Roman wall paintings from Boscoreale in the Metropolitan Museum of Art v118rd878

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
PREFACE (page vii)
LIST OF PLATES (page xi)
LIST OF TEXT ILLUSTRATIONS (page xiii)
CHAPTER I: Introduction (page 1)
CHAPTER II: The Hall of Aphrodite (page 23)
CHAPTER III: The Cubiculum (page 82)
CHAPTER IV: Style and Execution (page 132)
BIBLIOGRAPHY (page 174)
DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE (page 179)
APPENDIX: The Owners of the Villa near Boscoreale (Herbert Bloch) (page 214)
ADDENDA (page 218)
GENERAL INDEX (page 219)
INDEX TO ANCIENT AUTHORS (page 228)

Citation preview

Roman Wall Paintings from Boscoreale

MONOGRAPHS ON ARCHAEOLOGY AND FINE ARTS Sponsored by

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA THE COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION OFAMERICA

V

Roman Wall Paintings from Boscoreale

in the Metropolitan Museum of Art by PHYLLIS WILLIAMS LEHMANN With an Appendix

by HERBERT BLOCH

PUBLISHED BY THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA Through a Subvention Granted by

THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

1993 }

All rights reserved by THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA

Printed in Germany a¢ J.J. Augustin, Gliickstadt

To

KARL

Preface The paintings from Boscoreale in the Metropolitan Museum of Art rank among the masterpieces of ancient art. It is, therefore, with a keen sense of personal enrichment that I acknowledge my indebtedness to the Director of the Museum, Francis Henry Taylor, and to the then Curator of the Department of Greek and Roman Art, Gisela M.A. Richter, for entrusting me with their first extensive American publication. In preparing this volume on the widely discussed New York paintings, I have dealt primarily with the two rooms from which the majority of the Museum’s pieces come: the great hall and the cubiculum. For the reader’s convenience, the chapters devoted to the interpretation and style of these rooms have been preceded by a brief introduction containing a description and history of the villa as a whole. Within this introductory chapter, all the remaining paintings from the villa—whether in European collections or in New York—have been placed in their original context. Such of these paintings as belong to the Metropolitan Museum are described in greater detail in the Catalogue at the back of the present volume. Insofar as the European fragments are unconnected with either the great hall or the cubiculum, they have been included solely in order to give a more complete impression of the extraordinary villa later owned by Publius Fannius Synistor. It is a pleasure to thank the many friends and colleagues in this country and abroad who have so generously contributed to this book. Foremost among them are Christine Alexander, Curator of the Department of Greek and Roman Art in the Metropolitan Museum, without whose invaluable assistance I should have been lost and Herbert Bloch of Harvard University to whom I am indebted for his critical re-examination of the evidence in regard to the ownership of the villa published as an appendix to this volume. The exceptional courtesy of Professor Maiuri and of Olga Elia in giving me access to every corner of Pompeii and to portions of the Naples collection at the time closed to the public proved of immeasurable value in the summer of 1947 as did the similar courtesies of Professor Romanelli and of Enrico Paribeni in Rome. Jean Charbonneaux and Pierre Devambez were equally helpful in the Louvre under the same difficult circumstances. Previously, Paola Zancani- Montuoro had been her indefatigable self in procuring for me photographs and reprints then unavailable in New York. It has been possible to check on the identity of such diverse items as musical instruments, birds, and plants owing to the kindness of Dr. Curt Sachs of the New York Public Library, Dr. James Chapin of the American Museum of Natural History, E.J. Alexander of the Vul

viii PREFACE New York Botanical Society, Kate Ries Koch and William Campbell of Smith College and Mabel M. Gabriel, to all of whom I am most grateful. Bernard Ashmole, Jean Babelon,

Phyllis Pray Bober, Otto Brendel, Matteo della Corte, G. Faider, H.Groothard, Erna Huber, Elisabeth Jastrow, Doro Levi, Inez Scott Ryberg, Karl Schefold and George Swinton have aided me in a variety of ways for which I extend my hearty thanks. I should like to acknowledge a special debt to Professor A. D. Nock for giving me the benefit of his criticism in connection with Chapter II. I have incorporated the majority of his suggestions or criticisms in the text and notes to that chapter. It is difficult, indeed,

to thank him adequately for his care and courtesy. I owe a similar debt of gratitude to Margarete Bieber and Glanville Downey for their careful reading of the manuscript and their many helpful suggestions. Mr. Downey, as editor, and Professor Richard Stillwell, as chairman of the Monograph Committee of the Archaeological Institute of America, have contributed greatly to the publication of the volume. I have at all times drawn on the knowledge and assistance of my husband, Karl Lehmann.

The numerous acknowledgments to him in the notes to this volume are in no way indicative of the extent of his unfailing interest or his readiness to discuss the issues of these pages with me at all hours of the day and night. It 1s a debt I can scarcely repay.

Finally, I should like to thank the staff of the Metropolitan Museum Library for the efficiency and courtesy with which they have for years made their facilities available to me. Plates and text figures of objects in the Metropolitan Museum of Art have been gener-

ously provided by the \luseum. I am indebted to the authorities of the British Museum, the Bibliotheque Nationale, the Musée du Louvre, the Musée de Mariemont, the Allard Pierson Stichting, the Museo Nazionale Romano and the Museo Nazionale di Napoli for supplying photographs and casts to be reproduced in the text. I am further indebted to Theresa Goell for very kindly providing me with personal photographs of the rarely visited monument of Kara Kusch and to Robert L. Alexander for his photograph of a villa mosaic in the Bardo Museum. The manuscript for this volume was originally completed in March 1949. It stands virtually unchanged, although I have tried to incorporate in its notes allusions to the numerous references to these much-discussed paintings that have appeared in the meantime and, so far as possible, to add references to wartime publications that were previously unavailable to me. I regret that it has not been possible to obtain all such publications and that omissions in the bibliography may well exist. Now, as this volume goes to press, I should like to express my gratitude to the Trustees of the Metropolitan Museum of Art for having granted a subsidy for its publication and my pleasure that it is sponsored by the Archaeological Institute of America.

Northampton, Massachusetts PW. L. ! March, 1952

Table of Contents PREFACE... www ee ek ee ee ee ee ee eee Vit

List OF PLATES. 2... ee ee ee ee ee eee List OF TExT ILLUSTRATIONS . 2... ee ee ee ee ee ee Xt

CHAPTER I: Introduction. . 2... 2... ee ee ek ke ee OE

CHAPTER IT: The Hall of Aphrodite. 2... 2... ee 8 Cuapter III: The Cubiculum ..... 2... ee ee ee eee 82 CHAPTER IV: Style and Execution. . 2. 6 1 0 ee ee ee ew 32

BIBLIOGRAPHY ©. 6. ee ee ee ITF DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE. 6 6 wD TIQ APPENDIX: The Owners of the Villa near Boscoreale (Herbert Bloch). . . . . . . 214

WADDENDA 2. we ee ee ee ee ee 218

GENERAL INDEX «6 6 ke 29 INDEX TO ANCIENT AUTHORS . 2. 1. ee ee te ee ee ee eke ee ee ae 228

ix

List of Plates PAINTINGS FROM THE VILLA OF PUBLIUS FANNIUS SYNISTOR IN THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART Pl. I. Citharist and Attendant from the Hall of Aphrodite. Pl. II. Detail of Citharist from the Hall of Aphrodite. Pl. III. Detail of Citharist’s Attendant from the Hall of Aphrodite. Pl. IV. Aphrodite and Adonis from the Hall of Aphrodite. Pl. V. Detail of Aphrodite from the Hall of Aphrodite. Pl. V1. Shieldbearer from the Hall of Aphrodite. Pl. VIL. Detail of Shieldbearer from the Hall of Aphrodite.

Pl. VIL. A. Shrine Painting of Aphrodite and Attendant from the Hall of Aphrodite. B. Shrine Painting of Aphrodite and Adonis from the Hall of Aphrodite. Pl. IX. A. Fragmentary Column from the Hall of Aphrodite. B-—-C. Entrance Wall of the Cubiculum.

B. Wall to the Right of the Entrance. C. Wall to the Left of the Entrance. Pl. X. View of the Cubiculum.

Pl. XI. Left Triptych of the Cubiculum. Pl. X11. Left Wing of the Left Triptych of the Cubiculum. Pl. XIII. Central Panel of the Left Triptych of the Cubiculum. Pl. XIV. Right Wing of the Left Triptych of the Cubiculum. Pl. XV. Left Wing of the Right Triptych of the Cubiculum. Pl. XVI. Central Panel of the Right Triptych of the Cubiculum. Pl. XVII. Right Wing of the Right Triptych of the Cubiculum. P]. XVIII. Left Lateral Wall of the Alcove. Pl. XIX. Right Lateral Wall of the Alcove. Pl. XX. Right Half of the Rear Wall of the Alcove. Pl. XXI. Grotto from the Rear Wall of the Alcove. Pl. XXII. Pergola from the Rear Wall of the Alcove. XI

Xli LIST OF PLATES Pl. XXIII. Left Half of the Rear Wall of the Alcove. PL. XXIV. Fruit Bowl from the Rear Wall of the Alcove. Pl. XXY. Parapet from the Rear Wall of the Alcove.

Pl. XXV1. Masks from the Cubiculum. , A. Mask from the Left Wing of the Left Triptych. B. Mask from the Left Wing of the Right Triptych. Pl. XXVII. Masks from the Cubiculum.

A. Mask from the Right Wing of the Left Triptych. B. Mask from the Right Wing of the Right Triptych. PI. XXVIII. A. Mask from the Central Panel of the Left Triptych of the Cubiculum. B. Mask from the Central Panel of the Right Triptych of the Cubiculum.

Pl. XXLX. A. Statue from the Central Panel of the Left Triptych of the Cubiculum. B. Statue from the Central Panel of the Right Triptych of the Cubiculum. Pl], XXX. Detail from the Left Wing of the Right Triptych of the Cubiculum.

PI]. XXXI. A. Detail from the Left Wing of the Left Triptych of the Cubiculum. B. Detail from the Right Wing of the Left Triptych of the Cubiculum. C. Detail from the Left Wing of the Right Triptych of the Cubiculum. Pl. XXXII. A. Detail from the Left Wing of the Left Triptych of the Cubiculum. B. Detail from the Left Wing of the Right Triptych of the Cubiculum. Pl. XXXII. A. Tholos from the Left Lateral Wall of the Alcove. B. Tholos from the Right Lateral Wall of the Alcove. Pl. XXXIV. Fragment from the Exedra. Pl. XXXV. Mask from the Exedra. Pl. XXXVI. Bull’s Head from the Exedra. Pl. XX XVII. Fragment from the Peristyle.

Pl. XXXVI. Fragment from the Peristyle. Pl. XX XIX. Fragment from the Peristyle.

Pl. XL. Fragment from Room F. Pl. XLI. Fragment from Room F. Pl. XLII. Fragment from Room F.

, List of Text Illustrations | Fig. 1. Plan of the Villa of Publius Fannius Synistor near Boscoreale (after Barnabei). Fig. z. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Bronze Seal of L. Herennius Florus.

Fig. 3. Paris, The Louvre: Fragment from the fasces. Fig. 4. Paris, The Louvre: Fragment from the fauces. Fig. 5. Drawing of Cast of Wall Cornice from the Peristyle (after Barnabei). Fig. 6. Naples, National Museum: Fragment from the Peristyle. Fig. 7. Fragment from the Peristyle (after Sambon). Present Whereabouts Unknown. Fig. 8. Fragment from the Peristyle (after Sambon). Present Whereabouts Unknown.

Fig. 9. Naples, National Museum: Fragment from the Peristyle. Fig. 10. Paris, The Louvre: Fragment from the Room of the Musical Instruments. Fig. 11. Sketch of West Wall of the cubiculum diurnum adjacent to the cubiculum nocturnum in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (after Barnabei). Fig. 12. Musée de Mariemont: Fragment from the cubiculum diurnum. Fig. 13. Musée de Mariemont: Fragment from the cubiculum diurnum. Fig. 14. Dresden, Skulpturensammlung: Roman Marble Relief.

Fig. 15. Rome, National Museum: Fragmentary Terracotta Relief. Fig. 16. Musée de Mariemont: Fragment from the Exedra. Fig. 17. Naples, National Museum: Fragment from the Triclinium. Fig. 18. Musée de Mariemont: Fragment from the Triclinium (after Barnabei).

Fig. 19. Paris, The Louvre: Winged Daimon from the Peristyle Flanking the Entrance to the Hall of Aphrodite.

Fig. 20. Amsterdam, Allard Pierson Stichting: Winged Daimon from the Peristyle Flanking the Entrance to the Hall of Aphrodite. Fig. 21. Kara Kusch: Column to the Northeast of the Tumulus. Fig. 22. Pompeii: Tufa Column in the Peristyle of a House on the South Corner of VII, XV.

Fig, 23. Pan or Horned Satyr from the Entrance Wall of the Hall of Aphrodite (after Sambon). Present Whereabouts Unknown.

Fig. 24. Sketch of Rear Wall of the Hall of Aphrodite (after Barnabei.) Fig, 25. Naples, National Museum: Fragmentary Central Panel of the Rear Wall of the Hall of Aphrodite. Xili

xiv LIST OF TEXT ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 26. Naples, National Museum: Fragment of the Upper Portion of the Rear Wall of the Hall of Aphrodite.

Fig. 27. Naples, National Museum: Fragmentary Left Wall of the Hall of Aphrodite. Fig. 28. Naples, National Museum: Etruscan Mirror. Fig. 29. Princeton, University Museum: Fragmentary Mosaic from Antioch. Fig. 30. Rome, Lateran Museum: Roman Sarcophagus. Fig. 31. Rome, Villa Giustiniani: Roman Sarcophagus. Fig. 32. Naples, National Museum: Red-Figured Pelike. Fig. 33. Eton College: Drawing of a Lost Painting from the Aventine. Fig. 34. Pompeii, House of Obellius Firmus: Detail of a Shrine Painting in the Alcove of a Bedroom. Fig. 35. Eleusis, Museum: Relief of Mystai Approaching Demeter.

Fig. 36. London, British Museum: Detail of an Attic Lekythos from Cyprus.

Fig. 37. London, British Museum: Obvertse of Fourth-Century Tetradrachm of Carthage. Fig. 38. Naples, National Museum: Ivory Plaque from Pompeii. Fig. 39. Naples, National Museum: Ivory Plaque from Pompeii. Fig. 40, London, British Museum: Terracotta Lamp from Naukratis. Fig. 41. Paris, Biblioth¢que Nationale: Silver Plate from Fonzazo.

Fig. 42. Munich, Antiquarium: Early Imperial Stucco Relief, Fig. 43. Diagram of the Hall of Aphrodite.

Fig. 44. Leningrad, The Hermitage: Etruscan Mirror. Fig. 45. London, British Museum: Terracotta Lamp. Fig. 46. Brussels, Musée du Cinquantenaire: Fragment from the Room Adjacent to the Hall of Aphrodite. Fig. 47. Musée de Mariemont: Fragment from the Room Adjacent to the Hall of Aphrodite. Fig. 48. Musée de Mariemont: Fragment from the Room Adjacent to the Hall of Aphrodite. Fig. 49. Castle Ashby, Collection of the Marquis of Northampton: Etruscan Mirror. Fig. 50. Fragment from the Antechamber of the Cubiculum (after Sambon), Present Whereabouts Unknown.

Fig. 51. View of the Alcove of the Cubiculum /# sity during the Excavation.

Fig. 52. Rome, National Museum: Stucco Panel from the Villa near the Farnesina.

Fig. 53. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Detail from the Villa of Agrippa Postumus near Boscotrecase.

Fig. 54. Pompeii, House of the Small Fountain: Landscape. Fig. 55. Tunis, Bardo Museum: Roman Mosaic from Tabarka. Fig. 56. Provence: Pigeon Tower. Fig. 57. Wall Painting from Portici from Le pitture di Ercolano, 11, Pl. XLVIII.

Fig. 58. Pompeii, House of M. L. Fronto: Detail from the Tablinum.

LIST OF TEXT ILLUSTRATIONS Xv Fig. 59. Pompeii, House of Sulpicius Rufus (Casa del Maiale): Detail of Wall Decoration. Fig. Go. Pompeii: Detail from VII, 2, 18. Fig. 61, Rome, Palazzo Borghese: Sarcophagus of Torre Nova.

} Fig. 62. Wall Painting from Pompeii from Le pitture di Ercolano, III, Pl. XXXVI. Fig. 63. Naples, National Museum: Fragmentary Wall Painting. Fig. 64. Naples, National Museum: Wall from the Villa of Julia Felix. Fig. 65. London, British Museum: Reverse of Bronze Coin of Byblos.

Fig. 66. Paris, Rothschild Collection: Gilded Silver Thymaterion from Tarentum. Fig. 67. Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum: Detail of a Red-Figured Lekythos from Ruvo. Fig. 68. Reconstruction of the Altar in the Sanctuary of Athena Polias at Priene.

Fig. 69. Reconstruction of the Altar in the Sanctuary of Artemis Leukophryene in Magnesia (after von Gerkan), Fig. 70. Volo, Museum: Stele of Stratonikos from Pagasae.

Fig. 71. Berlin, Pergamon Museum: Marble Statue from Pergamon. Fig. 72. Berlin, Pergamon Museum: Relief from the Altar of Artemis Leukophryene in Magnesia. Fig. 73. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Bell Krater from Centuripe. Fig. 74. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Finial of Bell Krater from Centuripe. Fig. 75. Pompeii, House of the Labyrinth (after Zahn). Above: Rear Wall of the Corinthian Oecus. Below: Lateral Wall of the Corinthian Oecus. Fig. 76. Rome, National Museum: Fragmentary Terracotta Relief. Fig. 77. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori: Fragmentary Terracotta Relief. Fig. 78. Pompeii, House of Sulpicius Rufus (Casa del Maiale): Wall Decoration.

Fig. 79. Diagram of Cubiculum Indicating Portions Executed by the Master and his Assistants.

Tailpiece, p. 131. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Detail from Right Lateral Wall of the Alcove of the Cubiculum from the Villa of Publius Fannius Synistor. Addendum, p. 218. Naples, National Museum: Fragment from the Peristyle.

CHAPTER I Introduction quidquid sub terra est, in apricum proferet aetas, defodiet condetque nitentia.

Time will bring into the light whatever is under the earth; it will bury deep and hide what now shines bright. Horace, Epist/es, I, VI, 24-25.

Two thousand years ago Italy was dotted with villas in which the weary city dwellers of the day sought peace and refreshment. There the strife of senate and law court, the hustle of the marketplace, the cares of business were laid aside, and one might stroll and meditate in the shade of a portico or cast an appraising glance at the latest crops. For, more often than not, these country houses were combined with farms whose proper management provided a topic of unfailing interest to a society of landowners. Whatever a man’s taste, whether he devoted his days in the country to the supervision of his estates, to reading and writing or simply gave himself up to the joys of nature, Varro and Cicero, Horace and Tibullus all testify to the universal passion for country life characteristic of their day. This was the ideal life, the life in which a man might build about him his own perfect world, might live in his own Golden Age. One of the finest examples of this phase of Roman life brought to light in modern times was the villa found in 1900 on the slopes of Vesuvius near Boscoreale.t The better preserved 1 Excavated by Vincenzo De Prisco on the property of FrancescoVona in Grotta Franchini, slightly more than a mile from Pompeii, and first published by Felice Barnabei, La villa pompeiana di P. Fannio Sinistore

xr Lehmann I

scoperta presso Boscoreale, Rome, 1901.

2 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE of the paintings that once decorated the walls of this house were cut off and later sold at auction,* the largest single group coming to the Metropolitan Museum of Art where, together with the somewhat later paintings from Boscotrecase, they constitute the finest collection of ancient wall painting outside Italy.? The fact that the paintings from Boscoreale are today divided among several museums and that the villa itself may no longer be seen makes it desirable to briefly examine what is known of the house as a whole, in order to place the more fragmentary panels in their setting and to gain an impression of the unusually homogeneous character of its decoration before proceeding to a more detailed investigation of the two rooms to which the greater part of the Museum’s paintings belong. Unfortunately, this remarkable villa was both incompletely and unofficially excavated. No scientific records were kept by the excavator, the sole reliable source of information on the original nature of the house being the report on the excavation prepared for the Minister of Public Instruction by Felice Barnabei, in 1901, after the paintings had already been removed from the walls and the excavation concluded.’ Barnabei’s invaluable report suffers from unavoidable omissions and inconsistencies which doom any attempt to give

a precise and detailed account of the architectural history of the villa. Nevertheless, sufficient facts are ascertainable to guarantee the essential correctness of the following picture. The villa must have been built shortly after the middle of the first century B.C. Both

the use of reticulate masonry indicated in Barnabei’s description of the north wall of 2 By Durand-Ruel in Paris on June 8, 1903. The catalogue prepared for this auction by A. Sambon, Les fresques de Boscoreale, Paris, 1903, contains information not easily available elsewhere and has been extensively quoted. It should be used with great care since it is peppered with inaccurate statements and distortions of fact quite apart from the inaccuracy of its garish color plates. 3 Brief accounts of the purchase and installation of the paintings were published by Gisela M. A. Richter under the title “‘The Boscoreale Frescoes,” in the Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1, 1905-1906, pp. 95-97 and V, 1910, pp. 37-40, as well as a longer discussion, “The Boscoreale Frescoes in the Metro-

politan Museum of Art,” Art and Archaelogy, VII, 1918, pp. 238-246. See, too, her Handbook of the Classical Collection, New York, 1930, pp. 218-222.

