Sonderdrucke aus der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

VOLKER MICHAEL STROCKA

A fragment of a Roman wall-painting

Originalbeitrag erschienen in: Alexander Cambitoglou (Hrsg.): Classical art in the Nicholson Museum, Sydney. Mainz: von Zabern, 1995, S. [251]-257, Taf. A Fragment of a Roman Wall-Painting

Volker Michael Strocka

This fresco fragment (pl. 82, colour pl. 7, fig. 1) comes from a wall and, as will become clear in the following paragraphs, more particularly from the socle zone of a Roman wall-decoration datable to the third quarter of the first century AD. 1 The left and upper edges are almost straight, and form approximately a right angle, whilst the break is irregular along its lower and right edges, where several leaves have lost their tip and

Fig. 1. Nicholson Museum inv. 80.49 (the stippling indicates'areas of restoration). where at least one flower is missing. Against a black background a plant sprouts above a horizontal, 7 — 8mm wide white line. Its flowers, reddish with white highlights and on high stems, and the long, pointed leaves clearly characterize it as an iris,2 a garden flower which was much appreciated by the Romans.3 252 V. M. Strocka

With a series of sketchy brushstrokes the painter has placed several groups of dull-green leaves on the black ground before adding the two stems, using the same colour but interrupting .the flow of the brush several times. The start of a third stem which rose no doubt just as steeply as the two preserved ones can be seen on the right-hand side, where the fragment is at its widest. On top of the high, dull-green leaves another four were painted in a lighter green, but with equally hasty brushstrokes. Two of them grow almost horizontally to the sides, the other two shoot upwards. Short, ochre strokes radiating from the base of the plant on and across the white line surely represent the remains of dead leaves. There were several, but only two are extant.

It is in the representation of the flowers that the expressive painting style is at its most sophisticated. Their colour varies from brown-violet, through pink, to grey 4 and there are highlights indicated by short white strokes. Noteworthy is the unevenness of the black background. It appears to have a pink undercoat and has become grey in places, probably due to weathering. An irregular line separating a darker from a lighter portion is particularly striking. It runs towards the upper left-hand corner, exactly in the continuation of the taller flower stem. The lighter portion to the right is due to weathering.

The fragment has been recomposed from at least six pieces, and the joins and the upper edge have been skilfully repainted. There is a major restoration between the horizontal white line and the lower edge, and several minor repairs have been made on various parts of the surface.5

The fragment is approximately 1.3 cm thick and is made up of three plaster layers. At the bottom, the layer of coarse plaster which originally must have been much thicker than the l cm it measures now, contains many large and small black to grey inclusions; a coat of finer plaster follows, up to 4mm deep, with fairly numerous small grains of black and grey sand; at the top is a very fine coat of finishing plaster, on which the decoration has been painted. This structure and, above all, the obviously volcanic origin of the inclusions correspond with those of Campanian frescoes; the thinness of the finishing coat tallies with that of walls belonging to the Third and Fourth Pompeian Style, and provides a first indication as to the probable provenance of the fragment.

The painting has been executed in true fresco technique; not only the black background, but also the white ground-line and the plant itself were painted whilst the plaster was still wet, and then rolled into it when it started to dry. In view of the rapid brushstrokes and the lack of flaking one can exclude the use of tempera in al secco technique, which was sometimes adopted when vignettes were added to coloured fields.

Freestanding plants of the size of the plant on our fragment are a very popular motif on black and red socle zones of the Fourth Pompeian Style (ca. 2nd half of the 1st century AD) and occur occasionally also against other background colours. The size of the plant suggests that the fragment comes from a small room. Depending on room size, socle zones of Fourth-Style walls in Pompeii vary in height between 44 and 97 cm, i.e. between 1.5 and 3.25 Roman ft., and on average measure 67cm. 6 The way the height of the zone below the ground-line and the height of the plant relate to the overall height of the fragment suggests that our fragment has hardly been trimmed on its lower and upper edges. If this assumption is correct, the fragment, with its preserved height of 44.5 cm, belonged to the socle zone of a rather small room.

