
formidable locks. One of the more detailed episodes of theft from a public
temple occurred when Verres broke into the Temple of Hercules at Akragas.
Cicero asserts that Verres’ men (a group of armed slaves led by Timarchides)
had to use a great deal of force in breaking into the temple, actually wrenching
the bolt then tearing the statue from off of its base.81 Nor was their task always
tranquil: Verres tried to appropriate a much revered and remarkable statue from
the people of Assorus from their temple dedicated to the river Chrysas which
flowed through (p.307) their territory. Reportedly Verres dared not touch it but
sent two minions, Tlepolemus and Hiero, to take the statue by force with a band
of armed men. Unfortunately for them, the aeditumi custodesque raised the
alarm, having apparently been alerted to Verres’ scheme. In addition, Juvenal
indicates that the theft of gilding off of statues was problematic (14.256–62), and
also refers to a theft of the helmet of Mars Ultor.82 Aulus Gellius also tells us
that guard dogs were in use for the protection of the Temple of Capitoline
Jupiter, along with an unspecified number of aeditumi.83 No doubt these were
particularly diligent in their duties, that is, if we can trust Pliny, who tells us that
there was a particularly fine statue of a dog licking its wounds in the cella of
Page 16 of 25
Access and Upkeep
Juno on the Capitoline and, since invaluable and irreplaceable, the guards were
threatened with penalty of death if anything untoward should happen to it.84 As
concerns the hours that aeditui, custodes, and other such officials worked, it
appears unlikely that every temple had unrestricted access every day, at least in
the republic. Plutarch tells us that when Aemilius Paullus held his triumph ‘every
temple was open’ (Aem. 32.3) which would imply limited hours, possibly even
days for access (a situation still familiar to anyone who tries to visit sites in
Rome today).
In addition to public spaces, there was also the matter of access to houses of the
great, an area that arguably straddled the space between public and private (see
above, p. 186). The level of access granted to homes with particular artefacts
and collections is problematic, but it was certainly there. Holliday has argued
that, at least during the republic, the houses of nobiles were open to all except in
periods of mourning.85 The record however is not entirely consistent. Cicero, for
one, criticizes Verres’ appropriation of art for private use in a domestic setting,
rather than public display, and notes over and over in his prosecution that this
was a central difference between Verres as opposed to M. Marcellus, Scipio
Africanus, and Aemilius Paullus, who did not keep treasure for private enjoyment
but distributed it for public benefaction (see pp. 36–50). However, Velleius
Paterculus’ statement (2.14.3) that Livius Drusus sought to make his house as
public as possible implies as well that this was not a universal principle, and that
Livius had counterparts who tried to maintain a more private residence. We
know the case of some in the republic—at least outside of Rome in a Greek
setting—who did have cultural artefacts to which there was general access, as
was (p.308) the case with Heius, a wealthy citizen of Messana to whose house
a chapel was attached containing an Eros by Praxiteles, a fine statue of Hercules
in bronze by Myron, and two canephoroi type statues in the front by Polyclitus.
Romans apparently visited the place which was open daily to see these fine
works, at least according to Cicero (Verr. 2.4.4–5). Elsewhere there is ample
indication that the houses of the great during the empire were generally
accessible as places that housed artworks and curiosities (see pp. 186–92). In
such instances it is reasonable to suppose that access was regulated by the
presence of a ianitor.
Access and Upkeep
buildings and temples and put in charge many of the equestrian order so that
everything might be quickly completed’. Such commitment and effort devoted to
ornamenta, in addition to infrastructure, is telling.87 A similar devotion to
Rome’s patrimony was shown by his father’s commitment to the replacement of
inscriptions of historical significance that perished in the destruction of the
Capitoline temple in 69 (see p. 147).
The collective use of state and individual funds, and later imperial and individual
expenditure on projects ranging from the restoration of buildings to the repair of
damaged paintings, was likely substantial. Second, over time, in the interest of
its preservation, Romans created an extensive bureaucracy through a series of
offices in the interest of protecting such property. Some of the offices such a
bureaucracy entailed will have been of little consequence, such as the servus
publicus who swept a temple. Others will have had more important functions,
and constituted an aspect of imperial patronage, such as the aedituus who
controlled access to the Capitoline. On a grander scale were the curatores and
aediles whose task was delegated by the censors and the consuls variously to
look after, keep (p.309) track of, and protect cultural property. Finally, the task
of cleaning precious objects, of upkeep, of restoration, even of removal of
statuary (as was the case with Augustus) could occasionally be one of the means
by which one expressed one’s political power and clout. Aediles sometimes
dedicated or displayed statues to adorn the city as a first step to higher office;
Augustus boasted of clearing the city of statues dedicated to him; Vespasian
handsomely rewarded the restorers of the Colossus and the Venus of Cos. Care
of the city’s artistic, cultural, and religious patrimony was one of the ways in
which the political class publicly expressed its power, and even perpetuated it.
The energy and resources expended on the care of Rome’s cultural heritage,
even late into antiquity, is a testament not only to the power of its political elite,
but to the desire to maintain an identity that the city’s cultural treasures had, in
a sense, constructed. (p.310)
Notes:
(1) There have been numerous studies on the nature of construction in ancient
Rome; see e.g. D. E. Strong, ‘The Administration of Public Building in Rome
during the Later Republic and Early Empire’, BICS 15 (1968), 97–109; F.
Coarelli, ‘Public Building in Rome between the Second Punic War and Sulla’,
PBSR 45 (1977), 1–23; also see J. C. Anderson Jr., Roman Architecture and
Society (Baltimore 1997), esp. pp. 68–118 on the organization of public building.
(2) As was the case with the statues of Pythagoras and Alcibiades in the
Comitium, set up by order of the Pythian Apollo, Pliny, HN 34.26; on the social
background of the construction and finance of religious buildings of a public
nature see J. Rüpke, Religion of the Romans. Translated and edited by R. Gordon
(Cambridge and Malden Mass. 2007), 21–2, 27–8.
Page 18 of 25
Access and Upkeep
(3) See E. M. Orlin, Temples, Religion, and Politics in the Roman Republic
(Leiden 1997), 116–17.
(4) See Orlin, Temples (n. 3), 124–6; for temples constructed from manubiae (so-
called manubial buildings) see 127–39; cf. D. Favro, The Urban Image of
Augustan Rome (Cambridge 1996), 82–6 for a list of manubial buildings dating
between 44 BC and AD 14.
(5) Livy 36.36 indicates that censors would farm out construction of new
temples, but that the senate granted them their authority. For the censors’ role
in new construction see Orlin, Temples (n. 3), 140–1. That Livy’s narrative at
least for his very early history is only an indication of actual practices needs
emphasis, since he may well be anachronistic, looking to practices in his own
day.
(6) See Orlin, Temples (n. 3), 147–58 for the creation and responsibilities of the
two commissions; see 162–89 on the dedication of temples in general.
(8) For the aediles’ role in construction see Orlin, Temples (n. 3), 141, 143–4.
(9) See J. Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy Books XXXI – XXXIII (Oxford 1973), 163
for the use of fines by aediles in the construction of public works; cf. J. Briscoe, A
Commentary on Livy Books XXXIV – XXXVII (Oxford 1981), 160; for the religious
and moral sentiment behind such fines see Rüpke, Religion (n. 2), 15.
(10) A decade earlier, in 203 BC, the curule aediles C. Livius and M. Servilius
Geminus dedicated a gilded four horse chariot on the Capitol, Livy 29.38.8.
(12) The maintenance and repair of buildings on the local level will have come
out of the personal fortunes of local grandees or Roman patrons, as Cicero notes
was the case for Arpinum, where wealthy individuals used income from estates
in Gaul for the maintenance of sacred and public buildings (Fam. 13.11.1). For
local patronage of a similar nature see Pliny, Ep. 3.6, 9.39, 10.8.
(13) For the restructuring of this aspect of Roman religious life see M. Beard, J.
North, and S. Price, Religions of Rome, Volume 1: A History (Cambridge 1998),
196–201; for imperial financing of public buildings see E. Thomas,
Monumentality and the Roman Empire: Architecture in the Antonine Age (Oxford
2007), 38.
(14) For a detailed discussion concerning the decrees that placed Caesar’s
statues throughout a number of temples in Rome and the larger context of the
dedication Invicto Deo, see S. Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford 1971), 186–8, who
Page 19 of 25
Access and Upkeep
(16) Cass. Dio 49.43.8; cf. Res Gestae 19–21 where Augustus boasts of adorning
the city with new and restored buildings at his own expense.
(17) Cass. Dio 53.22.3; cf. 54.35.2 where Augustus refused statues at public
expense to himself, instead setting them up to Salus Publica (‘The Preservation
of the Public Welfare’), Peace, and Concord.
(18) Livy 38.56; triumphal vestments were particularly evocative; see Plut. Mar.
12.5: Marius elicited comment when he attended a senate meeting in such garb,
the special preserve of privilege for triumphatores of exceptional note.
Ultimately Scipio’s image was set up in Jupiter’s temple, see p. 108.
(19) Cass. Dio 60.5.5; see P. Stewart, Statues in Roman Society. Representation
and Response (Oxford 2003), 133 for discussion.
(20) See Stewart, Statues in Roman Society (n. 19), 133 for discussion.
(21) On the legal authority of the pontifex and some of the difficulties in our
understanding of them see Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome (n. 13),
23–6, 29.
(22) Pliny, Ep. 1.17; on Silanus’ execution in AD 65 see Tac. Ann. 16.7–9; for
discussion see A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Social and Historical
Commentary (Oxford 1966), 124–6.
(24) See Livy 22.57.10; cf. Val. Max. 7.6.1b; Florus 1.22.23.
(25) Tac. Ann. 4.74; Ann. 13.8 indicates that the senate could oversee the
construction of statuary with specific detailed attention to its appearance; hence
a decree after some successes in the East in 55 that a new statue of Nero equal
in size to the cult statue be dedicated in the Temple of Mars Ultor.
(27) Livy 29.37.2; at 34.44.5 he states that the Atrium Libertatis and the Villa
Publica were restored and extended by the censors in 194 BC. Cicero (Leg. 3.7)
says that (ideally) censors should have charge of temples, streets, and aqueducts
within the city; it is a fair presumption that this also included the contents of
temples as well.
Page 20 of 25
Access and Upkeep
(28) There were similar instances of divine warning for repair and restoration.
See e.g. Cic. Div. 1.101, where a warning comes from a voice in Vesta’s sacred
grove that walls and gates must be repaired or the city would be captured (by
whom Cicero does not state).
(31) Pliny, HN 35.97; see Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 261 for discussion.
(32) See Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 262 for discussion.
(34) Pausanias 5.11.10–11; see Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 261 for
discussion; for a detailed study on chryselephantine statuary see now K. D. S.
Lapatin, Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford
2002).
(35) See e.g. Juvenal 12.87; see Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 262 for
discussion.
(36) Cass. Dio 72.22.3 also says that he inscribed it with his titles with the
following inscription: ‘Champion of the secutores; only left-handed fighter to
conquer twelve thousand men’. Cf. Herodian 1.15.9; S.H.A. Comm. 17.9–10.
(37) See Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 263 for discussion; ILS 3132 (dated to
AD 483).
(39) Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 262 remarks the ‘mania’ for this process
in the late empire. He also notes that this activity could become quite
specialized, as is the case with M. Rapilius Serapio, who made a living putting
the eyes back into statues, citing CIL 6.9403. Plut. Mor. 348E also refers to
dyers, gilders, and painters of statues. See Pliny, HN 35.133 for artists who
specialized in painting statuary. For a detailed study see V. Brinkman and R.
Wünsche, (eds.), Die Bunte Götter. Die Farbigkeit antiker Skulptur. Eine
Ausstellung der Staatlichen Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek München in
Zussamenarbeit mit der Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek Kopenhagen und der
Page 21 of 25
Access and Upkeep
(40) Suet. Vesp. 18; for the Colossus’ removal to the head of the Via Sacra see
Cass. Dio 66.15.1; the Colossus was again moved by Hadrian (S.H.A. Hadr.
19.12–13).
(41) For delegation to the aediles see Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 251–2;
for censors and their duties concerning the cult statue see Plut. Mor. 287B–C; cf.
Pliny, HN 33.112.
(42) See Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 250–1 for discussion.
(45) See Stewart, Statues in Roman Society (n. 19), 153–4 for discussion.
(46) See J. M. Beaujeu, ‘A-t-il éxisté une direction des musées dans la Rome
impériale?’, in Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres,
Nov.–Dec. (1982), 681 for extended discussion; cf. Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n.
29), 252–4; O. F. Robinson, Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration
(London 1992), 54.
(47) Vit. 5; on curatores see Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 252. See e.g. CIL
6.1585 on the curator of the column of Antoninus Pius.
(49) For curatores and their status see Robinson, Ancient Rome (n. 46), 53.
