Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:23:58.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Greeks, Foreigners, and Roman Republican Portraits*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

R. R. R. Smith
R. R. R. Smith
Affiliation:
Magdalen College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first part of this paper looks briefly at Greek representations of foreigners and the first individualized Greek portraits and the connections between them. The second part looks at Roman Republican portraits and the problem of the origins of their style and suggests that they should be seen in a historical and psychological context as a Greek reaction to a new group of foreigners of special concern to Greek artists and Greeks in general.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 71 , November 1981 , pp. 24 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © R. R. R. Smith 1981. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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

1 Snowden, F. M., Blacks in Antiquity (1970), 42, fig. 12Google Scholar; cf. the similar plastic vase in the shape of a negro boy's head, in Boston: Boardman, J., The Greeks Overseas (2nd ed., 1973), 150Google Scholar, pl. 13a and cover.

2 Beazley, ARV 2 417. 4; J. Boardman, Athenian Red Figure Vases, the Archaic Period (1975), fig. 279; cf. ibid., 222 and A. Bovon, BCH 87 (1963), 579 f.

3 Loutrophoros, in Athens: Beazley, ARV 2 512. 13; Simon, E., Die Griechischen Vasen (1976), pl. 174Google Scholar; cf. K. Zimmerman, ‘Tätowierte Thrakerinnen auf Vasenbildern’, JdI 95 (1980), 193, no. 34.

4 Pelike, by the Pan Painter: Beazley, ARV 2 554. 82; Boardman (op. cit., n. 2), fig. 336.

5 Negroes: U. Hausmann, ‘Hellenistische Neger’, AM 77 (1962), 255 ff. Hellenistic genre figures: Stevenson, W. E., The pathological grotesque representation in Greek and Roman art (Diss. Univ. Pennsylvania, 1975)Google Scholar, with thoroughgoing disease diagnoses. For racial types: Richter, , Greek Portraits III (1960), 28–31,Google Scholar figs. 100–32; cf. Higgins, R. A., Greek Terracottas (1967), 112, 132Google Scholar.

6 Bienkowski, P. R., Die Darstellungen der Gallier in der hellenistischen Kunst (1908)Google Scholar; Wenning, R., Die Galateranatheme Attalos I (1978)Google Scholar.

7 cf. W. Gauer, JdI 83 (1968), 118 ff.; Metzler, D., Porträt und Gesellschaft (1971)Google Scholar; J. Dörig, in Eikones; Fest. H. Jucker (1980), 89 f, with literature on the old discussion about the beginning of Greek portraiture.

8 Kraay, C. M., Hirmer, M., Greek Coins (1966), nos. 621–2, 623, 718, 735Google Scholar.

9 Kraay-Hirmer (op. cit., n. 8), no. 721; G. K. Jenkins, Ancient Greek Coins (1972), figs. 289, 298.

10 Babelon, J., Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines IV (1926), 854, pl. 331. 1–3Google Scholar. I owe the suggestions about the coins of Cyzicus and Cotys to Dr. C. M. Kraay.

11 Waywell, G. B., The free-standing sculptures of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus (1978), 97 f.Google Scholar, no. 26, ed. 1979), pls. 13–14; Lullies-Hirmer, , Griechische Plastik (4th ed. 1979), pls. 198–9Google Scholar.

12 Lullies-Hirmer (op. cit., n. 11), pls. 196–7; Robertson, C. M., A History of Greek Art (1975), 517, pl. 159aGoogle Scholar.

13 Richter I, 99–101, figs. 413–25; Robertson (op. cit., n. 12), 188.

14 H. P. L'Orange, ‘Pausania’, in Rev. Arch. 6 Ser., 31–2, Mélanges Charles Picard 11 (1949), 668 f.Google Scholar; reprinted in Likeness and Icon (1973), 1–8.