Rather than simply refer to another similar painting of an iris in order to determine the date of the fragment, I should like to broaden the discussion and investigate the origin and the development of this decorative motif. Strangely enough, there is as yet no satisfactory examination of the socle plant in Roman wall-painting, neither from a botanical, nor from an art-historical point of view. ? The earliest socle plants occur already in paintings of the later Second Style (ca. 40 BC). The Pompeian fragment inv. 8594 in the National Museum in Naples which—contrary to what has been believed for a long time—does not come from the Praedia Iuliae Felicis (II 4), but from a cubiculum of the Insula Occidentalis (VI 17, 41), 8 exhibits a A Fragment of a Roman Wall-Painting 253 series of marsh plants, loosely distributed in front of the socle of the architectural representation. The plants seem to be standing in the water, while ducks swim through arched apertures that appear to interrupt the socle. The idea to question the stability of the painted architecture occurs in a number of instances in the final phase of the Second Style (ca. 40-20 BC), which often shows a liking for surprising effects. Plants are now painted on to a flat, two-dimensional socle zone. Some examples have survived in Pompeii, such as the rather thin plants in cubiculum 5 of the House of Obellius Firmus (IX 14, 1-4)9, or in the low socle zone of the caldarium 28, the smaller baths of the Casa del Criptoportico (I 6, 2), the row of various bushes that appear to spread from the garden painting in the apsis.1 o A third very early example, now lost, was seen by A. Mau in the tablinum of the Casa del Centenario (IX 8, 3.6). 11 In this case, there were plants alternating with standing figures. Still extant are the carefully painted bushes with radially sprouting leaves on the south wall of exedra q in the Casa del Gallo (VIII 5, 2) 12 that belongs to the earliest phase of the Third Style (20-10 BC). For the first time, each plant is here depicted on a single socle panel. Particularly original and delicately painted are the socle plants (three on each of the West and the East walls) in the so-called Red Room 16 of the Villa at Boscotrecase, the wall-decorations of which I propose to date to the first decade of the 1st century AD. 13 In every panel of the black socle an oblong is delineated by white lines, in which from a tiny plant with seven serrated leaves three threadlike branches sprout, each with pointed leaflets and small blossoms. The central one rises straight, the two lateral ones stretch horizontally in a double sweep, each held by a pair of tight strings which hang from the upper border. The delightful contrast between meticulous realism for the details and total lack of three-dimensionality and unreal proportions is typical of the late Augustan period. In the tablinum of the Villa of the Mysteries, the decoration of which is only slightly later (AD 10-20) and hardly less delicate, the socle—again on black ground—has been transformed into a miniature garden. 14 A kind of light scaffolding on which small-leaved climbers form a regular pattern, subdivides the zone below the three main fields into nine sections, each of which is occupied by plant in a symmetrical arrangement. In the field at the centre is a lush, acanthus-like plant, while the fields on either side have each an oval bush resembling a boxtree, a flowering iris plant, and a bush with small leaves and a large white flower, probably an agave. Even the birds are added in a symmetrical arrangement. Compared to those in Boscotrecase, the plants here have more individuality, although because of their two-dimensionality and their symmetrical composition they are completely subject to the overall decorative effect.