(50) See CIL 6.9007, 31053, 1708 (= ILS 1222); for discussion see Strong,
‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 253; Beaujeu, ‘Une direction des musées?’ (n. 46),
672–3 n. 2.
(51) CIL 6.10324 = ILS 7213; see Beaujeu, ‘Une direction des musées?’ (n. 46),
671–2, who conjectures that his rank will have been equestrian; see 672 with n.
2.
(52) See Beaujeu, ‘Une direction des musées?’ (n. 46), 672–3 with n. 4.
Page 22 of 25
Access and Upkeep
(54) CIL 6.3972; see Beaujeu, ‘Une direction des musées?’ (n. 46), 672 n. 4 for
discussion.
(55) There was, similarly, a procurator Mausolei, see Thomas, Monumentality (n.
13), 196 for discussion.
(56) See Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 253 on this reorganization; Strong
remarks that ‘it has been suggested (Chastagnol, 1960) that this office was
created in 331 when the office of curator aedium sacrarum was suppressed by
Constantine’. The curator statuarum would from henceforth be responsible for
inventory of the national collections. Strong further notes (p. 254) that in ad 365
the Baths of Caracalla were beautified with a large number of statues by order
of the princeps, with the praefect of the city overseeing the project (citing CIL 14
suppl. 4721 [Ostia]); ILS 5482, 5477, 5478; CIL 6.794, 1170–73a. Also see A.
Chastagnol, Le préfecture urbaine à Rome sous le Bas-Empire (Paris 1960), 469
citing CIL 6.1708, 6.1159; Beaujeu, ‘Une direction des musées?’ (n. 46), 683;
Stewart, Statues in Roman Society (n. 19), 155 with n. 148.
(57) See p. 120; see Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 250–1, who notes that
inefficient inventory contributed to the problem.
(58) On the occasional over-population of Rome with statuary and its need to be
cleaned up, see Cic. Phil. 9.14; also see Dio Chrysostomus, Orationes 31 (for the
over-population of Roman statuary on Rhodes) and Pliny, HN 35.4–5 (for the
recycling of statuary); for discussion see Stewart, Statues in Roman Society (n.
19), 128–30, esp. 129 n. 40; L. S. Nasrallah, Christian Response to Roman Art
and Architecture (Cambridge 2010), 4–5.
(59) See Stewart, Statues in Roman Society (n. 19), 129 for discussion.
(60) Pliny, HN 34.30; see Stewart, Statues in Roman Society (n. 19), 129 for
discussion.
(62) Pliny, HN 36.28–9; see Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 260–1; see above
p. 47.
(63) Procopius, De Bello Gothico 8.21.12–15; the same passage states the reason
for the confusion: ‘Because there are numerous statues in this area which were
the works of these two [i.e., Phidias and Lysippus]’. Concerning Myron’s bull see
too Anthologia Palatina 9.713–42, 793–8.
Page 23 of 25
Access and Upkeep
(65) For discussion see D. Kinney, ‘Spolia, Damnatio, and Renovatio Memoriae’,
MAAR 42 (1997), 121, who notes that laws increasingly addressed the city’s
despoliation in the fourth century; for a related discussion see J. Alchermes,
‘Spolia in the Roman Cities of the Late Empire: Legislative Rationales and
Architectural Reuse’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 48 (1994), 167–8.
(66) For the subsequent reaction to the city’s decline in this regard see
Cassiodorus, Variae 7.13, 15; see Stewart, Statues in Roman Society (n. 19), 119,
for discussion of Cassiodorus’ ‘pleas for the preservation of Rome’s sculptural
heritage’, which he argues was problematic, ‘Divorced from the social and
religious circumstances of their creation … the balance between intrinsic and
symbolic value had tipped in favour of the lime-kilns and furnaces’. As Stewart
notes, the underlying assumption of Cassiodorus (and his audience) is that the
statues ‘deserve reverence on account of their aesthetic value, as works of art’,
and that ‘they are valuable property of the community and the product of the
whole world’.
(67) HN 33.15; cf. Ov. Fast. 1.261–2 with his dubious reference to Tarpeia as
keeper of the Capitoline.
(68) See ILS 6085 = M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statues (London 1996), i. no.
24, lines 68–72.
(69) See Beaujeu ‘Une direction des musées?’ (n. 46), 672–3 n. 4 for discussion.
(70) For Gracchus see Plut. C. Gracch. 17.6; for Caesar see Suet. Iul. 79.1; Plut.
Caes. 61.8; App. B Civ. 2.108; Cass. Dio 44.9.1–3; for Brutus see Suet. Iul. 80.3;
Plut. Brut. 9.6–7; for Nero see Suet. Ner. 45.
(71) Cassiodorus, Variae 7.13; see Robinson, Ancient Rome (n. 46), 58.
(72) Digesta 47.10.27; see Stewart, Statues in Roman Society (n. 19), 264 for
discussion.
(73) Such as cleaning temples; see Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 251.
(74) Or the templi vel aedis minister and ostarii similia (see TLL p. 934); cf. Aulus
Gellius 12.10 who quotes both Varro and Cicero for the association between the
custos and the aedituus; also see Servius, In Aeneidem 9.645 (cf.1.726), who
simply says that the aedituus was ‘a loyal guardian of the threshold’ (fidusque ad
limina custos), a post ‘of great honour among our forebears’ (in ingenti honore
apud maiores fuit).
Page 24 of 25
Access and Upkeep
(76) See Pseudo-Acro on Horace, Sermones 1.4.94, and cf. 1.10.25. Worse than
the light-fingered aeditui were the pyromaniacs. See Obsequens (57, 83 BC) who
asserts that the fire in that year on the Capitoline was ‘due to the treachery of
the gatekeeper’ (Fraude aeditui).
(78) For Rusticus see CIL 6.2329 = ILS 4992. For Valerianus see CIL 6.2330a =
ILS 4993; cf. CIL 6.2330b = ILS 4993a.
(80) See e.g. Cic. Verr. 2.2.35–7: a certain Heraclius of Syracuse had been left a
legacy, one of the terms of which was that he set up certain statues (presumably
of the deceased) in a palaestrum. One of Verres’ minions accused Heraclius of
not erecting the statues, and the property was declared forfeit.
(81) Cic. Verr. 2.4.94–6. Cicero says that the vigiles and custodes raised a cry–
which indicates that the city had some level of policing. See Strong, ‘Roman
Museums’ (n. 29), 259 for discussion.
(82) See Strong, ‘Roman Museums’ (n. 29), 259 for discussion. Juvenal’s tale of
theft is plausible enough though not (given the satirical nature of the passage)
without its difficulties.
(84) Pliny, HN 34.38; see Beaujeu, ‘Une direction des musées?’ (n. 46), 672–3 n. 4
for discussion, who thinks these were also the ‘keepers of the wonders’ referred
to in Pausanias.
(85) See e.g. Seneca the Younger, Dialog 7.28.1,10.20.3,11.14.2; Lucan 2.22; Tac.
Hist. 1.82; Ann. 2.82; see P. J. Holliday, The Origins of Roman Historical
Commemoration in the Visual Arts (Cambridge 2002), 227 n. 98 for discussion.
(86) Suet. Tit. 8.4; for discussion see Beaujeu, ‘Une direction des musées?’ (n.
46), 684.
(87) See Stewart, Statues in Roman Society (n. 19), 145–6 for the definition of
ornamenta: ‘Digest 33.7.12.16 draws a distinction between the ornamenta and
instrumenta (‘equipment’) of a house, defining ornamenta in manifestly aesthetic
terms as “ quae ad voluptatem [pertinent], sicut tabulas pictas”’.
Page 25 of 25
Epilogue
Epilogue
Steven H. Rutledge
DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199573233.003.0009
By late antiquity the city had started to change. It was a transformation that was
taking place even in Constantine’s day, though as Ammianus notes, it still had
the power to impress a full generation after substantial portions of its cultural
property started to be transferred to Constantinople.1 Nonetheless, as noted at
several points in this study, Procopius, a late source, can himself still attest to
the continued importance of cultural property in the fast deteriorating Rome of
his day. That deterioration is vividly driven home in his recounting of Geiseric’s
looting of the Palatine for its imperial treasures in AD 455, after which he sent
the material to Carthage; in addition, he tore the bronze and gilded tiles off the
Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline (on which Domitian, according to our
sources, had spent twelve thousand talents).2 Yet the unfortunate fate of the
collection of cultural property in the city, while indicative certainly of the
Page 1 of 5
Epilogue
It was in the process of this cultural shift, coupled with the enormous stresses of
invasion, economic malaise, and periodic plague, during which knowledge of
Rome’s ancient pagan patrimony was lost, leading to a general ignorance of the
city’s past. Hence, the writer of the Graphia Aureae Urbis (26) located the tomb
of Romulus in the naumachia across the Tiber, instead of its traditionally attested
location in the Forum. Similarly, it led Magister Gregorius in his Mirabilia (6) to
identify the colossal bronze head of Constantine and his right hand holding an
orb (both now in the Capitoline collection) as portions of the Colossus of Nero.
At the same time, however, the author of the Graphia Aureae Urbis asserts an
intimate knowledge (of dubious accuracy) of Rome’s Judeo-Christian patrimony
and the cultural objects reflective of it. The author therefore asserts that the ark
of the covenant was to be found in the templum Pacis iuxta Lateranum (20),
which allegedly contained (to name just a few of the more striking objects), the
tablets of the covenant (tabulae Testamenti), the staff of Aaron, a golden urn
containing mana, Aaron’s vestes et ornamenta, a gold candelabra with seven
lamps, a tabernaculum, seven candelabra, seven silver chairs (cathedrae),
Moses’ staff which he used to part the Red Sea, the vestments of John the
Baptist, and the scissors used to cut the hair of John the Evangelist. Yet it is
worth noting that here too, as was the case with the ancient Romans’ knowledge
of their heritage and past, it is not the historical accuracy of the account, but
what the account tells us about the Roman sense of self, and sense of the city in
general. The Mirabilia, as is the case with the Graphia Aureae Urbis, is a work
that focuses on the fantastic and on the marvellous, and both appear to attempt
to set Medieval Rome within the context of Rome’s virtually mythic (and more
authoritative) ancient past, in a sense reflecting Rome’s growing place as a
spiritual centre, through a discussion of material culture that set that culture in
a new historical, theological, and cosmic context.
The city was no longer a repository expressing earthly triumph, no longer one
with imperial collections attempting to impress or intimidate provincials or to
assert legitimacy of rule or rights of governance. Rather the city came to reflect
the divine mission and heritage of the Church, an institution that, over time,
Page 2 of 5
Epilogue
itself became a collector and recycler of the ruins of the ancient city.4 Over time,
however, the Church came to leave a mark that in visual terms also sought to
express a triumphalism both human and divine, that itself collected the world in
(p.313) miniature, whose exhibitions and displays came to serve functions very
similar to those of ancient imperial collections.5 It was also a theological
repository of heaven collected and gathered by the rulers of the City of God, who
—like their ancient predecessors—amassed the material cultures of the peoples
of the world to whom it sought to spread its faith.6 Only now Apelles’ paintings,
Praxiteles’ marbles, and German war masks were supplanted by such relics as
the scalae Christi, the bones of St. Bartholomew, the manger in which Jesus
slept, pieces of the true cross, and the myriad fragments of Rome’s ancient past,
through which the city both in a literal and mnemonic sense ‘recollected’ itself.
In the course of this study, we have considered the ways in which material
arrived in Rome, how it was cared for, and, through a series of admittedly
artificial categories, tried to excavate to a limited extent how a variety of
cultural property was expressive of Roman values and identity. To stop at the
sixth century AD is, in a sense, also artificial. The re-emergence of Rome as the
centre of another world empire, that of the Church, has arguably had the result
that the modern city now reflects, in a living sense, the ancient. This is true not
simply in the crude reuse of spolia from ancient buildings in the subsequent
construction of new ones, but in the accruing over time of a unique cultural
heritage that has created, yet again, a museum city reflecting its ancient
identity. Its churches, like its ancient temples, continue to function as significant
repositories of cultural material in their own right. The church of Santa Maria
Sopra Minerva is perhaps the finest example of such a site. Gothic in style (an
oddity in Rome due to a regrettable nineteenth century restoration), it contains a
splendid fifteenth century chapel (the Capella Carafa) frescoed by Filippino
Lippi, a sculpture of Christ Triumphant by a young Michelangelo, a cloister
where Galileo was put on trial, the tomb of Saint Catherine of Siena, who still
today receives numerous pilgrims in her capacity as a healing saint, and boasts a
delightful but diminutive elephant outside in front of the church sculpted by
Bernini and carrying a small obelisk on its back (one of many imported from
Egypt to Rome in antiquity). A number of popes are entombed here as well, and
we could go on with the names of great artists whose works grace the church or
who chose the church as their final place ofrest–Sangallo, Barocci, Fra Angelico,
the list is no less impressive than that of Verres’ thefts. As Vespasian’s Forum of
Peace represented a world in miniature, so too is the church a microcosm of
Rome’s palimpsest cultural, intellectual, religious, and artistic history, spanning
from its ancient past and embracing masterworks from the Renaissance and
Baroque periods. The cultural property (p.314) (and history) that has accrued
within Santa Maria Sopra Minerva and throughout the city in general is
reflective today of contemporary Roman civic identity, with its layer of ancient,
Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, and modern architecture, and the myriad
Page 3 of 5
Epilogue
masterworks those epochs encompass. Much of the material within the city is, in
addition, reflective of the once great power of the Church and of the potency of
the aristocratic families that competed for power during the Medieval,
Renaissance, and Baroque periods.
