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
This chapter and the next are concerned with Roman domestic art. But the term ‘domestic art’ may create a slightly misleading impression of the paintings, mosaics and sculptures, the statuettes and stuccoes with which the inhabitants of the Roman world adorned the rooms and gardens of their houses. The phrase implies domesticity and homeliness – a comfortable backdrop for private family life, perhaps. But the properties that offer the best surviving evidence of ‘domestic’ Roman art were less intimate and more public than most modern homes. Like the interiors of modern homes, the works of art contained in such houses and villas said much about the status and concerns of those sufficiently affluent to possess them; but they did so in a much more obvious and imposing manner and, unlike modern decor, these works often represented a considerable investment of specialized labour on the part of Roman craftsmen.
1 For problems with the notion of ‘the private sphere’ see Gazda (1991), introduction at 4–6. Wallace-Hadrill (1994), esp. 17–23.
2 See esp. Pliny, Natural History 35. Strong (1993) touches on important paintings in Rome. On private picture-galleries see also Leach (1982).
3 For an overview of the subject see e.g. Liversidge (1983); Barbet (1985); Ling (1991).
4 There is still much debate about the precise materials and techniques used, though valuable evidence is provided at Pompeii by houses that were in the process of being redecorated when the town was destroyed, the most recently excavated being the House of the Chaste Lovers: Varone and Bearat (1997). For general information on Roman fresco painting see Ling (1991), 198–211; Ling and Ling (2000).
5 For good introductions to Pompeii and its art see e.g.: Ward-Perkins and Claridge (1976); Nappo (1998).
6 On the discovery and preservation treatment of Pompeii etc. see e.g. Etienne (1992); Berry (1998), 3–9; Parslow (1995) - early excavations. The history is also documented on the Archaeological Superintendency’s website: www.pompeiisites.org/database/pompei/pompei2.nsf. Many of the paintings removed in early excavations are now preserved in the National Archaeological Museum in Naples. The standard photographic survey of what does survive or has been documented is Pompei: pitture e mosaici, 11 vols. (Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1990–2003). Among various documentation projects note also the series Häuser in Pompeji, volumes of which have been appearing every year or two since 1984.
7 Mau (1882); (1899).
8 For further discussion see Laidlaw (1985); Ling (1991), 12–22.
9 For Greek precedents see above and Barbet (1985), 12–25.
10 See Ling (1991), 23–51 for overview. Key studies are Beyen (1938); Beyen (1960); Ehrhardt (1987).
11 Rizzo (1936). Iacopi (1991) on new finds.
12 Leach (1982) and (1988), 102–3, esp. 102 n. 73, prefers to see the ‘porticus style’ as a fairly localized phenomenon; she argues that they evoke not public sanctuaries but the luxury of the shrines and colonnades within the richest of late republican aristocratic villas. She therefore plays down their religious connotations. On Oplontis see also e.g. Clarke (1991), 112–40.
13 See Camerota (1999). Richter (1970) is more sceptical.
14 Maiuri (1931). For some recent discussions of the Mysteries Room see e.g. Veyne, Lissarrague, and Frontisi-Ducroux (1998); Gazda (2001). Henderson (1996) is a difficult but stimulating account. On the illusionism and use of space see Herbig (1958). Clarke (1991), 94–105; Ling (1991), 101–4 for brief accounts.
15 Esp. Vitruvius 7.5.2. Beyen (1938), esp. 108ff for; Lehmann (1953), esp. 91–4 against; Leach (1988), 101 n. 68 for summary of other arguments.
16 Leach (1982) on pinacothecae etc. On the Farnesina villa see Leach (1982), 153–55; Sanzi di Mino (1998) is the official guide.
17 Vitruvius, On Architecture 7.5.
18 See Ling (1991), 52–70. Key studies are Bastet and de Vos (1979), cautiously dating it from C.20 BC to AD 45, and Ehrhardt (1987).
