DOCSLIB.ORG

“Arte Plebea” and Non‐Elite Roman Art

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Arte Plebea” and Non‐Elite Roman Art Chapter 11 “Arte Plebea” and Non‐elite Roman Art Lauren Hackworth Petersen Assessments of style and the formation of stylistic categories are staples of art‐historical research. As a method of critical inquiry, an analysis of style can be useful in defining a set of visual criteria that at once distinguishes some works of art from others, while grouping together those that share a definable pattern. For example, as historians of Roman art, we discuss wall decoration and painting styles (the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Styles) and what the characteristics and dates are for each (e.g., Mau 1882; cf. Ling 1991; Leach 2004; Strocka 2007), or define a historical style and interpret its meanings (such as Flavian art, which is dis­ tinguished from Julio‐Claudian art in appearance and message). Analyses of style thus create relationships among works of art primarily derived from drawing comparisons and contrasts based on visual characteristics. In fact, categories of style can be immensely useful, as they help to organize bodies of artistic material and to create historical narratives (Ackerman 1962). All of this may seem obvious and something that we may take for granted, but there is much at stake in defining categories of style—often with some problematic consequences. Such is the case with the study of Roman art. This chapter takes as a point of departure Jaś Elsner’s observation that style was once “king” of the discipline of art history. He asserts that it should be central to what we do as art histo­ rians, despite the fact that style as a method of art‐historical inquiry apparently died in the 1970s and 1980s (Elsner 2003, 98). In Roman art, however, investigations into style never really faded away. Rather, it could be argued that we put style to a different use than scholars did earlier in the twentieth century—that is, in the name of a social history of Roman art that produced the category of non‐elite art. Style and Roman Art To begin, we are confronted with the fact that the corpus of Roman art resists easy categoriza­ tion; it defies the type of internal, chronological/stylistic development that has traditionally been assigned to Greek art: archaic, severe, classical, late classical, and Hellenistic period styles (cf. Donohue 2005 for a rigorous challenge of this type of “objective” description). It has thus A Companion to Roman Art, First Edition. Edited by Barbara E. Borg. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. “Arte Plebea” and Non‐elite Roman Art 215 been commonplace to think about Roman art as wide‐ranging and diverse, with eclecticism being its defining attribute: eclecticism is what makes Roman art Roman (Bianchi Bandinelli 1970; Brendel 1979; Kleiner 1992, 9–11). Indeed, at a given time or on a single Roman monument, we can sometimes detect the presence of more than one style. The column base of Antoninus Pius (161 CE) serves as an excellent and oft‐cited example (Figures 11.1–11.2). Of its four sides, one contains an inscription, one a scene of apotheosis, and the other two are identical and show the funerary decursio, military maneuvers in honor of the deceased (Vogel 1973; Kleiner 1992, 285–288; Davies 2004, 40–42, 96–101). The apotheosis scene owes much of its appearance to the classical tradition in ancient art. The figures are carved against a plain background and with a single ground line, which serves to provide a steadying frame with which we view the image head on. The bodies themselves are rendered in what we tend to consider as pleasing, naturalistic proportions. With the strong use of vertical and horizontal lines (except for the winged genius/Aion), the composition is calm. The faces likewise carry solemn, almost aloof expressions. In contrast, the identical reliefs depicting the decursio are often described as being non‐classical or as simply different from the apotheosis relief (Kleiner 1992, 285). While the figures are carved against a plain background, they are pitched in high relief, creating deep pockets of shadow. The scene is depicted with two simultaneous view­ points—the men in the central portion are seen head on, and those on horseback are seen uneasily in a tilted perspective. Yet the latter group occupies several horizontally placed turf segments, forcing viewers to read the cavalrymen both head on and as if from above. The horses and bodies are put into motion with the use of diagonal lines. One could also point out that the men appear disproportionately large for the horses and are of relatively solid or sturdy proportions. Figure 11.1 Apotheosis of Antoninus Pius and Faustina, from the base of the Column of Antoninus Pius, 161 CE. Rome, Vatican Museums, Cortile delle Corazze. Photo: Scala/Art Resource, NY – ART45685. 