How the material has accrued in the contemporary city, the ‘meaning’ and the
‘lessons’ which the material potentially communicates, have all changed
markedly, and is fodder for another study altogether. Yet other things have
remained the same: prestige objects produced by top name artists, women with
healing powers as purveyors of magic, idiosyncratic statues, place as
conservator of historic memory, all abide in the modern as they did in the
ancient city, complete with an extensive bureaucracy to preserve the city’s
cultural patrimony, rendering the modern city as much a place of memory and
wonder as the ancient. The value imposed on the collective history and material
within the city takes us back to chapter three and our discussion of
‘sacralization’, for it is noteworthy that today the Italians occasionally refer to
Rome as ‘sacred Rome’. The city is still set apart as a collective reflection of
Italian identity and of western identity as well, by virtue of the continuity of the
ancient traditions the city embodies, its significant historical position, and its
amalgamation with the West’s Judeo-Christian heritage in conjunction with its
Classical past. Mnemosyne still abides as Rome’s parent and Rome itself, as a
Museion, remains among Mnemosyne’s most enduring offspring.
Notes:
(1) See R. Krautheimer, Rome: Profile of a City 312–1308 (Princeton 1980), 3–20
for a survey of the city in Constantine’s day; see 20–31 for the changes
Constantine effected in the city; see 36 for his discussion of Ammianus’ passage
on Constantius’ tour of the city.
(2) For the looting of the temple and Palatine see Procopius, De Bello Gothico
3.5.3–4; for Domitian’s expenditure see Plut. Publ. 15.3–5. See Krautheimer
Rome (n. 1), 35–7 for discussion of Procopius’ impression of the city in late
antiquity.
(3) On the survival of Roman antiquities into the Middle Ages and Renaissance
see T. J. Greene, ‘Resurrecting Rome: The Double Task of the Humanist
Imagination’, in P. A. Ramsey (ed.), Rome in the Renaissance: The City and the
Myth (Binghamton 1982), 41–54; M. Greenhalgh, The Survival of Roman
Antiquities in the Middle Ages (London 1989).
(4) As when in 1606 Pope Paul V pulled down the temple of Minerva in the
Forum of Nerva and used it in construction of the acqua Paola on the modern
Gianiculo. On the gradual despoliation of the city and the reuse of architectural
elements and sculpted relief see D. Kinney, ‘Spolia, Damnatio, and Renovatio
Memoriae’, MAAR 42 (1997), 117–48.
Page 4 of 5
Epilogue
(5) One thinks here, for example, of the use of some of the first gold from the
New World that adorns the ceiling of Santa Maria Maggiore.
(6) See Krautheimer, Rome (n. 1), 7–40 for a good discussion of this
transformation; for its complete transformation from a pagan to a Christian
capital see 33–58.
Page 5 of 5
Bibliography
(p.315) Bibliography
Bibliography references:
Afzelius, A., ‘Zur Definition der römischen Nobilität in der Zeit Ciceros’, ClMed 2
(1938), 40–94.
—— ‘Zur Definition der römischen Nobilität vor der Zeit Ciceros’, ClMed 7
(1945), 150–200.
Alchermes, J., ‘Spolia in the Roman Cities of the Late Empire: Legislative
Rationales and Architectural Reuse’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 48 (1994), 167–
78.
Alföldi, A., Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor 1960).
Alsop, J., The Rare Art Traditions: The History of Art Collecting and its Linked
Phenomena Wherever These Have Appeared (New York 1982).
Page 1 of 35
Bibliography
Arafat, K. W., Pausanias’ Greece: Ancient Artists and Roman Rulers (Cambridge
1996).
Bal, M., and Bryson, N., ‘Semiotics and Art History’, ArtB 73 (1991), 174–208.
Baldus, H. R., ‘Zur Aufnahme des Sol Elagabalus-Kultes in Rom, 219 n. Chr.’,
Chiron, 21 (1991), 175–8.
Balland, A., ‘La Casa Romuli au Palatin et au Capitole’, RÉL 62 (1984), 57–80.
(p.316) Bardon, H., ‘Le concept de similitude à Rome’, ANRW 1.2 (1972), 857–
68.
Page 2 of 35
Bibliography
Barnes, T. D., ‘The Sack of the Temple in Josephus and Tacitus’, in J. Edmonson,
S. Mason, and J. Rives (eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford 2005),
129–45.
Bartman, E., ‘Lysippos’ Huge God in Small Shape’, Bulletin of the Cleveland
Museum of Art, 73 (1986), 298–311.
Barton, C. A., The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The Gladiator and the
Monster (Princeton 1993).
Basanoff, Y., Evocatio: étude d’un rituel militaire romain (Paris 1947).
Bassett, S., The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople (Cambridge 2004).
Beagon, M., Roman Nature: The Thought of Pliny the Elder (Oxford 1992).
Beard, M., ‘Acca Larentia Gains a Son: Myth and Priesthood at Rome’, in M. M.
MacKenzie and C. Rouech (eds.), Images of Authority (Cambridge 1989), 41–61.
Beard, M., North, J. and Price, S., Religions of Rome, Volume 1: A History
(Cambridge 1998).
Beaujeu, J. M., ‘A-t-il éxisté une direction des musées dans la Rome impériale?’,
in Comptes Rendus de L’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Nov.–Dec.
(1982), 671–88.
Page 3 of 35
Bibliography
Belk, R., Wallendorf, M., Sherry, J., Holbrook, M., and Roberts, S., ‘Collectors and
Collecting’, Advances in Consumer Research, 15 (1988), 548–52.
Bennett, T., The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics (New York 1995).
Berg, B., ‘Cicero’s Palatine Home and Clodius’ Shrine of Liberty: Alternative
Emblems of the Republic in Cicero’s De Domo sua’, in Studies in Latin Literature
and Roman History, 8 (1997), 122–43.
Berlo, J. C., and Phillips, R. B., ‘The Problematics of Collecting and Display, Part
1’, ArtB 77 (1995), 6–24.
Bettini, M., ‘Ghosts of Exile: Doubles and Nostalgia in Virgil’s Parva Troia
(Aeneid 3.294ff.)’, ClAnt 16.1 (1997), 8–33.
Blomart, A., ‘Die evocatio und der Transfer « fremder » Götter von der
Peripherie nach Rom’, in H. Cancik und J. Rüpke (eds.), Römische Reichsreligion
und Provinzialreligion (Tübingen 1997), 99–111.
Boardman, J., ‘“Very Like a Whale” – Classical Sea Monsters’, in A. Farkas (ed.),
Monsters and Demons in the Ancient and Medieval World (Mainz 1987), 73–84.
Bodel, J., ‘Trimalchio’s Underworld’, in J. Tatum (ed.), The Search for the Ancient
Novel (Baltimore 1993), 237–59.
Page 4 of 35
Bibliography
Bonaffé, E., Les Collectioneurs de l’ancienne Rome: Notes d’un amateur (Paris
1867).
Bonfante, L., ‘Roman Triumphs and Etruscan Kings: The Changing Face of the
Triumph’, JRS 60 (1970), 49–66.
Bounia, A., The Nature of Classical Collecting: Collectors and Collections, 100
BCE–100 CE (Ashgate 2004).
Bowman, A. K., and Woolf, G. (eds.), Literacy and Power in the Ancient World
(Cambridge 1994).
Boyd, B. W., ‘Tarpeia’s Tomb. A Note on Propertius 4.4’, AJP 105 (1984), 85–6.
Bradley, R., ‘The Translation of Time’, in R. M. Van Dyke and S. E. Alcock (eds.),
Archaeologies of Memory (Oxford 2003), 221–27.
Brauer, C., Jnr. Taras: Its History and Coinage (New York 1986).
Brelich, A., ‘Quirinus. Una divinità romana alla luce della comparazione storica’,
Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni, 31 (1960), 63–119.
Brendel, O. J., Prolegomena to the Study of Roman Art (New Haven 1979).
(p.318) Brinkmann, V., and Wünsche, R. (eds.), Die Bunte Götter: die Farbigkeit
antiker Skulptur. Eine Ausstellung der Staatlichen Antikensammlungen und
Glyptothek München in Zussamenarbeit mit der Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek
Kopenhagen und der Vatikanischen Museen, Rom (Munich 2004).
Page 5 of 35
Bibliography
Buzard, J., The Beaten Track: European Tourism, Literature, and the Ways to
Culture 1800 – 1918 (Oxford 1993).
Camp, J., The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens
(London 1986).
Cancik, H., ‘Rome as Sacred Landscape and the End of Republican Religion in
Rome’, Visible Religion: Annual for Religious Iconography, 4 (1985), 250–65.
Canfora, L., The Vanished Library. A Wonder of the Ancient World (Berkeley
1987).
Canizzo, J., ‘How Sweet It Is: Culture Politics in Barbados’, Muse, Winter (1987),
22–7.
Carey, S., ‘The Problems of Totality: Collecting Greek Art, Wonders and Luxury
in Pliny the Elder’s Natural History’, JHC 12.1 (2000), 1–13.
—— Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture: Art and Empire in the Natural History (Oxford
2003).
Castagnoli, F., ‘Il culto della Mater Matuta e della Fortuna nel Foro Boario’,
StRom 27 (1979), 145–52.
Page 6 of 35
Bibliography
Castriota, D. (ed.), Artistic Strategy and the Rhetoric of Power: Political Uses of
Art from Antiquity to the Present (Carbondale 1986).
Celani, A., Opere d’arte greche nella Roma di Augusto (Naples 1998).
Cerutti, S. M., ‘The Location of the Houses of Cicero and Clodius and the
Porticus Catuli on the Palatine Hill in Rome’, AJP 118 (1997), 417–26.
Chevallier, R., ‘Le bois, l’arbre et la forêt chez Pline’, in J. Pigeaud and J. Oroz
(eds.), Pline L’Ancien: témoin de son temps (Salamanca and Nantes 1987), 147–
72.
Churchill, J. B., ‘Ex qua quod vellent facerent: Roman Magistrates’ Authority
over Praeda and Manubiae’, TAPA 129 (1999), 85–116.
Clarke, J. R., ‘The Warren Cup and the Context for the Representations of Male-
to-Male Lovemaking in Augustan and Early Julio-Claudian Art’, ArtB 75 (1993),
275–94.
Clarke, K., ‘An Island Nation: Re-Reading Tacitus’ Agricola’, JRS 91 (2001), 94–
112.
Clerc, C., ‘Plutarche et la culte des images’, Revue de l’histoire des religions, 70
(1914), 107–24.
Page 7 of 35
Bibliography
Coarelli, F., ‘Il complesso pompeiano del Campo Marzio e la sua decorazione
scultorea’, RendPontAcc 45 (1971/72), 99–122.
—— ‘Public Building in Rome between the Second Punic War and Sulla’, PBSR
45 (1977), 1–23.
—— Il Foro Boario: dalle Origini alla Fine della Republica (Rome 1988).
—— Il Campo Marzio: dalle Origini alla Fine della Republica (Rome 1997).
Conan, M., ‘The Imagines of Philostratus’, Word and Image, 3 (1987), 162–71.
Conticello, B., and Andreae, B., Die Skulpturen von Sperlonga, Antike Plastik
Vol. 14 (Berlin 1974).
Coombs, A. E., ‘Museums and the Formation of National and Cultural Identities’,
Oxford Art Journal, 11 (1988), 57–68.
Cornell, T. J., ‘The Value of the Literary Tradition Concerning Archaic Rome’, in
K. A. Raaflaub (ed.), Social Struggles in Archaic Rome: New Perspectives on the
Conflict of the Orders (Berkeley 1986), 52–76.
(p.320) —— ‘Rome and Latium to 390 B.C.’, in The Cambridge Ancient History2
7.2: The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C. (Cambridge 1989), 243–308.
—— The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic
Wars (c. 1000–264 B.C.) (London 1995).
Page 8 of 35
Bibliography
Cuno, J., Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle Over Our Ancient
Heritage (Princeton 2008).
—— (ed.), Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate Over
Antiquities (Princeton 2009).
D’Ambra, E., Private Lives, Imperial Virtues: The Frieze of the Forum
Transitorium in Rome (Princeton 1993).
D’Arms, J. H., ‘CIL X, 1792. A Municiple Notable of the Augustan Age’, HSCP 76
(1972), 207–16.