15 von Heintze, H., Helbig 4 IV. 3019;Google Scholar G. Zinserling, Klio 38 (1960), 87 f.; A. Linfert, Ant. Plast. 7 (1967), 87 f., with full literature and summary of opinions; Robertson, (op. cit., n. 12), 188. Best illustrations: Lullies-Hirmer (op. cit., n. 11), pls. 120–21.

16 Sources in Richter I, 97.

17 cf. E. C. Evans, Physiognomies in the Ancient World (TAPS n.s. 59. 5, 1969), 10.

18 Richter 11, figs. 1533 f., 1397 f.

19 Richter I, figs. 131 f. (Pseudo-Seneca); 11, figs. 1111 f. (Chrysippus). The identification and date of the Chrysippus are generally accepted, and there is near-agreement to date the ‘Pseudo-Seneca’ either c. 200 B.C. or c. 200–150 B.C.: see H. von Heintze. RM 82 (1975), 154 for full discussion and summary of opinions.

20 Richter III, figs. 1925–7, 1973 f.; for excellent enlarged illustrations: Davis, N., Kraay, C. M., The Hellenistic Kingdoms (1973), figs. 129 f., 198–206Google Scholar; cf. also Richter, , Archaeology 16 (1963), 25–8Google Scholar. For the new tetradrachm of Mithridates V: M. Karamesini-Oikonomidou, in Stele: Fest. N. Kontoleon (1980), 149–53, pls. 49–51; Robert, L., Journal des Savants (1978), 154, fig. 5.Google Scholar

21 The term ‘Republican portraits’ will be used here to mean portraits of Romans made in the late Republican period. Except in the most general context, with a chronological sense, the term ‘Roman portraits’ should be avoided. Failure to specify sitters and artists has been the source of much confusion in the study of ‘late Hellenistic’ and ‘Roman’ portraits.

22 See Bandinelli, R. Bianchi, L'arte romana nel centro del potere (1969), 71, figs. 80, 84 (profile)Google Scholar.

23 For a typical view combining all sorts of artistic influences: Richter, , JRS 45 (1955), 39–46Google Scholar. For a survey of the literature and opinions: Hiesinger, ANRW I, 4 (1973), 805–20; Breckenridge, ibid., 826–54. Some more recent views: Robertson (op. cit., n. 12), 597–8; R. Brilliant, Roman Art (1974), 166 f.; D. Strong, Roman Art (1976), 17–19; Toynbee, 10–11; Zanker, 584 f.; Stewart, 65–88, 143 f. The best full account is Zanker's, the most stimulating Stewart's.

24 Sculptures: Vessberg, O., Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der römischen Republik (1941)Google Scholar; Schweitzer, B., Die Bildniskunst der römischen Republik (1948)Google Scholar. Coins: Crawford, M. H., Roman Republican Coinage (1974), 11, 745–50. GemsGoogle Scholar: Vollenweider, M. L., Die Porträtgemmen der römischen Republik (1972–1974)Google Scholar.

25 Crawford (op. cit., n. 24), no. 548/1; Boyce, A. A., in Hommages à A. Grenier (1962), 1, 342–50, pl. 70Google Scholar; Kent, J. P. C., Hirmer, M. A., Roman Coins (1978), no. 23, pl. 9.Google Scholar

26 On the supposed coin-portraits of P. Scipio Africanus see: Crawford (op. cit. n. 24), no. 296; Toynbee, 18–9.

27 The two most important are (I) the Copenhagen head (here pl. V, 2): Poulsen, V., Les portraits romains I (2nd ed. 1973), no. 1Google Scholar; (2) the Venice head: Traversari, G., Museo Archeologico di Venezia: i ritratti (1968), no. 10.Google Scholar On Pompey's iconography in general: Johansen, F., Medd. fra Ny Carls. Glypt. 30 (1973) 189–119Google Scholar; Toynbee, 24–8.

28 See esp. F. Coarelli, PBSR 45 (1977), 9 f.; Gros, P., Architecture et société A Rome et en Italie centro-méridionale aux deux derniers siècles de la République (Coll. Latomus 166, 1978)Google Scholar.