216 Lauren Hackworth Petersen Figure 11.2 Parade of soldiers, from the base of the Column of Antoninus Pius, 161 CE. Rome, Vatican Museums, Cortile delle Corazze. Photo: Scala/Art Resource, NY – ART 22011. How we describe objects reveals our values and priorities. To describe the decursio reliefs as unclassical reifies a bias toward more classically rendered artistic forms, which is to say that the decursio reliefs are typically put up against the normalized standard as depicted on the apothe­ osis relief, whether explicitly or implicitly. Despite many recent and outstanding attempts to question the primacy of classically rendered images (namely, imperial images), dualisms are alive and strong in the study of Roman art. This essay briefly summarizes some of the assump­ tions that seem to lie behind these dualisms, with an eye toward understanding the circum­ stances leading to Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli’s influential theory of the plebeian tradition (arte plebea) in Roman art and its aftermath. It concludes with some recent contextual and social approaches that attempt to integrate the seemingly unwieldy corpus of Roman art objects into the canon, while pointing to some strategies that we might consider in describing Roman art and in narrating its multipronged histories (cf. Kampen 1995 and 2003). A History of Roman Art History Most surveys of Roman art tend to present a narrative that is biased toward the capital city of Rome, thereby privileging monuments produced by and for the emperors and the imperial retinue (there are exceptions, to be sure: e.g., D’Ambra 1998; Elsner 1998b; to some extent Kleiner 2010; Knapp 2011). Indeed, the city of Rome was a city defined by its emperors (Hope 2000). It is no coincidence that if surveys of Roman art focus on the capital city, they will thus necessarily construct a history that follows the lives of the emperors, thereby “erasing” “Arte Plebea” and Non‐elite Roman Art 217 from history what does survive of those individuals of ordinary means in Rome; namely, the large numbers of tombs and their artifacts. Beyond these funerary monuments, however, Rome preserves precious little of the non‐elite inhabitants of the city. For this material, one needs to look outside Rome, to urban centers and communities within Italy and beyond. This evidence can be overwhelmingly voluminous, nevertheless. The territories of the Roman empire were vast and complex, but fixedly on the margins of the capital city and thus in scholarly thought— until recently. Moreover, the somewhat pejorative terms that historians invoke to explore the patronage of art produced by and for those outside elite circles—non‐elite, sub‐elite, plebeian, subaltern, and so on—reveal a clear bias toward the elite. These artistic commissions tend to be defined monolithically by what they are not (i.e., non‐elite), in part because their histories do not readily fit into the narrative constructed for Roman art, which emphasizes the artistic patronage of and for the emperors. All of these biases aside, what the early imperial dynasties produced was an artistic vocab­ ulary that largely looked to the Hellenic world for its inspiration, and scholars have long recognized the rich legacy that the Romans inherited from the Greeks (e.g., Beard and Henderson 2001; Gazda 2002; Marvin 2008). For example, Augustus’ Ara Pacis (9 BC; Figures 10.4–10.5) is often referred to as reviving fifth‐century BCE ideals of classicism, whereas the interior relief panels of the Arch of Titus (81 CE) looked more to Hellenistic models, with their dramatically deep carving and depiction of lively movement. However, as we know, not all Roman art imperial forms took their cues from the Greek visual tradition, such as the previously mentioned decursio reliefs of the column base of Antoninus Pius. Recognizing that artistic production of the later imperial period (post 150 CE) looks differ­ ent from its early imperial counterpar ts, art historians of the first half of the twentieth century sought to explain the motivations behind and the sources of the fundamental stylistic change—what is called the Stilwandel—citing it as a late antique style that was deliberately unclassical (and non‐Hellenic), with its rigid frontality and comparatively unnaturalistic figural proportions. (It was a style that scholars would eventually link to non‐elite artistic production; see Brendel 1979 and Clarke 2003, 2–3, for a historiography of attitudes to Roman art.) Implicit in discussions of the Stilwandel is the scholarly desire to locate Roman art within theories of stylistic development that could be mapped out in a way somewhat analogous to the perceived trajectory of Greek art, which was accepted as the norm, thus permitting Roman art to “fit” into larger art‐ historical narratives. As late as the mid‐twentieth century, Bernard Berenson’s (in)famous attack on the Arch of Constantine (315 CE) reveals that biases that favored Greek‐inspired form persisted in no uncertain terms; he could find no justification for the seemingly barbarous departure from Greek models in the art of Constantine.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Burial of the Urban Poor in Italy in the Late Republic and Early Empire
    Death, disposal and the destitute: The burial of the urban poor in Italy in the late Republic and early Empire Emma-Jayne Graham Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Archaeology University of Sheffield December 2004 IMAGING SERVICES NORTH Boston Spa, Wetherby West Yorkshire, LS23 7BQ www.bl.uk The following have been excluded from this digital copy at the request of the university: Fig 12 on page 24 Fig 16 on page 61 Fig 24 on page 162 Fig 25 on page 163 Fig 26 on page 164 Fig 28 on page 168 Fig 30on page 170 Fig 31 on page 173 Abstract Recent studies of Roman funerary practices have demonstrated that these activities were a vital component of urban social and religious processes. These investigations have, however, largely privileged the importance of these activities to the upper levels of society. Attempts to examine the responses of the lower classes to death, and its consequent demands for disposal and commemoration, have focused on the activities of freedmen and slaves anxious to establish or maintain their social position. The free poor, living on the edge of subsistence, are often disregarded and believed to have been unceremoniously discarded within anonymous mass graves (puticuli) such as those discovered at Rome by Lanciani in the late nineteenth century. This thesis re-examines the archaeological and historical evidence for the funerary practices of the urban poor in Italy within their appropriate social, legal and religious context. The thesis attempts to demonstrate that the desire for commemoration and the need to provide legitimate burial were strong at all social levels and linked to several factors common to all social strata.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Construction, Labor, and Society at Middle Republican Rome, 390-168 B.C
