Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:08:53.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ART IN ANCIENT ROME. ByEugenie Strong. (Ars Una: Species Mille series). Heinemann. 1929. 2 vols. pp. xvi, 199, viii, 221, and 584 text-figures. 20s.

Review products

ART IN ANCIENT ROME. ByEugenie Strong. (Ars Una: Species Mille series). Heinemann. 1929. 2 vols. pp. xvi, 199, viii, 221, and 584 text-figures. 20s.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Thomas Ashby
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Antiquity , Volume 3 , Issue 11 , September 1929 , pp. 364 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1929 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* cf. also II, 83. ‘In the present inadequate state of our knowledge it is hazardous to establish hard and fast decisions on bare and comparatively slight differences of style’.

† A number of points of detail can easily be set right in a second edition; thus, the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, though it ‘had been burnt down by the Vitellian soldiery’ (II, 56), had been rebuilt by Vespasian and burnt down yet again in 80 A.D. before Domitian restored it. There is not a vestige of brickwork in the Mausoleum of Augustus (I, 136). The Claudian harbour was not ‘a good way ’ from the mouth of the Tiber at the time of its construction (I, 162). The reconstruction of the temple of Venus and Roma is attributed to Aurelian instead of Maxentius (II, 93) and the transference of the obelisk of Antinous to the Pincio is attributed to 1633 instead of 1822 (II, 108). In one or two cases (no doubt owing to the delays to which Mrs Strong alludes in her preface), the legends of the illustrations have been transposed (figs. 82 and 83, and figs. 180 and 181 may be cited).