Davies, P. J. E., ‘“What Worse Than Nero, What Better Than His Baths?”:
“Damnatio Memoriae” and Roman Architecture’, in E. Varner (ed.), From
Caligula to Constantine (Atlanta 2000), 27–44.
Demouliez, A., Cicèron et son goût: Essai sur une definition d’une aesthétique
romaine à la fin de la République (Brussels 1976).
Page 9 of 35
Bibliography
Dueck, D., Lindsay, H., and Pothecary, S. (eds.), Strabo’s Cultural Geography:
The Making of a Kolossourgia (Cambridge 2005).
Duncan, C., ‘Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship’, in I. Karp and S. D.
Lavine (eds.), Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display
(Washington DC 1991), 88–103.
(p.321) —— Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums (New York 1995).
Edmundson, J. C., ‘The Cultural Politics of Public Spectacle in Rome and the
Greek East, 167–166 B.C.E.’, in B. Bergmann and C. Kondoleon (eds.), The Art of
Ancient Spectacle (Studies in the History of Art, 56) (New Haven and London
1999), 77–95.
Edwards, C., Writing Rome: Textual Approaches to the City (Cambridge 1996).
Edwards, C., and Woolf, G., ‘Cosmopolis: Rome as a World City’, in C. Edwards
and G. Woolf (eds.), Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge 2003), 1–20.
El-Abbadi, M. (1992), Life and Fate of the Ancient Library of Alexandria, 2nd ed.
(Paris 1992).
Elder, C. D., and Cobb, R. W., The Political Use of Symbols (New York and London
1983).
Page 10 of 35
Bibliography
—— Art and the Roman Viewer: The Transformation of Art from the Pagan to the
Christian World (Cambridge 1995).
—— ‘Making Myth Visual: The Horae of Philostratus and the Dance of the Text’,
MDAI (R) 207 (2000), 253–76.
—— Roman Eyes: Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and Text (Princeton 2007).
Elsner J., and Cardinal, R. (eds.), The Culture of Collecting (Cambridge Mass.
1994).
Elsner, J., and Sharrock, A., ‘Ovid’s Mimesis and the Myth of the Real: Ovid’s
Pygmalion as Viewer’, Ramus, 20 (1991), 149–82.
Emanuele, D., ‘Aes Corinthium: Fact, Fiction, and Fake’, Phoenix, 43 (1989),
347–58.
Erskine, A., Troy between Greece and Rome: Local Tradition and Imperial Rome
(Oxford 2001).
Favro, D., ‘Reading the Augustan City’, in P. J. Holliday (ed.), Narrative and Event
in Ancient Art (Cambridge 1993), 230–57.
Page 11 of 35
Bibliography
Fears, J. R., ‘The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology’, ANRW 2.17.1
(1981), 3–141.
—— ‘The Cult of the Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology’, ANRW 2.17.2 (1981),
827–948.
Feeney, D., The Gods in Epic: Poets and Critics of the Classical Tradition (Oxford
1991).
Fentress, J., and Wickham, C., Social Memory (Oxford and Cambridge Mass.
1992).
Ferris, I. M., Enemies of Rome: Barbarians through Roman Eyes (Stroud 2000).
Fishwick, D., ‘On the Temple of Divus Augustus’, Phoenix, 46 (1992), 232–55.
—— ‘The Elgin Marbles: A Summary’, in K. Fitz Gibbon (ed.), Who Owns the
Past?: Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law (New Brunswick NJ 2005),
109–21.
—— ‘Livia, and the History of Public Honorific Statues for Women in Rome’,
TAPA 123 (1993), 287–308.
Page 12 of 35
Bibliography
Flower, H. I., Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (Oxford
1996).
Forrester, J., ‘“Mille e tre”: Freud and Collecting’, in J. Elsner and R. Cardinal
(eds.), The Culture of Collecting (Cambridge Mass. 1994), 224–51.
Foucault, M., The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New
York 1970).
(p.323) Fowler, D., ‘Even Better than the Real Thing: A Tale of Two Cities’, in J.
Elsner (ed.), Art and Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge 1996), 57–74.
Freedberg, D., The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of
Response (Chicago 1989).
Frisch, P., ‘Zu den Elogien des Augustusforums’, ZPE 39 (1980), 91–8.
Gage, J., Colour and Culture: Practice and Meaning from Antiquity to Abstraction
(London 1993).
Page 13 of 35
Bibliography
—— ‘Apollon impérial, Garant des «Fata Romana»’, ANRW 2.17.2 (1981), 561–
630.
Gantz, T. N., ‘Terracotta Figured Friezes from the Workshop of Vulca’, OpRom 10
(1974–5), 1–22.
Ganzert, J., ‘Der Mars Ultor Tempel auf dem Augustusforum in Rom’, RhM 92
(1985), 201–19.
Garland, R., The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-
Roman World (Ithaca 1995).
Geertz, C., ‘Deep Play: Notes on a Balinese Cockfight’, Daedalus, Winter (1972),
1–38.
Gérard, J., ‘Légende et politique autour de la mère des dieux’, RÉL 58 (1980),
153–75.
Gieryn, T. F., ‘Balancing Acts: Science, Enola Gay and History Wars at the
Smithsonian’, in S. MacDonald (ed.), The Politics of Display: Museums, Science,
Culture (London 1998), 197–228.
Gordon, R. L., ‘The Real and the Imaginary: Production and Religion in the
Graeco-Roman World’, in R. L. Gordon (ed.), Image and Value in the Graeco-
Page 14 of 35
Bibliography
Roman World: Studies in Mithraism and Religious Art (Brookfield Vt. 1996), 5–
34.
Gowers, E. J., ‘The Anatomy of Rome from Capitol to Cloaca’, JRS 85 (1995), 23–
32.
Grandazzi, A., ‘La Roma quadrata: mythe ou réalité’, MÉFRA 105 (1993), 493–
545.
Gras, M., ‘Le temple de Diane sur l’Aventin’, RÉA 89 (1987), 47–61.
Green, C. M. C., Roman Religion and the Cult of Diana at Aricia (Cambridge
2007).
Greenhalgh, M., The Survival of Roman Antiquities in the Middle Ages (London
1989).
Gregory, A. P., ‘“Powerful Images”: Responses to Portraits and the Political Uses
of Images in Rome’, JRA 7 (1994), 80–99.
Bibliography
Gutzwiller, K., ‘Gender and Inscribed Epigram: Herennia Procula and the
Thespian Eros’, TAPA 134 (2004), 383–418.
Holliday, P. J., ‘Time, History, and Ritual on the Ara Pacis Augustae’, ArtB 72
(1990), 542–57.
Page 16 of 35
Bibliography
Huet, V., ‘Stories One Might Tell of Roman Art: Reading Trajan’s Column and the
Tiberius Cup’, in J. Elsner (ed.), Art and Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge
1996), 9–31.
Huskinson, J., ‘Looking for Culture, Identity, and Power’, in J. Huskinson (ed.),
Experiencing Rome: Culture, Identity, and Power in the Roman Empire (London
2000), 3–28.
Isager, J., ‘The Composition of Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art’, AnalRom 6
(1971), 49–62.
—— Pliny on Art and Society: The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art
(London 1991).
Jackson, D., ‘Verism and the Ancestral Portrait’, GaR 34 (1987), 32–47.
Jacob, C. and Polignac, F. (eds.), Alexandria, Third Century BC: The Knowledge
of the World in a Single City (Alexandria 2000).
Jaeger, M. K., The Poetics of Place: The Augustan Writers and the Urban
Landscape of Rome, PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley (1990).
Page 17 of 35
Bibliography
Jex-Blake, K. and Sellers, E. (eds.), The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the History of
Art (translated by K. Jex-Blake with commentary and historical introduction by K.
Sellars with additional notes by Dr. Henrich Ludwig Ulrichs) (reproduced,
Chicago 1968 and 1977 with prefaces and select bibliographies by Raymond V.
Schroder, SJ) (London and New York 1896).
Johnson, L. R., Aviaries and Aviculture in Ancient Rome, PhD thesis, University of
Maryland, College Park (1968).
Jones, C. P., ‘Pausanias and his Guides’, in S. E. Alcock, J. F. Cherry, and J. Elsner
(eds.), Pausanias. Travel and Memory in Ancient Greece (Oxford 2001), 33–9.
—— ‘Die Ara Pacis und die augusteische Friedensidee’, JdI 69 (1954), 67–100.
Kampen, N. B., ‘Social Status and Gender in Roman Art: The Case of the
Saleswoman’, in E. D’Ambra (ed.), Roman Art in Context: An Anthology (New
York 1993), 115–32.
Keitel, E., ‘The Non-Appearance of the Phoenix at Tacitus Annals 6.28’, AJP 120
(1999), 429–42.
Page 18 of 35
Bibliography
Kinney, D., ‘Spolia, Damnatio, and Renovatio Memoriae’, MAAR 42 (1997), 117–
48.
Kleiner, F., ‘The Arch of C. Octavius and the Fathers of Augustus’, Historia, 37
(1988), 347–57.
Künzl, E., Der römische Triumph: Siegesfeiern im antiken Rom (Munich 1988).
Kuttner, A., ‘Some New Grounds for Narrative: Marcus Antonius’ Base (the Ara
Domitii Ahenobarbi) and Republican Biographies’, in P. J. Holliday (ed.),
Narrative and Event in Ancient Art (Cambridge 1993), 198–229.
Lafon, X., ‘A propos des ‘villae’ républicaines: quelques notes sur les
programmes décoratifs et les commanditaires’, in X. Lafon (ed.), L’art décoratif à
Rome à la fin de la République et au début du Principat (Rome 1981), 151–72.
Laird, A., ‘Ut figura poesis: Writing Art and the Art of Writing Augustan Poetry’,
in J. Elsner (ed.), Art and Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge 1996), 75–102.
Page 19 of 35
Bibliography
—— ‘La nuova immagine dei fori imperiali: Appunti in margine agli scavi’,
MDAI(R) 108 (2001), 171–213.
Le Bonniec, H., ‘Le culte de Cérès à Rome des origines à la fin de la république’.
Études et Commentaries, 72 (Paris 1958).
Leen, A., ‘Cicero and the Rhetoric of Art’, AJP 112 (1991), 229–45.
Léfevre, E., Das Bild-Programm des Apollo-Tempels auf dem Palatin, Xenia, 24
(Konstanz 1989).
Lehmann, K., ‘The Imagines of the Elder Philostratus’, ArtB 23 (1941), 16–44.
(p.328) Lintott, A., ‘The Tradition of Violence in the Annals of Early Rome’,
Historia, 19 (1970), 12–29.
Page 20 of 35
Bibliography
Lisdorf, A., ‘The Conflict over Cicero’s House: An Analysis of the Ritual Element
in Cicero’s De Domo Sua’, Numen, 52 (2005), 445–64.
Locher, A., ‘The Structure of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History’, in R. French and
F. Greenaway (eds.), Science in the Early Roman Empire: Pliny the Elder, His
Sources and Influence (Totowa NJ and London 1986), 20–9.
Lorenz, S., ‘Martial, Herkules und Domitian: Büsten, Statuetten und Statuen im
Epigrammaton liber nonus’, Mnemosyne, 56.5 (2003), 566–84.
Luce, T. J., ‘Livy, Augustus and the Forum Augustum’, in M. Toher and K.
Raaflaub (eds.), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and
his Principate (Berkeley 1990), 123–38.
MacMillan, M., Dangerous Games: The Uses and Abuses of History (London
2009).
Mansuelli, G. A., ‘Γραϕαì καì σχήματα τω̑ν γϵγονότων (App. Punic. 66)’, RdA 3
(1979), 45–58.
Marvin, M., The Language of the Muses. The Dialogue between Greek and
Roman Sculpture (Los Angeles 2008).
Mattern, S., Rome and the Enemy. Imperial Strategy in the Principate (Berkeley
1999).
Page 21 of 35
Bibliography
Mattingly, H., ‘The Roman virtues’, Harvard Theological Review, 30 (1937), 103–
17.
Mattusch, C. C., Classical Bronzes: The Art and Craft of Greek and Roman
Statuary (Ithaca 1996).
Mayor, A., The First Fossil Hunters. Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times
(Princeton 2000).
McDonnell, M., ‘Roman Aesthetics and the Spoils of Syracuse’, in S. Dillon and
K. E. Welch (eds.), Representations of War in Ancient Rome (Cambridge 2006),
68–90.
McGinn, T., The Economy of Prostitution in the Roman World: A Study of Social
History and the Brothel (Ann Arbor 2004).
McNelis, C., ‘Ut Sculptura Poesis: Statius, Martial, and the Hercules
Epitrapezios of Novius Vindex’, AJP 129 (2008), 255–76.
Miles, M., Art as Plunder. The Ancient Origins of Debate about Cultural Property
(Cambridge 2008).
Millar, F., ‘Last Year in Jerusalem: Monuments of the Jewish War in Rome’, in J.