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2012 Men at Work: Public Construction, Labor, and Society at Middle Republican Rome, 390-168 B.C. Seth G. Bernard University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, and the History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons Recommended Citation Bernard, Seth G., "Men at Work: Public Construction, Labor, and Society at Middle Republican Rome, 390-168 B.C." (2012). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 492. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/492 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/492 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Men at Work: Public Construction, Labor, and Society at Middle Republican Rome, 390-168 B.C. Abstract MEN AT WORK: PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION, LABOR, AND SOCIETY AT MID-REPUBLICAN ROME, 390-168 B.C. Seth G. Bernard C. Brian Rose, Supervisor of Dissertation This dissertation investigates how Rome organized and paid for the considerable amount of labor that went into the physical transformation of the Middle Republican city. In particular, it considers the role played by the cost of public construction in the socioeconomic history of the period, here defined as 390 to 168 B.C. During the Middle Republic period, Rome expanded its dominion first over Italy and then over the Mediterranean. As it developed into the political and economic capital of its world, the city itself went through transformative change, recognizable in a great deal of new public infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-02320-8 - Campus Martius: The Field of Mars in the Life of Ancient Rome Paul W. Jacobs II and Diane Atnally Conlin Frontmatter More information CAMPUS MARTIUS A mosquito-infested and swampy plain lying north of the city walls, Rome’s Campus Martius, or Field of Mars, was used for much of the Roman Republic as a military training ground and as a site for celebratory rituals and the occasional political assembly. Initially punctuated with temples vowed by victorious generals, during the imperial era it became filled with extraordinary baths, theaters, porticoes, aqueducts, and other structures – many of which were architectural firsts for the capital. This book explores the myriad factors that contributed to the transformation of the Campus Martius from an occasionally visited space to a crowded center of daily activity. It presents a case study of the repurposing of urban landscape in the Roman world and explores how existing topographical features that fit well with the republic’s needs ultimately attracted architecture that forever transformed those features but still resonated with the area’s original military and ceremonial traditions. Paul W. Jacobs II is an independent scholar who focuses on ancient Rome and its topographical development. A graduate of Harvard College and the University of Virginia Law School, and a litigator by training, Jacobs has practiced and published in the area of voting rights, where knowledge of demographics, mapmaking, and geography is essential. He has spent extensive time in Rome and has studied the ancient city and its development for decades. Diane Atnally Conlin is Associate Professor of Classics at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
    [Show full text]
  • Roman Art Kindle
    ROMAN ART PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Paul Zanker | 216 pages | 10 Jan 2012 | Getty Trust Publications | 9781606061015 | English | Santa Monica CA, United States Roman Art PDF Book If you don't know about Paracas textiles Construction of the Baths of Diocletian , for instance, monopolised the entire brick industry of Rome, for several years. Roman aqueducts , also based on the arch, were commonplace in the empire and essential transporters of water to large urban areas. The Romans also made frequent use of the semicircular arch, typically without resorting to mortar: relying instead on the precision of their stonework. The heads of the Marcus Aurelius figures are larger than normal, to show off their facial expressions. However it never lost its distinctive character, especially notable in such fields as architecture, portraiture, and historical relief. This led to a popular trend among the ancient Romans of including one or more such statues in the gardens and houses of wealthier patrons. With the authenticity of the medallion more firmly established, Joseph Breck was prepared to propose a late 3rd to early 4th century date for all of the brushed technique cobalt blue-backed portrait medallions, some of which also had Greek inscriptions in the Alexandrian dialect. They also served an important unifying force. Useing vivid colours it simulates the appearance of marble. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Sculpture: Types and Characteristics. A higher relief is used, permitting greater contrast between light and shadow. Further information: Roman portraiture. As another example of the lost "Golden Age", he singled out Peiraikos , "whose artistry is surpassed by only a very few But flagship buildings with domes were far from being the only architectural masterpieces built by Ancient Rome.
