No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
Two other kinds of art played an extremely important role in providing appropriate decoration for the domestic setting. Mosaics so often survive on Roman archaeological sites, even when little wall-painting remains, that we think of them as one of the most typical of Roman art-forms. Domestic sculptures were more portable and are harder to pin to their original locations, but they also are well known today. Eighteenth-century gentlemen shared the Romans’ tastes in sculpture, and Roman villas in Italy were excavated to produce many of the ancient works that can now be seen in British country houses and museums. Roman mosaics and domestic sculptures represent an enormous body of material and it is hard to make generalizations either about their character or their recent study. However, some general observations are required.
1 Stone was the main material, though terracotta was also used extensively for mosaics in some parts, and coloured glass was employed occasionally on floors, more regularly for e.g. garden fountains and vault mosaics. On classical mosaics generally see Smith (1983); Ling (1998); Dunbabin (1999). On the technique see Dunbabin (1999), 269–303; Henderson (2000); and Vitruvius, On Architecture 7.1.
2 See esp. Cohen (1997). Reference to possible ‘Original’ in Pliny, , Natural History 35.110 Google Scholar.
3 Pliny, , Natural History 36.184 Google Scholar. Dunbabin (1999), 26–28, fig. 26. Five examples survive: two in Italy and five in North Africa. The most important and famous is in the Vatican Museums.
4 Clarke (1979) on the effects of these black and white figurai mosaics. Also Dunbabin (1999), 61–2 and fig. 62 on this example.
5 Ling (1998), 49–60; Dunbabin (1999), 160–86.
6 Paphos: Daszewski and Michaelides (1988); Kondoleon (1995). Antioch: Dobbins (2000); Kondoleon (2000b).
7 See esp. Clarke (1991); Kondoleon (1995); Muth (1998); Scott (2000).
8 Work of this kind proceeds at a phenomenal rate and there is much still to be done. For a running bibliography on research see the Bulletin de l’Association Internationale pour l’Etude de la Mosaïque. Note the recently launched corpus Roman Mosaics of Britain, commencing with Neal and Cosh (2002), and the established series Mosaici Antichi in Italia.
9 Zanker (1998), esp. 16–19. Note Statius, Silvae 2.2, a eulogy of a friend’s villa, for a poetic evocation of otium.
10 For a good introduction to the tradition of representing all these figures see Smith (1991), 127–40.
11 An essential catalogue and commentary on the sculptural adornment of Italian villas is Neudecker (1988). On the use of sculpture in Pompeian properties etc. see Dwyer (1982); Jashemski (1979), 34–48 for sculptures in gardens.
12 Sogliano (1898); Jashemski (1979), 35–8, figs. 54–9; Jashemski (1993), 153–6, figs. 166–77.
13 Jashemski (1979), 289–314, figs. 458–61, 466–8, 480; Jashemski (1993), 293–301, figs. 331- 2, 336–42.
14 Also called the House of Loreius Tiburtinus. Jashemski (1993), 78–83, figs. 82–5; Zanker (1998), 145–56.
15 For discussion of this concept, based on Cicero, see Marvin (1993); the article includes the relevant letters.
16 Cicero, Ad Atticum 1.1, 1.3-11; Ad Familiares 7.23.
17 Zanker (1995), 9–14.
18 Note Zanker (1985), passim on Epicurus and 203–10 for philosophy and otium.
19 The key catalogues of the sculptures are Neudecker (1988), 105–8, 148–55 and Wojcik (1986). For most recent discoveries (marble heads of Amazon and Hera) see Pagano (2003).
20 English discussions in Warden and Romano (1994); Dillon (2000). Other key discussions in e.g. Pandermalis (1971); Sauron (1980).
21 Neudecker (1988).
22 Cf. Hölscher (1987), 11–13 on failure to give Roman cultural context to the Greek characteristics of works of art. The problem has nevertheless been recognized for a long time: note the pioneering Zanker (1974). Cf. recent catalogue: Fuchs (1992).
23 E.g. in Pollitt (1986). See also Smith (1991); 255–68 specifically on Hellenistic art and Rome.
24 Klein (1921); Pollitt (1986), 127–41.
25 See LIMC 3.1, 850–1049; 3.2, 609–727.
26 Zanker (1988), 243–5. Cf. Touchette (1995) on religiosity of domestic sculptures.
27 Touchette (1995).
28 The focus here is on private properties, but for baths see e.g. Manderscheid (1981); cf. DeLaine (1997), 69–84.
29 Hölscher (1987): ‘Bildsprache’.
30 Furtwängler (1895) was a pioneer of this approach. See Bieber (1977), 1–9 for the history of approaches to copies.
31 On Roman copying etc. see Ridgway (1984); Bartman (1988); Marvin (1993); Bergmann (1995); Gazda (1995); Stewart (2003), 231–49.
32 For evidence and critical discussion see Ajootian (1996), esp. 98–103.
33 Hallett (1995).
34 For perspectives on this question see copying bibliography cited above. My comments also rely on unpublished lectures by Amanda Claridge, a leading sceptic in the copying controversy.
35 Pliny, , Natural History 34.55 Google Scholar; cf. 34.18.
36 Vermeule (1977); Bartman (1988).