29 See Berger, E., ‘Ein Vorläufer Pompejus' des Grossen in Basel’, in Eikones: Fest. H. Jucker (1980), 64–75Google Scholar, with a list of Hafner's articles, 64 and n. 11.

30 See esp. Berger, ibid., 71 f.; cf. also Kähler, H., Pantheon 31 (1973), 1–14Google Scholar; and in a rather different vein, T. Hölscher, RM 85 (1978), 324 f.

31 Stylistic dating: Berger, Eikones (op. cit., n. 29), 71; Zanker, Studien zu den Augustus-Porträts I. Der Actium-Typus (1973), 36–7. Identification suggested by V. Poulsen, in Theoria: Fest. W. H. Schuchhardt (1960), 173; as A. Postumius Albinus (cos. 151 B.C.): Hafner, G., Das Bildnis des Q. Ennius (1968), 22 f.Google Scholar The ‘Ennius-Vergil’ type could well belong in the second century also: Hafner, op. cit.; cf. A. Giuliano, Catalogo dei ritratti romani del Museo Profano Laterense (1957), on nos. 4–5; Berger (loc. cit., 73 f.) suggests a tentative identification as Lucilius.

32 In general: Michalowski, C., Délos XIII (1932)Google Scholar; Hafner, G., Späthellenistische Bildnisplastik (1954)Google Scholar; A. Giuliano, RIA 8 (1959), 146 f.; Inan, J., Rosenbaum, E., Roman and early Byzantine portrait sculpture in Asia Minor (1960), nos. 135, 203, 284Google Scholar; Buschor, E., Das hellenistische Bildnis (2nd ed. 1971), 42 f.Google Scholar; Stewart, 65 f.; H. Weber, ÖJH 51 (1976–7), Beibl. 19–48. Zanker, nn. 2–5, gives refs. to other individual pieces, to which add now: two important new busts from Delos—BCH 93 (1969), 1031–43 fig. 22; BCH 99 (1975), 716–23, fig. 5; Stewart, pl. 20 a–b; a new head from Pergamon: Radt, AA (1975), 363, fig. 9; AA (1976), 315–6; and Inan, J., Alföldi-Rosenbaum, E., Römische und frühbyzantinische Porträtplastik aus der Türkei, Neue Funde (1979), nos. I, 122, 173, 248, 297Google Scholar (Republican date ?).

33 Stewart, 65–73.

34 Vollenweider, Porträtgemmen (op. cit., n. 24), 106 f., pl. 71; note the remarks by Zanker, 585 n. 13.

35 Crawford (op. cit., n. 24), 745 f.; Kent, Hirmer (op. cit., n. 25), 13 f.

36 Kleiner, D. E. E., Roman group portraiture; the funerary reliefs of the late Republic and early Empire (Diss. Columbia, 1975)Google Scholar; also fully treated by P. Zanker, JdI 90 (1975), 267 f.; and Frenz, H., Untersuchungen zu den frühen römischen Grabreliefs (Diss. Frankfurt am Main, 1974), esp. 76 f., 83 f.Google Scholar

37 Pompey: n. 27. Caesar: Johansen, F., Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 4 (1967), 7–68Google Scholar; Toynbee, 30–9. Cato: Toynbee, 39–41. Cicero: Johansen, , Medd. fra Ny Carls. Glypt. 29 (1972), 120–38Google Scholar; Toynbee, 28–30. Antony: Johansen, , Medd. fra Ny Carls. Glypt. 35 (1978), 55–81Google Scholar; Toynbee, 41–6. Octavian: Zanker, Actium-Typus (n. 31); Toynbee, 51–6. Agrippa: Johansen, , Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 6 (1971), 17–48;Google Scholar Toynbee, 63–7.

38 op. cit. (n. 24), esp. 142–3.