    [Show full text]
  • The Archaeological and Social Analysis of Insulae in Roman Ostia from the 1St to the Mid-4Th Century CE
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2017 Rental housing and urban property: The archaeological and social analysis of insulae in Roman Ostia from the 1st to the mid-4th century CE. Tipton, Katherine Tipton, K. (2017). Rental housing and urban property: The archaeological and social analysis of insulae in Roman Ostia from the 1st to the mid-4th century CE. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/27629 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/3680 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Rental housing and urban property: The archaeological and social analysis of insulae in Roman Ostia from the 1st to the mid-4th century CE. by Katherine S Tipton A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN GREEK AND ROMAN STUDIES CALGARY, ALBERTA MARCH, 2017 © Katherine S Tipton 2017 Abstract Rental housing was abundant in the Roman city. Evidence for this form of housing is found in almost every structural type: horrea, terme, balnea, insulae, etc. It stands to reason that the evidence for the relationship between the owners or operators of the buildings and the tenants would be visible in the archaeological record.
    [Show full text]
  • Building in Early Medieval Rome, 500-1000 AD
    BUILDING IN EARLY MEDIEVAL ROME, 500 - 1000 AD Robert Coates-Stephens PhD, Archaeology Institute of Archaeology, University College London ProQuest Number: 10017236 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10017236 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract The thesis concerns the organisation and typology of building construction in Rome during the period 500 - 1000 AD. Part 1 - the organisation - contains three chapters on: ( 1) the finance and administration of building; ( 2 ) the materials of construction; and (3) the workforce (including here architects and architectural tracts). Part 2 - the typology - again contains three chapters on: ( 1) ecclesiastical architecture; ( 2 ) fortifications and aqueducts; and (3) domestic architecture. Using textual sources from the period (papal registers, property deeds, technical tracts and historical works), archaeological data from the Renaissance to the present day, and much new archaeological survey-work carried out in Rome and the surrounding country, I have outlined a new model for the development of architecture in the period. This emphasises the periods directly preceding and succeeding the age of the so-called "Carolingian Renaissance", pointing out new evidence for the architectural activity in these supposed dark ages.
    [Show full text]
  • Under Pompeii's Ashes
    Under Pompeii’s Ashes: Contesting Roman Identities Contesting Roman identities and beyond: week 7 MWF 10:00-10:50 Eva Mol This week • Roman art and Pompeii • Visual culture and Roman art in houses • RISD Museum ART? • the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture • producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power Roman art? • What we call “Roman art” was not “art” as far as Romans were concerned • “Roman art” is a modern category; it fulfills modern expectations of “art” • Art to us • Art to Romans • Visual culture Style • Greek ‘copies’ • Eclectic-visual culture • Official versus private (otium/negotium) • Arte Plebea Greek vs Roman art We cannot be so elegant, let us be more forceful They win in terms of refinement, let us excell in weight Their sense of propriety is more sure, let us surpass them in our copiousness Even te lesser talents of the Greeks have their harbours, we are usually driven by larger sails. So let them be filled by a stronger wind Quintilius, marcus fabuis Quintiianus, 35 AD Roman spain. Educated in Rome Roman copy myth • Hallet: Roman’s did copy: authenticity • Gazda: no they did not: emulation Focus on original • http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/thanks- sneaky-scanners-anyone-can-3d-print-copy-nefertitis- bust-180958213/?no-ist • For the first time since the sculpture was excavated and stolen over 100 years ago, the iconic artefact will be shown in Cairo... With the data leak as a part of this counter narrative we want to activate the artefact, to inspire a critical re-assessment of today’s conditions and to overcome the colonial notion of possession in Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Cincinnati
    UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date: 11-09-2006 I, Mark Andrew Atwood, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Arts in: The Department of Classics It is entitled: Trajan’s Column: The Construction of Trajan’s Sepulcher in Urbe This work and its defense approved by: Chair: Peter van Minnen William Johnson Trajan’s Column: The Construction of Trajan’s Sepulcher in Urbe A thesis submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences 2006 By MARK ANDREW ATWOOD B.A., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 2004 Committee Chair: Dr. Peter van Minnen Abstract Eutropius (8.5.2) and Dio (69.2.3) record that after Trajan’s death in A.D. 117, his cremated remains were deposited in the pedestal of his column, a fact supported by archeological evidence. The Column of Trajan was located in urbe. Burial in urbe was prohibited except in certain circumstances. Therefore, scholars will not accept the notion that Trajan overtly built his column as his sepulcher. Contrary to this opinion, I argue that Trajan did in fact build his column to serve as his sepulcher. Chapter 1 examines the extensive scholarship on Trajan’s Column. Chapter 2 provides a critical discussion of the relevant Roman laws prohibiting urban burial. Chapter 3 discusses the ritual of burial in urbe as it relates to Trajan. Chapter 4 identifies the architectural precedent for Trajan’s Column and precedent for imperial burials in urbe.