Edmonson, S. Mason, and J. Rives (eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome
(Oxford 2005), 101–29.
Millon, H. A., and Nochlin, L. (eds.), Art and Architecture in the Service of
Politics (Cambridge Mass. 1978).
Milnor, K., Gender, Domesticity, and the Age of Augustus: Inventing Private Life
(Oxford 2005).
Page 22 of 35
Bibliography
Morales, H., ‘The Torturer’s Apprentice: Parrhasius and the Limits of Art’, in J.
Elsner (ed.), Art and Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge 1996), 182–209.
Motto, A. L., and Clark, J. R., ‘The Monster in Seneca’s Hercules Furens 926–
939’, CP 89 (1994), 269–72.
Murphy, T., ‘Pliny’s Naturalis Historia: The Prodigal Text’, in A. J. Boyle and W. J.
Dominik (eds.), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (Leiden 2003), 301–22.
—— Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in the Encyclopedia (Oxford
2004).
Murray, W. M., and Petsas, P. M., ‘Octavian’s Campsite Memorial for the Actian
War’, TAPS 79 (1989), 1–172.
Mustakallio, K., Death and Disgrace. Capital Penalties with Post Mortem
Sanctions in Early Roman Historiography (Helsinki 1994).
Naas, V., ‘L’art grec dans l’ Histoire naturelle de Pline L’Ancien’, Histoire de l’art,
35–6 (1996), 15–26.
Newby, Z., and Leader-Newby, R. (eds.), Art and Inscription in the Ancient World
(Cambridge 2007).
Nicolet, C., Space, Geography and Politics in the Early Roman Empire (Ann
Arbor 1991).
Page 23 of 35
Bibliography
Oliveira, F. De, Les Idées politiques et morales de Pline l’Ancien (Coimbra 1992).
Onians, J., ‘Quintilian and the Idea of Roman Art’, in M. Henig (ed.), Architecture
and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire (Oxford 1990), 1–9.
—— Classical Art and the Cultures of Greece and Rome (New Haven 1999).
Orlin, E. M., Temples, Religion, and Politics in the Roman Republic (Leiden
1997).
Östenberg, I., Staging the World: Spoils, Captives, and Representation in the
Roman Triumphal Procession (Oxford 2009).
Parke, H. W., Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (London 1988).
Paul, G. M., ‘The Presentation of Titus in the “Jewish War” of Josephus: Two
Aspects’, Phoenix, 47 (1993), 56–66.
Pearlstein, W. G., ‘Cultural Property, Congress, the Courts, and Customs: The
Decline and Fall of the Antiquities Market?’, in K. Fitz Gibbon (ed.), Who Owns
the Past?: Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law (New Brunswick NJ
2005), 9–31.
Pelling, C., ‘Plutarch: Roman Heroes and Greek Culture’, in M. Griffin and J.
Barnes (eds.), Philosophia Togata. Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society
(Oxford 1989), 199–208.
Page 24 of 35
Bibliography
Pernice, E., and Gross, W. H., ‘Die griechischen und römischen literarischen
Zeugnisse’, in U. Hausmann (ed.), Handbuch der Archäologie: Allgemeine
Grundlagen der Archäologie (Munich 1969), 395–496.
Perry, E., The Aesthetics of Emulation in the Visual Arts of Ancient Rome
(Cambridge 2005).
Pietilä-Castrén, L., ‘New Men and the Greek War Booty in the 2nd century B.C.’,
Arctos, 16 (1982), 121–44.
Pollini, J., ‘The Warren Cup: Homoerotic Love and Symposial Rhetoric in Silver’,
ArtB 81 (1999), 21–52.
(p.331) Pollitt, J. J., The Art of Rome. BC 753–AD 337: Sources and Documents
(Edgewood NJ 1966).
—— The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History, and Terminology (New
Haven and London 1974).
Purcell, N., ‘The City of Rome’, in R. Jenkyns (ed.), The Legacy of Rome: A New
Appraisal (Oxford 1992), 421–53.
Page 25 of 35
Bibliography
—— ‘Die dei Penates und Vesta in Rom’, ANRW 2.17.1 (1981), 343–73.
Reynolds, J., ‘The Elder Pliny and His Times’, in R. French and F. Greenaway
(eds.), Science in the Early Roman Empire: Pliny the Elder, His Sources and
Influence (London 1986), 1–11.
Rich, J., ‘Augustus and the spolia opima’, Chiron, 26 (1996), 85–127.
—— ‘Augustus’ Parthian Honours, the Temple of Mars Ultor and the Arch in the
Forum Romanum’, PBSR 66 (1998), 71–128.
Richter, G. M. A., ‘The Origin of Verism in Roman Portraits’, JRS 45 (1955), 39–
46.
—— ‘The Wreck of Mahdia, Tunisia, and the Art Market in the Early First
Century BC’, JRA 8 (1995), 340–7.
Page 26 of 35
Bibliography
Riggsby, A. M., ‘“Public” and “Private” in Roman Culture: The Case of the
cubiculum’, JRA 10 (1997), 36–56.
Robinson, O. F., Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration (London 1992).
Roccos, L. J., ‘Apollo Palatinus: The Augustan Apollo on the Sorrento Base’, AJA
93 (1989), 571–88.
Roller, M. B., ‘Exemplarity in Roman Culture: The Cases of Horatius Cocles and
Cloelia’, CP 99 (2004), 1–56.
Romm, J. S., The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought (Princeton 1992).
Rosivach, V. J., ‘Cicero’s Statues’, New England Classical Journal, 41.4 (2004),
387–95.
Rotberg, R. I., and Rabb, T. K. (eds.), Art and History. Images and Their Meaning
(Cambridge 1988).
Rüpke, J., Domi militiaeque: Die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom
(Stuttgart 1990).
Page 27 of 35
Bibliography
Salomon, N., ‘Making a World of Difference: Gender, Asymmetry and the Greek
Nude’, in A. O. Koloski-Ostrow and C. L. Lyons (eds.), Naked Truths: Women,
Sexuality, and Gender in Classical Art and Archaeology (London 1997), 197–219.
Sandage, S., ‘A Marble House Divided: The Lincoln Memorial, the Civil Rights
Movement, and the Politics of Memory, 1939–1963’, The Journal of American
History, 80 (1993), 135–67.
Scarsi, M., ‘Neque Atti Navii nomen memoria floreret tam diu’, BStudLat 35.2
(2005), 401–39.
Scheer, T. S., ‘Res Gestae Divi Augusti 24: die Restituierung göttlichen
Eigentums in Kleinasien durch Augustus’, in C. Schubert and K. Brodersen
(eds.), Rom und der (p.333) griechische Osten: Festschrift für Hatto H. Schmitt
zum 65. Geburtstag (Stuttgart 1995), 209–23.
Schneider, W. J., ‘Phidiae Putavi. Martial und der Hercules Epitrapezios des
Novius Vindex’, Memnosyne, 54 (2001), 697–720.
Schulz, E., ‘Notes on the History of Collecting and Museums’, JHC 2.2 (1990),
205–18.
Settis, S., ‘Did the Ancients Have an Antiquity? The Idea of Renaissance in the
History of Classical Art’, in A. Brown (ed.), Language and Images of Renaissance
Italy (Oxford 1995), 27–50.
Shatzman, I., ‘The Roman General’s Authority Over Booty’, Historia, 21 (1972),
177–205.
Page 28 of 35
Bibliography
Shipley, F. W., ‘Building Operations in Rome from the Death of Caesar to the
Death of Augustus’, MAAR 9 (1931), 7–60.
Smith, R. R. R., ‘The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias’, JRS 77
(1987), 88–138.
—— ‘Nero and the Sun-God: Divine Accessories and Political Symbols in Roman
Imperial Images’, JRA 13 (2000), 532–42.
Speyer, W., ‘Das Verhältnis des Augustus zur Religion’, ANRW 2.16.3 (1986),
1777–1805.
Squire, M., ‘The Motto in the Grotto: Inscribing Illustration and Illustrating
Inscription at Sperlonga’, in Z. Newby and R. Leader-Newby (eds.), Art and
Inscription in the Ancient World (Cambridge 2007), 102–27.
Steiner, W., The Colors of Rhetoric: Problems in the Relation Between Modern
Literature and Painting (Chicago 1982).
Page 29 of 35
Bibliography
—— Attalos, Athens, and the Akropolis: The Pergameme ‘Little Barbarians’ and
Their Roman and Renaissance Legacy (Cambridge 2004).
Stewart, S., On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir,
the Collection (Baltimore 1984).
Stirling, L., The Learned Collector. Mythological Statuettes and Classical Taste
in Late Antique Gaul (Ann Arbor 2005).
Strong, D.E., ‘The Administration of Public Building in Rome during the Later
Republic and Early Empire’, BICS 15 (1968), 97–109.
Page 30 of 35
Bibliography
Thébert, Y., ‘Private Life and Domestic Architecture in Roman Africa’, in P. Veyne
(ed.), A History of Private Life from Pagan Rome to Byzantium (Cambridge Mass.
1987), 353–82.
Thomas, E., Monumentality and the Roman Empire. Architecture in the Antonine
Age (Oxford 2007).
Thomsen, R., ‘Studien über den ursprünglichen Bau des Caesarsforums’, OpArch
5 (1941), 195–218.
—— ‘Home and Forum: Cicero between “Public” and “Private”’, TAPA 128
(1998), 1–23.
Trimble, J., ‘Replicating the Body Politic: The Herculaneum Women Statue Types
in Early Imperial Italy’, JRA 13 (2000), 41–69.
Ulrich, R. B., The Temple of Venus Genetrix in the Forum of Caesar in Rome. The
Topography, History, Architecture, and Sculptural Program of the Monument
(New Haven 1984).
—— ‘Iulius Caesar and the Creation of the Forum Iulium’, AJA 97 (1993), 49–80.
Urry, J., ‘How Societies Remember the Past’, in S. MacDonald and G. Fyfe (eds.),
Theorizing Museums. Representing Identity and Diversity in a Changing World
(Cambridge 1996), 45–65.
Page 31 of 35
Bibliography
Vegetti, M., ‘Lo spettacolo della natura. Circo, teatro e potere in Plinio’, Aut Aut,
184–5 (1981), 111–25.
Vermaseren, M. J., Cybele and Attis; the Myth and the Cult (London 1977).
Versnel, H. S., Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning
of the Roman Triumph (Leiden 1970).
Von Holst, N., Creators, Collectors, and Connoisseurs: The Anatomy of Artistic
Taste from Antiquity to the Present Day (London 1967).
Wallace-Hadrill, A., ‘The Social Structure of the Roman House’, PBSR 56 (1988),
43–97.
—— ‘Pliny the Elder and Man’s Unnatural History’, GaR 37.1 (1990), 80–96.
Warden, P. G., ‘The Sculptural Program of the Villa of the Papyri’, JRA 4 (1991),
257–64.
(p.336) Warden, P. G., and Romano, D. G., ‘The Course of Glory: Greek Art in a
Roman Context at the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum’, Art History, 17
(1994), 228–54.
Page 32 of 35
Bibliography
Weis, A., ‘Gaius Verres and the Roman Art Market: Consumption and
Connoisseurship in Verrine II.4’, in A. Haltenhoff, A. Heil, and F. H. Mutschler
(eds.), O tempora, o mores! Römische Werte und römische Literatur in den
letzen Jahrzehnten der Republik (Munich 2003), 359–65.
Welch, K. E., ‘Domi militiaeque: Roman Domestic Aesthetics and War Booty in
the Republic’, in S. Dillon and K. E. Welch (eds.), Representations of War in
Ancient Rome (Cambridge 2006), 91–161.
Westall, R., ‘The Forum Iulium as Representation of Imperator Caesar’, RhM 103
(1996), 83–118.
Winkes, R., ‘Pliny’s Chapter on Roman Funeral Customs in the Light of clipeatae
imagines’, AJA 83 (1979), 481–4.
Winkler, J., Auctor & Actor. A Narratological Reading of Apuleius’ Golden Ass
(Berkeley 1985).
—— ‘Conspicui postes tectaque digna deo: The Public Image of Aristocratic and
Imperial Houses in the Late Republic and Early Empire’, in l’Urbs: espace urbain
et histoire. Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome, 98 (Rome 1987), 393–413.
Page 33 of 35
Bibliography
Woodside, M. St. A., ‘Vespasian’s Patronage of Education and the Arts’, TAPA 73
(1942), 123–9.
Yarrow, L., ‘Lucius Mummius and the Spoils of Corinth’, SCI 25 (2006), 57–70.
Zimmer, G., ‘Das Sacrarium des C. Heius. Kunstraub und Kunstgeschmack in der
späten Republik’, Gymnasium, 96 (1989), 493–531.
Page 34 of 35
Bibliography
Ziolkowski, A., The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and Their Historical and
Topographical Context (Rome 1992).