The painter of a wall in the building of Eumachia in Pompeii, dated to the period of Tiberius (AD 20-30), went a step further. 15 Here, the black socle is subdivided by ochre uprights—corresponding to the intercolumniations of the main zone—into oblong fields, each of which is occupied by three plants. Various kinds of tufts, including iris plants with or without red and white flowers, stand on a red ground-line which separates the black background from a low brown skirting board. This distinction between skirting board and socle had already been made in the tablinum of the Villa of the Mysteries, but here we see for the first time the bottom leaves growing downwards beyond the line, thus creating a spatial effect. Subsequently, this motif is often repeated, as for instance on our fragment. The all-black socle of the triclinium t' in the House of Epidius Sabinus in Pompeii (IX 1, 22; about AD 40) looks much more turbulent. 16 Large and small bushes alternate with deliberately differentiated contours and without symmetrical repetitions, although the groupings still correspond to the panels of the main zone. The contrasting iris plants, ferns, and blossoming bushes with rounded or pointed leaves again overlap the ground-line. The placing of light-coloured leaves in front of dark ones creates a strong three-dimensional impression which is further enhanced by an over- precise rendering of all the details. As is also demonstrated by the rest of the wall system, the late Third Style looks overrefined and even mannered, because it fails to combine the numerous individual elements into a painterly unity. Other walls of the late Third Style of the period of Caligula 17 or of the early Claudian transitional style to the Fourth (about AD 40-50) 18 exhibit similarly linear and ultimately impoverished and rigid vegetable forms.

In the Pompeian Fourth Style, which starts to develop in the 40s, the socle plants are represented in a more painterly, though less precise manner. They are now painted with a broad brush, have often crude, 254 V. M. Strocka rampant forms, and are conspicuous by their colour contrasts. With this a certain indifference towards the type of plant and the details—so precisely rendered in the past—goes hand in hand. The socle zones are usually subdivided either into fields of equal size, or into a rhythmical sequence of larger and smaller ones. Each of these fields contains one plant; larger sections are occupied by two. Continuous socles with several plants standing side by side are now the exception.19

On early Fourth-Style walls (ca. AD 50) the leaves are still more slender, the plants more clearly laid out, and the brushwork finer than that on our fragment, as can be seen in the high-quality wall-decorations of the alae h and i in the House of the Vettii (pl. 83.420 or in the House of the Menander (I 10, 4: tablinum 8, so- called Green Oecus 11, room 15, triclinium 13, and on the outside of the peristyle balustrade) (pl. 83.2).21 Iris plants that look similar to that of our fragment and in which the same effects have been achieved with a broad, rapid brush can be found in contemporary decorations of mediocre quality, such as those in the House of the Prince of Naples (VI 15, 7.8),22 to be dated to the mid-50s. However, I know of no other example with such distinctly frayed leaf tips. Not particularly fine are the plants in the socle zones of several rooms in the House of the Silver Wedding (V 2, i), 23 which was re-decorated in Fourth Style shortly before AD 60, as a graffito in the peristyle indicates. 24 In the cubiculum i of the Casa del Sacello Iliaco (I 6, 4)—the redecoration of which was interrupted by the earthquake of 5 February 62, never to be resumed, 25 —there are socle plants below the lateral main fields, which are thus the best-dated plants in Roman wall-painting. Unfortunately, they represent a botanical type which is not identical with that in Sydney, but the short, dabbed leaves and the small petals placed side by side exhibit a similar sketchiness.26

The three decorations which provide the closest parallels and which I date to the 60s of the first century AD are the following: the decoration of tablinum F in the Casa dell'Ara massima (VI 16, 15), 27 the decoration of triclinium r in the Casa del Triclinio (V 2, 4), 28 and that of cubiculum 4 in the Casa della Venere in conchiglia (II 3, 3) (pl. 84.1).29 The last example stands particularly close to our fragment as regard the motif, the brushwork for the leaves and the stems, and even the size, though it is true that there are no highlights on the flowers here, and the brush used to paint the leaves was not quite as wide. Yet, this latter feature can be observed in cubiculum 11 of the same house, 30 and suggests that such differences are due to the manner—or even the mood—of a particular painter, and cannot therefore provide criteria for a fine chronology.

The dearth of variables cautions against any attempt at proposing too precise a dating. This is demonstrated, for example, by the decoration of triclinium 27 in the House of Meleager (pl. 84.2),31 which goes with that of the Corinthian oecus and which I consider to be later than the paintings just mentioned.32 Here, each of the socle fields below the main panels of the East and West walls, framed by representations of projecting architecture, exhibits two iris plants on either side of a reclining nymph. The leaves are rather slender and pointed, the stems excessively long.