4 The details recorded by Barnabei, op. cit., pp. 3-6, give a clear picture of the circumstances under which the villa was excavated and its paintings removed. The enthusiasm of Barnabei’s descriptions together

with the fanciful nature of certain of his interpretations has led at least one prominent writer to complain about his ‘‘Rhetorik.’’ Therefore, it may be well to emphasize that his book must remain the fundamental basis of any discussion of the villa. One can only wish that his detailed factual account were still longer, for it is plain that certain parts of the villa were no longer visible when he made his description and that he was forced to rely upon the observations of previous visitors. His Pl. XI indicates the state of the excavation in mid September, 1900, before the committee of investigators began their work. 5 See, for example, notes 23, 37, 44, 57, Ch. I], notes 3, 16 and the remarks on p. 22. Thus, the plan published by Barnabei and reproduced here as Fig. 1 cannot be regarded as more than a generally reliable symbol, Careful observation of the structure of windows, doors, and walls would have clarified a number of issues. The brief discussion of the building history of the villa by Bice Crova, Edilzia e tecnica rurale di Roma antica, Milan, 1942, p. 193, is marred by errors in fact and unfounded suggestions while the plan printed on p. 194, fig. 37, is inaccurate both in drawing and in the identification of individual rooms— Room G, the triclinium is not identified, for example, while Corridor 23 is mistakenly lettered H and indicated as “secondo triclinio con salette”’!

INTRODUCTION 3 corridor 12 (Fig. 1) and the traces of a hypocaust system found under the small peristyle (15) in connection with the bath (Rooms 16-21) preclude a much earlier date. Although the original owner and builder of the villa is unknown, his chief mason or contractor was a cettain Mario according to a tufa block inscribed MARIO STRVCTOR and embedded in the same reticulate wall north of corridor 12.’ About a generation later, the columns of the outer courtyard A were restored as the use of alternating bands of brick and lava reticulate, a technique scarcely to be found before the earlier years of the following century, proves. The date of this restoration is further defined by a graffito scratched on the stuccoed sutface of the column immediately to the left of the central intercolumniation of the outer vestibule B: wz idus Maias auct(io) fact(a) Germanico co(n)s(ule). This precious document

indicates that the house was sold at auctionon May 9, 12 A. D., in the first consulship of | Germanicus. The presence of slave names among the graffiti found on the vestibule columns suggests that the entire property, house and household alike, passed from the original owner or his family at that time.® Thus a restoration of the outer courtyard of the villa in the early years of the first century A. D. is confirmed. No further repairs appear to have been made to the house until after the earthquake of 63 A. D. But the fact that part of the decoration of room H had obviously been destroyed and replastered, and that no mention is made of any decoration whatsoever in the bath of this richly painted villa suggests that like many another house in the region of Pompeii, it had already been damaged in the earlier disaster and not yet completely restored when the final catastrophe came in 79 A. D. In that year, the beautiful villa which had survived more than a century of changing styles in painting and mosaic until it must have been a veritable “antique” among the up-to-date houses of the region disappeared beneath those streams of lava and clouds of ashes which, paradoxically, preserved so much of the ancient life they destroyed by removing it from the irreparable damage of man. Before the end came, however, the villa had had at least two owners in the course of the first century A. D.9 One, a freedman, is known from a fragmentary bronze vessel found ® I am indebted to Karl Lehmann for whatever chronological conclusions are drawn here on the basis of the limited structural evidence available. According to H. G. Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration vom xweiten bis zum vierten Stil, The Hague, I, 1938, p. 90, note 1, the villa has been reinvestigated in recent

years by Matteo della Corte who has concluded that it was built about 40-30 B. C. The evidence for this specific date is, as yet, unpublished. ” Unpublished save by Barnabei, op. ci#., p. 15. Cf. the early imperial tablet inscribed Diogenes structor on the outer wall of a corner house in Pompeii, VII, 15, 2 (H. Gummerus, “Darstellungen aus dem Handwerk auf rémischen Grab- und Votivsteinen,” Jahrbuch des kaiserlich deutschen archdologischen Instituts,

XXVIII, 1913, pp. 106, 123, and fig. 25, and Tatiana Warscher, Pompei, Berlin and Leipzig, 1925, pp. 39-40).

8 A facsimile of the auction gtaffito was reproduced by Barnabei, of. cit., p. 14, together with a list of the slave names. See, too, C.LL., IV, Supplement IJ, +5 432~5 437.

° Herbert Bloch has very kindly contributed a brief statement in regard to the epigraphical evidence pertaining to the ownership and chronology of the villa which may be found on pp. 214 ff. The general chronological summary given above is based on Professor Bloch’s dating of the specific items mentioned. 1*

|

' | } C . N N :| ' ' : . ) ! ; 17 18

4. ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE

,— L ) 23 Saal —— eel a pe as !

| Mt om ;* : 3 16- 19 ‘| ttBS 0

'

re @.

!

|

e ie|'@|a !

.9 v '8 91fF Sy ulDeke: Bettini acu 5 ab =< 7] e

o se cf oe ow ye S| 15 |

R 10 boo op Ut } 00 4 a

,‘

|

Br nee ee ee 2 z

24 nD C

if Oo! aa ‘SB T I | r A5 *Eas eeaees pret 12 | 3 ! LFAwa 43 14 NAO RP a een ven anne: '

eS —

PAH EY RMS

|*

0 5 10 , 20 etri Fig. 1. Plan of the Villa of Publius Fannius Synistor near Boscoreale (after Barnabei).

INTRODUCTION ) among the agricultural implements of Room 24 and inscribed with the name of Publius Fannius Synistor.!° The other, Lucius Herennius Florus, member of a family well-known in Campania, is indicated by a bronze stamp unearthed in the house and now in the possession of the Metropolitan Museum (Fig. 2).!! Which of the two owners was in actual possession of the property in 79, it is impossible to say. Although the servants of Lucius Herennius Florus might have continued to use a bronze measure left by their master’s predecessor, it is less easy under these circumstances to account for a second document of Publius, the verse addressed to him and scribbled on the undecorated outer wall of the

ve . “~ ia |™_ ‘eS{obs a 2 ..ie

a a ae ~ ‘. o _~ we _— x ae

Fig. 2. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Bronze Seal of L. Herennius Florus.

frigidarium or cold bath.!® Since it is highly improbable that so cherished a part of a richly

decorated Republican house as its bath would have been completely unpainted, it is reasonable to assume that this part of the house was under repair when the graffito was scratched. If so, Publius Fannius Synistor may well have been the last owner of the villa, having purchased it after the earthquake of 63 in which the bath was probably damaged. Then why was the little bronze seal of his predecessor preserved in his house ? Can L. Herennius Florus have bought the villa from Publius late in the seventies and planned to complete ’ Known only from the photograph published by Barnabei, op. cit., p. 19. "’ Acc. No. 30.11.2. L: 0.087 M. Attached to a ring handle decorated on the back with a winged kerykeion. Retrograde inscription in intaglio. First mentioned by Giulio De Petra, Rendiconti della Regia Accademia di Napoli, 1910, p. 40, and reproduced by Sambon, op. cit., in a drawing on p. 2. Most recently illustrated by Virginia Grace, “The Die Used for Amphora Stamps,” Hesperia, IV, 1935, p. 428, figs. 9-10. Apparently, this stamp was unknown to Barnabei, who assumed that P. Fannius Synistor was the only known owner of the house. While the majority of writers have retained this name for the villa, others, following De Petra, loc. cit., and Matteo della Corte, ‘‘Case ed abitanti a Pompei,” Neapo/is, 11,1914, 172, +10 (later republished as Case e abitanti a Pompei, Pompeii, 1926, p. 20, FF10 and appendix +:47), have assumed that the bronze stamp reflected the true owner of the property. Some have interpreted the abbreviated name on the stamp as L. Herius Florus as opposed to Sambon’s L. Herennius Florus, although Marjorie J. Milne, “A Bronze Stamp from Boscoreale,” Bulletin of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, XXV, 1930, pp. 188-190, retained the latter form. For the relative merits of the Herennii vs. the Herii in this connection see p. 216. The name L. He/ius Florus indicated by M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1926, Pl. X (in both the English and German editions), is apparently a typographical error. 2 CILL., IV, Supplement II, +:5 437. First discussed by Barnabei, of. cit., p. 17. Later reinterpreted by M. della Corte, “Leda e Latona,” Atti R. Accademia di archeologia, lettere e belle arti, N. S. XIII, 1933-34, PP. 334-337.

6 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE the necessary redecoration himself, until that fatal day put a stop to all plans ? Noone can say. But the fact that the villa has been so widely associated with the name of Publius Fannius Synistor makes it desirable to continue to identify it by his name, if only for convenience’ sake.18

So much, then, and no more can be ferreted out concerning the actual history of the villa. Such as it is, this brief outline is in complete accord with the chronological data implicit in the wall paintings for which the house is justly famous.

In the last years of the Republic, when the unknown owner whose taste shaped this villa in so personal a fashion had his country house built, the so-called Second Pompeian style was at its height. Ilusionism was its keynote. Walls were no longer conceived as structural members whose function of enclosure and support demanded decorative expression. On the contrary, their functional nature was swept aside decoratively and, once they had been equipped with a painted system of architecture, with painted columns and pilasters on whose entablatures the real ceiling seemed to rest, the walls themselves were painted away, were opened up, that the circumscribed space in which one actually lived might merge with the infinite extension of the outer world. Literalness of mind and imagination met in a strange union. For the illusion must be absolutely true to life to be believed. The painted atchitectural framework of these walls must mirror the actuality of contemporary architecture down to the last detail.!4 Then, and only then, was the mind free to leap beyond the restrictions of reality into the limitless space of imagination and to extend the tangible setting of life into an ideal scene on a painted wall. The longing to transcend the limitations of the individual life and of the physical world that later found expression in the Gothic architect’s dissolution of mass in space, in walls that were windows, was reflected in a pictorial style suited to the rational antique mind and susceptible of revival by such a kindred Renaissance spirit as Mantegna. The villa later owned by Publius Fannius Synistor might serve as a text-book of the earlier phases of the Second Style. It was a villa rustica, a countryhouse built on a farm. 13 Tn addition to the conflicting owner’s names used to identify the house, the fact that it is one of several

villas found in Boscoreale has confused the issue still further and rendered it impossible simply to call our villa by its place name. It may be well to reiterate that it was found in 1900 in Grotta Franchini, on the property of Francesco Vona, whereas the villa from which the celebrated silver treasure came was excavated in 1894-95 in Pisanella. Grotta Franchini and Pisanella both being parts of Boscoreale, the facts pertaining to these excavations are frequently garbled, witness della Corte, “Case ed abitanti,” /oc. c7t., and E.Pernice, Pompei, Leipzig, 1926, p. 58, where the two villas have become one. Finally, it should be noted that in the list of villas published by Rostovtzeff, op. ci., p. 496, our villa from Grotta Franchini, 4:16, has been confused with still another villa from Boscoreale, +¢15, and the geographical and bibliographical references hopelessly mixed up.

14 The relationship between late Republican architecture and Second Style decoration has been discussed by Richard Delbriick, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, Strassburg, I], 1912, 169ff. 16 Cf, Karl Swoboda, Rémische und romanische Paldste, Vienna, 1919, p. 20 and fig. 9. ,

INTRODUCTION 7 And although it was not conceived in the luxurious terms of the great estates described by Cicero and Varro, it must provide a comfortable and agreeable residence for the master when he visited his property.’® It is highly improbable that this house served as the permanent residence of a local farmer, however affluent. The beauty of its wall paintings combined with its modest size suggests that it belonged to that well-known category of

Roman propetty managed by an overseer and visited from time to time by a wealthy owner.!? Such a man might own several properties of this variety, each equipped for his pleasure and ease when he chose to visit it. Indeed, the quality of the house and the fact that it was built by a slave who, nevertheless, indicated his name, is strikingly reminiscent of the way of life of Cicero whose half-dozen country houses were scattered about Campania and Latium!® and who maintained his own private architect, Cyrus.19 The villa proper was preceded by sections devoted to agriculture and service as the plan reproduced in Fig. 1 indicates.2° The incompletely excavated forecourt A gave access not

only to the main entrance B-C and, in some fashion now uncertain, to a service wing in which rooms 13 and 14 constituted the kitchen and bakery, but also to a large room, 24, equipped for the production of wine and oil?! and containing many agricultural implements.** This part of the house must have been considerably larger than it now appears. Built on rising terrain, the villa was approached by a flight of stairs leading to the stuccoed, partially fluted columns of the outer vestibule. There, the first hint of what lay within met the visitor’s eye. For the walls of the vestibule were painted with an imaginary colonnade and with the trees and bitds of a garden beyond. One painted intercolumniation was closed by the type of curtain soon to be seen inside; another contained a great amphora and shield. Whether the visitor looked at a continuation of the peristyle through which he had just passed or into a garden planted between the villa and its service wing, he scarcely knew. For on all sides colonnades led in new directions, and where the real stopped and 6 On this subject see, for example, Columella, I, IV, 8. 1” For a short, clear definition of the chief types of villae rusticae found in Campania, including a similar characterization of our villa, see Rostovtzeff, op. cit., p. 503, note 21, and the list of o7/ae rusticae on p. 496, note 26. Note the conclusions drawn by the author in regard to contemporary economic life on the basis of such villas, p. 495. 18 See O. E. Schmidt, “Ciceros Villen,” Nese Jabrbiticher fiir das klassische Alterthum, III, 1899, pp. 328ff., 46G6ff.

19 See the article “Cyrus” by R. Pagenstecher in Thieme-Becker, Ad/gemeines Lexikon der bildenden Kiinstler, VU, Leipzig, 1913, p. 235. *0 The following description of the villa is based almost exclusively on information gained from Barnabei’s report. A few major references will be indicated for the individual paintings removed from the house insofar

as they are not in the Metropolitan Museum. The detailed description and bibliography cited for each of the Museum’s panels in the Descriptive Catalogue will be referred to but not repeated in this chapter. *1 Note that Room 24 faces south, the exposure recommended by Vitruvius, VI, VI, 3 for o/earfa. For the whole layout, cf. Columella, I, VI, 24, and VIII, IV, 4. 22 Now in the Field Museum in Chicago. Itemized and illustrated by H. F. De Cou and F. B. Tarbell, Antiquities from Boscoreale in the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, 1912, pp. 211 ff. and Pls. CLXIII-

CLXVI. Also illustrated by Rostovtzeff, op. cit., Pl. X.

8 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE the imaginary began, it was hard to say. Only the lararium in the corner of this enlarged space brought one back to his immediate surroundings. Walking through the fauces or entrance hall, C, past the doorkeeper’s room to the right,”

™ee, RPP eaeKe yy: ee :oeeeeeaoe © eaeae estar : ition . -aPR “”Se age es ee + ‘3 — | Y nee = ete =e a |[ia . PY ke ee ~a.a Se ee oe —_— on ——-

tee ) ; 4 +s i:1]ii]: ch wea ai |e ;aees Oy a See | ) ‘ bie’ er, LB44° 5 SdaM 2a's, “had a “e' -*"

on ee oe ): By 5 ea ee |Nh) fsye , ; | r Ape aaae ' “tae Cs , * a Weeaaha | 3 % Lag my Re % ~~Seoi bast oawemoot TS=" ee : Si” pebteaso «A oe

—— ry : “4 has ve 4 be a Se, A s ‘a yes

x ¥ nee TR, , aaa ane oe

Fig. 3. Paris, The Louvre: Fragment from the fauces. Fig. 4. Paris, The Louvre: Fragment from the fauces.

the visitor passed still another painted colonnade gleaming against a brilliant wall seemingly constructed of multicolored rusticated masonry (Figs. 3-4).24 Beyond lay the peristyle, E, its sunlit garden and splashing fountains framed by a shaded ambulatory. White, stuccoed Corinthian columns enclosed the garden and helped support the rich coffered ceiling resting on their entablature. On the opposite side, this ceiling rested on the brackets of a wall cornice running over the painted architrave and frieze of a painted colonnade. For all four walls of

the peristyle were decorated with an imaginary colonnade, the exact counterpart of the real columns surrounding the garden. The gilded, tvory-colored ceiling shone over the flashing columns and the deep, bright wall, as close an approximation of the gold and ivory ceiling deprecated by Horace and Tibullus as the master could afford.?° By a strange circumstance, the richly moulded and stuccoed wooden wall cornice is known exactly in spite *3 Conceivably rooms 2 and 3 may have served at some time as an apartment for the /anitor. 1-3 was apparently planned as a minor entrance to the peristyle, E, but later walled up. This is one of the points where Barnabei’s text and plan are, if not in actual disagreement, at least, uncoordinated with each other. *4 The two fragments removed from the fawces are now in the Louvre, Inv. 46615, 515. See, too, Barnabel, pp. 21-23, fig. 4; Sambon, op. c/t., +¢1-2; and Beyen, op. cit., pp. 245-246 and fig. 93.

*> Horace, Odes, I], XVIII, ll. 1ff.; Tibullus, II, IV, ll. 15ff. (attributed to Lygdamus). Cf., too, Cicero, Paradoxa, V1, 49, Lucretius, De rerum natura, Il, 28, and Propertius, III, I], 9ff.

INTRODUCTION 9 of the fact that it has long since crumbled away. Roof and walls protected the north side of the peristyle from the lava that streamed into the centre of the courtyard, allowing ashes and water to penetrate up to the ceiling of this protected area. When the villa was excavated, workmen found the imprint of

this ‘er wallae cornice sharply . ws TAt A pressed oe ee into a aeKE - ihia aeptiZT

int, but traces « ildi 1 nineteen centuries before had gleamed ee ie on the vanished beams. By taki SALES WAAR MEN, Zs y taking a Soman IF a Xi! . Lowry st Me OR i ww my 7 ‘\ sre plaster cast from this ashen mould,\ ‘emmmne é Po a sein" , jSai&Py they recovered the form of the cornice oak. *3 :| : the solidified ashes and, not only the CORIO OO FORIKE: cc A pee: | f the gilding that peer ny rapeR RE RET TE RE NE RST TN Rae gee

over the painted colonnade bright with ecaten } Seeate *

the gold of long ago. Even among the ee eae, marvels of Pompeii, this is a rarity Geet de Well Consist che |

4 4 ; - . Fig. 5. Drawing of Cast of Wall Cornice from the Peristyle and, as such, it is illustrated in Fig. 5. (after Barnabei).

ot . f 4 ty fw ~~. ‘-

4.‘aa } aPal i py 4 a : "smei? @ at “0 ¥ a. , , . ot >. * if . a ek e : eG “a y , ee ere /

@ oe i2» - OSa wa| 23 sO RE

Jey o Vt & eh o~2 - 3 7. sad _ ae . ~. ‘ e a,

. «g” ‘ n ‘Z : ™ fey By= “a 8 ' 5 '> Fig. 6. Naples, National Museum: Fragment from the Peristyle.

High up on the walls, above the objects soon to be described, great garlands of fruit and flowers hung from capital to capital of the painted colonnade against the scarlet ground of the upper part of the wall.?6 There all the gifts of an abundant nature were woven together into multicolored festoons passed through silver rings. Quinces, pears, grapes and pomegranates, apples, plums, nuts and lemons, oleanders and lilies, poppies and sheaves of grain, 26 As Pierre Grimal, Les jardins romains, Paris, 1943, p. 299, and others have recognized, these painted varlands undoubtedly reflect the practice of hanging real garlands in actual colonnades. So far as I can see, however, the specific literary references cited by Grimal in support of his statement are either wrongly quoted or not to the point.

10 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE pine cones and tendrils of ivy, all the produce the benevolent gods might grant to an industrious household made up the heavy swags (Figs. 6-8). No two of the long sequence of garlands were alike. Each vied with the others in richness and variety and, in the great group of scarlet pomegranates marking the middle of the central intercolumniation of the west wall, that principle of emphasis on the centre of a wall so characteristic of the decor-

ation of the entire house appeared for the first time. It is from this garlanded, painted colonnade that the fragmentary column now in New York and shown in Pl. XXAVII comes.?* From its leafy capital, a sheaf of golden grain and a cluster of tawny ruddy pomegranates hang against the glowing ground. Originally, it constituted the angle column at

the extreme right of the southern wall of the peristyle, its garland hanging across the short wall to the right of the main entrance.