39 Richter, , JRS 48 (1958), 10Google Scholar f.; cf. Stewart, 76 ‘… the general free-for-all of late Republican artistic culture’.

40 Attempts clearly to distinguish two separate trends in Republican portraiture, one idealizing and Hellenistic, the other harsher, ‘traditional’ and ‘Roman’ on the various bases of function, chronology, geography, or social groups do not really match the evidence of the surviving portraits. See further below pp. 33.

41 Zanker, Actium-Typus (n. 31); Vierneisel, K., Zanker, P., Die Bildnisse des Augustus; Herrscherbild und Polittk int kaiserlichen Rom (1979)Google Scholar; Walker, S., Burnett, A., The Image of Augustus (1981)Google Scholar.

42 See Zanker, , Gymnasium 86 (1979), 353 f.Google Scholar; K. Fittschen, in Eikones: Fest. H. Jucker (1980), 108 f.; cf. also Zinserling, G., Wiss. Zeit. Jena 18 (1969), 193 f.Google Scholar

43 Most influential here have been von Weinberg, G. Kachnitz, Rend. Pont. Accad. 3 (1925), 325 f.Google Scholar; RM 41 (1926), 133 f. (reprinted in Ausgewählte Schriften 11 (1965), 5 f., 21 f.), and Schweitzer (op. cit., n. 24), 11 f.; cf. Zanker, 584 f., with literature in nn. 12–13.

44 e.g. for Schweitzer (op. cit., n. 24) 13, there was such a thing as ‘der römische Porträtist’; and apparently too, more recently, for Gross, W. H., in Hellenismus in Mittelitalien (1976), II, 573Google Scholar.

45 Artists in general: Toynbee, J. M. C., Some notes on artists in the Roman world (Coll. Latomus 6, 1951)Google Scholar; I Calabi Limetani, Studi sulla società romana; il lavoro artistico (1958). Sculptors and portraitists: Richter, G., Three critical periods in Greek sculpture (1951) ch. 3Google Scholar; Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 95 (1951), 184–208.

46 Overbeck, J., Die antiken Schriftquellen (1868), nos. 2206 f., 2227 f., 2262 f.Google Scholar

47 Painters: Toynbee (op. cit., n. 45), 37 f.; architects: ibid., 9 f.

48 So R. G. Austin, Aeneid VI (1977), on 848, but few other commentators. On Virgil's idiosyncratic use of ‘excudent’ and ‘ducent’: Bömer, , Hermes 58 (1952), 117 f.Google Scholar

49 There is no complete collection of artists' signatures from Italy. See Richter, , Three critical periods (1951), 45 f.Google Scholar, S3 f.; Toynbee (op. cit., n. 45), 24 f.; Löwy, E., Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer (1885), nos. 338–46, 364–5, 369–85Google Scholar. Lowy, no. 373—an Aphrodisian sculptor trying to sign in Latin—is exceptional.

50 Löwy (op. cit., n. 49), no. 334, from Olympia; possibly the same sculptor who signs as a slave at Rome, ibid., no. 378.

51 Vollenweider, M. L., Die Steinschneidkunst und ihre Künstler in spätrepublikanischer und augusteischer Zeit (1966), 139–41Google Scholar.

52 See Calabi Limetani (op. cit., n. 45) and Enc. Art. Ant. s.v. aerarius, architectus, argentarius, aurifex, caelator, eborarius, gemmarius, marmorarius, musivarius, pictor.

53 See previous note.

54 Influxes of artists: Plut. Aem. 6. 5 (168 B.C.); cf. Plut. Tit. 1. 1; Pliny, NH 35. 115 and 135. Marble statuary: first attested by Cic. Pro Arch. 9. 22, for the portrait of Ennius at the tomb of the Scipios, c. 150–40 B.C.; see Coarelli, in Hellenismus in Mittelitalien (1976), II, 24–6; Dial. Arch. 2 (1968), 325 f.