The stock types of socle plants developed in the Neronian-Flavian period remained in use for some time. They occur not only in the Vesuvian towns and villas—where they have survived in large numbers—, but are also known from all over Italy 33 and the western provinces34, dating from the period of the Third Style to the late 2nd century AD. The fact that most of them are painted in a more schematic 'and abstract manner, without exhibiting the wilful virtuosity of our fragment, is due to the less demanding taste of the provincial patrons and the simpler technique of the local painters. Thus, the realistically recorded marsh plants or the garden flowers growing at the foot of a wall, in the course of time are turned into conventional floral motifs without representational meaning, ossified formulae which were finally discarded.

The sequence of its plaster layers as well as general considerations make it probable that our fragment comes from one of the villas that were buried near Mt Vesuvius in AD 79, if not from Pompeii or Herculaneum themselves. This is confirmed by the lively and experienced style of its painting which finds A Fragment of a Roman Wall-Painting 255 most, or even all, its true correspondences in that region. The wall to which it belonged was most probably painted in the 60s of the 1st century AD, possibly in the course of restoration work carried out after the earthquake of AD 62. Surrounded by other examples of its kind and being part of a rich and variegated decoration, our modest socle plant is unlikely to have attracted a great deal of attention during the few years of its existence. It has now a good chance to delight many more and more attentive beholders for years to come.

Trans. Jean-Paul Descorudres

1 Inv. 80.49, acquired by gift. Maximum height: 44.5 cm, maximum width: 31.3 cm. Provenance unknown. For photos, measurements, and other information I thank E. G. D. Robinson most warmly. I have not seen the fragment itself. 2 The botanist D. Meikle at the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, Surrey, comments as follows (letter of 20 May,1981): The plant depicted is almost certainly Iris albicans Lange, a plant of dubious origin, now widely distributed as a naturalized or semi-naturalized member of the floras of S. Europe and the Mediterranean region, extending far east in Asia. Some consider it native in S. Arabia, but this is open to question, though it is locally well established there. It is one of a group of Irises (including I. germanica and 1. pallida) apparently cultivated for flowers or scented rhizomes since antiquity, and still valued by gardeners. Members of the group are sometimes considered of hybrid origin. Iris albicans is, to this day, commonly painted on graves in Muslim graveyards; perhaps just as an ornament, though it may have (or have had) a religious significance. Iris albicans is commonly (and erroneously) named I. florentina L. 3 RE IX 2 (1916) 2043ff. s.v. Iris (Stadler); P. Grimal, Les jardins romains (2nd ed., Paris 1969) 211, 276, 460 nos. 44, 45; W. F. Jashemski, The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Villas destroyed by Vesuvius (New Rochelle, N. Y. 1979) 54, 67. 4 According to 0. Comes, "Illustrazione delle piante rappresentate nei dipinti pompeiani," in: M. Ruggiero (ed.), Pompei e la regione sotterrata dal Vesuvio nell'anno LXXIX (Napoli 1879) 177-250, esp. 210, the I. germanica has reddish petals, whilst those of the I. florentina are white, and those of the I. pseudoacorus yellow. 5 See the drawing (fig. 1) for which I thank Judith Sellers; it is based on a sketch by E. G. D. Robinson. 6 J. de Mol, "Some Remarks on Proportions in Fourth Style Wall-Paintings in Pompeii," in: Proceedings of the 4th Intern. Colloquium on Roman Wall painting (Kölner Jahrbuch für Vor- and Frühgeschichte 24, 1991) 159-163. 7 The botanically oriented catalogue by 0. Comes (supra n. 4) ought to be revised, cf. F. P. M. Francissen in: Om de tuin geleid, Festschrift W. T J. Peters (Nijmegen 1984) 47ff. For some references to early socle plants, see M. de Vos, MededRom 37, 1975, 66, 69f.; Bastet–de Vos 122 n. 38. 8 A. Mau, Geschichte der decorativen Wandmalerei in Pompeji (Berlin 1882) 178 pl. 7b; H. G. Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration vom zweiten bis zum vierten Stil I (The Hague 1938) 268ff. figs. 100, 100a; M. R. Boriello et al., Le Collezioni del Museo Nazionale di Napoli (Rome 1986) 128f. no. 36 and colour pl. on p. 40. The correct localization is due to A. Allroggen-Bedel, CronErcol 1976, 88 n. 21. For the context of this painting see now V.M.Stroka, RM 100, 1993, 321-51. 9 V. Spinazzola, Pompei alla luce degli scavi nuovi di Via dell'Abbondanza (1910-1923) I (Rome 1953) figs. 401, 403; K. Schefold, Vergessenes Pompeji (Bern/Munich 1962) pl. 29. 10 Spinazzola (supra n. 9) fig. 531a; H. G. Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration vom zweiten bis zum vierten Stil I (The Hague 1960) 118, 152 fig. 267. 11 Mau (supra n. 8) 382f. 12 A. Mau, BdI 1883, 173; Bastet–de Vos 27 p1. 3:5. 13 P. H. v. Blanckenhagen–C. Alexander, The Paintings from Boscotrecase (RMErgh. 6, Heidelberg 1962) 15 pls. 10, 12, 17: 2; 21:1; Bastet–de Vos 45f.; Ehrhardt 54ff.; V. M. Strocka in: Pictores per provincias, 256 V. M. Strocka