    [Show full text]
  • Pompeii and the Roman Villa
    Pompeii and the Roman Villa ART AND CULTURE AROUND THE BAY OF NAPLES __________________________________________________________________________________________________ HE ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHER EPICURUS STATED: “PLEASURE IS THE BEGINNING and end of living happily.” This statement rang true for prominent Romans who spent their leisure time in luxurious villas and houses in the towns of TPompeii, Herculaneum, and other ancient Roman towns that were centers of activity along the Bay of Naples in the first century BC and the first century AD. Epicurus’s philosophy appealed to many Romans who retreated to their country homes in the spring and summer months to enjoy a respite from their working lives in Rome. Pompeii, in the region of Campania, retained its Greek culture and character after becoming a Roman colony in 80 BC. The Romans considered Greece a source of culture, beauty, and wisdom, and knowledge of Greek culture was a status symbol that signaled refinement and education. Greek influence pervaded the decor of Roman residences around the Bay of Naples and was reflected in the works of art both acquired and emulated by Roman patrons. Some Romans, when on vacation, even wore Greek dress—such as a chiton for men or a peplos for women—rather than the standard toga of the day. These curriculum materials explore the cultural and artistic life in Pompeii and other towns around the Bay of Naples in the centuries leading up to the eruption of Vesuvius in the year 79. Two works of art, the mosaic Plato’s Academy (1st century BC–1st century AD) and the fresco Garden Scene (1st century BC–1st century AD), are examples of the embellishments applied to the gardens and interiors of Pompeian villas.
    [Show full text]
  • Roman Art from the Louvre
    Roman Art from the Louvre Resource for Educators American Federation of Arts Roman Art from the Louvre Resource for Educators American Federation of Arts Roman Art from the Louvre is organized by the American Federation of Arts and the Musée du Louvre. The exhibition is supported by an indemnity American Federation of Arts 305 East 47th Street, 10th floor from the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities. New York, NY 10017 212.988.7700 The AFA is a nonprofit institution that organizes art exhibitions for presen- www.afaweb.org tation in museums around the world, publishes scholarly exhibition cata- logues, and develops educational materials and programs. © 2007 American Federation of Arts All materials included in this resource may be reproduced for educational purposes. Please direct questions about this resource to: Suzanne Elder Burke Director of Education American Federation of Arts 212.988.7700 x226 [email protected] Exhibition Itinerary Indianapolis Museum of Art September 23, 2007–January 6, 2008 Seattle Art Museum February 21–May 11, 2008 Oklahoma City Museum of Art June 19–October 12, 2008 Design/Production: Emily Lessard Front cover: Fragment of a Relief of a Double Suovetaurilia Sacrifice (detail), 1st or 2nd quarter of 1st century A.D. (no. 4) Back cover: Knife Handle in the Shape of a Thracian Gladiator, 2nd half of 1st century A.D. (no. 6) CONTENTS About This Resource 4 Exhibition Overview 5 Ancient Roman Society 6 History of Ancient Rome Government—The Emperor and the Senate Citizenship Non-Citizens—Foreigners, Slaves, and Freedmen Leisure 10 The Baths Roman Theater Circus Maximus The Amphitheater Religion 11 Guide to Roman Gods and Goddesses 13 Guide to Roman Vessel Forms 16 Interesting Facts about Ancient Rome 18 Selected Works of Art 19 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Roman Art: Pompeii and Herculaneum