—— ies om er —— a »% j : SP i gy ' Ms all a A 4 ity ma

i(a) ee #7—. - (ee MAa -ee““in Oe"Ya? Neo a\ NX 2 ‘f/f@ , 42" 7 mnt pO Ay3 7IBy/.@! as ge et Rie ty \ Fe —a > 2 aE ak ~ ae et ~ Loe . a f ore | NM >" }5 >04ae =) . ~. a=: ~~ ~ ~S hee ected gO \ ‘“\ {.; ~, ¢\,SERS "> Bik .> : W "«< a\ae;‘.‘5s ‘~ >. . hYs f ~:| 4, : \ \ aN)

' 3 * < , . =, * .

ee Ie ee = = a : re ae ante ee ee ee en

+ : ' ~ ~ : ; t ' Ep. 6ee OS:a>SSalc ESseS ee eeSS eS .ee_eee

so Gane yen ke PS G 5 oR Pe bua : ym ae ~.tha - we “Le , ¢ ;. é r ‘ ce 7 ' 7> cS,¥ :¢ bn ¢ Sy" ¢ ; os eae ee a See eumetie A ERS "ae usteeacee> iol . ~ Sa “ —_— &

Fig. 7. Fragment from the Peristyle (after Sambon). Present Whereabouts Unknown.

Behind the painted colonnade, vessels of silver and bronze, marble tables and herms, tripods, palm branches, fillets and other miscellaneous objects seemed to stand on a yellow podium against a polished black wall.?8 A meander border and an elaborate entablature 2? For a detailed description and bibliography see No. 15 of the Descriptive Catalogue. For Fig. 6, now in Naples, see A. Ruesch, Guida i/lustrata del Museo nazionale di Napoli, Naples, n. d., +908; Olga Elia, Pitture muralie mosaici nel Museo nazionale di Napoli, Rome, 1932, +380; Barnabei, op. cit., fig. 7. The two additional fragments illustrated above as Figs. 7-8 are reproduced from Sambon, op. e7¢., +¢5—6, Pl. V and vignette on p. 8. Their present location is unknown to me as is that of the unillustrated tragment listed by Sambon as +444.

28 Barnabei, op. cit., pp. 26, 30, explicitly describes this background as black, and the winged daimon in the Louvre from the rear wall of the peristyle does, indeed, appear against a black ground. The background of the smaller of the two fragments from the peristyle now in the Metropolitan Museum and shortly

INTRODUCTION ll composed of a gilded architrave and cornice separated by a purple frieze ran around the peristyle, topping the black ground of the wall behind the podium and dividing it from the scarlet ground above against which the garlands hung. The cornice of this intermediate wall architrave was supported by the painted corbels of elaborate form found throughout the house.2? Here centaurs alternated with more abstract shapes and cast deep shadows on the purple frieze behind them.

ay | SS

OR LCT IE:

¢ YT, Yi fens J \W. pyro 2ay® ye i Rees aad KC is A NX v ba Pes aes :ALP©\ ‘a i}VY; (42 me roe2hn OssLOSE im RO;eee 33 nae he VI se XN >, CORSE R= YAS Hh Sos A Meee een . Y Qyi (~ Ra OC

SURAT A QOR | rae Or. tN eR> || \ Me ! Gre

— em, per Uaeely faege | Nemes, Pra it Fae Oat i

OU USAC! AS A” WS Vas PERM Ae MMe 7E ‘ SAS Ae: « ) Re ~ (fe)Cah They

2S fae “1¥i i. :~-. |

oo ee a "he second panel (Pl. XX XIX), illustrates

~ ; 4 { ite, | =; 34 The .

4 Se Be , -% two of the many metallic vessels reproduced in _ iF = 1 iP the peristyle. It originally stood on the podium me, ly 4 of the narrow surface of wall between rooms N

a ra tf | and O on the north side of the peristyle. An - a f elegant copper vase with conical lid and squat

7$sa-*F~ %. ryt , .ope . e- a-P.

5 ‘ fluted body springing from a calyx of acanthus

™ i Abie £ leaves stands on a mottled stone base beside an

ee - rc elongated silver jug or o/nochoe of delicate form. , Me CLS ES >> he faint, translucent profile of this vase mount? emance mE ae. ed on a heavy stone base is barely visible against

tt, the light ground.34 The palm branch placed — diagonally behind the amphora was a recurrent Fig. 9. Naples, National Museum: element throughout this zone of the peristyle

Fragment : from thea zone Peristyle. ; ;be. recalled, decoration, terminated, it;will

by the continuous meander visible across the upper margin of this panel. %2 Vittorio Spinazzola, Le arti decorative in Pompei e nel Museo Nazionale di Napoli, Milan, 1928, Pl. XCV.

33 Note, for example, the interesting reference in Athenaeus, V, 207, to an imitation of the sundial on Achradina on the ceiling of the cxoAaottpiov of Hieron’s famous ship: Kata 8 tiv dpogtv tdoAov ék TOU KaTa thy “Aypadivny d&troyepipnpevov nAiotpotriou.

The celestial symbolism of the decoration of ancient domes and ceilings has recently been discussed by Karl Lehmann, “The Dome of Heaven,” Art Bulletin, XX VII, 1945, pp. 1ff. Curiously enough, neither the passage in Athenaeus nor the horo/ogium from the House of Regina Elena appear among the rich collection of monuments assembled in this article, although they would have contributed materially to the argument.

It is interesting to note that some such antique monument must have been known to Hubert Robert, for on the viaduct in La Cascade sous un Pont, in the Louvre, there appears a sphere surmounted by a pointed gnomon mounted on acolumnar base. Well-illustrated by Pierre de Nolhac, Hubert Robert, Paris, I910, Opp. p. 98.

34 A very similar o/nochoe, apparently of glass, stands beneath the table in the enigmatic painting reproduced by Herrmann-Bruckmann, Denkmdler der Malerei des Altertums, Munich, 1904-1931, Pl. III.

INTRODUCTION 13 These palms and vessels, tripods and fillets, together with the winged petasos and cloak of Mercury among the incompletely described objects of the east wall, seem to allude to the sphere of the palaestra, to athletic contests and prizes, as the garlands above them reflect the fruits wrested from an abundant nature.*® With the winged genii flanking the entrance from C, the side door pierced in the west wall and the door to H, the decoration of the peristyle approached still another realm of life, one best considered in connection with rooms H-I. On the south side, where space forbade the use of larger units, garlands of flowers hung from the walls. Finally, the ambulatory was paved with opas signinum,® an inlay of colored stones, and edged along the wall with a white mosaic border, while another broad white mosaic zone ornamented with a meander ran between the columns surrounding the garden.3”

The mingling of the real and the imagined, the very hall-mark of this house, is startlingly revealed by the north side of the peristyle. There the wall opposite the actual colonnade was largely interrupted by doors and openings which impeded the unbroken continuation of the painted colonnade on that side. But though the lower and central zones of the wall were affected by this fact, the upper was untouched, and garlands swung from capital to capital of the painted colonnade across the entire surface of the unbroken upper wall. The more developed imagination of the ancient spectator permitted him to ignore reality, to disregard the actual physical interruption of this illusory colonnade. Rather than disrupt the imaginative apprehension of the doubled-colonnaded peristyle by frankly abandoning the ideal scheme on one side, he preferred to ignore those structural openings registered by his eyes and to maintain his intellectual concept. Decoratively speaking, those openings had ceased to exist for him. This cardinal point cannot be over-emphasized to the modern spectator for whom this alien attitude constitutes a barrier to understanding, let alone enjoyment, that is seldom overcome. Yet, overcome it must be, if one is really to see this house. %° It is interesting to compare the contents of these garlands with the varieties of fruit discussed by Cato, De agri cultura, VII, 1 ff. The extensive cultivation of fruit which he recommends to farm owners is reflected in just such garlands composed of the produce of the immediate countryside. 36 The pavements described throughout the house are entirely compatible with its Second Style decoration

and obviously contemporary with the paintings. See, for example, M. E. Blake, The Pavements of the Roman Buildings of the Republic and Early Empire, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, VIII, 1930, and Erich Pernice, Pavimente und figtirliche Mosaiken (Winter, Die hellenistische Kunst in Pompeji, V1), Berlin, 1938, passim. 9? Strictly interpreted, Barnabei’s expression, p. 24, “una larga zona, sw#//a quale si alzavano le colonne”’ would imply that the peristyle columns were restored. Since there is no other indication of a restoration here,

One may assume that he meant to describe the meander border as running from column to column rather than beneath each column. The section of crenellated mosaic listed by Sambon, of. c7#., +413, as coming from the peristyle actually comes from the small peristyle, 15, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the floor just described. Pernice,

op. cit., p. 14, refers to this mosaic as a painting, apparently having garbled Sambon’s description of +13 with his preliminary remarks about fragmentary paintings in +414. The mosaic is now in the Musée de Mariemont (Collection Raoul Warocqué, Antiquités égyptiennes, grecques et romaines, Mariemont, I, 1903, tf 100).

14 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE

Ba Entering the peristyle and turning left, 0 RAS Oa i OR one immediately passed a sizeable room, : D, accessible from either the vestibule or

| an | the peristyle. Its specific is uncernadia?” p . = os) eos : dfunction ;

af DBE. & Re | tain, hence it is known as the Room of the

\— J ice : wr V . . , : ;

a:ms' Be 8 Musical Instruments, the major in, decoAPA. ET ag ia rative theme of itsafter walls. Glancing one

mt . m~AS % _* Z _" , - a ; ; .

. «ar Aes 8 ee . ,

saw white pilasters against a background yF ‘@\ \ ee| mae, py enieveetof richly colored stone festooned with gareae 2) Ay [eee | wy, Re "lands and pine branches from which musicoe ae we EN Oy Sax cal instruments were suspended (Fig. 10). % c x & had see "hy

ee - — Pa OE 4 Pairs of flutes, cymbals, and castanets, a pars : Pa. E>) °°) See = trumpet and a shepherd’s pipe reflected et ot. | aew+ eesj esCCsstill y Py) hy another i i iow realm of life.38 The elaborate eam ae : Baar a BAY ’Y pilasters divided by red bands and inlaid

{ity Si eae ae sme ~=3>0r with rectangles of the same color offered ‘we a We Hg . . ; Ps £ § Lat Late gt So | = (wes & ew a foretaste of the variety of; unusual supports va Ta at ; : a ; i 4 3 pit a ie iv 0ClUC* pata . aRe eoOe to=be seen in the house.

ss 38 A fragmentary panel from this room is now

in the Louvre: Inv. MND 614. Cf. Barnabei, op.

7 . cit., pp. 36-38, Sambon, op. c/¢., , and Beyen Fig. 10. Paris, The Louvre: Fragment from the Room , Bt 5 . 1. and fic. 8 P +3 _— of the Musical Instruments. P= bss Be 241s 8: 99:

Se Ny a a ea a a ae aha ene: atl : in ae -T~S re NSS dO _€ 7) Cera Men ase eles > LG on NES UeON iia iW, aeNaik ee ee Neti oe eemo ~

i oO Sar med)1h} BX i bc1} a i ce} | | | :| Za i| WSC " 77 U tier) srt inti |) LL MS ior Serres 5ay ee OP | a | |SST | ype = 2 nme SSS |: |Aay }ay IiiHaj te tGyif ‘Hit |iicit jdq Sa it) ||if] ' |||-ty We | | | § ce ee | FSi| WN omen be FLAY LAEEEEITINIY efimet NBRORPORSRERGO A) PEC! lItlisnBentee! OT ee cad a

'Ce| ‘RR | } a|

P

sence dl Sl O—_—_—_— | iil| = oe ——————— ,

nn EP —_ sae sense resensimeennennmeseeneereersermenemanans

SA RET OER PATO = 5 SY CEPA 8B BPS SAY CIES NL Ce eE Fig. 11. Sketch of West Wall of the cubiculum diurnum adjacent to the cubiculum j

nocturnum in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (after Barnabe/).

INTRODUCTION 15 Continuing around the peristyle to its northwest corner, the visitor approached a large room, N, open to the courtyard and communicating with the antechamber of the bedroom, O.

Very likely, this pleasantly situated chamber from which one might see the slopes of Vesuvius served as a kind of sitting room or cubiculum diurnum®*® attached to the bedroom

or cubiculum nocturnum. So, at least, Pliny the Younger would have described such an apartment.*® Fig. 11, a sketch of the west wall of this badly damaged room, shows a Corinthian colonnade against a scarlet partition wall beyond which lay a space enclosed by a Doric colonnade. Again, the real dimensions of the room were expanded by an imaginary extension. But the most interesting element in its decoration was the monochrome frieze and landscape on the north or rear wall. The two fragments now in Mariemont (Figs. 12,

se =. | ; y | ae

: . iene 7" oy " ; < . ; m 29 —-» |

ae i ‘ ee _ SSS Seen “a =o 7

v oasnores 7 aee- :- yt Bike > ae saecae et ; ——— Wot—' ie am se en, > Sa? ie hataere ‘ crag

Sa SS ”wees

i ‘ les . rv z? > ; ” >. , a) >» Sie ~* ee ‘ee 4 ae —e. Ne

: rs ;-_ : ww, fi 2 M 0% ;a“ee:i cay at > ; ° yi ort u ™ 4 -°ee. ] Tae - eine ~~ ee = ek x +a % Fig. 14. Dresden, Skulpturensammlung: Roman Marble Relief.

. . . vNX|

‘: . —— — , ° . , . : . IN| 4S “= Chall xeeg

running above a white leaf and dart moulding and below the ela- _ borate wall entablature continued around the room. The centre of oF

each wall was marked by a bull’s head adorned with fillets from which ee e one great garland hung on either side, garlands loosely bound by a tl Ug Mell od

. . . a onl ; . Ny | y HTH)

white bandteemed stripedwith withfigs, scarlet. The two green with swags on NaN | each wall grapes, and luxuriant pomegranates, pears and th

pine cones, acorns and grain. And in the centre of each red panel, a Aaa there dangled a Bacchic symbol. Masks, musical instruments, a whole Same series of objects dear to the god’s ecstatic host evoked the whirl of Fig. 15. h da | P midniel rels. None were mote characNational Terracotta Museum: the maenad, the clamor of midnight revels. NoneRome, w Frapmentary teristic than the wild-eyed Silenus, the cymbals and, above all, the Relief. snake and cista mystica of the Metropolitan fragment. None appear more commonly in 2 Lehmann

18 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE all varieties of Roman household decoration. The relief shown in Fig. 14% illustrates an identical combination of objects, the fragmentary terracotta in Fig. 154% their frequent suspension from garlands. Here, as elsewhere in the house, the spectator was thought of as viewing the room from one fixed vantage point. This concept found expression in the subtle variation with which the

Ong ee eae ES a a ee ? hee + ’ = aa ~~ a7 5 ot 2oe |:A € S‘ if; aMe eae —a =oS- .Muse

4 af, é aa " «Tlioe * ms Pa a. a4fall oe;team, x em b Msa? Pag ~*~ eae A aere ae... a-

: ;0: gen Pt ES . . Os"oR *% 4are > - rtae “ é™ : : 2 ee nade EE enn a a L- a *. = ~ L. ,

ae | re wo. | | : | rae. Fese.= “ Le—. a. iim

t 4 y, * . ev” a _ ae ; .wd ~ -.‘.: .~~ p ig! : " ps ~ ',. > % .le' °Inpome{ d : 14 ad . ania, :ri.. Xa ' i. hee ‘1 | fe eee tea

hit ‘Fi y “A ro oD 1 . i. ye _——T ae —_ - 4

ae 3 ‘a J 4 : ~ 1 . * ‘> ~ a ie ‘

On

INTRODUCTION 21 Across the hall from this handsome dining room lay the small square chamber, F, to which the paintings shown in Pls. XL-X LH belonged.*® Unfortunately, it seems impossible to determine the function of this room.*® Judging by the lighting of these panels and the

direction of the modillions supporting the cornice, one (Pl. X LI) appears to come from the eastern corner of the south wall,” a second (Pl. XLII), from the north wall, and the third (Pl. XL) from the eastern face of the closet built into the southwest corner of the

7 a — ye OS i | i i

—elXe TA TN fae EW Tee 7bs §ox 7. Gee PL yeaa} \ fl a. ST Se ram ~ = ) " Vz Fg .

Barmy | tt eee ||| hl 1 cS ic Wi : . >. a

1 ~—_ =LteS |) | a eb TH Wd LT ~—=~ 3 | Ay| ——$$ Le We #, ; Se

oe , 2! che by ak al*iftuph “Ak ..veepp, Sm ;Ne*, seh, rit oe ze ieaea "s 7“-*s , | “«3 @..oy “ia~Sie ae e.3° i: ae .& ay* Soke Sey fara Ps Ay Pee Te pak ee! PPAR et AGN Lik MORO ME gee A amiaade ty he cect, D Gee ee aee x,DA:Ye IRN. a See Do, poe 7iaee ee Xe aTt.’NUMER hat.(a ssOrit Dae

yes: Nps a 7 ae) ah iea; A o asrea we Si , LaSi (veSO ' ‘dyeeAa>ae ae’ oy SONIA Ft ar ge,heDPS aep

Meco” Wy cs‘ ‘3ts és: a) Pig

: iy »~e ~~ Le A .°

)~‘\\ Eee oie ‘ib‘eao SHS ae > ee ees se ae :" S|er gg aan

; ee - at or ee ee ¥ Oe eee.

ee ee tee Tuer’ — a — ; eg es Sure fee Fig. 22. Pompeii: Tufa Column

FIO hes nd: * yg E ORCE: ee AN - Siete

-f Th| |a“{> oeA Ye , :ee. “.“|™ a —— °... fe %Rrey; the in the Peristyle ofofa House on TK South Corner VII, XV.

or, “ eee F . > j “as ~- . - .

etapa he oF. - 4 Py et * The column illustrated in Fig. 22 (one of se7S ot ae? ann veral examples preserved in two houses in Pompeii) ES, 7 pe 8 a "Bice Re isl stands in the peristyle of the house on the south

ie acahe Rar , PN et corner of Reg. VII, Ins. XV. The second peristyle

. ; “of oe ee containing such tufa columns is located in VIII,

of the Tumulus. ,

Fig. 21. Kara Kusch: Co en ae tan toe 3, 27. All of these columns are entirely finished;

some retain patches of the outer stucco layer that Originally covered them. In connection with the translation of structural procedures into decorative forms, it is interesting to note that in a number of instances these columns are actually composed of fewer drums than they appear to be, a single tall drum being trimmed to give the appearance of two drums and therefore reflecting a stage at which the recessed bands encircling the shafts are alternately functional and decorative. Given the gaily colored bosses on the painted columns in the House of Obellius Firmus mentioned in note 5, it is, in fact, possible that the bosses present in the several painted columns were added in stucco to these otherwise strikingly similar tufa counterparts. Finally, it is interesting to note a terracotta statuette of Aphrodite from Myrina where the goddess stands beside a diminutive Corinthian support characterized, like the painted columns, by bosses and recessed or banded drums, seemingly still another indication of a lost structural type mirrored in the scattered examples discussed here (Cf. F. Winter, Typen der figtrlichen Terrakotten |Kekulé, Die antiken Terrakotten, 1, 2],

Berlin, 1903, p. 208, +¢1). . .

* Barnabei’s account, op. cit., p. 52, of how those present at the excavation had no time to bother with the imprints of beams and remains of carbonized wood visible in this room provides a graphic illustration of the lamentable manner in which this unique house was excavated.

28 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE of the rear wall and, directly opposite, a Pan or horned satyr nailed to the architrave of the entrance wall (Fig. 23).!° Behind the ivory colonnade, a purple podium crowned by carved mouldings ran around the room. Its upper surface served as a narrow stage and supported dark brown piers connected with the Corinthian columns by a coffered ceiling. The painted stage, itself, extended beyond these piers, and

Ree ee as ae was apparently partially covered by a ceiling oe a ad 2 ae . behind the golden yellow entablature spanning ter oe jaa ‘2 es each intercolumniation and attached to the rear

a i 9 ee Vege or 9, face of the brown piers. The shadow cast on . ee eomox: We “ the wall behind this golden entablature, the fact

g4 Peet uae MM! eee. that the narrow under face of its Doric architrave

tual 4) ae’: & Ca FB is visible, and that a spear or staff continues oT mc Mer it. vee behind it in one instance (Fig. 27) can only be as, — e * % Oe as iiiteaes explained by the existence of a ceiling behind ee a oe Hy iP er this wooden entablature at the level of its cornice.

is -. a * Thus the entablature was a decorative frame or border attached to a ceiling over the rear half

Wall of the Hall of Aphrodite (after Sambon). : Present Whereabouts Unknown. i. e., the stage, Doric colonnades rose against

Fig. 23. Panor Horned Satyr from the Entrance of the narrow stage. Beyond this entablature,

a sapphire sky. Finally, the ground color visible behind the late Hellenistic entablature with its Doric frieze of alternating triglyphs and

metopes ornamented with rosettes of two varieties varied from wall to wall. Blue for the rear wall, scarlet for the side walls, purple for the interrupted surface of the entrance wall," these broad fields of color stretching from column to column and from the golden entablature to the buff upper surface of the podium dominated the varied colors of each wall, stamping each with its own character, differentiating sides from front and rear. In this differentiation, the purple entrance wall was of little importance. Only the heavenly blue wall approached by scarlet flanks and the mighty figures outlined against them claimed one’s attention.