Actes du 3e Colloque international sur la peinture romaine, Avenches 1986 (Aventicum 5, Cahiers d'archeologie romande 43, 1987) 30. 14 A. Maiuri, La Villa dei Misteri (Rome 1931) 202f. figs. 86-7; Bastet–de Vos 56f. fig. 9; Ehrhardt 145ff. fig. 370; Strocka (supra n. 13) 30. 15 Bastet–de Vos 10, 51 pl. 18: 34; Pompei. Travaux et envois des architectes francais au XIXe siècle (exhibition Paris–Pompeii 1981) 146 no. 31 colour pl. on p. 159. 16 Mau (supra n. 8) 352, 440 p1. 15; Bastet–de Vos 59f. pl. 24: 46; Ehrhardt 76ff. pl. 45: 188, 189. 17 Pompeii VIII 2, 26-7: Ehrhardt 64ff. pl. 30: 127; Pompeii I 7, 1 peristyle 9: ibid. 66 pls. 32: 134; 33: 135. 18 Pompeii I 7, 19 triclinium II: ibid. 111 ff. pl. 75: 305; I 6, 15 atrium b: ibid. 108ff. pl. 73: 295, 296; IX 7, 20 triclinium is I. Bragantini et al. (eds.), Pompei 1748-1980. I tempi della documentazione (exhibition Rome 1981) 107 figs. 1-2; Pictores per provincias (supra n. 13) p1. 2: 6. 19 Much is preserved, though damaged or faded, little illustrated or visible on photos that reproduce entire walls. Only a few examples can be cited here, including those which are illustrated on unpublished photographs. Cf. however Schefold (supra n. 9) pls. 67, 100, 112, 124, 127, 132, 134, 151: 2; B. Andreae–H. Kyrieleis (eds.), Neue Forschungen in Pompeji (Recklinghausen 1975) figs. 82, 85, 86. 20 W. J. T. Peters, MededRom 39, 1977, 97f pl. 60; Neg. DAI Berlin 79.2.926, 79.2.928 (G. Fittschen- Badura). 21 A. Maiuri, La Casa del Menandro e it suo tesoro di argenteria (Rome 1933) 82f figs. 38-40 (peristyle garden); PPP I, 111ff. Photos: 77 GFN N 35622, 36645 (tablinum 8), 77 GFN N 35703 ('Green Oecus 11), 77 GFN N 35743-4 (room 15), 77 GFN N 36857, 36861. 22 V. M. Strocka, Casa del Principe di Napoli (VI 15, 7.8). Häuser in Pompeji 1 (Tübingen 1984) figs. 104, 105,142,145 (triclinium k), cf also ibid. figs. 75, 77, 78, 82 (tablinum e) and figs. 83, 88, 89 (cubiculum 0. 23 All unpublished, cf. PPP II, 37ff. Photos: 80 GFN N 55719 (atrium d), 79 GFN N 49578 (corridor p), 79 GFN N 49663 (peristyle r), 79 GFN N 49680, 49688 (apodyterium v), 79 GFN N 49706, 49708 (triclinium w). 24 Strocka (supra n. 22) 37. 