55 Esp. Pliny, NH 34. 34; cf. Varro, ap. Pliny, NH 35. 157–8; Livy 39. 6. 7–9.

56 Pliny, NH 36. 35; Cic. Ad Att. 6. 1. 17; Coarelli, Stud. Misc. 15 (1970), 75 f.; Stewart, 42 f. Other significant dates just before the middle of the second century are: 166 B.C.—Delos made a free port; 158 B.C.—the Roman forum cleared of old (old-fashioned?) honorific statues (Pliny, NH 34. 30); and 156 B.C.—Pliny's ‘revixit ars’ (NH 34. 52).

57 Torso of C. Ofellius Ferus: Délos XIII (1932), 21, fig. 13; Marcadé, Receuil des signatures 11 (1957), 41. Pseudo-Athlete: Délos XIII, pls. 14 f.; considered by G. Hafner to be by the same sculptors as the Ofellius, Späthellenistische Bildnisplastik (1954), 73.

58 It is impossible on the present evidence to say whether Republican portraits were first made in the Aegean area or at Rome; see Stewart, 73 f. with opinions and references. He assumes, with Zanker, that our first roughly datable examples, the Delian, were in fact the first; this is by no means a safe assumption. But it is probably not a very important issue: the artists and the sitters were available in both the Aegean and Rome from c. 190 B.C. onwards. Clients and artists moved around the Mediterranean, not disembodied stylistic influences.

59 Much of the relevant material is collected in the plates to Kaschnitz, , Ausgewählte Schriften II (1965)Google Scholar; cf. in general: Gross, W. H., in Hellenismus in Mittelitalien (1976), 11, 571 f.Google Scholar; Coarelli, Dial. Arch. 6 (1972), 97 f. Terracotta votive heads: see now esp. S. Steingräber, RM 87 (1980), 215–53; cf. Hafner, in Eikones; Fest. H. Jucker (1980), 130 f.; cf. also Roma medio-republicana (1973) for material of before c. 200 B.C.

60 Berlin head: Kaschnitz (op. cit., n. 59), pl. 17. Boston head: Hekler, A., Greek and Roman portraits (1912), pls. 144–5Google Scholar.

61 The champion of this view was Kaschnitz von Weinberg, op. cit., n. 43. More recently, E. K. Gazda, ANRW 1, 4 (1973), 855 f.; see the comments of Zanker, 594, n. 65.

62 Cristofani, M. et al. , Urne Volterrane I–II (1975–1977)Google Scholar; Dareggi, G., Urne del territorio perugino (1972)Google Scholar; D. Thimme, St. Etr. 23 (1954), 25 f.; St. Etr. 25 (1957), 87 f.

63 Laviosa, C., Scultura tardo-etrusca di Volterra (1965), 13–14Google Scholar; A. Maggiani, Mem. Acc. Line. (1976), 1 f.—the dating by Republican portraits renders the issue circular for us, but is no doubt methodologically correct.

64 Thimme, loc. cit., n. 62; on dating and tombgroups: M. Martelli et al., Caratteri dell'ellenismo nelle urne etrusche (1977) 86 f.; I. Krauskopf, Gnomon 52 (1980), 546 f.; cf. also Harris, W. V., Rome in Etruria and Umbria (1971), 175–84, 210–11, 303–18Google Scholar.

65 H. Drerup, ‘Totenmaske und Ahnenbild bei den Römern’, RM 87 (1980), 81–129.

66 Polyb. 6. 53. 5: ἡ δ' εἰκών ἐστι πρόσωπον εἰς ὁμοιότητα διαφερόντως ἐξειργασμένον καί κατὰ τὴν πλάσιν καί κατὰ τὴν ὑπογραφήν

67 Kaschnitz (op. cit., n. 59), pls. 13–4. Whatever their dates these two portraits probably represent the best of native Italian portraiture before it became ‘veristic’ under the influence of the new-style Republican portraits created by Greek artists; the ‘Samnite’ head is probably an original from such a context, c. 200 B.C., the ‘Brutus’ a much later, conscious re-creation of the style of the ‘old days’: see esp. Gross, W. H., in Hellenismus in Mittelitalien (1976), 11, 564 f.Google Scholar

68 In this whole passage on ancestral portraits (NH 35. 4–8) Pliny makes it doubtful that he has ever seen one of these painted wax faces.