Unfortunately, the rear wall was so badly damaged that only one of its major panels, the central field, could be removed. The two others are known only from notes made at the time of the excavation.!2 The larger part of this, the major wall of the hall, lies buried © Apparently, only the latter was removed, although the former was described by Barnabei, op. cit., p. 52, and may be partially discerned in his fig. 11. Cf. Sambon, op. c/t., +423, for the source of the illustration of this mask reproduced above in Fig. 23. W. de Giiineisen, Le portrait, tradition hellénistique et influences

orientales, Rome, 1911, p. 12, fig. 18; Reinhard Herbig, “Zwei Stromungen spithellenistischer Malerei,”’ Die Antike, VII, 1931, fig. 15. I have been unable to ascertain the present whereabouts of this mask. For further discussion see p. 70 but note that Beyen, op. c//., p. 213, note 6, has already called attention to Sambon’s mistake in terming this horned mask ‘“‘tragic’’. 1l See note 6. '2 By Professor Antonio Sogliano, at the time, inspector of excavations.

Ee |

THE HALL OF APHRODITE 99 beneath the earth a second time. But its brief exposure to the enquiring eye of man was, nonetheless, of great value since it provided clues of vital importance for the interpretation

of the entire room. 7 me eg The central field of the rear wall, long | SS —— a. =

. .only . (Fig. eefrom a24) mm, ~~ =| ’ >) aB= =via ——— known a sketch published by}x="Ff Lis pS tre Barnabei but now, after many Stn a 10a years, put on exhibition in the National TH None L=Maliial Th

Museum in Naples, is dominated by a life- | — a=

size figure of Aphrodite wearing a yellow =~, y OF |

.‘ ‘=7 . °. }.}SY a | E Uy ALT = a JErari Ss ee

mantle lined with violet and standing toward | | 1

the edge of the narrow podium or stage | 4, es) ue bi

(Figs. 25~26).'8 Eros kneels on her slightly | al ey ( 7) Be VAI

° ° =. — a

raised right leg, lifting his arm to hurl a EP ~ | a —— longtemples dart. Behind this statuesque group, me: AS =) two lapped by the sea rise against —|} ee —1 wennand RACED SERINE 1 NH Daido an azure sky. .Psyche two fishing Erotes — —— dally before the purple columns of a round

temple, statues of Fortuna and a second , draped goddess stand on pedestals before Fig. 24. Sketch of the Rear Wall of the Hall of Aphrodite

the porch of the other. To the left of this (after Barnabei).

central field, Dionysos and Ariadne occupied the stage. The ivy-crowned

‘ Sd + . . :

— | god held a thyrsus in his right hand

nm SB and turned to embrace Ariadne at his ! , al left—a seated group apparently similar

ee J in character to the well-known pair

re a eee » ¥ e, z $ w: ad «~/

4 ae ".*- -; x7 ~~ . : +'

;— ae 2 * , a . 2 . , » a ‘J

stiathitict | < ’a?e per. “~s 4)” »‘ % 1a| *, Kea"fe P¢ee / =,a.xa .“Jrlte . -Z om . oo es = fe? . aes r rs - 2 “aae. ao F “a:Xpe : aa5|4:7.eaSy?.,ts4i>:ifa.af s ig —*Re > - oe aa % . > * ty Sd e I a. Ft, ' fi, Ry : ’ Sue ae} eae 9 veh, 2ggitSy ’ x , de, eat ~ RS) x. edeeae es a ait- ;‘= e uo

1 ° x “ty ~ es. & : r , ) ; oe: . Sear ra ‘Weg é Sat*;™ a.: .=Qa, 2” ipl oi j ae}ms 2 So. ‘CnPe ™ £ 7oe + ,an ,~ _ :~To we ee ae :‘>. Me faa & S re rTra -t. :we ~ te P ? + ms ea : we aa eR Cy NG | , Ss “a? -& , at a x . .;5 :adaomg :Pr b| ee c Py ‘ ae, P) » c Y P : —be J € x" . '.. . ‘ Vier * “ ' 4, 2 > 2. i ai 7 “~ wv * . ~ « , —ee-«Se oe Lee os cake 5. SF ae ; ae > ee ee ak EPP ie be * . way ™ e . >eeve Ntita \, ra .= ee +, a= ssete «ee? rm, ot... P$ }e :to \ =" . le? 's §> ry ~"ha — Re , Sees *. :-pe) S

:. . eS 5 i = - { - LA 4

e 1-7 on

é : ’ >ed =eHF :- ben eee v ae a ta. = : = iL, ss : / ok See fia ae £ S “— : cx Se Pe pe = + = eS ; | 4 | ‘ = s. ' Ws 2 ‘Tag ~ + 4s = ; a fr E , aw La > i ) ‘> *a ai : z y ; . > aes 7 z $i ~ ; —_ “> ty . i ‘S ‘cee a #5)l .FS =$a PalA ;: : ties Ps PN ee 3, ‘ .S eel ileal q a BS Ha : 4a ’, ‘ds3A. ee: » @ F he = aa < LS — - Te,ne be 5 Rs tee >Pe , “eq “% - 7‘ a) ‘ ee Poe e. of 2“e 5*> ieiio2° OP .b * OL ees 5:rs3>age 7 gag! 8a /_ ‘ .: _“et Lfa wy "$e =

7 * ee Oe Diag - : - nal 5 ~~ > " _—— n& 4 *- ee a

a) Bie ie, § a 4 ee GEA ae i” en Sy a ee: < r, a. € _ . y as ata hei te ;: : ee a he PR. OD. rm pa -oon 4 ¥. " . 4 3 os. ~ - Pe eens

eni,Bs, i ~ on = - -* . i‘smy a P os =e .ff| q:abet Pit. ‘i a as nal eo | nia ae : “y -. am g ° Al ‘ ;ve mJ ry a ee -; ~— . : : he Vee ae a gee oe ze 2X. alr _ i, , — —aq e . PS : £eeeee ef: ;a “9 :'LY ~. ied a8 43~as ~ ae ¥ ——; coal A ws 4 s “oat a am: 3.

:+~:

THE HALL OF APHRODITE 33 Between the figures, a round shield leans against the rock. To the left, in the intercolumniation nearest the door, an elderly bearded man wrapped in a purple mantle leans on a knotted staff and stares at the group before him. He wears purple-lined black sandals and a gold ring inset with carnelian.1® Like all the figures of the lateral walls, he stands against a scarlet ground on the upper surface of the podium. What the nature of the figure or figures occupying the right intercolumniation was can only be surmized since this part of the left wall was found covered with plaster. Apparently, it had been damaged in the earthquake of 63 A. D. and prepared for a redecoration prevented by the eruption of 79. Until the discovery of the Villa Item, the decoration of this hall remained without parallel among the countless wall paintings executed on Italian soil. Even now, after nearly half a century, no satisfactory explanation of these enigmatic figures has been advanced, no general agreement exists about their identity. Taking as his point of departure the central panel of the rear wall (Fig. 24), Barnabei saw in this room a celebration of the triumph of love and beauty.2® Dionysos and Ariadne, the majestic couple in New York whom he thought of as Herakles and Iole, the unknown pair on the Naples wall accompanied by an elderly pedagogue, all three illustrated the victory of love, a victory sung by Sappho, the citharist. Later writers rejected this explanation as fanciful and unfounded. Apart from one or two attempts to characterize the Naples figures as a divinity giving counsel to a seated woman in the presence of an old man,”! as a frightened woman consulting an augur about a dream or as Phoenix before Neoptolemos and his mother, Deidameia,** the majority 19 Curiously enough, the E painted in cream tones on the scarlet ground of the carnelian has hitherto gone unnoticed. Theoretically, this E might provide a clue as to the identity of the wearer of the ring. However, among the many examples of inscribed gems published in C.I.G., IV, 7029ff., no case of such a one-letter inscription is to be found, comparable stones bearing either more letters or monograms. Hence this initialed

carnelian cannot be a signet ring in the normal sense of the term. Nor does it seem to be a mystic letter connected with one or another cult judging by the material collected by Franz Dornseiff, Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magie, Leipzig and Berlin, 1922. There remains the entirely plausible possibility that the letter E painted on this ring is an artist’s signature. Indeed this explanation of the otherwise enigmatic letter receives strong support from a group of five bronze statues found in Herculaneum which, in spite of their typological differences, are all represented wearing a ring in every case inscribed with an identical S-shaped symbol. As Kurt Kluge and Karl Lehmann-Hartleben, Die antiken Grofbronzen, Berlin and Leipzig, 1927,

Il, pp. 61-62, 72, 93, 98, Pls. XXVII, XXIX, fig. 3 to Pl. XIX and fig. 3 to Pl. XXIII, have recognized, this mark is best interpreted as the signature of a workshop. By analogy, the E on the painted ring is best understood as, in this instance, a master’s signature. For further allusion to this point see below p. 167, n. 114. 20 Op. cit., pp. 54-60. 21 Sambon, op. cit., p. 13, suggested this interpretation without indicating his reasons for it. 22 Georges Toudouze, “Les villas de Boscoreale,” Le Musée, I1I, 1906, pp. 162ff. Again, no evidence was

presented for this theory. *3 R. Engelmann, ‘“‘Neoptolemos in Skyros,” Zeztschrift fiir bildende Kunst, N. F. XTX, 1908, p. 315, maintained that the Naples wall reflected a lost tragedy mentioned by Aristotle and reflected in a fragmentarily preserved play by the Roman poet Accius. This interpretation was predicated upon the erroneous assumption that the paintings of the great hall are not related to each other in content and that the centre figure of the Naples group is a man—two points which the following discussion will prove to be incorrect. According to Engelmann, Diomedes should have accompanied Phoinix on this mission, but in the Naples painting he is unfortunately missing. In addition, several lesser details which it is needless to discuss render the author’s specific comparisons unconvincing. 3 Lehmann

34 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE of writers abandoned the task of interpreting the paintings in any very specific fashion. For the most part, they were considered portraits, portraits of the mistress of the house and her slave or daughter (the Metropolitan cithara player and her attendant),?4 of the owners of the villa (the Metropolitan seated pair),?° miscellaneous family representations involving ersonalities of several generations.”® In due time, this general approach to the problem gave way to a detailed investigation of the minutiae of the panels as a result of which it was suggested that these Roman paintings were copies of a cycle of lost Hellenistic portraits. Inasmuch as this is the only comprehensive explanation of the paintings that has ever been published, it requires consideration.

P 8 8 Pp P §

According to the author of this theory, Franz Studniczka, the Naples wall (Fig. 27) represents Antigonos Gonatas encouraged by the loving admiration of his mother, Phila, and in the presence of his teacher, Menedemos of Eretria, while the New York wall (Pls. I, IV, VID, shows Antigonos’ father, Demetrios Poliorketes, resting after a journey, the guest of his sister-in-law, Eurydike.?” Understandably enough, so the explanation goes, he has left his heavy and unattractive wife behind and searches for beauty in the home of his Egyptian relatives. On one side, a favorite hetaira waits for him; on the other, Ptolemais, Eurydike’s daughter, carries off her future husband’s shield, a bride-to-be, glancing in supplication to heaven. In the meantime, her unhappy mother, deserted by her own husband, broods over the future. Will her daughter be happier with the Waster-of-Cities, given his endless affairs with hetairae (witness the citharist) than her sister was ? Thus Studniczka queries and, to complete this family scene of women loved and left, he suggests that the damaged space to the right of Antigonos Gonatas was originally occupied by Antigonos’ favorite, the hetaira, Demo. These imagines illustrium were selected, so it seems, to adorn a prince’s house and immortalized a second time on the walls of our villa thanks to the Roman taste for portraits of historical personalities. How productive of the sterner republican virtues these noble exponents of the heroic past would have been, the author of this scientifically presented theory did not venture to say. One is left to imagine the reaction of a Cicero or a Varro one’s self. Few scholars have accepted the whole of this preposterous theory.?® But the fact that

II, 1903, pp. 35ff.

24 Sambon, op. cit., p. 13 and +19; Toudouze, /oc. cit., and “Les fresques de Boscoreale,” Les Arts, 25 Ernst Pfuhl, Ma/erez und Zeichnung der Griechen, Munich, 1923, II, pp. 878ff.

26 Pfuhl, /oc, cit.; Eugénie Strong, Art in Ancient Rome, New York, 1928, II, 13ff; Margarete Bieber, “The Mystery Frescoes in the Mystery Villa of Pompeii,” The Review of Religion, November, 1937, pp. 10-11. In this connection, see the remarks below in notes Go and 186. 27 Franz Studniczka, ‘““Imagines illustrium,” Jahrbuch des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, XXXVIIIIX, 1923/24, pp. 57-128. 28 WW. Tarn in The Cambridge Ancient History, VII, Cambridge, 1928, p. 87, and Karl Schefold, Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker, Basel, 1943, p. 132, are exceptions to this rule. Here

Schefold elaborates Studniczka’s interpretation of the elderly man in Naples by suggesting that in the hypothetical prototype of this painting, a Pergamene artist followed the advice and council of Antigonos of Karystos, a pupil of Menedemos, who lived in Pergamon and supplied the artist with information about

THE HALL OF APHRODITE 35 more than one has felt compelled to acquiesce to large parts of it, to retain the explanation of the Naples wall while rejecting the interpretation of the New York paintings,?9 and that others have been forced to conclude that the figures represented on these walls were, at any rate, historical personalities®® makes it necessary to examine the genesis of this theory. It is not a very lengthy task since the spiral structure erected by the author rests on an exceedingly narrow foundation. The entire argument may be said to depend upon one observation: the similarity of the shield standing between the two seated figures of the Naples wall and those represented on the coinage of Antigonos Gonatas. Having noted this undeniable fact, Studniczka embarked on a curious tack. He insisted that this shield was the actual property of the figure at the left, that this figure was a youth, that the youth wore a Macedonian

Rausia ot toyal cap on his head and, given this constellation of details, that the youth must be Antigonos Gonatas, in which case the heavy-set woman could only be his mother. To be sure, these observations were not easy to establish. The majority of writers have stated that the all-important shield stands between the figures, that it is not a weapon borne by either.3! Furthermore, those whom Studniczka consulted agreed that the light-skinned his master’s appearance. In two more recent discussions, “Vom Sinn der romischen Wandmalerei,” Mélanges Charles Picard (Revue archéologique, ser. VI, XXXI-XXXII, 1949) pp. 942ff. and “Der Sinn der romischen Wandmalerei, “Vermdchtnis der antiken Kunst, Heidelberg, 1950, pp. 178ff., for copies of which

I am indebted to the author, Schefold retains this interpretation. This is a pity because it has seemingly prevented him from exploiting his awareness of the primary religious significance of the rear wall (““Soweit ist der Sinn des Ganzen deutlich: der fromme Besucher wird zur Verehrung von Bacchus, Venus und den

Grazien geweiht,” Mé/anges, p. 942). Whether or not one agrees with the specific suggestions advanced by Schefold in this pair of articles, one cannot fail to welcome his conviction that the walls of Pompeian and Roman houses require interpretation and are not to be brushed aside as a merely decorative assortment of unrelated mythological compositions. 29 M.1.Rostovtzeff, Mystic Italy, New York, 1927, pp. 84-86; Rizzo, La pittura ellenistico-romana, pp. 7-8. 9° FE. Pernice, Pompejz, Leipzig, 1926, p. 58; Curtius, op. c/t., pp. 279ff.; M. H. Swindler, Ancient Painting, New Haven, 1929, pp. 332-333; Gofftedo Bendinelli, Compendio di storia dell’ arte etrusca e romana, Milan,

1931, pp. 363f.; Herbig, “Zwei Stromungen,” pp. 142ff.; J. D. Beazley and Bernard Ashmole, Greek Sculpture and Painting, Cambridge, 1932, p. 208 (cf. The Cambridge Ancient History, III, pp. 168-169; VIII, p. 696); Beyen, op. ciz., pp. 213 ff. Friedrich Matz, ‘Die Stilphasen der hellenistischen Malerei,” Archdologischer Anzeiger, 1944-1945, col. 99. Cf. the variants in A. Maturi, Les fresques de Pompéz, Paris, 1936, Pl. VIII, G. E. Rizzo, Centuripe, fasc. I, Ritratti di eta ellenistica (Monumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia, sec. 111), Rome, 1940, pp. 26ff., and Pericle Ducati, Die etruskische, italo-hellenistische und rémische Malerei, Vienna, 1942, pp. XXI-XXII. Curtius, /oc. c7t., suggested that the elderly Naples figure was a portrait of Epicurus (the general similarity of the types had been noted by Pfuhl, op. e7t¢., II, 878ff.). By implication, the majority of later writers have rejected this identification as Studniczka and Schefold, /oc. cit., have explicitly. Beyen, however, accepted it. It is difficult to comprehend how Curtius found it possible to see in the monumental seated figure at the right of the Naples wall an “uppige junge Frau,” the famous student of a famous teacher, accompanied by her nurse! Whether or not one finds the male figure similar

to busts of Epicurus, the fact that Curtius made no attempt to relate the paintings of the Naples wall to those of the rear or New York walls renders this suggestion of little value. Indeed, it is regrettable that the author neither illustrates nor discusses the New York paintings in his interesting book. 31 For example, Barnabei, Pfuhl, Curtius, /oc. cit., as well as A. J. Reinach, “La frise du monument de Paul-Emile a Delphes, “‘ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, XXXIV, 1910, p. 445. In fact, Curtius insisted

that the shield was an attribute of the seated woman at the right. 3*

36 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE figure seated in the background was a woman.** He, himself, commented upon the rarity of the figure’s coiffure among men but seemed to find a close analogy in the well-known portrait of Pyrrhus.°3 Then, too, the Aausia presented difficulties. First of all, the fillet attached to a Aausia should hang down the nape of the neck; secondly, the Aausia was worn only by kings. But the fillet dangles from the side of the painted cap, and Antigonos Gona-

tas did not assume the throne in his mother’s lifetime, as Studniczka candidly pointed out. Then a happy thought occurred to him—perhaps Antigonos was appointed crown prince or co-ruler before he assumed the throne; perhaps the fillet of a crown prince’s kausia hung at the side of the head to differentiate its wearer from the true king. Similarly, it is suggested that Antigonos’ father, Demetrios, who should have been characterized by some kind of diadem, has left both diadem and royal cloak behind in his flight to the south. These are the pillars on which the theory rests. Once the debated figure became Antigonos Gonatas, the others assumed their respective identities by the law of probability aided by speculation. Since no tangible comparisons or proofs were adduced for the identification of

these figures as Phila, Demetrios, Eurydike, and Ptolemais, one is spared the labor of refuting them. Given the purely speculative character of the suggestions advanced for the tight wall, it is not surprising that they have been dismissed by many writers. Yet it is scarcely reasonable to retain the theory for one wall and abandon it for another. The specific identification of the lateral figures of the Naples wall is rooted in the sex, costume, and attributes of the central figure. But the sex, costume, and attributes of this figure are a decidedly unfortunate combination upon which to base the present theory.

Careful investigators have agreed in pronouncing the figure female and Studniczka, himself, has pointed out the contrast between the “prince’s” complexion and the swarthy skin of his elderly teacher. One may go further and remark that the flesh tones of the “prince” are still lighter in effect than those of his “mother.” The coiffure which Studniczka acknowledged to be so rare for a man need not be put to this test, since a comparison of the figure with the supposedly similar bust of Pyrrhus is certainly not persuasive. Neither is the curious headgear worn by this figure analogous to the kausia. Its two superimposed cylindrical rolls, the upper black, the lower gray, by no means duplicate the cap worn by Antimachos I of Bactria and illustrated as the closest analogy.34 These comparisons simply do not bear close scrutiny. Once this figure has been restored to its rightful sex, what remains of the Macedonian royal family? Its shield. Again, Studniczka’s comparisons are not altogether felicitous. None of the Macedonian coins cited to prove his point is exactly like the painted shield, none has a star as its central emblem although such stars do appear as decorations of the 32 Walter Amelung and E, Frank, indicated by Studniczka, op. cit., p. 68, note 4. A. J. Reinach, Curtius, and Beyen have emphatically reiterated this opinion. 33 Cf. A. Hekler, Die Bi/dniskunst der Griechen und Romer, Stuttgart, 1912, Pl. LXXIb. 34 Op. cit., p. 72, fig. 6. Note the briefly stated but sound reactions of G. Méautis (Les chefs-d’ oeuvres de la peinture grecque, Paris, 1939, pp. 162ff.) in regard to such details and his rejection of Studniczka’s theory.

THE HALL OF APHRODITE 37 concentric ornaments.®> Granted, the shield is Macedonian. But this variety of Macedonian shield had a long history. Not only do the Antigonid coins of the early third century B. C.

show analogous examples but also the frieze of the monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi.2¢ Perhaps the closest of all analogies is the shield decorating a metope on a Campana telief dated in the second century A. D.®’ To be sure, the painted shield is Macedonian. But

that it is the shield of Antigonos Gonatas or can be taken as indicative of any specific moment in the course of several centuries by no means follows. Quite the contrary. With the collapse of this argument, the entire theory crumbles.