19 See Ling (1991), 71–100. More detailed study in e.g. Archer (1990). The most extensive example of its use outside Campania is the surviving pavilion of the Golden House (Domus Aurea), Nero’s palace in Rome, which was built c.AD 64–9: see Segala and Sciortino (1999) and Chapter Two.
20 Some authors adopt German terminology to describe these features: Durchblicke (views- through) and Vorhänge (hangings); the expanses of colour do sometimes resemble textiles stretched across the wall.
21 Mau (1882), iii.
22 It is usually assumed that the changing styles of painting in Pompeii imitate current fashions in Rome and this is bound to be true in general if not in all specifics (note objection in Leach (1988), 102–3). There is some evidence of the ‘diffusion’ of at least the first three styles to the western provinces: summary in Woolf (1998), 203–4.
23 Criticism has always been fairly limited, but note e.g. Hinks (1933), xxxvi-xliii: ‘arbitrary and unscientific ... no real progress is possible until the framework contrived by Mau is wholly abandoned . . .’.
24 For key examples see references for each individual style.
25 The only comprehensive overview of all periods of Roman painting, Dorigo (1971), abandons clear-cut stylistic phases after AD 79 and structures the discussion around anonymous master- painters. For a useful short overview of post-Pompeian domestic painting see Clarke (1991), 72–6; Ling (1991), 175–97.
26 For an insight into different approaches to research note also the debate conducted in the the Journal of Roman Archaeology in 2001/2002: JRA 14, 33–55 (Tybout); 14, 56–8 (Bergmann); 14, 414ff (Hallett); 15, 346–8 (Tybout).
27 As illustrations see esp. Ragghianti (1963); Richardson (2000) with history of the approach at 18–22.
28 For an attempt to explain the development of the third style in these terms see Leach (1982). Cf. Zanker (1988), 279–85 and Wallace-Hadrill (1994), 29–30 on the possibility of a link between changes in wall-painting and Augustan ideology; also Galinsky (1996), 179–97.
29 See e.g. the following. Still life: Bryson (1990), esp. 16–59; De Caro (1999). Landscapes: Peters (1963); Leach (1988); Clarke (1996). Erotic scenes: Clarke (1998); Varone (2000).
30 Some studies are quite focused. For a more complex treatment of a mythological ensemble see Bergmann (1994).
31 Zanker (1988), 28.
32 On some inherent complexities and contradictions of domestic illusionism see Eisner (1995), 49–87.
33 Pliny, Natural History, passim.
34 Wallace-Hadrill (1994), 25 on allusion.
35 E.g. Cicero, De Officiis 1.138–9; Vitruvius 6.5. Wallace-Hadrill (1994), 4–16.
36 Cf. Allison (1992) for relationship of paintings to room types.
37 Wallace-Hadrill (1994), esp. 8–61.
38 Zanker (1998), 135–203 on the imitation of villas.
39 Wallace-Hadrill (1994), 17–37 on the range of (sometimes overlapping) associations.
40 Wallace-Hadrill (1994), 25–37.
41 Goulet (2001/2002), newly appeared at the time of writing, is the first study devoted to such decoration. She argues against its use merely for humble parts of properties, suggesting that it serves to lighten dark or confined spaces. Still, it does not appear in prestigious rooms.
42 Clarke (1991); cf. Gazda (1991). See D’Ambra (1998), esp. 127–45 for introduction to domestic art in its social context.
43 Petronius, Satyricon 26–78.
44 Clarke (1991), 208–35.
45 For discussion see e.g. Clarke (1991), esp. 64–5, 223. Cf. Wallace-Hadrill (1994), 149–74 (sociological study of houses using mythological paintings as variable).
46 Wirth (1983); Clarke (1991), 223–7, fig. 131.
47 On ‘pendants’ in Roman wall-painting see Thompson (1960–1); Brilliant (1984), 53–89.
48 Clarke (1991) is notably careful to include these. The still scantier remains of items like furniture also need to be kept in mind, though there are severe limits to their art-historical potential.