25 V. M. Strocka, RM 91, 1984, 125ff. 26 PPP I, 26ff. Best illustration: 77 GFN N 34718. 27 Schefold (supra n. 9) pls. 136,137; PPP II, 358; Neg. DAI Berlin 76.2.251; 79.2.791; 78.2.144. See now K. Stemmer, Casa dellAra massima (VI 16, 15-17). Häuser in Pompeji VI (Munich 1992) 23f, figs. 120, 121, 123 ,138, 140. 28 PPP II, 60. Photos: 79 GFN N 48193 –4. 29 PPP I, 220f Photo: 77 GFN N 40590. Socle red, 45cm high. 30 PPP I, ibid. Photo: 77 GFN N 39484. 31 K. Schefold, Die Wände Pompejis (Berlin 1957) 113f; id. (supra n. 9) 119f pl. 98; PPP II, 195ff. Photos: 79 GFN N 35865-6. 32 Schefold, Wände (supra n. 31) 113; PPP II, 189ff. 33 Ostia: P. Baccini Leotardi, Pitture con decorazioni vegetali dalle terme, MonPitt III Ostia 5 (1978) passim ; Verona, Via Marsala: B. Forlati Tamaro, ArchCl 10, 1958,116ff. pl. 41: 3-4. 34 Switzerland: W. Drack, Die römische Wandmalerei der Schweiz (Basel 1950) 4f fig. 158 (Beil. 2); 79 pl. 20;114f pls. 21-2; id., AW 1980, no. 4,18ff. figs. 4, 6-8; Germany and France: Pictores per provincias (supra n. 13) 51 ff. figs. 2-5; 177f figs 10, 13; Spain: L. Abad Casal, Pintura romana en Espana (Alicante/Seville 1982) 48 fig. 31; 56 fig. 43; England: N. Davey–R. Ling, Wall painting in Roman Britain (Gloucester 1981) 96f. fig. 34; 106f fig. 39. A Fragment of a Roman Wall-Painting 257

Abbreviations

Bastet–de Vos F. L. Bastet–M. de Vos, Proposta per una classificazione del terzo stile pompeiano (Archeologischen Studien van het Nederlands Instituut to Rome, IV, 's-Gravenhage 1979) Ehrhardt W. Ehrhardt, Stilgeschichtliche Untersuchungen an römischen Wandmalereien von der späten Republik bis zur Zeit Neros (Mainz 1987) PPP I. Bragantini et al. (eds.) Pitture e pavimenti di Pompei. Repertorio delle fotografie del Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale I (Rome 1981) II (Rome 1983) PLATE 82 STROCKA

Fragment of a Roman wall-painting, Nicholson Museum inv. 80.49. STROCKA PLATE 83

1. Pompeii, House of the Vettii, ala h, detail of west wall.

2. Pompeii, House of Menander, Green Oecus 11, south wall, to the east of the door. PLATE 84 STROCKA

1. Pompeii, Casa della Venere in conchiglia, cubiculum 4, detail of south wall.

2. Pompeii, House of Meleager, triclinium 27, detail of east wall.