Possibly the most serious criticism to be levelled against this theory is its complete disregard of the rear wall. However untenable Barnabei’s interpretation of individual panels may have been, his awareness of the major réle of the rear wall in the decorative effect of the entire room and, within that wall, of the primary importance of the central panel, led him to stress the dependence of the lateral walls upon the rear wall and the interrelationship of

all three. His approach to the methodical problem of explaining this room was, thus, basically sounder than Studniczka’s technique of seizing upon one or two antiquarian details

as the open sesame of this thorny problem. In the meantime, other writers have groped toward a fundamentally religious interpretation of all three walls.3®

There can be no doubt, today, that whatever the meaning of these paintings, they constitute one indivisible whole. The independent, framed pictures set in a loose association of juxtaposition within a given room characteristic of the Third and Fourth Styles of Pompeian painting did not appear until relatively late in the Second Style, until the time of the House of Livia or the Farnesina, for example. Both the Odyssey paintings®® and the famous Bacchic cycle from the Villa Item® illustrate the decoration of a room or portico by a frieze of continuous or related scenes in earlier phases of the Second Style. Of these, the Villa Item offers by far the closest parallel to the paintings of our villa. Here, too, a rectangular room is decorated with a frieze of life-size figures. And, however debatable individual details of this frieze may be, the fact that it reflects rites of initiation into the Bacchic mysteries seems certain. The divine pair sits enthroned in the center of the rear wall attended by members of the cortége and flanked on either side of the room by mortal 3 Ibid., p. 74, fig. 7. 38 Cf. the discussions of Georg Lippold, “‘Griechische Schilde,” Manchner archdologische Studien, Munich, 1909, p. 502, and A. J. Reinach, /oc. eft. 3? H.von Rohden, Architektonische rimische Tonreliefs der Kaiserzeit (Kekulé, Die antiken Terrakotten, IV),

Berlin, 1911, Pl. CXIX, 1. 38 Rostovtzeff, Mystic Italy, Joc. cit., went so far as to say “I am confident that the meaning is religious and that religious acts are represented. Is it not the act of mystic instruction ?”’ Similarly, Marconi, op. ¢é¢., in the captions to figs. 44-45, the central panels of the lateral walls, describes them as “gruppi di divinita.”

Reinach’s interpretation, op. ci#., pp. 20,4¢1, 33,4¢1, however incorrect, moved in this direction in his attempt to explain the Naples man as “Asklepios ou plutét un devin,” and the girl with the shield as Athena. Note, too, Schefold’s view cited above in note 28. 39 Well illustrated by Bartolomeo Nogara, Le noyze Aldobrandini, Milan, 1907, Pls. IX-XXVI. 40 Maiuri, La villa dei misteri, Pls. -XV.

38 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE initiates or ministrants. The interrelationship of the parts to the whole, the religious character of the entire decoration is generally accepted.*! The great hall of the villa near Boscoreale appears to be another such room primarily dedicated to the worship of the

gods.” Assuming, then, that the central panel of the rear wall (Figs. 24-25) provides the key to this enigmatic room, where does it lead ? Clearly, into the realm of Aphrodite. Of this, there

can be no doubt. Here, at least, no problem of interpretation presents itself. The lateral panels with their equally transparent allusion to Dionysos and the Graces are subordinate to the central field both visually and intellectually. The abundant evidence for the inter_ telation and association of these divinities is best postponed until the possibility of connecting the lateral walls with the circle of Aphrodite has been explored, for the explicit nature of this evidence will provide a valuable check on the validity of the interpretation advanced for the room as a whole. The primary question to be answered, therefore, is what has Aphrodite to do with the great figures moving against the scarlet ground of the lateral walls ? Does she appeat among them? Is it possible that the monumental robed figure enthroned in the central panel of the right wall represents the goddess ?

The heroic or divine nature of the majestic couple in the Metropolitan Museum (Pls. IV-V) has been recognized by several scholars.*? For the nudity of the young man leaning on a staff constitutes both an insuperable obstacle to interpreting him as mortal and a positive indication of his heroic or divine character. Were he an isolated figure, he might conceivably be an athlete.44 If he wore a diadem, he might theoretically be a divinized king. But, given the context of this figure, the fact that he is enthroned beside a draped woman, neither of these alternatives is tenable. If this youth is divine, if his companion may possibly be Aphrodite, can he be Adonis? Unquestionably, he can. The overwhelming majority of ancient representations of Aphrodite and Adonis show

the goddess as a heavily draped woman and her lover as a nude young man. Again and again, they appear together in this guise, on Roman sarcophagi, on Etruscan mirrors, in Pompeian paintings, on Greek vases, on miscellaneous minor objects.” Occasionally, 41 Professor A. D. Nock informs me that he is skeptical about this interpretation. Cf., too, for another point of view, Domenico Comparetti, Le nozze di Bacco ed Arianna, Florence, 1921. 42 Margarete Bieber, /oc. cit., has already called attention to the similar character of these two rooms. 43 Por example, Rostovtzeff, Marconi, Bieber, Beyen, /oc. cit. 4 Toudouze, “Les villas,” /oc. cit#., followed Sambon, op. c/t., 4420 1n suggesting this. Cf., too, Leader Scott, “The Newly Discovered Frescoes of Boscoreale,” The Magazine of Art, XXV, 1901, p. 320 and Luigi Cavenaghi, “I dipinti di Boscoreale e la loro tecnica,” Rassegna a’ arte, 1, 1901, 7. 45 The majority of representations of Aphrodite and Adonis may be found among the great collections of

material assembled by Carl Robert, Die antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs, II, Berlin, 1897, pp. 7ff., 443-21, Pl:. II-V; Kliigmann-Korte-Gerhard, Esruskische Spiegel, Berlin, 1843-1897, I, Pls. CXI-CXVI;, III, pp. 109ff.; IV, Pls. CCCX XII, CCCXXV;; V, Pls. XXIH-XXVIJI, pp. 32-35; Wolfgang Helbig, Wandgemdlde der vom Vesuv verschtitteten Stddte Campaniens, Leipzig, 1868, especially pp. 85f., +4329-345; Salomon Reinach, Répertoire de peintures grecques et romaines, Paris, 1922, pp. 64-65; and J. D. Beazley, Atte RedFigure Vase Painters, Oxford, 1942, items listed on p. 978 under Adonis. C£., too, Otto Jahn, Archdologische Bettrdge, 1847, pp. 45-51.

THE HALL OF APHRODITE 39 Adonis wears a chlamys about his shoulders. More often, it has slipped down and falls across one thigh in token of the fatal wound which deprived him of his life. So he appears repeatedly in Pompeian painting, an ill-fated youth dying in the arms of the unhappy goddess.46 In these piefd-like scenes, the youthful beauty of Aphrodite’s lover is emphasized at the expense of his virility. Apparently a somewhat effeminate type became orthodox for the iconography of this moment. But on sarcophagi, Adonis appears as a stalwart hunter, a strapping, fully developed, if beardless, figure. Thus, Ovid refers to him not as

a youth but as a man*” and Theokritos ARAB AE r

describes the bridegroom as a “man” of KONE aise ! Ti NEA y

manhood just showing on his cheeks. Mr Lae MR Like many a Greek hero renowned for { Oi is 4~ (\ y A BS

} NG ™ Di», “RA ace —_ % < ¢ 2

It is needless to cite the substantial number Wee eT) DOR A Be ESS

; a i Ne Y Kors

of additional monuments in one way or another eS w i 4S Wy oid

illustrative of Aphrodite and Adonis or their IA) AD i Ng % |

cult. So far as they throw light on the paintings fe PRA w) (gees of this room they will be indicated at appropri- Ln 3 ) | “es Vy ate points. However, I should like to call atten- ley. so : - Bo 7 tion to the brief article by Henri Seyrig, “Anti- . ag, we ) quités syriennes,”” Syria, X XI, 1940, pp. 113ff., N “7 « BN; where the rock-cut reliefs in the vicinity of V2) =\f Byblos accepted since the day of Ernest Renan, See Mission de Phoénicie, Paris, 1864, pp. 292ff., as

illustrative of Aphrodite mourning for Adonis ,

are convincingly explained as funerary reliefs in zee no way related to Aphrodite or Adonis.

i See, tor example, the famous Fourth Style Fig. 28. Naples, National Museum: Etruscan Mirror. painting in the peristyle of the House of the

Wounded Adonis, Helbig, op. cit., +340, and

Herrmann-Bruckmann, Denkmdler der Malerei des Altertums, Munich, 1905-, Pl. LII. Note the interesting comment by the Scholiast on Theokritos, III, 48, which indicates his familiarity with this iconographic type. Cf., too, Bion, I, 79ff.

Metamorphoses, X, 522-523: cae nuper erat genitus, modo formosissimus intans,

iam iuvenis, iam vir, iam se formosior ipso est. Cf., too, Tzetzes on Lycophron, Alexandra, 829, and Doxopater, Homilia, 11 (Rhetores Graeci, Walz, 11,

pp. 244ff.) where, again, Aphrodite loves Adonis after he has become an &vfp. | 48 XV, 84-86: atitds S'ds Santos tm’ &pyupeas KaTAKEITAI &puoi Tp&Tov iovAov &1rd KpOTaPwY KATABAAACY —

5 TpIpiAntos “Adwvis, 6 Khv “AxépovTi prAcitat. XV, 129-131: dKtwKaiSexéTns 7 Evveakald|ex’ 6 yauBpos. ov KevTei TO MIANL’, ETI Of trepi yetAea TrUppa.

viv pav Kutrpis Exo1oa Tov aUTGs KaIpeTa Avdpa.

40 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE growth of a beard, an iconographic combination indicative of the years eighteen to twenty, the golden age of the Argonauts and the Dioskouroi. The powerful young man in the central panel of the right wall fulfills precisely these requirements. Vigorous and fully developed in physique, he is, nevertheless, unbearded save for the black growth moving down his cheek, darkening the flesh before his ear. And over his right thigh the tell-tale drapery falls, symbolic of the future, characteristic of the hunter-shepherd in scene after scene. For shepherd he is as well as hunter—Theokritos and Virgil are emphatic on this score—*? and he rests his hands not on the hunter’s spear but on the shepherd’s staff, a staff bent like a cane and having a short bar grasped by the right hand which is, in turn, clasped by the left. The fine Etruscan mirror illustrated in Fig. 28°* shows Adonis seated in a remarkably similar position, a shepherd leaning on his staff, in the presence of the fully draped goddess. As this mirror indicates, the seated Adonis is by no means invariably represented in the act of dying.®? The popularity of the latter scene and its preservation in numerous examples #9 Cf. my article “Amykos and the Dioskouroi,” American Journal of Archaeology, XLIX, 1945, pp. 337ff., for a discussion of this iconographic problem.

50 T, 109-110; ITI, 46-49; XX, 34-36 (given the context, Il. 34-35 must apply to Il. 35-36); Eclogue xX, 18.

51 In this connection, it is interesting to note the figure of Argos in the well-known painting of Io, Argos, and Hermes (Herrmann, op. cét., Pl. LVI). Here, too, the seated shepherd leans on his staff in a position similar to that of Adonis in several respects. 52 Gerhard, op. cit., I, Pl. CVX. Inscribed TURAN, ATUNIS, LASA SITMICA. Described in ITI, pp. 113-117. The basket-like object hanging in the background of this scene and described by Gerhard as a cista mystica may well be an Adonis garden given the details mentioned in note 189 of the following chapter. This mirror is not mentioned by J. D. Beazley in his recent article, “The World of the Etruscan Mirror,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies, LXTX-LXX, 1949-1950, pp. 1-17. Yet, so far as I can see, it solves the problem that puzzles him in connection with a fine mirrorin Florence previously discussed by F. Moretti, Notizie degli scavi, XXV, 1900, pp. 556ff., L. Savignoni, ib/d., pp. 559-560, and G. A. Mansuelli, “Materiali per un supplemento al ‘Corpus degli specchi etruschi figurati’,” Stud? etruschi, XVI, 1942, pp. 536-538,

Pl. XLI, 2. Here the hunter ATUNIS appears seated on a rock accompanied by a snarling hound. Opposite him, a winged female figure inscribed LASA ACHUNUNA claps him lightly but firmly about the waist, leading Professor Beazley to remark, p. 12, “It is surprising to find Adonis associated with

anyone but Aphrodite, Turan:”. On the Naples mirror illustrated above, a seated similarly half-draped Adonis is confronted by both Aphrodite and a Lasa, in this case, Lasa Sitmica; on the Florence mirror, the

central figure has dropped out. Is it not possible that this Lasa, whatever his or her name, is a demon of death who, on the Naples mirror, comes to hale off the goddess’ lover to his annual sojourn in the underworld while, on the Florence mirror, the action has progressed still farther—Aphrodite has now vanished as the Lasa, whose deathly presence causes Adonis’ dog to snarl, clasps her consort in order to bear him off to Persephone? (Moretti’s mistaken identification of the second figure as Venus, op. cit., p. 555, was corrected by Savignoni, /oc. cit. Mansuelli has confused the situation still further, op. c/t., p. 537, by a note in which he refers to Gerhard, Pl. CXV, i. e., the Naples mirror, but actually describes and discusses a winged Adonis accompanied by Tiphanati who appear, not on the Naples mirror, but on a third mirror illustrated by Gerhard on Pl. CXVII)

Typologically and stylistically, the Naples mirror should also be considered in connection with the related scene of Paris, Helen and Aphrodite on the New York mirror discussed by Beazley, op. cit., p. 7, fig. 4 and Pl. V a, where the shepherd Alexandros is surely a variation on the type of the shepherd Adonis. 53 Other iconographic types known from literature but unknown among preserved works of art such as the scene of Aphrodite carrying off Adonis mentioned by Plautus, (Menaechmi [I, 2,], 144ff.), and the

THE HALL OF APHRODITE A] have somewhat obscured this fact. But the annual reunion of the goddess and her lover played far too vital a role in the Adonia not to be reflected in some iconographic type. Fortunately, this type is documented a second time in the fragmentary mosaic reproduced in Fig. 29. This sadly damaged panel was one of several scenes decorating the triclinium of a Roman villa in Antioch.*4 It presents certain striking analogies to the New York painting. Here, too, Aphrodite wears a himation over her chiton and sits enthroned beside the nude ci, : “2 . “a &e oh is, i mah ~beA hod 5 nf thi 7m mo a . 74 : mn i- . hk ies eero ee i: : iNee ye wo sicalOO ts ' ae a Ey ) Re Wty \ = BSoa ey ry ie ey : i fy x di , ~via . a, us ; " &a : : ee 4 + bee A oe Le *) ; ey > Be “te 8 r b req :: By DeEran ak _Sd} | Ay Sonia aty? DiHaele s & y AN ot Yat ,. 5 er gs! . i Be oh, |) eee , Fal Z a xe Wy | A Nie von Myf * 0 ¥ mia is we i

tt ne oo Oy : T}. ‘ a, rye a Ta. ye re & |ze AS% cane f A> (ae:eea Ne y ;Wied a. aAg “!a~~ ¥ 4PANG j f reOB :|

7 ay. moe

Wr j » alt. Gh. Wate * Ae “4 | jq .\,a i}Mada Ny 38 ES ER a

i seAL \t or2) eeeee 8 o| Y Fe e ees A gz : . ey JF < ee ‘hs S nh aus A» wy” F 7 a i. f my Le Ca “i Fy een i | ‘ ike ff 2 img ts ih a so i - si | Mee BP er is } ty. > ee Ps ity oe

ee Pyny en ee AOaRAS’ Ga : amma,‘ ee Se erF% Literrr4 |4| le “aearHy2s Bvicr

? POREARS Ola isles ere ee

Fig. 29. Princeton, University Museum: Fragmentary Mosaic from Antioch.

Adonis. Here, too, Adonis’ cloak is wrapped over his right thigh and lies at his left side. In this mosaic, as in a number of other representations, the hunter Adonis is accompanied by his dog. The presence of this dog, combined with the context in which the panel is set, ensures the accepted interpretation of the seated pair as Aphrodite and Adonis since, again, the remaining panels of the floor have to do with Dionysos or Aphrodite—a point to which we shall return shortly. In both painting and mosaic, the goddess sits to the right of her consort as she customarily does on sarcophagi wherever the divine pair is shown seated. In both cases, too, Aphrodite, alone, rests her sandalled feet on a footstool. Here, similarities plastic group described by Lucilius (Pa/atine Anthology, X1, 174), suggest the incompleteness of the preserved iconographic cycle. For an earlier, to me unconvincing, attempt to add an iconographic type to the cycle see Julius Ziehen, “Zur Kunstmythologie des Adonis,” Philologus, LVIII, 1899, pp. 318-319. 54 Antioch-on-the-Orontes, I, The Excavations of 1932, edited by G. W. Elderkin, Princeton, 1934, pp. 42-48, fig. 9. This panel is now in Princeton. A plan of the first century A. D. villa from which the mosaic comes appears as Pl. IV of this volume. In the final publication of the Antioch mosaics by Doro Levi,

Antioch Mosaic Pavements, Princeton, 1947, p. 15, the author rejects the technical conclusions drawn by C. S. Fisher, Antioch-on-the-Orontes, 1, pp. 16-17, as Professor Elderkin, pp. 47ff., had previously corrected

Fisher’s erroneous interpretation of the mosaic. Curiously enough, in describing the Princeton fragment as an “amorous conversation”, Levi notes the formal analogy between this mosaic and the New York painting, referring to the seated figures as another “conversation group”, pp. 24ff., and note 50, although he is not aware that the latter, too, represents Aphrodite and Adonis,

42 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE cease, for although the thrones used in both scenes are related in type, all having turned legs and panelled seats, the Antioch pair sit on separate thrones,» the painted couple on a double throne. Four of the six turned legs of this throne are visible, the remaining two being hidden by the ample folds of the goddess’ drapery, as the outer arm at the spectator’s left is masked by the billow of that same cloak to the left of her knee.®® The back of the left half of the throne

and all but the knob of the central arm are likewise hidden behind Aphrodite’s massive figure. Thus, like other divine couples,*” the goddess and her lover sit together in a double throne, symbol of their union.*® It is worth noting that the griffon supporting the left arm of this throne appears in this connection a second time on the throne of Aphrodite at the extreme left of the Adonis sarcophagus walled into the west side of the Villa Giustiniani °° Cf. the husky inscribed figure of Adonis seated opposite the seated Aphrodite on a squat relief oinochoe in Leningrad dated in the last decade of the fifth century B. C. (Karl Schefold, Untersuchungen vit den Kertscher Vasen, Berlin and Leipzig, 1934, p. 103, figs. 41-42; A. Furtwangler, Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik, Leipzig and Berlin, 1893, p. 487).

6 A very similar double throne having a back, outer arms supported by sphinxes and six legs, of which three are invisible, appears in the Roman painting from Herculaneum illustrated by R. P. Hinks, Catalogue of the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Paintings and Mosaics in the British Museum, London, 1933, 4426, Pl. X.

7 Cf., for example, Hades and Persephone enthroned on the lid at present placed on a sarcophagus decorated with scenes from the life of Endymion in the Museo Capitolino in Rome (H. S. Jones, The Sculptures of the Museo Capitolino, Oxford, 1912, p. 314 Band Pl. LXXVIID, the same divinities on a relief

in the Vatican (W. Amelung, Die Sculpturen des V aticanischen Museums, I, Berlin, 1908, p. 23, +6 and Pl. III), and a panel painting from the Fayoum representing Suchos and Isis enthroned together (Rubensohn, “Aus griechisch-rGmischen Hausern des Fayum,” Jahrbuch des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, XX, 1905, pp. 16ff., Pl. I) as well as the early classical terracotta statuette of Zeus and Hera seated in a double throne from the Heraion on the Sele (P. Zancani-Montuoro and U. Zanotti-Bianco, Notizie degli scavi, LXII, 1937, p. 223 and fig. 10), Guy Dickins’ restoration of the double throne in Damophon’s group at Lykosoura (““Damophon of Messene.—-II,”’ Annual of the British School at Athens, XIII, 1906-1907, fig. 16 and Pls. XIJ-XIIJ), and the seated divinities of the famous ivory group from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia (R. M. Dawkins, The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta, London, 1929, pp. 51, 221, and PI. CXXIV). Cf., too, Reinach, Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine, IV, pp. 159-160, V, p. 470, 465, VI, P+ 5; +t 1-3.

The use of a double throne for divine couples may well have inspired its parallel use for royal consorts of the mythological past. Cf., for example, Oeneus and Althaea on an Etruscan relief in Volterra (G. Kérte,

I rilievi delle urne etrusche, 11, Berlin 1896, Pl. LXII, 12 and pp. 150-151). It is possible that the seat represented on a red-figured krater in the Bibliothéque Nationale in Paris (A. de Ridder, Catalogue des vases peints de la Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris, 1902, +£953, illustrated by Lenormant-De Witte, E//te des monuments céramographiques, Paris, 1861, IV, Pl. LXIV) may be a double throne of which three legs are

visible. It is interesting to note that the male and female figures seated side by side in this throne or chair have been tentatively identified as Aphrodite and Adonis. Studniczka’s attempt to explain the omission of a leg from the “Stithlchen” that he postulated for his “Eurydike” as the work of a careless copyist is a warning example of the pitfalls awaiting the modern student who extricates himself from difficult situations by assuming that the ancient artist knew less about his work than we do today. In dealing with a masterpiece of the quality of the Metropolitan panel, it is obviously impossible to explain any seemingly enigmatic detail as the result of sloppiness. 58 For the apparently important rdle of thrones in the Adonia see Hesychius, s. u. xadéSpa. Theodor Klauser, Die Cathedra im Totenkult der heidnischen und christlichen Antike, Minster in Westf., 1927, pp. $0-51, comments on this passage and its implications in regard to the worship of Adonis and its connection; with the cult of the dead. I am indebted to Professor A. D. Nock for bringing this reference to my attention.