—— ‘Urbs direpta or How the Romans Sacked Cities’, in J. Rich and G. Shipley
(eds.), War and Society in the Roman World (London 1993), 69–91.
Zolberg, V., ‘“An Elite Experience for Everyone”: Art Museums, the Public, and
Cultural Literacy’, in D. J. Sherman and I. Rogoff (eds.), Museum Culture.
Histories, Discourses, Spectacles (Minneapolis 1994), 49–65.
Page 35 of 35
Index Locorum
Page 1 of 35
Index Locorum
Appian
Bella Civilia
1.26: 142 n. 60, 269 n. 111
1.97: 151
2.68: 227 n. 17
2.101–2: 221 n. 2
2.101: 154–5
2.102: 182, 228 n. 19
2.108: 305 n. 70
3.16: 242 n. 62
5.130: 130, 292
The Illyrian Wars
28: 132, 259
30: 40 n. 30
The Mithridatic Wars
116–17: 221 n. 2
117: 134, 143
The Punic Wars
66: 142 n. 57
133: 53 n. 79
Aristotle
Poetica
1448b1: 98 n. 61
1449b: 112
Arrian
Anabasis
1.9.10: 191 n. 93
Epicteti dissertationes
2.24.7: 58 n. 96
Artemidorus of Daldis
Oneirocritica
2.39: 109 n. 97
Asconius
Commentary on Cicero Pro Milone
32–3: 106 n. 89
Athenaeus
1.2a: 302
5.187d: 23
5.207c: 131 n. 22
5.209e: 131 n. 23
5.210b: 113 n. 112
13.605f–606a: 113
Augustine
De civitate Dei
3.17: 142 n. 60
(p.340) 8.23: 109 n. 99
15.23: 213
16.8: 193
Augustus
Page 2 of 35
Index Locorum
Res Gestae
13: 284 n. 150
19–21: 292
19: 161 n. 5, 235 n. 46
24: 292
34: 138
35: 254
Aulus Gellius
1.19: 179 n. 61
3.10.1: 106 n. 88
4.5.1–5: 136 n. 36
4.6.1–2: 168 n. 20
5.21.9: 274 n. 126
6.1.6: 307 n. 83
9.11: 136
9.11.10: 251 n. 77
12.10: 305 n. 74
16.8.2: 274 n. 126
Aurelius Victor
De Caesaribus
9.7: 272 n. 119
14.6: 84 n. 18
De Origine Gentis Romanae
23.2: 167 n. 26
De Viris Illustribus
2.5–6: 179 n. 63
4.9: 180 n. 68
7: 211 n. 60
17: 191 n. 89
21.3: 142 n. 60
25.1–2: 125 n. 7
84.3: 187 n. 80
Epitome De Caesaribus
8.8: 272 n. 119, 284 n. 148
Callistratus
Descriptions
6.4: 119
Cassiodorus
Variae
7.13: 304 n. 66, 305 n. 71
7.15: 304 n. 66
Cassius Dio
5.19: 190 n. 87
5.22.1: 120 n. 144
11.13: 209 n. 53
37.21: 221 n. 2
40.48–9: 106 n. 89
43.14.6: 134, 198 n. 24, 230 n. 25
43.19: 221 n. 2
Page 3 of 35
Index Locorum
43.21.2: 134
43.42: 233 n. 39
43.45.3–4: 153 n. 83
43.45.3: 291
43.45.4: 153 n. 84
43.45: 233 n. 39
44.4.4: 292
44.6.1: 234 n. 42
44.7.1: 233 n. 39
44.9.1–3: 305 n. 70
44.12.1: 153 n. 84
44.17.2: 168 n. 30
45.7.1: 227 n. 18
47.40.4: 168
48.38: 187 n. 80
48.42: 156
48.43.4: 166 n. 24
49.43.8: 292 n. 16
50.8.2: 168
50.25.3: 242
51.17.6: 134 n. 28
51.19.2: 235, 292
51.20: 284 n. 150
51.22.1–3: 134 n. 28
51.22.3: 228 n. 19
53.22.3: 292 n. 17
53.23.1–2: 237 n. 49
53.26: 284 n. 150
53.27.1: 237 n. 49
53.32.4: 156 n. 95
54.4.2: 235 n. 46
54.8.3: 125 n. 7, 132 n. 27
(p.341) 54.29.8: 166 n. 24
54.35.2: 292 n. 17
55.8.2: 267, 268 n. 105
55.8.3–4: 204 n. 34
55.8.4: 214 n. 74
55.9.6: 50 n. 68, 70 n. 145, 268 n. 105
55.10.3: 251 n. 77
55.10.3–4: 132
56.25.1: 270 n. 116
56.25: 267 n. 102
56.29.1: 232 n. 38
59.26.3: 305
56.34.2: 206
56.46.3–4: 189
58.7.2: 67 n. 128, 171 n. 41
58.27.1: 210 n. 57
59.17.3: 51 n. 69
Page 4 of 35
Index Locorum
59.22.7: 135
59.28.3: 51 n. 70
60.5.4: 294
60.5.5: 293 n. 19
60.6.8: 55
60.25.2–3: 293, 303
63.11–12: 52 n. 74
63.25: 156 n. 96
65.7.2: 284 n. 148
65.12: 282
65.12.1a: 221 n. 2
65.15: 272 n. 119
66.15.1: 299 n. 40
66.24.2: 237 n. 49
68.29.1: 230 n. 28
68.30.1: 230 n. 28
70.2.3: 149
72.22.3: 298 n. 36
72.31: 289
72.33.3: 168
73.24.1: 272 n. 119
75.4.5: 206 n. 40
76.16.5: 210
Catullus
11: 229 n. 21
Censorinus
De Die Natali
23.6: 211 n. 60
Cicero
Pro Archia
27: 136 n. 39, 222 n. 5
30 : 87
Pro Balbo
53: 148 n. 71
Brutus
261: 102
Pro Caelio
18: 232 n. 34
78: 153 n. 81
De Divinatione
1.30–1: 168 n. 29
1.33: 170 n. 34
1.99: 295
1.101: 296 n. 28
De Domo sua
101: 191 n. 89
102: 153 n. 81
103: 153 n. 81
111–12: 153 n. 82
Page 5 of 35
Index Locorum
114: 153 n. 81
130: 291
Epistulae ad Atticum
1.1: 59
1.3–11: 59
1.4: 61
1.6: 60
1.8: 60
1.8.2: 60 n. 108
1.9: 60, 63
1.10: 60
2.1.11: 65 n. 122
4.9.1: 47 n. 56
6.1.17: 103, 117 n. 127
12.45.2: 233 n. 39
13.28.3: 233 n. 39
Epistulae ad familiares
5.12.1: 82 n. 9
7.23.1–2: 58 n. 96
7.23.2: 58 n. 96, 61 n. 112
7.23: 58 n. 97
8.16.4: 69
13.2: 58 n. 96
(p.342) 13.11.1: 291 n. 12
De Finibus
2.23: 65 n. 122
2.115: 110 n. 103
5.2: 86
5.3: 85
5.4: 85
5.6: 86 n. 27
Pro Lege Manilia
40: 46
66: 46
De Legibus
2.4: 87 n. 29
2.15: 110
2.26–8: 110
3.7: 295 n. 27
Pro Murena
31: 42 n. 38
De Natura Deorum
2.88: 37 n. 23
De Officiis
1.138–9: 64
2.76: 42 n. 38
Orator
5: 282 n. 144
36: 101
Page 6 of 35
Index Locorum
98: 101 n. 70
169: 101
232: 42 n. 38
De Oratore
1.5–18: 64 n. 118
1.113–14: 64 n. 118
1.127–8: 64 n. 118
2.266: 153 n. 81
2.357: 86 n. 27
3.10: 130 n. 18
3.195: 81
Philippicae
2.26: 153 n. 84
2.67–8: 187 n. 80
2.109: 70 n. 141
3.30: 70 n. 141
9.14: 297, 303 n. 58
11.24: 163 n. 12
13.11: 70 n. 141
In Pisonem
60: 206
Epistulae ad Q. fratrem
3.1.14: 291
De Republica
1.21–2: 37 n. 23
2.60: 190 n. 87
5.1.2: 297
5.7: 161
Pro Roscio Amerino
133: 65 n. 122
Pro Scauro
48: 163 n. 17
Pro Sestio
93: 155
Tusculanae Disputationes
1.4: 140 n. 48
2.32: 65 n. 122
In Verrem
2.1.11: 53 n. 79
2.1.46: 49
2.1.49: 48
2.1.53: 48
2.1.55: 40 n. 33
2.1.56–7: 45 n. 48
2.1.58: 46 n. 53
2.1.59–60: 155
2.1.130–54: 296
2.1.130–2: 300
2.2.4: 40 n. 33
Page 7 of 35
Index Locorum
2.2.35–7: 306 n. 80
2.2.46: 65 n. 122
2.2.50: 49 n. 65
2.2.84–5: 58 n. 98
2.2.85–6: 53 n. 79
2.2.86–7: 54
2.2.89–119: 54 n. 81
2.2.114: 149 n. 75
2.2.141: 290
2.2.146: 290
(p.343) 2.2.150: 290
2.2.158: 108 n. 92
2.2.160: 108 n. 92
2.2.167–8: 104
2.2.176: 47 n. 60
2.4.1–2: 49
2.4.3–7: 50 n. 67
2.4.4–5: 308
2.4.4: 50, 52
2.4.6: 156
2.4.12–14: 50
2.4.29: 49
2.4.30: 49 n. 63
2.4.32: 49
2.4.36: 47
2.4.60–71: 150 n. 76
2.4.72–5: 54 n. 82
2.4.73: 53 n. 79, 54 n. 80
2.4.79: 299
2.4.80: 54 n. 80, 82
2.4.82: 54
2.4.84: 54
2.4.84–5: 54
2.4.93: 54
2.4.94–6: 306 n. 81
2.4.97: 54
2.4.98: 55 n. 84
2.4.120–1: 40 n. 32
2.4.122: 49 n. 65
2.4.123: 110
2.4.126: 153 n. 81, 156
2.4.128–31: 35 n. 15
2.4.128–30: 49 n. 64
2.4.131: 118
2.4.133: 53
2.4.135: 53
2.5.124: 55 n. 84
2.5.127: 45 n. 47, 53 n. 77
Digesta Justiniana
Page 8 of 35
Index Locorum
21.1.65: 112
47.10.27: 305 n. 72
Dio Chrysostomus
Orationes
12.52–3: 109 n. 96
31: 303 n. 58
31.43: 105 n. 83
31.47–53: 105 n. 83
31.71: 105 n. 83
31.99: 105 n. 83
31.105–6: 105 n. 83
31.112: 105 n. 83
31.148: 73 n. 153, 275 n. 130
31.155: 105 n. 83
37.42: 304 n. 64
Diodorus Siculus
11.37.7: 190 n. 87
12.37.1: 191 n. 89
32.25: 53 n. 79
40.4.1: 205
Diogenes Laertius
5.51: 22 n. 59
6.72: 104 n. 78
Dionysius of Halicarnassus
Antiquitates Romanae
1.68–9: 162
1.69: 162 n. 10
1.79.8: 166 n. 21
1.85.6: 167 n. 26
1.87.2: 120 n. 141
1.87.3: 167 n. 26
2.38: 179 n. 63
2.66.5: 162
2.66.6: 163