69 Drerup (op. cit., n. 65), 98–9, pl. 50. 1; cf. J. Ward-Perkins, A. Claridge, Pompeii A.D. 79 (1976), 76–7.

70 Drerup (op. cit., n. 65), pl. 51; Bianchi Bandinelli (op. cit., n. 22), 80, figs. 85–7.

71 Catalogue in Drerup (op. cit., n. 65), 85 f., pls. 34 f.

72 cf. Jitta, A. Zadoks-Josephus, Ancestral portraiture in Rome (1932), 36 f.Google Scholar, cf. 89; Vessberg (op. cit., n. 24), 100; Brommer, RM 60–1 (1953–4), 164 f.; Adriani (loc. cit., n. 77), 106 f.; Hölscher, RM 85 (1978), 325 f.

73 It is hard to see why Drerup's hypothetical and undated change from wax to plaster deaths masks should make the difference he claims.

74 See above n. 67.

75 Pliny, NH 35. 153.

76 See below pp. 37, on the patron's role.

77 A. Adriani, ‘Ritratti dell' Egitto greco-romano’. RM 77 (1970), 72–100, esp. 98 f.

78 Drerup, H., Ägyptische Bildnisköpfe griechischer und römischer Zeit (1950)Google Scholar; Bothmer, B. V., Egyptian sculpture of the Late Period, 700 B.C.–A.D. 100 (1960), esp. 133 f., 164 f.Google Scholar Bothmer's Corpus of Late Egyptian Sculpture should clear up some of the difficulties here, when it appears.

79 Bothmer (op. cit., n. 78), no. 127; Adriani (op. cit., n. 77), 95–8.

80 Adriani (op. cit., n. 77), 75, 101 f., pl. 36. 2; R. S. Bianchi, in Das ptolemäische Ägypten (Ed. H. Maehler, V. M. Strocka, 1978), 95 n. 3, fig. 52 (with new reading); cf. Bothmer, ibid., 101.

81 Adriani (op. cit., n. 77), 101 f., pl. 51. 1.

82 There were Egyptians resident in the Peiraeus already in the fourth century B.C.: OCD 2 s.v. Isis.

83 This matter cannot be gone into here, but it seems to me that these portraits are to be connected with, and indeed are products of, the native Egyptian revival of the second century B.C. and that they are documents of the newly gained power and selfconfidence of the Egyptian upper class and priesthood which were being increased especially during and after the reign of Euergetes II (145–116 B.C.). The movement started in the later third century (after Raphia, 217 B.C.), in the course of which should be dated the portrait of Teos II—Bothmer (op. cit., n. 78), 129, fig. 250—which is not yet ‘veristic’. The harshly realistic examples probably started some time in the second century.

84 Harrison, E., Agora I (1954), no. 3Google Scholar; Stewart, 80 f., pl. 24. It could have been made any time in the later second or first century B.C.

85 Most influential in this approach have been: Buschor, E., Das hellenistische Bildnis (1st ed. 1949; 2nd ed. 1971)Google Scholar; G. Hafner, Späthellenistische Bildnisplastik 1954); cf. H. Weber, ÖJh 51 (1976–7), Beibl. 19 f.; Ktema 1 (1976), 113 f.