THE HALL OF APHRODITE 43 (Fig. 31).°® As we shall see, the iconography of this sarcophagus offers more than one parallel to the scenes painted on the walls of the great hall. Intimately connected with the same iconographic type is the central group on an early third-century sarcophagus in the Lateran Museum (Fig. 30). Once again the stalwart hunter sits enthroned beside his divine consort who wears chiton and himation and rests her sandalled foot on a footstool in the familiar fashion, her regal nature being emphasized by

: WwW \9 184% a x : : ‘Sts. >= SS . - bs : Whit Wy DV Les ‘ -WO ‘ ‘ ey Ni ‘Ww , jjPays “ = Rap aiiUE . ! o.Re \- > ; Ba“4ye ad SAL Aree

ae ce ena a ee > a a! nA ir ~ Eas ae SS e/\e; A TEAMS YOON A ALWOAS IAQ (eo) Fl BS

' , ' . A’ ty

a; 4 Lx »”A- a\ ay Pe ; hyayvh\¥\ Wee % ‘NES i 74 yo 5 ve We OX ym (f 2i/|ae lp 44 \i}il~~|NY 4asAd ris+3 aya qi’..va" i. OR y a Me CRASS a : wn : W vit < 2. NN Ne:ve~~ f°z5fo. Se a (fh*Y ; ; HU , ( Be EK eK Oe ~ ANNE ‘Ay aa” We S jiy\ ,fyBe LYNY gAD j ite2dg & A ‘ 4 | x . w ee nas fy: - i)! a a Ma ee-

ee ERY ad ie Se &

|: ‘a37 eS Sey fj—n ity eeEO ihPm ‘=, 43ey jTmrig—* 4~ an 5nd Oeae ed. ae - gee 9 er ot 4 rang oe a : Ser =e hes g . - . a v - +» Yeh , > we 5° “ ~ ode Mf Move , Fig.30. Rome, Lateran Museum: Roman Sarcophagus.

the presence of a sceptre in her left hand. Indeed, this monument is of unusual interest for it is the sole preserved sarcophagus on which the divine pair seated in union occupy the central position in a frieze otherwise given over to narrative scenes. Lifted out of the normal sequence of events, they sit in hieratic majesty in a position of primary artistic and iconographic significance. The running current of the fateful story moving from left to right across the sarcophagus is subordinate to a powerful impression of the immortal youth of Adonis, of his deathless union with Aphrodite, an impression all the more singular given the fusion of this iconic type with the narrative scene of the tending of Adonis’ wound.

Not a detail of the Metropolitan panel conflicts with the orthodox iconography of Aphrodite and Adonis.®! So far as appearances go, the clue provided by the rear wall seems

°° Robert, op. ct., pp. 14-15, Pl. IL, +413. . 60 Tbid., pp. 22ff., Pl. V, +421. The lid does not belong to this sarcophagus. As Robert noted, the divine

pair have been given portrait heads (cf. the altogether different appearance of Aphrodite and Adonis elsewhere on this monument) and probably represent a young man and his somewhat older wife. It is conceivable that the mortal owners of the villa were to be identified with Aphrodite and Adonis in a similar fashion. For further comment on the portrait-like quality of the paintings in this room see below note 186. 61 The identification of the seated male figure as Adonis is additional proof of the correctness of the similar interpretation suggested by Gisela M. A. Richter, Red-F'igured Athenian Vases, New Haven, 19306,

44, ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE to have set us on the right track. But what of the content of this scene? Why does the goddess rest her head so pensively on her hand? Why does she look so sombre in the presence of her lover? What did these gods mean to the ancient spectator? Can they be related to the remaining figures of the room? Before attempting to answer these questions, it may be of interest to recall the indelible impression made by this painting on the imagination of a rarely perceptive modern spectator, the poet, Rainer Maria Rilke. In one of those remarkable letters in which works of art of all periods are recreated by the poet’s vision, Rilke wrote from Rome: “In Paris, at Durand-Ruel, once in the spring of last year, antique paintings were exhibited, murals from a villa near Boscoreale being shown once again in their fragmentary, interrupted continuity before the hazard of auction tore them quite apart; they were the first antique pictures I had seen, and I have seen no more beautiful ones here, and they say that even the museum of Naples has no better paintings of that almost completely vanished time which must have had such great painters. Of these picture fragments one was preserved whole and undisturbed, although it was the biggest and perhaps the most sensitive... one knew even at first glance that he was the one who had come, the traveler to this quiet, stately woman, the stranger to this tall, home-filled woman: so much was the quality of coming still in him, as it is in a wave upon a beach, still, even when it is already withdrawing, flat, shining like bright glass; ... Thus were rest and movement juxtaposed in this picture, not as contrast, rather as an allegory, as a final unity that was slowly closing like a healing wound; for even the movement was already rest, laying itself down as quietly - falling snow lies down, becoming landscape, as snow does when it spreads itself over the shapes of distance, and now the past, as it returned, took on the aspect of the eternal, resembling those events that comprised and transfigured the life of the woman. “I shall always know the way in which that great simple picture gripped me, that picture which was so very much painting because it contained only two figures, and was so significant because those two figures were filled with themselves, heavy with themselves, and joined together by an unparalleled necessity.”® +173, Pl. 168, for the youthful male figure on a mid-fourth century lekythos in the Metropolitan Museum. There, too, Adonis sits on his mantle which is loosely draped over his right thigh; there, too, he is of similar physical type having full, curving thighs, a flat waist, and a similarly drawn and shaped torso; again, this figure is full of latent energy. Thus, this iconographic type is to be found at least as early as the mid-fourth century. For further discussion of the scene on this vase and the group of related vases to which it belongs see below p. 127, note 191. 62 Written January 15, 1904 to Lou Andreas—Salomé. Letters of Ratner Maria Rilke, 1892-1910, translated by J. B. Greene and M.D. Herter Norton, New York, 1945, +457, pp. 138-140. It is clear from the context of this letter that Rilke looked upon the two figures of the Metropolitan painting as a young man and an older, more mature woman. This is evident in the analogy he sees between these two figures and his own relationship to Lou Andreas—Salomé. I have excerpted from Rilke’s description those passages which seem of particular interest in the present discussion. The remaining sentences indicate that under the combined influence

of the personal relationship that he saw mirrored in this painting and an imagination filled with literary visions of heroes of old returning from their wanderings, the poet interpreted the figure of Adonis as a young

THE HALL OF APHRODITE AS This sense of one who has returned, this juxtaposition of the active and the passive, of movement and stability, this awareness of an inexorable destiny uniting these figures is a singular example of intuitive artistic perception. For these very implications lie at the root of the vast realm of religious symbolism expressed in the figures of the great goddess and her consort.

a ——

SS tAHNO é | PrABO dR Shs Om a8 FES URES aTED =a QOBR ~ ye +), ah (COL KN«SAI 1. Ft i RBefDon TREND

AY 7) 1yPXlyYW) =) a,sek \e Tf, wed a \\qT4/ lacesj\“yy a) y 4 &,Pes ~ ANZ, © 0) ‘/4,7

ele: A/ ‘\\ St , ypF WW . aBy t} (eres Ae:seus, f. le Afi KS)/ Se No \ EN a) a bl / \\ REC. “| [yj VV betel AO) NAN ef LX RESORT IR

(AES ULC ROE — eee NN DIT ow

AW YWAR XA 4 OF, UA! ||SC rT|(har) |PKS \ 3| LY / lee ihWAS M We ;/ a7/8 Dae) Mabil 4IA, J Rofo NW Yb Fig. 31. Rome, Villa Giustiniani: Roman Sarcophagus.

The love of Aphrodite for Adonis provided one of the major themes of Greek and Roman

literature. From Sappho to the Church Fathers and Byzantine lexicographers, echoes of the annual lament raised over Adonis’ death, of the songs of rejoicing in honor of his resurrection, reverberate through the centuries. Characteristic expressions of the pagan mind, they called forth scorching denunciation from the early Christian clergy even after the official collapse of paganism. According to the most popular version of the story recited at length by Ovid,* Adonis was the ill-fated fruit of Myrrha’s incestuous passion for her father, Cinyras.64 When the unhappy girl’s identity had been discovered by her outraged parent, she fled to Phoenicia from her native Cyprus. There she was transformed into the

tree bearing her name. There, too, the pregnant tree groaned in travail until its bark was rent by a new-born boy, Adonis. Nurtured by the Naiads, the child grew to manhood, the man back from distant lands telling the tale of his experiences. I am much indebted to Elizabeth Jastrow and Otto Brendel for having brought this letter to my attention. Rilke’s interest in this painting has also been dis-

cussed by Harvey W. Hewett-Thayer, “Rilke and the Boscoreale Frescoes,” The Germanic Review, XX,

88 Metamorphoses, X, 298 ft. .

1945, PP. 47-53.

64 Essentially the same story is told by the Scholiast on Theokritos, I, 107; Hyginus, Fabu/ae, LVIII,

CCXLII, CCLI, 4, CCLXXI; [Plutarch], Parallel Stories, XXII (Moralia, 311); Lactantius Placidus, Narrationes Fabularum, X, 9-10; Stobaeus, Florilegium, 64, 34; Rufius Festus Avienus, Descriptio orbis terrae, 11113; Servius, On the Aeneid, V, 72; Doxopater, Homilia, I (Rhetores Graeci, Walz, II, pp. 209, 218, 244ff.),

although the name Myrrha sometimes becomes Smyrna or Zmyrna. Alternate genealogies attached to the same story appear in Apollodorus, Bébliotheca, III, 14, 3-43 Antoninus Liberalis, Metamorphoses, 34; Oppian, Ha/ieutica, III, 403, and scholion; Nikephoros, Prog ymnasmata, II, 2 (Rhetores Graeci, Walz, I, 429). Cf., too, Tzetzes on Lycophron, Alexandra, 829; the scholion to Dionysius Periegetes, 509; Hesiod, Catalogues of Women and Eoiae, 21, also reflected in Probus, In Vergilii Bucolica, X, 18.

46 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE most beautiful of mortals. Now he excited the love of Aphrodite, herself, and the infatuated goddess abandoned her normal haunts to accompany the youthful hunter through woods and glades. One request the prophetic goddess made of her lover—that he avoid pursuit of lions and boars. But the headstrong youth ignored her warning. Pierced by the tusk of a

boar,® he perished, passing to the realm of Persephone. Then the wretched goddess wandered through the woods distraught calling upon her lost Adonis.® At length, she sought him in the darkness of Hades®® and, wrenching him from the cruel grasp of the Queen of the Underworld, henceforth, she cherished him six months above the earth and six months she relinquished him to pale Persephone.® Behind this narrative lay primitive man’s experience of nature, of the annual growth and

decay of vegetation, the seed that is sown, springs up and dies, to be born again after its sojourn in the deep-bosomed earth.’® The passion of Adonis, his death and resurrection, ® Cf. Ovid’s description of Adonis’ birth, ll. 503 ff. with the well-known painting from the House of the Dioskouroi (Herrmann, op. cit., Pl. CX XVII), and note the rationalistic explanation given by Fulgentius, Mythologicon, III, 8. It is needless to cite the various references like Catullus, X XIX, 9, and Dio Chrysostomos, X XIX, 18, where Adonis’ beauty or his fame as a lover have become proverbial or the various scattered allusions to Aphrodite’s equally proverbial grief over his death. References to Adonis’ return from the underworld like Claudian, Fescennina de nuptiis Honorii Augusti, I, 16, fall into this same category of proverbial phrases. 68 According to a number of ancient writers, the boar was simply an embodiment of Ares. See, for example, Eudocia Augusta, Vio/arum, Bk. 1, XX VII, 6; Cyril of Alexandria, Oz Isazah, Bk. II, vol. ITI (Migne, Pasrologia Graeca, LXX, col. 440); Firmicus Maternus, De errore profanarum religionum, YR~X; Servius, On the Aeneid, V, 72; Eclogue X, 18; Doxopater, Homilia, 11 (Rhetores Graeci, Walz, I1, pp. 244ff.); Eustathius on

the Odyssey, XI, 590, and the charming scene in Nonnus, Donystaca, XLI, 204-211. For other versions of Ares’ réle see the scholion to I/iad, V, 385; Aphthonius, Prog ywnasmata, II, 10ff., and Geoponica sive Cassiani Bassi scholastici de re rustica eclogae, XI, 17. He figures, too, in Anthologia latina, IV, 19ff. Melito of Sardis,

Apologia ad Antoninum Caesarem(Migne, Patrologia Graeca, V,cols. 1228 A-B), presents a curiously garbled version in which Hephaistos is introduced into the story. Sophronius, Narratio miraculorum SS. Cyri et Ioannis, LIV (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, LXXXVII, col. 3624), implies that pigs were sacrificed in the cult of Adonis. But cf. the Scholion to Aristophanes, Acharnians, 793.

Note the few curious variants of the orthodox story in which Aphrodite and Adonis have one or more children: Athenaeus, XIII, 575A; Nonnus, XLI, 155ff.; Tzetzes, /oc. cit.; scholion to Theokritos XV, 100; Etymologicum Magnum, s.u.’ABapvida. 8? Bion, Lament for Adonis, \l. 16ff. Cf. Propertius II, XIII, 5 1ff. 88 Aristides, Apology, XI, 3 (Johannes Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten, Leipzig and Berlin, 1907, p. 16); Cyrilof Alexandria, /oc. cit.; St. John Damascene, Barlaam and Ioasaph, XXVII, 248. 68° The strife of Aphrodite and Persephone over the person of Adonis was variously resolved according to alternate traditions. For example, the Scholiast on Theokritos, III, 48, Hyginus, Astronomica, Il, 7, Lucian, Dialogus deorum, XI, 1, and Cyril of Alexandria, /oc. cit., follow the half yearly division, while Sappho, VIII, fre. 136 (J. M. Edmonds, Lyra Graeca [Loeb Classical Library], Cambridge, 1934, I, 276) and Apollodorus, loc. cit., reflect a tripartite sequence in which Adonis spent four months with each of the goddesses and four by himself. An interesting echo of Adonis’ dual life above and below the earth appears in Aelian, De natura animalium, 1X, 36; Athenaeus, VIII, 332 C; Hesychius, s. u. “ASwvaios, &Suvis, and Suidas, s. u. “ASwvatios.

Cf., too, Theokritos, XV, 86; Alciphron, Epistolae, 1, XXXIX; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, II, 29, Justinus Martyr, Apologia, I, 25, Agathias Scholasticus, Anthologia Palatina, V, 289, 9; Arno-

bius, Adversus Nationes, III, 27; Arnobius, Epigrams, LXII, Scholion to Theokritos, XV, 86, and Cupido eruciatus, \l. 57ff. For the obvious symbolism of this life above and below the earth see the notes to the following discussion. 70 The natural symbolism of the Adonis myth, its origin and meaning, the existence of parallel stories and

THE HALL OF APHRODITE A7 symbolized the eternal cycle of life. His union with the great, life-giving goddess was a symbol of the fertility of nature, cause of fervent hope and rejoicing. Adonis is interpreted as the fruit of the earth bewailed in sowing, celebrated in reaping.1 He is the grain and the boar’s tusk the plough.” And the little gardens planted in his name, the quick-growing lettuce and fennel sown in vases and potsherds and baskets, sprouted and sent forth shoots in token of the fertility of earth, of the anticipated revival of Adonis.” The annual celebration of the Adenia is known from abundant ancient allusions. Foremost among these ate the famous idyl of Theokritos, the Adomazousai, Bion’s Lament for Adonis, and a remarkable papyrus from the Fayoum. Together with briefer accounts such as those of Lucian, Jerome, and Origen,” they indicate that the festival was a threeday celebration.”* Preceded by acts of purification, it began with a feast in honor of Adonis’ union with Aphrodite. Theokritos’ description of this feast as it was celebrated by Arsinoe in the royal palace at Alexandria glows with color, an incomparable vignette of ancient life.”” The second day of mourning for the dead Adonis, his funeral rites and dirges, the rites in connection with other cultures were discussed by J. G. Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, 3rd ed., London,

1914, especially in Chapters I-III, IX-X. This fascinating book still affords a good general picture of the worship of Adonis and is still full of interesting suggestions and references. See, too, the substantial discussions of W. W. Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun, Leipzig, 1911. Abundant material may also be found in Charles Vellay, Le culte et les fétes d’Adonis-Thammouz dans Tl orient antique (Annales du Musée Guimet, Bibliotheque d’études, v. XVI), Paris, 1904, although this volume should be used with extreme care parti-

cularly insofar as its lists of Adonis monuments are concerned. Cf., too, Diimmler, article “Adonis,” Pauly-Wissova, Rea/-Encyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1, Stuttgart, 1894, col. 385ff.;

L, R. Farnell, The Cults of the Greek States, II, Oxford, 1896, pp. 644ff. Certain limited aspects of the worship of Adonis are also discussed by Ludwig Deubner, Attische Feste, Berlin, 1932, pp. 220-222. *1 Scholiast on Theokritos, III, 48; Ammianus Marcellinus, XIX, 1, 10-11, XXII, 9, 14-15; Sallustius, De dius et mundo, IV; Jerome, Commentary on Exekiel, VIII, 13-14 (Migne, Patrologia Latina, XXV, col.

82); Origen on Ezekiel, VIII, 13-14 (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, XIII, cols. 797ff.); Orphie Hymn to Adonis (Hymn 56 [55]). ”@ Cornutus, De natura deorum, Ch. 28 (ed Lang, Lispiae 1881, pp. 54-55). Fora related natural explanation of the myth in which, however, Adonis is identified with the sun see Macrobius, Saturnalia, I, 21. Cf., too, Johannes Lydus, De Mens7bus IV, 44 (ed. R. Wiinsch, Lipsiae, 1898, pp. 114ff.).

‘8 Representations of these little Adonis gardens may be found in Chapter III, pp. 125 ff. together with citations of the ancient sources referring to them. * Gustave Glotz, “Les fétes d’Adonis sous Ptolémée II,” Revue des études grecques, XXXTII, 1920, pp. 169ff,

* Lucian, De Dea Syria, 6-9; Jerome and Origen, /oc. e7t. Cf., too, Cyril of Alexandria, Joc. cét. ‘6 Glotz’ brilliant analysis of an early Hellenistic papyrus from the nome of Arsinoe is a classic of archae-

ological reconstruction. His conclusions in regard to a triduum were later accepted by Franz Cumont, Les religions ortentales dans le paganisme romain, 4th ed., Paris, 1929, p. 101 and p. 253, note 23. The objections raised against Glotz’ ¢riduum by R. de Vaux, “Sur quelques rapports entre Adonis et Osiris,” Revue biblique, XLII, 1933, pp. 52ff., are not convincing to me. If such a three-day celebration is to be viewed as illogical and impossible in the third century B. C., it is scarcely more logical in the third century A. D. However, as De Vaux recognizes, the issue of rebirth is unquestionably attested at the later date. The shifting of logical bases in accordance with sympathy or lack of sympathy with the issues involved repeatedly to be found in De

Vaux’s argumentation makes it of little value to refute his arguments in the present context. It is evident that Franz Cumont, “Adonies et Canicule,” Syria, XVI, 1935, p. 48, note 5, continued to accept Glotz’ conclusions, at least for Ptolemaic Egypt, in spite of De Vaux’s objections. “ Cf, the interesting article of A. S. F. Gow, “The Adoniazusae of Theokritos,” Journal of Hellenic Stu-

48 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE lamentation and beating of breasts lives again in Bion’s Lament*® while the day of resurrection mentioned by Lucian, Origen and Jerome becomes a day of mysteries, of dromena, in the terse account of the Hellenistic papyrus.” The Adonia was a festival celebrated in honor of Aphrodite.8° Hence the bard in the Adoniazousai addressed her song to the goddess.®! Aphrodite, herself, instituted the rites in Cyprus through the agency of Cinyras®* and, although men were associated with the cult in various official capacities, women appear to have been the most ardent worshippers. It was a woman dancing on the roof, filling the air with lamentation for the dead Adonis, at whom Aristophanes pointed a disdainful finger,8’ women whose mock burial rites and wailing for the god filled the city with such ominous cries on the departure of the Sicilian Expedition.§4 And it was a woman, a yuvi) éo18ds, who sang of Adonis in the Alexandrian dies, LVIII, 1938, pp. 180ff. Gow’s objections to Glotz’ theory on the ground that the notations listed in the fragmentary papyrus are the expense account of a man und that the Adonia was a festival for women is invalidated by the inescapable fact that although the Adonia was, apparently, predominantly a women’s affair, men were not unconnected with it. Otherwise, how is one to account for the fact that late in the fourthcentury B. C. men held official positions in a society of Aphrodite in the Peiraeus and organized certain procedures in connection with the Adonia (W. Dittenberger, Sy//oge inscriptionum graecarum, Leipzig, III, 1920, 1098. Cf. the inscriptions referring to Adoniastai from Syme and the Gulf of Syme in J. G., XII, fase. IIT, +46 and W. J. Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia, London, 1842, II, 461, $4301, and the reference to an aged priest of Adonis inC.I.L., VIII, 1, p. 153, 441211), that a Ro/non of worshippers of Adonis recorded in Loryma also included men (S.J.G., 1113) and that the stranger to whom Praxinoa speaks as she and Gorgo attempt to squeeze their way into the palace (Theokritos, XV, 70-75) is clearly a man. Indeed, Diogenianus,

Centuria, 1,14, and Apostolius, Cexturia, I, 34, specifically state that both men and women plant Adonis gardens in honor of Aphrodite. Cf., too, E. Babelon, ‘“‘Timairos, roi de Paphos,” Revue des études grecques, V, 1892, pp. 53ff., and Musaeus, Hero and Leander, 42ft. Apropos of Ptolemaic interest in Adonis note that Ptolemy Philopator wrote a tragedy_Adonis as the scholiaston Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusai, 1059, remarks (Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 2nded., A. Nauck, Lipsiae, 1889, p. 824). 78 Cf. Suidas, s. 4, "ASavic.