2.70–1: 170 n. 31
3.1.2: 120 n. 141
3.22.7: 180 n. 68
3.71.5: 170 n. 34
4.27.7: 171 n. 39, 171 n. 41
4.39.3: 198 n. 23
4.40.7: 171 n. 40, 171 n. 41
4.58.4: 147 n. 70
4.62: 179 n. 61
5.35.2: 289
5.36.4: 197
5.39.4: 187 n. 77
6.69.1: 299
6.90.3: 299
6.95: 148 n. 71
Page 9 of 35
Index Locorum
8.68–80: 190 n. 87
(p.344) 8.79.3: 190 n. 88
10.31–2: 269 n. 114
12.4.6: 191 n. 89
14.2.2: 168 n. 29
16.3.6: 140 n. 48
Ennius
Annales
363: 40
Scipio
10–11: 81–2
Eutropius
Breviarium
4.12.2: 53 n. 79, 262 n. 96
9.15.1: 284
Festus
85L: 174 n. 53
108L: 142 n. 55
180L: 120 n. 144
184L: 120 n. 141
188L: 131 n. 22, 258 n. 92
228L: 36 n. 17, 140 n. 49–50
258L: 211 n. 58
276L: 147 n. 70
332–3L: 165 n. 20
380L: 180 n. 68
496L: 168 n. 27
Florus
1.2.3: 162
1.5.10: 130 n. 17
1.13.27: 36
1.17.25: 190 n. 87
1.18.20: 209 n. 53
1.20.4: 129
1.20.5: 125 n. 7
1.22.23: 294 n. 24
2.13.88–9: 221 n. 2
2.18.4: 187 n. 80
Herodian
1.11: 176 n. 56
1.14.2: 272 n. 119
1.15.9: 298 n. 36
5.6.3–4: 294 n. 23
Historia Augusta
Alexander Severus
25.9: 217 n. 85, 251 n. 77
26.4: 217 n. 85, 251 n. 77
26.8: 217 n. 85, 251 n. 77
28.6: 251 n. 77
Page 10 of 35
Index Locorum
41.6–7: 208
M. Antoninus
4.9: 84 n. 18
Aurelianus
10.2: 285
28.5: 132 n. 27, 285
29.1–3: 149, 285
33.3: 134
39.6: 284
Carus
19.1–2: 188 n. 81
Commodus
17.9–10: 298 n. 36
Firmus
3.4: 285
Gallieni Duo
19.4: 137
Gordiani Tres
2.3: 188
3.6–8: 188
3.6: 187 n. 80
32.1: 188 n. 81
Hadrianus
14.8: 84 n. 18
16.10: 84 n. 18
19.12–13: 299 n. 40
Heliogabalus
3.4: 294 n. 23
6.6–9: 294 n. 23
Maximinus
12.10–11: 140 n. 54
16.1: 190
33.2: 181 n. 69
Pescennius Niger
12.4–8: 189
(p.345) Probus
15.4: 148 n. 73
Tacitus
9.2: 286
16.2–4: 190
Tyranni Triginta
25.4: 189
31.10: 274 n. 126
Homer
Iliad
6.92: 162
6.273: 162
Odyssey
8.83–8: 112 n. 106
Page 11 of 35
Index Locorum
Index Locorum
7.158–62: 277
7.158: 272 n. 119
7.162: 272 n. 122
Vita
342: 281 n. 142
Julius Caesar
Bellum Gallicum
1.1: 203 n. 31, 204 n. 35
6.25–8: 193
Julius Obsequens
6: 168 n. 30
44: 168 n. 30
44a: 168 n. 30
47: 168 n. 30
50: 168 n. 30
57: 168 n. 30, 306 n. 76
Juvenal
1.48–50: 53
4.13–31: 213 n. 70
5.4: 213 n. 70
5.46–8: 213 n. 70
6.156–7: 119 n. 135
(p.346) 7.38: 222 n. 9
8.100–7: 48
9.22–6: 274 n. 128
11.100–7: 103
12.87: 298 n. 35
14.256–62: 307
Scholia ad Juvenalem
6.154: 237 n. 49
Lactantius
Divinae Institutiones
1.6: 179 n. 61
1.20.27: 181 n. 69
1.22.13: 100 n. 65
2.7.11: 34 n. 11
2.16.11: 34 n. 11
Livy
praefatio 4: 195
praefatio 10: 82 n. 9
1.4.5: 165 n. 20
1.11.6–9: 179 n. 63
1.12: 262 n. 96
1.18.1–2: 170
1.20.4: 170 n. 32
1.26.10: 126
1.26.13: 180 n. 68
1.26.14: 180 n. 68
1.33: 142 n. 60
Page 13 of 35
Index Locorum
1.36.5: 170 n. 34
1.45.4–5: 211 n. 60
1.45.4: 211
1.48.6–7: 198 n. 23
1.57: 174
2.10.12: 136 n. 36
2.13.11: 180
2.28.1: 142 n. 60
2.33.9: 148 n. 71
2.41.10–11: 190
2.41: 190 n. 87
3.31.1: 269 n. 114
3.50–4: 142 n. 60
3.57.7: 148
3.67: 142 n. 60
4.7.11–12: 148
4.8.2: 289
4.15.8–16.1: 191 n. 89
4.16.1: 191
4.16.3–4: 117 n. 127
4.17.1–6: 149 n. 75
4.25.3: 244 n. 66
4.29.7: 244 n. 66
4.32.4: 125 n. 7
4.32.11: 125 n. 7
5.21.1–4: 34 n. 11
5.22.3–8: 34 n. 11
5.47.3: 307 n. 83
5.53.8: 166 n. 23
6.4.2: 34 n. 12
6.29.8–10: 34
7.38.1–2: 148 n. 73
8.11.16: 148
8.14.12: 130 n. 17
8.20.8: 191 n. 91
8.40.4: 117 n. 127
9.40.16: 127 n. 11
9.43.22: 137
9.44.16: 217 n. 85
9.46.6: 269 n. 111
9.46.7: 291
10.23.11–13: 289
10.23.12: 166 n. 21
21.62.8: 182
22.37: 149
22.57.10: 294 n. 24
23.23.6: 127
23.30.13: 299
23.31.9: 299
Page 14 of 35
Index Locorum
24.16.16–19: 142
24.47.15: 171 n. 40
25.7: 300
25.39.12–17: 127
25.40.1–3: 37 n. 22
26.21.7–8: 37
26.21.7: 207
26.24.11: 48 n. 61
26.27.14: 163 n. 12
26.29–30.11: 37
26.32: 37
26.32.4: 155 n. 92
(p.347) 26.34.12: 293
27.16.7: 38 n. 27
27.16.8: 45
27.25.7: 38 n. 26
27.37: 182
29.11.13: 38 n. 26
29.14.5–14: 176 n. 56
29.37.2: 295 n. 27
29.38.8: 290
30.39.8: 290
31.50.2: 290
32.16: 40
32.27.1: 148 n. 73
33.27.3–4: 42 n. 40
33.36.13: 129
34.3–4: 33 n. 10
34.44.5: 295 n. 27
35.10.12: 290
36.35: 148 n. 73
36.36: 289 n. 5
37.57.13–14: 45
38.9: 40
38.35: 290
38.43.2–5: 45 n. 46
38.43.5: 40 n. 32
38.43.9: 207
38.44.5: 45 n. 51
38.44.6: 45 n. 46
38.56: 292 n. 18
39.2.11: 258 n. 92
39.4: 40 n. 32
39.5: 156 n. 97, 221 n. 4
39.5.13–16: 45 n. 50
39.5.14: 36 n. 17
39.6.7–9: 33 n. 10
40.29.2–14: 171 n. 38
40.34.4–5: 151 n. 79
Page 15 of 35
Index Locorum
40.37.2: 293
40.51.1–3: 300
40.51.8: 300
40.52.1: 258 n. 92
41.28.8–10: 199
42.6: 299
42.6.11: 289
42.12: 132 n. 24
42.20.1: 130
43.4.7: 40 n. 33, 140 n. 50
43.6.5–6: 148 n. 73
44.14.3: 148 n. 73
45.16.5: 161 n. 5
45.25.7: 148 n. 73
45.35.3: 131 n. 22, 132 n. 24
45.40: 41 n. 34
Periochae
51: 53 n. 79
52: 42 n. 38
140: 258 n. 92
Lucan
2.22: 307 n. 85
Lucian
Amores
8: 119
13–17: 113 n. 113, 114
15: 119
De Mercede Conductis
1–2: 181 n. 70
De Domo
6: 88 n. 33
21: 88 n. 33
Hercules
4: 119
Hermotimus
86: 181 n. 70
Lucretius
1.1–27: 229
2.1–6: 112 n. 108
Macrobius
Saturnalia
1.8.5: 171 n. 42
1.12.16: 40 n. 32, 223 n. 10
2.4.21: 224 n. 13
3.11.6: 300 n. 43
3.17.18: 228 n. 20
Manilius
Astronomica
1.7–10: 268 n. 110
Page 16 of 35
Index Locorum
Index Locorum
Fasti
1.260–2: 179 n. 63
1.261–2: 304 n. 67
1.640–8: 267 n. 102
1.641–4: 269 n. 111
2.69: 235 n. 46
2.411: 165 n. 20
2.684: 193
3.183–8: 166 n. 23
3.601–74: 120
4.225–344: 176 n. 56
5.149–54: 168
5.551–70: 256
5.579–96: 251 n. 80
6.213–18: 174 n. 52
6.277–80: 37 n. 23
6.419–22: 162 n. 10
6.424: 162
6.436–54: 163 n. 17
6.477–8: 197 n. 21
6.569–72: 171 n. 40
6.609–10: 198 n. 23
6.613–25: 171 n. 40
6.613–26: 171 n. 41
6.637–8: 270 n. 117
6.797–812: 222 n. 7
Metamorphoses
14.775–7: 179 n. 63
Tristia
2.528: 231 n. 31
3.1.31–4: 211 n. 58
3.1.61: 238 n. 52
3.1.69–70: 258 n. 92
3.1.70–2: 223 n. 12
Panegyricus Latinus
5.20–1: 205
(p.349) Pausanias
1.15.4: 127 n. 13
1.25.8: 22
1.30.2: 22 n. 59
5.11.9: 109 n. 96
5.11.10–11: 298 n. 34
6.9.3: 272 n. 119, 274 n. 126
8.46.1: 210
8.46.5: 301
9.27.2–4: 55 n. 87
9.27.3: 259 n. 94
10.7.1: 73 n. 153
10.19.2: 73 n. 153
Page 18 of 35
Index Locorum
Petronius
Satyricon
28–9: 93
29: 116
46: 84 n. 18
50: 42 n. 38
81–83: 114
83: 100, 297
88–9: 119
88: 84
90: 93
126: 82 n. 9
Phaedrus
Prologue 5.4–9: 65 n. 124
Philostratus Maior
Imagines
1 proem 1: 83 n. 12
1 proem 4: 119
Vita Apollonii
2.22: 231 n. 31
Philostratus Minor
Imagines
proem 3: 83 n. 12
Pliny the Elder
Historia Naturalis
2.93–4: 227 n. 18
2.200: 218 n. 88
3.16–17: 204
3.17: 205
3.18: 204
4.78: 204 n. 35
4.81: 204 n. 35
4.83: 204 n. 35
4.91: 204 n. 35
4.102: 204 n. 35
4.105: 204 n. 35
5.9–10: 204 n. 35
5.65: 204 n. 35
5.102: 204 n. 35
5.128: 210 n. 55
6.37: 204 n. 35
6.39: 204 n. 35
6.40: 204 n.