86 Most fully in Zur Rezeption …; cf. Actium-Typus (a. 31), 34 f.; followed by Berger (loc. cit., n. 29).

87 e.g. by G. Kleiner, ‘Der Bronzekopf von Delos, Grieche oder Römer’, Münch. Jhb. 1 (1950), 9 f.; Stewart, 91 n. 25. (The Delos head is surely either a Greek or at least a non-Roman.) Berger (loc. cit., n. 29) 67, sees ‘keinem prinzipiellen Unterschiede zwischen einem Bildnis eines Römers und eines Griechen, sofern es sich urn die gleiche Gesellschafts-und Berufsgruppe handelt’, but he then intuitively and consistently distinguishes portraits of Greek and Roman writers on pp. 73 f.

88 The first dated examples are the coin-portraits of Ariobarzanes I of Cappadocia (96–63 B.C.): Toynbee, 128, fig. 246. Like others in the Greek East, he adopted Republican style for political reasons: to show that the guarantors of his position were the Romans. I hope to return to these ‘Philorhomaioi’ elsewhere. Greek freedmen at Rome adopted Republican style in their grave reliefs for analogous reasons; see above p. 27 and n. 36.

89 Compare A. Fürtwangler, Die antiken Gemmen (1900), I, pls. 31–2 with pl. 47; Lippold, G., Gemmen und Kameen (1922), pl. 70 with pl. 71Google Scholar, cf. pls. 68–9.

90 Lattanzi, E., I ritratti dei cosmeti nel Museo Nazionale di Atene (1968)Google Scholar.

91 See e.g. Zanker, 589; Actium-Typus (n. 31), 34 f.; Berger (loc. cit., n. 29), 71 f.; Walker and Burnett, (op. cit. n. 41) 10 f.

92 Helbig 4 III. 2273; L. de Lachenal, in Museo Nazionale Romano, le sculture (1979), 198–201 with literature and opinions summarized; as Flamininus (unconvincingly): J. C. Balty, MEFRA 90 (1978) 669 f. Other hypothetical examples: statue of ‘Antony’ from Aphroditopolis—Kyrieleis, H., Bildnisse der Ptolemäer (1975), 70 f., pl. 59. 3–4Google Scholar; Krug, A., in Das ptol. Agypt. (n. 80), 15 f., figs. 25–8 (both reject the identification as Antony)Google Scholar; head of ‘Flamininus’ in Delphi—F. Chamoux, BCH 89 (1965), 214 f., figs. 1 f. (surely a Greek).

93 See above nn. 27, 37.

94 pace Michel, D., Alexander ah Vorbild für Pompeius, Caesar, und M. Antonius (1967)Google Scholar.

95 e.g. by Strong, D., Roman Art (1976), 13Google Scholar; Zanker, Actium-Typus (n. 31), 36.

96 Kent, Hirmer, Roman Coins (1978), no. 73, pl. 19.

97 Helbig 4 III. 2304; Talamo, E., Museo Nazionale Romano, le sculture (1979), 267 f.Google Scholar, figs. 163–4.

98 Berger (op. cit., n. 29), 64 f., pls. 20–1.

99 Richter, , Archaeology 16 (1963) 25 f.Google Scholar; Zanker, 589.

100 See below, p. 35 and pl. V, 1.

101 Proposed in its baldest form by MissRichter, , Three critical periods (1951), 60Google Scholar; cf. ead., Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks (4th ed. 1970), 248.

102 e.g. J. Hayes, Gainsborough (1975), pl. 65.

103 e.g. Lucian Freud (Arts Council of Great Britain, 1974), 29, no. 78.

104 Justin 38. 7. 1.

105 Bieber, M., The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (2nd ed. 1961), figs. 480–7Google Scholar; Neverov, O., Trudy Gosud. Ermitaža 13 (1972), 110–18,Google Scholar figs. 1–2; cf. A. Krug, AA (1969), 189–95—the Roman bust of Helios in Venice, there identified as Mithridates, is surely only a Helios.

106 Plut. Pomp. 2; cf. Appian, Mithr. 17. 117; Greenhalgh, P. A. L., Pompey: the Roman Alexander (1980)Google Scholar, index, s.v. Alexander.