    Roman Art: Pompeii and Herculaneum August 24, 79 AD A Real City with Real People: The Everyday Roads & Stepping Stones Thermopolia …hot food stands Pistrina Pistrina = bakery Aerial view of the forum (looking northeast), Pompeii, Italy, second century BCE and later. (1) forum, (2) Temple of Jupiter (Capitolium), (3) basilica. The Forum Aerial view of the amphitheater, Pompeii, Italy, ca. 70 BCE. Brawl in the Pompeii amphitheater, wall painting from House I,3,23, Pompeii, Italy, ca. 60–79 CE. Fresco, 5’ 7” x 6’ 1”. Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples. Pompeii was surrounded by a wall about 2 miles long Outside the Wall • Pompeians buried their dead outside the city wall. Inside the Walls • Buildings are packed close together Houses Restored view and plan of a typical Roman house of the Late Republic and Early Empire (John Burge). (1) fauces, (2) atrium, (3) impluvium, (4) cubiculum, (5) ala, (6) tablinum, (7) triclinium, (8) peristyle. Floor Plan – Villa of the Mysteries • The main entrance often included mosaics “CAVE CANEM” House of the Tragic Poet Atrium An atrium had a compluvium and an impluvium What was the purpose of these features? Purposes: • Collect rain water • Allow light to come in Reconstruction of the atrium at the Villa of the Faun Peristyles (court yards) House of the Vettii Villa of the Mysteries Wall Paintings • Generally, elaborate paintings covered the walls of every room Studious Girl, Fresco from a Pompeii Home. Not a portrait of an individual. Its purpose is too show that the inhabitants of the house were literate and cultured people. The Four Pompeian Styles • Division = Based on differences in treatment of wall and painted space First Pompeian Style • began 2nd century BCE • Goal: imitate expensive marble House of Sallust Samnite House, Herculaneum Second Pompeian Style • Began early 1st century BCE • Goal: create a 3D world on a 2D surface Villa of the Mysteries (oecus – banquet hall) Dionysiac mystery frieze, Second Style wall paintings in Room 5 of the Villa of the Mysteries, Pompeii, Italy, ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    INDEX Achilles (subject) 42–43, 140, 156, 161, 170, 291; Arches Basilica 81 Figs. 2.23, 6.26, 10.19 Arc de Triomphe, Paris 359–360; Aemilia 135–136; Fig. 5.22 acroterion 33, 37, 39; Fig. 2.14 Fig. 12.26 Constantine, Trier 338–339; Figs. 12.4–12.5 Actaeon (subject) 176, 241; Figs. 6.33, 8.34 Arcus Novus, Rome 311 Nova, Rome 340; Figs. 12.6–12.7 Adamclisi, Tropaeum Traiani 229–230; of Argentarii, Rome 287; Figs. 10.14, 10.15 Pompeii 81–83; Figs. 4.5, 4.6 Figs. 8.20–8.21 of Constantine, Rome 341–346; Severan, Lepcis Magna 296, 299; adlocutio 116, 232, 256; Figs. 5.2, 8.24, 9.13 Figs. 12.8–12.11 Figs. 10.26–10.27 adventus 63, 203, 228, 256, 313, 350; of Galerius, Thessalonica 314–315; Ulpia, Rome 216; Fig. 8.5 Figs. 7.25, 8.23 Figs. 11.15–11.16 Baths aedicular niche 133; Fig. 5.20 of Marcus Aurelius, Rome 256; Fig. 9.13 of Agrippa, Rome 118, 185, 279 aedile 12 of Septimius Severus, Lepcis of Caracalla, Rome 279–283; Aemilius Paullus 16, 65, 126 Magna 298–299; Figs. 10.28, 10.29 Figs. 10.7–10.10 Victory Monument 16, 107–108; of Septimius Severus, Rome 284–286; of Cart Drivers, Ostia 242–244; Fig. 8.37 Figs. 4.30, 4.31 Figs. 10.11–10.13 of Diocletian, Rome 320–322; Aeneas 27, 121, 122, 126, 127, 135, 140, 156, of Titus, Rome 201–203; Figs. 7.22–7.24 Figs.
    [Show full text]