6.57: 204 n. 35
6.136–7: 204 n. 35
6.164: 204 n. 35
6.196: 204 n. 35
6.200: 209
6.207: 204 n. 35
Page 19 of 35
Index Locorum
6.209: 204 n. 35
7.20: 174 n. 53
7.34: 212 n. 64–5
7.35: 210 n. 57
7.74–5: 213 n. 66
7.75: 213 n. 67–8
7.85: 193 n. 2
7.97: 205
7.120: 176 n. 56
7.126: 231 n. 29
7.158: 213
8.31: 210
8.37: 209
8.155: 230 n. 27
8.194: 174 n. 54
8.197: 171 n. 41
9.11: 210
9.93: 209
9.116: 228 n. 19
9.119–21: 134 n. 28, 228 n. 19–20
10.5: 210 n. 57
10.141: 208
12.20: 214 n. 76
12.94: 214
12.111: 214, 214 n. 75–6
(p.350) 13.53: 244
13.83: 67
13.88: 179 n. 61
13.92: 67 n. 128
14.2–6: 84
14.11: 215 n. 77
14.148: 242 n. 62
15.32: 298
15.77: 165 n. 20, 170 n. 34, 215 n. 77
15.78: 215 n. 77
16.8: 130 n. 20
16.200: 214 n. 74
16.201: 214
16.214–15: 193
16.216: 215 n. 78
16.235–6: 215
16.237: 215
18.15: 137
18.16: 137
18.20: 187
19.12: 193
22.13: 117 n. 127, 251 n. 77
25.5–8: 214 n. 76
28.34: 174 n. 53
Page 20 of 35
Index Locorum
29.57: 307 n. 83
31.12: 193
32.22: 143 n. 63
33.3–4: 71 n. 147
33.15: 304 n. 67
33.19: 269 n. 111
33.112: 299
33.142: 46 n. 54
33.147: 67 n. 131
34.6: 68, 70 n. 144
34.10: 197 n. 21
34.11–12: 67 n. 129
34.14: 238
34.15: 190 n. 88
34.18: 227 n. 18
34.19: 222 n. 9
34.22: 170 n. 36
34.22–3: 179
34.26: 288 n. 2
34.28–9: 180 n. 64
34.29: 187 n. 77
34.30: 299, 303 n. 60
34.31: 176 n. 57, 261
34.32: 184
34.33: 135
34.34: 36 n. 17
34.36: 42 n. 38, 56 n. 93
34.38: 307 n. 84
34.39: 40 n. 30
34.40: 38 n. 29
34.43: 217 n. 85
34.47: 65 n. 124
34.48: 56 n. 93, 70 n. 144, 253
34.59: 100 n. 67
34.62: 70 n. 145, 71 n. 150, 113 n. 110
34.64–5: 41 n. 34
34.69: 43 n. 42
34.73: 268 n. 106
34.77: 268 n. 106
34.79: 100 n. 67, 235 n. 46, 274 n. 128
34.80: 268 n. 106
34.82: 71 n. 149
34.84: 56 n. 90, 73 n. 153, 272 n. 119, 275
34.89: 268 n. 106
34.90: 268 n. 106
34.92: 47 n. 58
34.93: 130
35.4–5: 303 n. 58
35.4: 105 n. 83
Page 21 of 35
Index Locorum
35.6–8: 106 n. 86
35.6–7: 127
35.6: 136 n. 38
35.9–11: 106
35.9–10: 224
35.12: 138
35.13: 138
35.14: 127 n. 13
35.20: 84 n. 16
35.22: 84 n. 17, 140
35.23: 99 n. 63, 154 n. 89
35.24: 42 n. 37
35.25: 104 n. 77, 153 n. 81
35.26: 58 n. 99, 67 n. 130, 226
35.27–8: 234 n. 48
35.27: 234 n. 43
(p.351) 35.51–2: 217 n. 86
35.52: 188 n. 82
35.58–9: 222 n. 5
35.65: 99
35.66: 40 n. 32, 222 n. 7, 268 n. 107
35.70: 71
35.74: 275
35.77: 84 n. 16
35.81–3: 70 n. 142, 282
35.85–6: 83 n. 13
35.88: 99 n. 63
35.91: 117, 234 n. 43
35.93: 234 n. 43
35.94: 253 n. 82
35.97: 297 n. 31
35.100: 297 n. 29
35.102–3: 99, 275 n. 132
35.102: 297 n. 30
35.108–9: 275
35.108: 143 n. 67
35.114: 222 n. 5, 258 n. 92, 259
35.115: 117 n. 128
35.120: 284 n. 148, 297 n. 33
35.126: 222 n. 5
35.127: 52 n. 72
35.128: 83 n. 15
35.130: 56 n. 93, 59
35.131–2: 230 n. 28
35.131: 265, 268 n. 107
35.133: 298 n. 39
35.135: 143
35.136: 231 n. 29
35.139: 259
Page 22 of 35
Index Locorum
Index Locorum
3.1: 65 n. 122
3.6: 58 n. 96, 92 n. 48, 291 n. 12
3.6.3: 65
3.7.8: 108 n. 93
4.30: 194
7.27: 194
7.29: 104 n. 79
(p.352) 8.6: 104 n. 79
8.18: 65 n. 121
9.39: 291 n. 12
10.8: 291 n. 12, 293
Panegyricus
55: 33 n. 10
Plotinus
Enneades
5.8.1: 109 n. 97
Plutarch
Aemilius Paullus
6.8–9: 84 n. 16
28.5: 109 n. 96
28.11: 46 n. 54
30.2–3: 131
32–4: 41 n. 34
32.3: 307
Alexander
11.12: 191 n. 93
16.7–8: 41 n. 35
Antonius
4.1–2: 242 n. 62
21.2–3: 187 n. 80
24.3–4: 242 n. 62
60.2–3: 242 n. 62
Aratus
13: 150
Brutus
1.1: 153
9.6–7: 305 n. 70
9.8: 153 n. 83
Comparison of Brutus and Dion
5: 156 n. 95
Caesar
7.1: 232 n. 36
11.5–6: 230 n. 28
42.2: 232 n. 36
55.2: 221 n. 2
61.4–9: 234 n. 42
61.8: 305 n. 70
Camillus
32.5: 168 n. 29
Page 24 of 35
Index Locorum
Index Locorum
Philopoemen
21.6: 55 n. 85
Pompeius
2.2–4: 182 n. 72
2.2: 230 n. 28
36.6–7: 47
42.3: 46
45: 221 n. 2
46.1: 230 n. 28
Publicola
15.5–6: 311 n. 3
15.5: 295
20.2: 187 n. 78
Pyrrhus
3.4: 174 n. 53
Romulus
4.1: 165 n. 20
9.4: 167 n. 26
11.1: 167 n. 26
17.2–5: 179 n. 63
22.1–2: 168 n. 29
23.3: 168 n. 27
Sulla
6.1–2: 151 n. 80
26.1–2: 67
Moralia
18A–B: 110 n. 104
18A: 98, 232 n. 35
91A: 298 n. 38
142D: 88 n. 34
183B: 282 n. 144
198B–C: 46 n. 54
198F: 155 n. 94
200B: 53 n. 79
205E: 298 n. 38
250F: 120
264C–D: 211 n. 60
271E: 174 n. 53
281D–E: 171 n. 39
287B–C: 299 n. 41
335A–B: 99
336C–D: 151 n. 78
346A–B: 83
346F–347A: 98 n. 61
348E: 298 n. 39
379D: 108
381D–F: 88 n. 32
394E: 118
395A: 118
Page 26 of 35
Index Locorum
399F: 88 n. 34
400C: 88 n. 34
400D: 118
401E: 118
472A: 83 n. 13
473F: 101
517F: 194 n. 4
520C: 194 n. 4
521B–D: 194 n. 4
559D: 150
575B: 82
674A: 111 n. 105
Polybius
1.2: 197
2.31.5–6: 129
3.26.1: 148
6.53: 106 n. 86
6.56: 110
9.10.1–12: 37
9.10.13: 37 n. 23
9.10: 40 n. 32
21.30.9: 40 n. 32
39.3: 55 n. 85, 103
39.6: 42 n. 38
Procopius
De Bello Gothico
3.2.24: 188 n. 83
3.5.3–4: 311 n. 2
(p.354) 4.9.5–8: 280 n. 139
5.12.42: 278 n. 136
5.15.8: 210 n. 56
5.15.9–14: 163
5.25.19–20: 170 n. 36
5.25.19: 179 n. 60
8.21.11–14: 274 n. 127
8.21.12–15: 303 n. 63
8.22.5–16: 132
Historia Arcana
8.12–21: 216
Propertius
2.31.3–4: 238 n. 52
2.31.5–8: 238
2.31.8: 100 n. 67
2.31.12–16: 240 n. 60
3.9.11: 234 n. 43
4.1.1–10: 168
4.2.1–4: 36 n. 17
4.4: 179 n. 63
4.10: 125 n. 7
Page 27 of 35
Index Locorum
Quintilian
Institutio oratoria
2.13.8–14: 101
3.7.20: 191 n. 89
6.1.32: 155 n. 93
6.3.38: 153 n. 81
6.3.98: 56 n. 93
11.2.17–22: 86 n. 26
12.10.3: 90 n. 40
12.10.3–9: 90 n. 40
12.10.9: 90 n. 40
Rhetorica ad Herennium
3.16–24: 86 n. 25
Sallust
Bellum Iugurthinum
4: 106 n. 86
Bellum Catilinae
11: 33 n. 10
54.6: 231 n. 32
Seneca the Elder
Controversiae
1.6.4: 166 n. 23
2.1.5: 166 n. 22
8.2: 108
10.5: 100 n. 68
Seneca the Younger
De beneficiis
2.33.2: 102
Dialogi
7.28.1: 307 n. 85
10.20.3: 307 n. 85
11.14.2: 307 n. 85
Epistulae
7.64.9–10: 108 n. 93
Ad Helviam
9.3: 166 n. 23
Servius
In Aeneidem
1.294: 253
1.720: 181 n. 69
1.726: 305 n. 74
2.116: 211 n. 59
2.166: 163 n. 14
3.12: 161 n. 5
6.230: 215 n. 77
7.188: 211 n. 59
7.603: 168 n. 30
8.90: 165 n. 20
8.348: 179 n. 63
Page 28 of 35
Index Locorum
Index Locorum
37: 301
41.1: 50
43.2: 224 n. 13
43.4: 209
70.1: 237 n. 50
70.2: 70 n. 144
71.1: 50
72.3: 70 n. 143
73: 174
85.2: 231 n. 30
91.2: 235 n. 46
Caligula
5: 105
22.2: 52 n. 71
23.3: 213 n. 70
24.3: 135
52: 51
57.1: 51 n. 70
Claudius
1.4: 269 n. 112
21.6: 257
Domitianus
1.1: 189
3.1: 77 n. 155
13.2: 283
Galba
2: 137 n. 42
10.1: 154 n. 88
De Grammaticis
15.1: 187 n. 80
Divus Iulius
7.1: 230 n. 28
13: 232 n. 36
10.1: 156
37: 221 n. 2
46: 232 n. 36
47: 70 n. 140, 228 n. 19
49: 229
53: 232 n. 37
61: 230 n. 27
76.1: 232 n. 37
79: 234 n. 42
79.1: 305 n. 70
80.3: 305 n. 70
Nero
24.1–2: 52 n. 74
25.1: 134
32.4: 55 n. 88
38.3: 52 n. 74
Page 30 of 35
Index Locorum
45: 305 n. 70
46.2: 304
(p.356) 47.1: 71 n. 149
52: 84 n. 18
Tiberius
6.3: 73 n. 152
13.1: 156 n. 96
15.1: 188
16: 259
20: 267 n. 104, 270 n. 116
42.1: 270 n. 115
43.2: 71
44.2: 70 n. 145
47.1: 71 n. 149, 267 n. 103
61: 213 n. 70
Titus
1: 189
8.4: 308 n. 86
Vespasianus
8.5: 147, 148 n. 71, 294
9.1: 272 n. 119
12: 221 n. 2
16.1–3: 77 n. 155
18: 299 n. 40
Vitellius
1.2: 137 n. 42
3.1: 137 n. 42
5: 301 n. 47
8.1: 251
10.3: 135
Symacchus
Epistulae
10.78: 272 n. 119
Tabula of Cebes
1.3: 119
Tacitus
Agricola
2.1: 82 n. 9
4.2–3: 257
6.5: 55 n. 88, 301
10: 203 n. 31
21.2: 257
30–2: 214 n. 72
46: 106 n. 86
Annales
1.4: 270
1.8: 106 n. 89
1.33: 269 n. 112
1.73: 109 n. 101
Page 31 of 35
Index Locorum
1.74: 105 n. 83
2.33: 69 n. 138
2.37: 213 n. 67
2.43: 270 n. 117
2.47: 218 n. 88
2.49: 270
2.53–4: 87
2.73: 230 n. 28
2.82: 307 n. 85
3.23: 154 n. 87
3.36: 109 n. 101
3.55: 69 n. 138
3.57: 294
3.72: 224 n. 14, 267 n. 103, 296
3.76: 108 n. 94
4.13: 218 n. 88
4.64: 175
4.74: 294 n. 25
5.4: 154 n. 85
6.28: 193, 210 n. 57
12.24: 197 n. 21
12.49: 213 n. 70
13.8: 257, 294 n. 25
13.10: 294
13.27: 306
13.58: 166 n. 25
14.12: 135 n. 34
14.61: 154 n. 86
15.34: 213 n. 70
15.37: 208
15.41: 301
15.42: 217
15.45: 52 n. 74
15.53: 135 n. 33
15.72: 135 n. 34
15.74: 135 n. 33
(p.357) 16.7: 108 n. 94
16.7–9: 293 n. 22
16.23: 52 n. 73
Dialogus de oratoribus
28.5–6: 176 n. 58
Historiae
1.36: 156 n. 96
1.43: 306 n. 79
1.82: 307 n. 85
1.86: 169
2.2–3: 281
2.55: 154 n. 88
3.72: 187
Page 32 of 35
Index Locorum
3.74: 295
4.12–37: 281 n. 141
4.53: 294
4.54–79: 281 n. 141
4.61: 179 n. 62
4.65: 179 n. 62
5.14–26: 281 n. 141
5.22: 179 n. 62
5.24: 179 n. 62
Tertullian
De Pudicitia
16: 305
Valerius Maximus
1.1.8: 38 n. 26
1.1.12: 171 n. 38
1.8.11: 168 n. 29, 171 n. 40, 171 n. 41
1.8.12: 176 n. 56
1.8 ext. 19: 209
2.5.1: 151 n. 79
2.10.2: 186 n. 75, 213
3.1.1: 137
3.2.5: 125 n. 7
3.4.3: 117 n. 127
3.7.11: 222 n. 9
4.4 praef.: 176
4.4.9: 46 n. 54
5.1.6: 53 n. 79
5.4.ext.1: 86 n. 27
5.8.2: 190 n. 87
6.3.1c: 153 n. 81, 191 n. 89
6.3.2: 120 n. 144
7.3.1: 211 n. 60
7.5.4: 262 n. 96
7.6.1b: 294 n. 24
8.11 praef.: 110
8.11.ext.4: 113
8.14.2: 136 n. 39
8.14.6: 140 n. 48
8.15.2: 108 n. 91
9.6.1: 179 n. 63
9.11.1: 198 n. 23
Varro
De Lingua Latina
5.46: 36 n. 17
5.47: 300
5.54: 161 n. 8, 165 n. 20
5.66: 174 n. 52
5.152: 168 n. 27
5.157: 191 n. 89
Page 33 of 35
Index Locorum
Index Locorum
7.5.3–4: 102
7.5.5–6: 61 n. 114
8.2.6: 205 n. 38
Zosimus
1.61.2: 285
Page 35 of 35