79 Though the word dromena does not actually occur in the text, such performances are implicit in it, as Glotz, oc. cit., has shown. In regard to the much debated question of the date of the Adonia see, for example, Baudissin, op. cit., pp. 121ff; Martin P. Nilsson, Griechische Feste von religiéser Bedeutung, Leipzig, 1906,

pp. 386 and 387, note 1; Frazer, op. cit., p. 10, note 1; Glotz, /oc. cit.; Franz Cumont, “Les Syriens en Espagne et les Adonies a Seville,” Syria, VIII, 1927, pp. 330ff., 7dem, “Adonis et Sirius,” Mélanges Gustave Glotz, Paris, 1932, I, 257ff., and ““Adonies et Canicule,” Syria, XVI, 1935, pp. 46-49; A. D. Nock, review of Deubner, Attische Feste in Gnomon, X, 1934, pp. 290.ff; B. D. Meritt, “Greek Inscriptions,” Hesperia, IV, 1935, pp. 565f.; Gow, doc. cit.; A. Piganiol, “Deux notes sur l’expédition de Sicile,” Revse des études grecques,

L, 1937, pp. 1-8; Jean Hatzfeld, “Le depart de l’expédition de Sicile et les Adonies de 415,” sbid., pp. 292ff. 89 Etymologicum Magnum: ’A®dveic. topti &youévn “AgpoSitn. Cf. Glotz, op. cit., pp. 173ff. and note that in the first inscription cited in note 77 it is “Agpo8itns of Siacdétat who celebrate the Adonia. Cf., too, Diogenianus and Apostolius, /oc. cit. 8. Theokritos, XV, 100. Cf. the sacrifices offered to Venus on the site of Adonis’ death mentioned by St. Augustine, De civitate dei, V1, VIII, 3. 82 Cf. the discussion on pp. 56f. and 63 and the notes thereto. 83 I ysistrata, ll. 388ff. and the scholion to this passage. Incidentally, note the reference to the Adonis festival in two other Attic comedians, Pherekrates, frg. 157 (quoted by Suidas under ’ASwvia), and Cratinus, Bowkoloi, frg. 2. The early popularity of the cult is further attested by the lost plays revolving about Adonis or his worship cited by A. Meineke, Fragmenta comicorum graecorum, Berlin 1839-1841, passim. 84 Plutarch, Alcibiades, XVIII, 2-3; Nicéas, XIU, 7.

THE HALL OF APHRODITE 49 festival.®° That this was not an exception, that the bard who occupied so important a place in the festival was regularly a woman is attested by a pelike in Naples illustrated in Fig. 32.% Here, too, a female bard recites the Adonidia, the hymns of Adonis®* or, given the context, the Adoniasmos, the song of mourning.**

ie le DR a Re ey Tt) o etn (he > O22... Oe

: Se eee nee : z Tae Se ae aan 4 ay mat em’ ‘ety cay e ae ote “ Say oral =e Sh eae ha MET) i ; ak

ay, ae”. aaa, Memmi Setanta. “ey, Sere Mai eee

wt : 4 at sty ~ ‘ é a cone aoe, ie ee i, a Yate . es 4% 3 2) 2 5 ’ “-, th .: foakip de. tide “0° ee : :

oh te Vin @s ch 4 peat Qe aan A gn ie SES: nae : br” ee ag4 watn) ayo Alas VA See " ae ee ee) ee eae a

Bh i ee , ~ ees HM we VS eo - = NSS HK ame

Be SP hese med : is ~S : ae, =§©6—Ehurs Wnt a Soe > Sam i ieses ; wsAOS eh NWiia ae a" WAYSSE TW pal fe NP AS as ae.ye:CUMS Tike SAR EERO eea A

ER EFT Mae get . se Bas cage) EZ SZRIN YY OF NN OMS A SSS ath ey 4 %, ees ee» 4 Bin Os ae} ey) ic pe ip ) my ENN J) “ee | Pa: * Me inf &vad 3 Y \.%Wee | oe nf as;:Nite | aof OXi,[Tp ee ~ Ca Bk Syee Ks = VE ae” ee - %,4 Pad %, Hp, - ae Mh SS aw ah -: Xe 4. Seu Re,?

er hs a ie eae

he | Oe / VA 2ct ;, /J].. tS Yy. \\ ’~ \x i; AL L an Y \ if | WS, # a2 | N A \ be

Fig. 33. ton College: Drawing of a Lost Painting from the Aventine.

Even more remarkable in its analogy to the shieldbearer from Boscoreale is the figure of a seated woman resting one arm on an identical shield from a shrine painting in the alcove

: ag B ai 4 “e yt

. ¢ ; 4 4 a,ae:ve‘ |,Be. ie’ a t a a be 6S 7 s , ‘

SSif |eg ite Sg i,ae Fi 4ae

>

, ™ .ri“‘—— ; : - 0g et q % Bs of ; ; ‘es - i%ax“r oe

ra ® A .> ao ‘

Ty’ , ee \ {:¥a=- *bk ae‘ \ Rf. > a | a |, rv V/ i) ; ‘ forme qe} AI\ ni ” ba

- wee % >

ti 7v/ .Ag ;| J / ¥ * ¥ i“i\An Ww é; RF aw i:_ ee 1?>—— & a }< a ty? \An /_

a ; NP

. ok Fh La aAW.» | \) TASQUUU Wl _ err ty were ; nell WUVUUeoM

Seat -

— env ERE

Fig. 36. London, British Museum: Detail of an Attic Lekythos from Cyprus.

malerei, 11, Munich, 1909, Pl. LX X). Whether or not this figure is Themis, it is clearly divine, as Studniczka

recognized, and it is, therefore, difficult to see why, having acknowledged this fact, he continued “Hier jedoch muB es ein sterbliches Weib sein.” 9 Saturnalia, 1, 21. Cf. Plutarch, Amatorius, XIX, 764D.

o4 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE head covered and supported by her hand.'° A better description could scarcely be found for either the melancholy goddess of the New York panel or the contemplative divinity of the Naples wall. Beneath her white mantle the New York figure is clothed in a purple garment, a color frequently associated with the goddess known as Purpurissa.!®! But the Naples figure wears a curious golden coif over her head, loose folds of material covering all but a few strands of dark hair and hanging down over her shoulders in two loops.

This strange and uncommon headgear sets the Naples figure apart from almost all ancient representations. It constitutes a highly individual and characteristic feature of her appearance. By a miracle of preservation, it occurs a second time—on the head of Adonis! For among the incomplete figures decorating a late-fifth or early fourth-century lekythos from Marion in Cyprus,! the white forms of Aphrodite and Eros are discernible beside the husky seated figure of Adonis (Fig. 36). Not only does the familiar cloak fall over his thigh but he also wears the very same cap-like object on his head as does the Naples figure. This appears to be the sole preserved representation of Aphrodite’s lover in which he wears any headgear whatsoever and it provides an invaluable document for the presence of this atticle of clothing within the specific circle of Aphrodite and Adonis. Although the closest analogy to the coif in the wall painting, it is not the only parallel to it, for a very similar type of headgear appears on the beautiful fourth-century Carthaginian coin shown in Fig. 37.1% In all likelihood, the goddess whose image stamped this coin was a form of Aphrodite sstarte whether she was worshipped as Dido! or as the great Phoenician divinity Salambo, who was identified with Aphrodite! and in whose honor the Adonia of Seville was cele100 On the basis of this passage in the Saturnalia, various monuments have been interpreted as representations of the mourning Aphrodite. See, for example, F. Lenormant, ‘La Vénus du Liban,” Gazette archéologique, |, 1875, pp. 07ff., and G. FP. Hill, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Phoenicia, London, 1910, p. LX XII and Pl. XIII, 7-8. But note the article by Henri Seyrig quoted above in note 45. See, too, an interesting study of the later applications of this essentially classical motif by Dorothy C. Shorr, “The Mourning Virgin and Saint John,” The Art Bulletin, XXII, 1940, pp. 61 ff. 101 Servius, on the Aenezd, I, 721. Note that purple is associated with Aphrodite by Theokritos, XV, 125, and Bion, I, 3.

102 British Museum, E699. J. A. R. Munro and H. A. Tubbs, “Excavations in Cyprus, 1889, Polis tes Chrysochou, Limniti,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, X1, 1890, pp. 47ff. and Pl. IV. In identifying this figure as Adonis, I follow Beazley, op. c/t., p. 833, 4411, who is unquestionably right in rejecting the earlier interpretation of the scene as a Judgment of Paris. It is obviously impossible to identify the two female figures at the right (one of whom touches the other’s breast) as Athena and Hera. Nor does this explain the third female figure, quite apart from the fact that Adonis is marked by the familiar drapery over his thigh and wears a cap

that is not “Phrygian.” The three women very likely belong to the category of female worshippers who frequently appear on vases depicting Adonis. Cf., for example, Fig. 32 on p. 49. Beazley attributes this lekythos to the Meidias Painter. 103 B. V. Head, A Guide to the Principal Coins of the Greeks, London, 1932, p. 47, t¢41, Pl. XXVI. This analogy was first noted by Curtius, op. ¢/¢., p. 280.

1 Apropos of Head’s tentative interpretation of this head as Dido and for the relationship between Dido and Aphrodite-Astarte see the article “Dido” by Meltzer in W. H. Roscher, Aasfihrliches Lexikon der griechischen und rémischen Mythologie, \1, Letpzig, 1884-1886, col. 1012ff.

195 Hesychius, s. u. ZadauBo and Estymologicum Magnum, s.u. ZarcuBas; Scripiores historiae - ugustae, bas S AR Pil ad . ,

..Uae) ‘sf he ‘wa ih ‘a A | Cw G ; phos — fae#8 oe a). oe . wyBe +4ae padaaon, ta - ’tseerod fj ; ‘ YF , fa . 4, ” 4, y,

Fig. 38. Naples, National Museum: \vory Plaque from Pompeii.

Whatever the original purpose of this enigmatic object, it was found in Pompeii along with a second, precisely analogous counterpart (Fig. 39). The latter represents the rape of Persephone, the Eleusinian parallel to the wounding of Adonis depicted on the former. Each illustrates a moment of supreme significance in a mystery cult. The actual wounding of Adonis by the boar, a favorite motive on sarcophagi, has been eliminated on the ivory plaque in favor of two related scenes. The first shows the injured hunter attended by two 9 Cf, Aristophanes’ Peace, 416ff., where the Adonia is included among the thoroughly Hellenic cults of

the day that are differentiated from “barbarian” worship of the Sun and Moon. Note, too, how in Dura Adonis was “framed to local convention” as F. E. Brown, in The Excavations at Dura—Europos, VII-VIII,

New Haven, 1939, p. 160, note 4, has pointed out. ea

120 Note that as early as the late fifth century B. C., Teucer, the founder of Salamis in Cyprus, appears on the relief oinochoe in Leningrad mentioned in note 55 in a similar attitude. The fact that, like Cinyras, this legendary hero of Cyprus is represented in a thoroughly Hellenic guise and that this scene of a founder-hero and his family forms a pendant to the group of Aphrodite, Adonis, Eros and Peitho on the same vase is of

particular interest in the present context. cs | 121 Giornale degli scavi di Pompei, n. s. III, Naples ,1874, Pl. | and cols. 12ff. The explanations of both plaques advanced here by Sogliano are either incomplete or incorrect. See, too, the detailed description of Hans Graeven, Antike Schnitzereien aus Elfenbein und Knochen in photographischer Nachbildung, Hannover,

1903, pp. 39ff., +¢27-28. For a better illustration see Spinazzola, op. cit., Pl. 224. Note, too, the fragmen-

tary reliefs of identical shape and material from a Republican tomb at Ostia illustrated by D. Vaglieri, Notizie degli scavi, XXXVII, 1912, pp. 95 ff. Here the scene appears to have been Bacchic in character and the suggestion is made that the fragments may have belonged to musical instruments. However tempting such an explanation may be, Dr. Curt Sachs of the New York Public Library assures me that none of these objects can have formed part of any known ancient instrument. One can only say that whatever the function of these enigmatic ivories, it was certainly identical in each case.

28 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE companions who attempt to care for his wound.!** To the left, Aphrodite looks on, a heavily draped figure extending both hands in helpless anguish. On the opposite side of the plaque, a scene startlingly reminiscent of the Deposition takes place. In it, Adonis is borne

off by two helmeted hunters and accompanied by an elderly man whose bent figure is expressive of profound concern. Bearded and aquiline of feature, he wears sandals!*8 and a long mantle and carries a staff. In the present context, there can be no question that this

meet, 9:0)fh. SPITE PeeeLe— Pin, 67" a, ol’ hier edAOO Fy Fia. ML, see :, on, p 2aes. "+N je. a. ». y mi # . age paren : A“>: “1 f SO f bia t fa a ne 4 a =

© %, tessa , : ri me iconographic tradition.!*6

Pic. N fore, that the two mourning figures indicated on the Villa

- oe | Giustiniani and Bieda sarcophagi represent Cinyras and , he that, along with the ivory plaque, they reflect a common

Ps ) a 4 oe If, then, the two major figures of the Naples wall are Ley Aphrodite and Cinyras, who is the third figure and what f= a is the meaning of the shield beyond Aphrodite in the center

A -; f of the panel? The shield is well-known as an attribute of ™ Aphrodite.!?* It appears beside her on a wide variety of monuments including the terracotta lamp from Naukratis

Terracotta Lamp from Naukratis. ; : temple flanked by Erotes. She wears a girdled chiton and se) ei Seay, Ersee ae ee shown in Fig. 40.!%8 There the goddess stands in a round

rests one hand on her shield. Furthermore, faced with the star adorning the centre of the Naples shield, it is interesting to recall that it is in her capacity as an astral divinity,!*® as

Aphrodite Urania, that the goddess is sometimes represented by an armed image.! 126 Tt is worth noting that on both the plaque and the Villa Giustiniani sarcophagus, Adonis appears once with a short sword held in his hand or worn about his body in addition to clasping his spear — a further link between the two monuments. On the Lateran sarcophagus cited above (note 60), the bearded figure tending Adonis in place of the usual Erotes is startlingly reminiscent of the Naples Cinyras. One suspects that his unstable, slightly oblique position is the result of the removal of his staff and the substitution of a sponge! The

iconographic cycle upon which this sculptor drew was obviously far more extensive than this own f nal composition. His insertion of a Cinyras to perform this act would be no more unorthodox than his previous-

ly mentioned fusion of the narrative tending-of-the-wounds scene with the iconic type of the union of Aphrodite and Adonis. This sarcophagus reflects an unusual and personal selection and arrangement of the standard iconographic types. 127 Cf, Oscar Broneer, “The Armed Aphrodite in Acrocorinth and the Aphrodite of Capua,” University of California Publications in Classical Archaeology, 1, 193°, 4¢2, PPp- 65—84; Max Bernhart, Aphrodite auf griechischen Miinzen, Munich, 1936, pp. 29.ff., Pl. IVf; and D. Le Lasseur, Les déesses armées dans I’ art classique grec et leurs origines orientales, Paris, 1919, pp. 186ff. Apropos of the Corinthian goddess, note that Johannes Lydus, De mensibus, IV, 44 (Wiinsch, /oc. cit.), derives certain details of the Cypriote worship from Corinth. At this point, it is interesting to recall Curtius’ insistence, op. c/t., 279ff., that the shield belongs to

the seated figure at the right of the Naples wall. _

128 H. B. Walters, Catalogue of the Greek and Roman Lamps in the British Museum, London, 1914, p. 63, 44439, Pl. XIII. Cf. representations of the armed Aphrodite in Joseph Déchelette, Les vases céramiques ornés de la Gaule romaine, Paris, 1904, II, 22, +83, and 37, $4180, and note Nonnus, X LIII, 5-6. 129 Julian, Hymn to King Helios, 150B.

130 Pausanias, III, XXIII, tr. Cf., too, II, V, 1; III, XV, 10.

60 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE Aphrodite Urania, the great life-giving power, was also associated with the divinity worshipped at Aphaca on Mt. Lebanon,!*! a sanctuary of hallowed memory to worshippers

of Adonis. Indeed, the advent of a star played as important a rdle in the eastern Adonis festival as it did at Bethlehem—a point to which we shall return. The astral significance of the great goddess in whose honor the Adonia was celebrated is further documented by the curious star-like pendant worn by Aphrodite on a late—antique silver plate in the

Cabinet des Médailles on which the divine pair are shown confronting each

Mk other (Fig. 41).1%? Here, as on the shield,

y Bel 7 the star is an umbilical ornament.

y (Rs A n. it Thus the fact that a round shield decor/ i Yen) oa i ie ated with a star occupies a conspicuous

‘A, Se | . . . " fs y , = 1\ a9 soe . ° r

f. | i a aie jo = m™ = placeon the Naples wall is not surprising. WA wo es ee S ae eee ere Jax H P At Ea | } i oll Among the tangible allusions implicit in

Af % > wee wot) «this shield, there appears to be still an-

ney , a VE bie | Saeeeee, = other. [twill be recalled that this variety “ey bas ‘oil = A Rs oe i of shield was used by Macedonian kings

wo Eee ae 2 ; \\\| Siok | significance as powers of divinities, vegetation, their such

ea \ an1). implication would notthat bethe surprising. SS: WS) Nor is it amiss to recall great river KO l) SSB LE f CL, god Acheloos wore a green garment! and

SS ye,3Ce | pe thatthe Adonis, wasthat intimately | we with mightytoo, river bore hisassociated name.!*!

VS. 7 If the shrine paintings of the lateral intercolumniations of the rear wall refer to

rn Nabe the themes of the side walls, each alluding to the wall nearest it, the third painting placed over the central scene should echo Fig. 44. Leningrad, The Hermitage: Etruscan Mirror. the major subject of thecearwall, Judging

by the description of this painting,” such is the case. The half-nude female figure seated above Aphrodite and Eros (Fig. 24) can only be another portrait of the goddess and true to the principle of centralization applied to each wall. Thus, the little shrine paintings perched on the entablature of the rear wall served to unite the themes of all three walls. Painted on the rear wall, they alluded to the side walls. At the same time, they emphasized the dominant position of the rear wall and enlarged upon the theme of the central panel, 149 Gerhard, op. cit., IV, Pl. CCCXXII. See below note 167. Cf., too, I, Pl. CXI, discussed in ITI, pp. 109-110, 150 Ovid, Metamorphoses, UX, 32.

51 Strabo, XVI, 2, 19; Lucian, De Dea Syria, 8; Johannes Lydus, De mensibus, IV, 44 (Winsch, /oc. cit.). Cf. Frazer’s fascinating description of this river, op. cit., pp. 28 ff. 152 Barnabei, op. cit., p. 55, note 1 and fig. 11. For criticism of Alan M. G. Little’s description of the

figure (“The Formation of a Roman Style in Wall Painting,” A.J.A., XLIX, 1945, p. 138) as a woman holding a shield see above note 97.