107 See n. 27.

108 Roman Art (1976), 39.

109 See nn. 18 and 31.

110 Cic. Pro Flacc. 19.

111 Bowersock, G., Augustus and the Greek World (1965), 1Google Scholar.

112 On what follows: Fuchs, H., Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom (1938), 14 f., 40 f.Google Scholar; Forte, B., Rome and the Romans as the Greeks saw them (1972) chs. 1–2Google Scholar; Balsdon, J. P. V. D., Romans and Aliens (1979), esp. ch. 12Google Scholar; cf. also Toynbee, A., Hannibal's Legacy (1965), 11, 86–7Google Scholar; Momigliano, A., Alien Wisdom (1975), ch. 2Google Scholar; Petrochilos, N. K., Roman attitudes to the Greeks (1974)Google Scholar.

113 Plut. Pyrr. 16; Eratosthenes, quoted by Strabo 1. 4. 9.

114 Justin 28. 2. 8.

115 Polyb. 9. 37–9; 18. 22. 8; cf. 11. 5. 7; 10. 25; Livy 31. 29.

116 Polyb. 39. 3. 8–9.

117 27. 9–10.

118 Polyb. 29. 27. 4.

119 Justin 38. 6. 7–8.

120 Orac. Sib. 3. 469.

121 See Cato to his son on Greek doctors, who, according to him, were planning to eliminate all non-Greeks and furthermore ‘nos quoque barbaros dictitant’ (Pliny, NH 29. 13 f.; A. E. Astin, Cato the Censor (1978), 170 f.); this was the other side of the coin: Roman paranoia about Greeks and Greek culture.

122 9. 10; 39. 2. The whole subject has been thoroughly treated by Pape, M., Griechische Kunstvierke als Kriegsbeute (Diss. Hamburg 1975)Google Scholar.

123 Cic. In Verr. 2. 4. 132 f.; cf. 2. 2. 158 f.; Polyb. 39. 3. 9 f.; Livy 31. 30.

124 Cic. In Verr. 2. 2. 160–8.

125 Dr. J. J. Coulton tells me that this was also discussed in the case of architects at a recent colloquium in Rome (Dec. 1980).

126 See above n. 49.

127 Cic. In Verr. 2. 4. 132–4: ‘deinde hic ornatus, haec opera atque artificia, signa, tabulae pictae Graecos homines nimio opere delectant…. levia et contemnenda … haec oblectamenta et solacia servitutis’.

128 Cic. Tusc. 1. 2. 4; de Off. 1. 151; Virgil, Aen. 6. 847 f.; Seneca, in Lactantius, Div. Inst. 2. 2. 14; Plut. Per. 2. 1; Lucian, Somn. 9.

129 For the Hellenistic period see now Stewart, ch. 4, esp. 105, with literature in n. 24; cf. in general A. Burford, Craftsmen, in Greek and Roman Society (1972)—she concentrates on the similarities in the positions of craftsmen in Greece and Rome and between top artists and artisans and tends to blur the issues of nationality and status.

130 Enc. Art. Ant. VI, 723; L'arte romana nel centro del potere (1969), 79.

131 Kent, Hirmer (op. cit. n. 96), nos. 92–5, 98–9, pls. 25–8.

132 Stewart, 143–4.

133 By the Lex Villia of 180 B.C.: Livy 40. 44. 1.

134 Cic. De Orat. 3. 1. 3.

135 cf. I. Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina (1965), 63 f., 132, 222–46. (I thank N. Horsfall for this reference.)

136 On this distinction see Stewart, 94 n. 48.

137 Délos XIII (1932), pls. 14 ff.; cf. D. E. E. Kleiner, AA (1975) 250 f.

138 e.g. Stewart, 144 f.: ‘… a pastiche, a piece of pure kitsch, a monster of inauthenticity.’ One wonders what the statue might have looked like to which the original of the Copenhagen Pompey belonged and what abuse it might have received to-day.