THE HALL OF APHRODITE 67 reiterating and embroidering it in a musical fashion. The central panel, in turn, voiced

the theme of the entire room. Indeed, it is quite possible that it pointed toward the specific worship of Aphrodite inherent in the Adoma.’"* For the statuesque group of Aphrodite and Eros in which the goddess holds the nude boy on her thigh while he lifts his arm to hurlatatai dart is an unusual type.!* As such, its analogy to an incident described only slightly later by the poet Ovid is of particular interest. According to Ovid, Adonis

is ke e

: ey“ Kereo. » (if Phy: | ee 7.» ayi CF, ‘.rswo wet ra ‘Z_ or» o ang A «ed al -" 2) Ps fyom. ™- »~* D“3 iy -usse > ::; JJia% . :" DE a 4” 4PS

a [% et ee i

em ¥ ff « ee a z : ~~ . ow = Agi SY, f : Pe , ? x * A Si-O oe

: Ae gs ra ee a ee -

bagi iF.Faoe:Sele #f {a| ae y hefcae GS i : . eae Mey oae s *FFE , : , F |fio oo! ae i : SA es * ge ae ©4Seek ee. 4 . ee

% Sfol hs‘it ae ad | be ¥ ;r 2?bé;,pis eeere”| Py 'o ‘i ¥ a. ae . ZS fe -— ; per

its fees ere fy ‘La 4

“C/o SO ay 71210

—

A ” sual | Fig. 45. London, British Museum: Terracotta Lamp.

excited Aphrodite’s love when he had grown up. “Ror while the goddess’ son, with quiver on shoulder, was kissing his mother, he chanced unwittingly to graze her breast with a

projecting arrow. The wounded goddess pushed her son away with her hand; but the

Pl. ITI, 92). a

153 Thus the cult image in the Adonion in Alexandria in Caria was a statue of Aphrodite made by Praxiteles

(Stephanus of Byzantium, s. u. > AAcEdvSpeiat). . . :

154 It is, therefore, of interest to note the related but by no means identical type of Aphrodite holding Eros on her right hand and forearm on the imperial coinage of Aphrodisias in Caria (Bernhart, op. céz., 155 Metamorphoses, X, ll. 525-528 (translated by F. J. Miller, Loeb Classical Library, p. 100). In this connection, Paul Friedlander, Spatantiker Gemdldex yklus in Gaza. Des Prokopios von Gaza “Exgpaois cixdvos (Studi e testi, 89), Vatican City, 1939, pp. 5, 24ff., is of interest. 5*

68 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE scratch had gone deeper than she thought, and she herself was at first deceived.” The uncommonness of the basic motif in both painting and description outweighs the discrepancy between them in detail and makes this passage illuminating in the present context. The conscious interweaving of motifs associated with the major theme reaches a climax on the tear wall. The connection between Aphrodite and the Graces reflected there is an archaeological commonplace. It is neatly stated by Pausanias in his description of a cult group in Elis where the Graces are defined as “of all deities the nearest related to Aphro-

dite.”56 The learned traveller also remarks that their attributes, the rose and the myrtle, “are sacred to Aphrodite and connected with the story of Adonis.” Apropos of this Elean sanctuary of the Graces, it is interesting to recall that the Graces are seated beside Aphrodite in the religious festival reflected in the charming poem, Pervigtlium V eneris." The Roman lamp illustrated in Fig. 45458 expresses the basic relationship between these divinities in visual form. Furthermore, the Graces are associated with the goddess, so Servius explains, because they are the daughters of Aphrodite and Dionysos whose gifts bestow charm. And in the Orphic Hywn to Aphrodite, the goddess is celebrated as a cosmic divinity, “the One worshipped with Dionysos... Mother of the Erotes. ..grace-giving Lady.’”160

Not only are the three scenes of the rear wall interrelated; not only does the central panel point toward the theme of the lateral walls; the outer panels, too, are woven into the subtle interplay of religious associations. Athenaeus!®! preserves a curious tradition that both Aphrodite and Dionysos were in love with Adonis. More important, Plutarch reports!® that some people identified Adonis with Dionysos, an identification ostensibly confirmed by the similarity of the rites performed in their festivals. Still later, the Christian bishop Eusebius cited this interrelationship in a discussion of pagan symbolism.'® To complete the circle, Nonnus describes Byblos, seat of the worship of Adonis, as the home of the Graces! 156 VT, 24, 7 (translated by W. H. S. Jones, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1933). 157 ll, 49-50. 1588 British Museum, +¢1210. Walters, op. cit., p. 183, Pl. XXXIV. 159 On the Aeneid, I, 720. * 155] 54, ll. 7 Ee. 161 X, 456 a-b. Cf. Meineke, Fragwenta comicorum graecorum, I, 357, and Plutarch, Ouestiones Conviviales,

IV, 5, 3, p. 671B. 162 Thid. Cf., too, the scholion to Apollonius Rhodius, I, 932. Note the analogy between the rare version of Adonis’ birth directly from Jove without benefit of a mother cited in Probus’ commentary on Vergil, Bucolica, X, 18, and the orthodox story of Zeus’ function in the birth of Dionysos. For the identification of Adonis and Dionysos see, too, Henri Seyrig, “La triade héliopolitaine et les temples de Baalbek,” Syr7a, X, 1929, p. 314, note 1. 1683 Prgeparatio evangelica, Bk, III, 119-120(Migne, Patrologia Graeca, XXI1, col. 216). Cf. Socrates, Hzstoria

Ecclesiastica, 111, 23. Note, too, that in Plutarch, Theseus, XX, a man from Amathus in Cyprus speaks of an Aphrodite Ariadne. For a discussion of the interrelationship of Ariadne and Aphrodite see Johan Meerdink, Ariadne, Wageningen, 1939, passim. 164 TTT, 107-111.

THE HALL OF APHRODITE 69 and associates them with Dionysos, Aphrodite and Adonis.1® Centuries before, Bion had sung of the Graces’ lament over the dead Adonis." These persistent and widespread traditions about the interpenetration of the spheres of Dionysos and of Aphrodite and Adonis are splendidly illustrated by the Etruscan mirror shown in Fig. 44 and the previously mentioned mosaic floor from Antioch. The magnificent inscribed mirror in Leningrad'®* shows Aphrodite and Adonis accompanied by the goddess’ swan and a strange winged figure with an alabastron whom it is tempting to connect

with Adonis’ mother Myrrha or, at least, with the perfume garnered from her tree.!68 Around the divine couple, a circle of winged figures does them honor while, below, a satyt flanked by panthers kneels on an amphora in plain allusion to his master, Dionysos. Here, too, the goddess of love takes precedence over the god of wine. Similarly, in the early imperial villa at Antioch, the triclintum floor was divided into five panels of which the

two major panels celebrated the triumph of Aphrodite, the Judgment of Paris, and the union of the goddess with Adonis (Fig. 29), the three minor panels being given up to a drinking contest between Herakles and Dionysos, a satyr, and a maenad.’® Finally, the three Jost paintings representing the Birth of Adonis, Dionysos flanked by maenads, and the Three Graces which were combined in one room of the Golden House of Nero! 165 X LI, 1-9. 166 J, g1-92.

167 Gerhard, op. cit., IV, pp. 55-58, Pl. CCCXXII. Inscribed TURAN, ATUNIS, TUSNA, ZIRNA. Referred to by G. A. Mansuelli, “Gli specchi figurati etruschi,” Studz etruschi, XTX, 1946-1947, p. 102, and discussed by J. D. Beazley, op. cit., pp. 10-12, and dated late classical.

168 Given the various forms Myrrha, Smyrna, Zmyrna, which occur for her name, of which the latter is not unrelated to the form ZIRNA occurring on the mirror. The fact that the figure holds an alabastron makes this interpretation especially tempting. According to Athenaeus, XV, 688, the words smyrna and myrrha were used interchangeably for the gum of the tree as well. Cf., too, Tzetzes on Lycophron, Alexandra, 829.

169 Antioch on the Orontes, 1, 42-48, and Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, pp. 15 ff. Only the border upon

which the couches stood is still in Antioch. Of the remaining panels in addition to the Princeton fragment, the Judgment of Paris is now in the Louvre, the Symposium in the Worcester Art Museum, the Satyr and Bacchante in the Baltimore Museum of Art and a fragment of the rinceau in Wellesley College.

It is possible that the oinochoe illustrated by Otto Jahn, “Sur les représentations d’Adonis,” Aznal, XVII, 1845, Pl. M (British Museum, F roo. H. B. Walters, Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the

British Museum, 1V, London, 1896, p. 58) is an additional monument on which the spheres of Dionysos and Adonis are mingled. 170 J. R. Bellori, P. S. Bartoli, F. Bartoli, Péeturae antiquae cryptarum romanarum et sepulchri Naso-

num, Rome, 1791, pp. 3ff., Pls. II-V; A. Michaelis, “Das Grabmal der Nasonier,” Jahrbuch, XXV, 1910, pp. 114-115, 4434-36; Reinach, op. cit., p. 64, +63, p. 109, 442, and p. 158, +4. It is evident that Bellori-Bartoli, Pl. VI, even though it comes from the same room, should not be grouped with the three preceding paintings both because of its subject (Phaedra and Hippolytos) and its background which is completely unlike the canopied background visible in all three of the preceding scenes, a background that obviously unites them into one formal group. See, too, Michaelis, +:37. An exedra near the peristyle of the Casa di Principe di Napoli in Pompeii contains wall paintings pertinent to the present discussion since they obviously imply mysteries of Dionysos and Aphrodite, although there is no overt allusion to Adonis. A figure of Dionysos with thyrsos and kantharos appears in the centre of the

rear wall while Aphrodite adorns the right lateral wall, both images appearing to be statues. On the left lateral wall which lacks space for a comparable large painting, a little panel represents one Eros opening a

70 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE afford a striking parallel to the interweaving of themes in the great hall of the villa near Boscoreale. The orthodox nature of the relationships established in the great hall is attested by these monuments. Together with the literary evidence, they indicate the solid framework of religious ideas and associations behind the scenes represented on its walls. Two additional details complete this chain of interrelationships and link the decoration of both the entrance wall and the floor to the themes of the remaining three walls. Above the shrine painting in the central intercolumniation of the rear wall, the life-size mask of a bearded Silenus appeared to be attached to the painted architrave. It was matched by a second satyr’s mask placed directly opposite it above the main entrance to the room (Fig. 23).171 Wide-eyed and open-mouthed, this horned satyr gaped at the hall and by his very nature linked the entrance wall to the Bacchic sphere associated with Aphrodite on the rear wall. Precisely this juxtaposition of a bearded Silenus with a horned satyr occurs on the

two faces of the relief illustrated in Fig. 14 of the preceding chapter where these masks appear in a setting of czstae mysticae and related objects indicative of a mystery cult.On | the other hand, the curious emblem in the centre of the black-bordered white mosaic floor seems to have alluded to the great goddess in whose honor the hall was decorated. For it was composed of four squares crossed by diagonal lines against a black ground. Bosses marked the crossing of the diagonals in each square and the entire black field was framed by a double border, an inner band of white decorated with black triangles and a broad outer

meander. The curious central design was, apparently, a variety of the late Republican cancellum ot grille,!? in itself a rather uncommon motive. Given the character of the wall paintings in this room, the fact that the semi-circular forecourt of the celebrated shrine of Aphrodite in Paphos was decorated with a similar pattern is of distinct interest. The representations of this shrine stamped on the imperial coinage of Sardis, especially those of the Hadrianic period,’? show the pavement of the forecourt criss-crossed with a

pattern remarkably similar to the emblem of the great hall. The analogy of these chest containing snakes while a second regards himself in a mirror. The presence of these characteristic paraphernalia of mystery cults in the context of a little room in honor of Dionysos and Aphrodite is a clear allusion to such mysteries. All the animals and inanimate objects decoratively disposed in the intricate architectural framework of this Fourth Style room belong to the circle of these two great divinities—goats, dolphins, griffons, peacocks, snakes, rhyta, tympana—every detail being correlated to the religious sphere forming the subject of the walls. The exedra thus constitutes a highly interesting additional parallel to the monuments cited above. On the interrelationship of these spheres, cf., too, Schefold, “Der Sinn der r16mischen Wandmalerei,”’ p. 179. 11 Cf, note 10. 172 Cf. M. E. Blake, The Pavements of the Roman Buildings of the Republic and Early Empire, Memoirs

of the American Academy in Rome, VIII, 1930, pp. 81, 96, and Pl. XIX, 2 and Notizie degli scavi, 1930, Pl. XX, 1934, figs. 1, 4 for somewhat analogous types. A related cancel/lum adorns the center of a room between the atrium and peristyle of the Casa della parete nera, VII, IV, 59, where First Style traces are visible above a Third Style wall. Note, too, a fine cance/lum in the tablinum of the house of Popidius Priscus. 173 G, F. Hill, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Cyprus (Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum,

XV), London, 1904, pp. CX XVII ff, Pl. XXVI, 8-10.

THE HALL OF APHRODITE 71 patterns confirms a previous interpretation’’* of the numismatic design as an attempt to indicate “the inlaying of the pavement with various colored marbles” and suggests that the choice of this design for the mosaic floor of the hall was the result of a conscious wish to imitate ot allude to a conspicuous feature of the great sanctuary at Paphos. The key provided by the central panel of the rear wall has unlocked every door. It has led into a vast realm of religious experience. Panel after panel, wall after wall, the paintings of this room have been shown to revolve about the dominating figure of Aphrodite. The eternal drama of life and death symbolized on these walls has been reconstructed detail by detail. The identity of each character, the careful relating of the parts to the whole has been analyzed to the limit of the comparative material at present available. But beyond the concrete interpretation of specific details lie certain larger issues. What is the general meaning of the right wall as a whole? How are the various Metropolitan figures related in time and space? Is it possible to determine the function of this room from the character of the decoration ? It is clear that the central panels of the lateral walls are not to be considered as purely or primarily narrative scenes. The monumental group of Aphrodite and Adonis in New York is not to be thought of as a simple illustration of the goddess and her lover seated together before the latter’s departure for the chase comparable to the initial scene represented on sarcophagi. To be sure, Aphrodite’s sombre foreboding is prophetic of the future. But then, the Paphian goddess was oracular.!”> Her expression is at once an allusion to the specific event to come and to her prophetic nature. Although Adonis’ future is implicit in this scene and, indeed, is expressly indicated by such a device as the drapery over his thigh, it is the union of the goddess and her consort that is represented here. It is a symbol of the eternal renewal of life personified in the annual reunion of Aphrodite and Adonis that we see. Thus the group may be said to be sacramental rather than narrative in character and, in this respect, it resembles the great scenes of Christian iconography. For such iconographic types as the Madonna and Child and the Crucifixion have a permanent symbolic meaning quite apart from their crystallization of a given moment or incident. This very dualism of meaning, this denseness of association is characteristic of many a great religious symbol, endowing it with both a narrative and a symbolic value. Some such position is occupied by the Metropolitan group. It constitutes the permanent, in a sense, the static element of the right wall as opposed to the transitory activity of the lateral figures. The citharist and the girl with the shield are obviously mortal women concerned with the cult of these divinities.1” 174 By Murray, quoted by Hill, op. ct, pp. CXXXITI-IV. M5 Tacitus, The Histories, 11, 2-4; Suetonius, Titus, 5. Cf., too, Ovid, Metamorphoses, X, 542ff., and Nonnus, XLI, 204-11. 176 The closest analogy to the unusual tunic worn by the shieldbearer appears to be the apron-like object worn by Kalchas in the well-known Sacrifice of Iphigeneia (Herrmann, of. c/t., Pl. XV). Like the tunic, this garment is symmetrically divided above the knees. On two Ptolemaic jugs in the Bibliothéque Nationale in Paris and in Stuttgart, the sacrificing queens wear a garment similarly arranged over their chitons which

72 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE Apparently, a parallel alignment existed on the left wall where the priest-king is similarly separated from the goddess and seemingly illustrates the mortal institution of the cult. However, the destruction of the pendant panel on this wall makes it less revealing than the more complete cast of characters on the right wall. And it is precisely the lateral figures of this wall who provide an explicit clue for the solution of the remaining problems. It has been pointed out that the cithara player and her attendant look fixedly toward the center of the room.!" That is, they do not look at the central group of Aphrodite and Adonis but rivet their attention upon a spot somewhat behind them yet far enough out in the room to obviate any necessity for turning their heads sharply. At the same time, the young woman with a shield turns her head and lifts her eyes in order to gaze behind her toward the centre of the ceiling.1’8 On the contrary, Aphrodite and Adonis sit in a world apart, remote from any sight or sound in the hall, the goddess lost in thought, her companion turned toward her. Furthermore, the lighting of these figures is obviously connected, in one fashion or another, with the direction in which they look. The light in the farthest panel is rather flat, the bard and her attendant being slightly high-lighted on the left sides of their faces and necks (i. e., the spectator’s right) as are the cithara playet’s left hand and thigh, the front corner of her chair and her instrument. To one standing before this painting, it appears to be faintly lighted from the upper right. In marked contrast to this, the young woman with a shield is brilliantly lighted as if by a spotlight placed above and behind her that shoots its rays down obliquely. Finally, the figures of Aphrodite and Adonis appear to be lighted obliquely from above and before them and from their left (the spectator’s right).’”? In other words, all three panels are theoretically illuminated by a shaft of light located above the room or in the centre of the ceiling somewhat to the right of the central panel and to the left of the shieldbearer. Such a shaft would have precisely this effect. It would be directed primarily toward the front of the room and would, therefore, fall most brightly on the one figure in front of it, casting a fluctuating light on the figures of Aphrodite and Adonis and a duller, flatter, indirect illumination on the cithara player at the rear. The curious lighting of these figures can be explained in no other fashion. It is clearly not a case in which three paintings of diverse character and style and genesis have been assembled into an otiginally unintended and, therefore, illogical whole. For, however unorthodox the ends in a similar wedge-shape above the knees (cf. Rudolf Horn, Stebende weibliche Gewandstatuen in der hellenistischen Plastik, Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, Ergangungs-

heft II, 1931, Pl. X, 1, 2). Although these garments are by no means identical, they seem to offer the closest parallels to the shieldbearet’s curious tunic. The fact that they appear on figures performing ritual acts is of particular interest. 177 This fact has been agreed upon by various writers from Barnabei to Studniczka, however they inter-

Pes Acai, Barnabei and Studniczka noted this fact, although the former suggested that the young woman was arrested by a voice. 179 The direction from which each of the figures of the right wall is lighted was correctly noted by Studniczka, op. cit., p. 105.

THE HALL OF APHRODITE 73 lighting of this wall may be, it is entirely logical and consistent when seen from this angle. The ultimate proof that these paintings are not simply copies of differently lighted originals lies in the fact that the lighting of the left wall in Naples is precisely the same. There the figure of Cinyras is illumined by light having its source slightly to his right yet to the left of the nearby column, as the shadows cast by its bosses indicate, while the seated Aphrodite in the central panel appears to be lighted from the direction toward which she faces. In other words, precisely the opposite condition prevails on the left wall from that of the right as would logically be the case if the explanation suggested here is correct. Assuming, then, that the lateral walls were conceived of as illumined to a greater or lesser extent by an imaginary shaft of light located in the centre of the ceiling somewhat nearer the entrance than the nearest columns of the lateral walls and that that shaft shot its rays down obliquely toward the front of the room, is there any possible explanation for so curious a device? Again, Aphrodite points the way. The importance of a star in the eastern A donia has already been mentioned in connection with the emblem on the goddess’ shield. At the time of her festival, it 1s said that a fiery light appeared from the heights of Mt. Lebanon and dove into the river beside her ancient sanctuary at Aphaca like a star!®° or that a flame was visible in the air in the region of the sanctuary as if it were a torch or sphere.!®! Long after the villa near Boscoreale had vanished beneath the earth, the rites set off by the experience of this light in the sky were celebrated in their traditional way until Constantine caused the famous sanctuary to be destroyed.}® Under the circumstances, it is tempting to explain the singular lighting of the hall as 180 Sozomenus, Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk. II, Ch. 5 (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, LXVII, col. 948). According

to the Etymologicum Magnum, it was at “Apoxa that Aphrodite and Adonis embraced each other for the first or the last time. Cf., too, Suidas, s. u. “ASevis. For a description of the sanctuary at Afka, cf. Frazer, op. cit., pp. 28ff., Renan, Mission de Phénicie, pp. 295ff., Jules Rouvier, “Le temple de Vénus 4 Afka,”’ Bulletin archéologique, 1900, pp. 169ff. and, most recently, Daniel Krencker and Willy Zschietzschmann, Rémische Tempel in Syrien (Denkmaler antiker Architektur, V), Berlin and Leipzig, 1938, pp. 56-64, pls. XXVII-XXX. 181 Zosimus, I, 58.

182 Eusebius, Vita Constantini, Bk. III, Ch. 55 (Migne, Patrologia, Graeca, XX, col. 1120); Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 18 (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, LXVUI, col. 124) and Sozomenus, /oc. cit. Professor

A. D. Nock calls my attention to the fact that this astral phenomenon ts associated by the sources with Aphaca only. Yet given the dual connections of Cinyras with both Byblos and Paphos, it is by no means excluded that an element of the cult of Aphrodite and Adonis in the famous sanctuary at Aphaca would be incorporated in their worship in Pompeii or that that Pompeian worship might have preserved an element otherwise undocumented save at Aphaca. The coincidence of some kind of astral phenomenon with the annual celebration of the Adonia is further

reflected in Ammianus Marcellinus’ graphic account (XXII, 9, 14~15) of the Emperor Julian’s entry into Antioch. Frazer, op. cit., Ch. X, passim, has pointed out the striking analogy between this star and the star of Bethlehem as but one of the many features linking the worship of Aphrodite and Adonis with Christianity.

Cf., too, Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, pp. 306ff., and the interesting overlapping of cult sites indicated by Jerome, Epsstu/ae, LVITI, 3 (Migne, Patrologia Latina, XXII, col. 581) in his statement that

for nearly two centuries before Constantine’s reign a statue of Zeus stood on the site of the Resurrection and an image of Aphrodite on Golgotha, while Bethlehem itself was overshadowed by a grove of Adonis who was bewailed in the very cave where the infant Christ cried,

74, ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE an effort to recreate the conditions attendant upon the great annual celebration, as an allusion to the heavenly light whose appearance coincided with the festival of Adonis.188 And who else but Adonis can be reflected on the shield? For, as we have seen, the ruddybrown figure on the polished surface of the shield is unquestionably a reflection.18* Nor is it unique in this respect. The curving surface of the shield on which a young woman leans in a previously mentioned painting from the House of Obellius Firmus, in Pompeii (Fig. 34), reflects a schematized figure facing left and depicted in the same ruddy tones as

the New York image. Like the shieldbearer to the right of Aphrodite and Adonis, this young woman sitting in a sanctuary decorated with garlands and fillets faces to the right but turns her head to look back to the left. Furthermore, each of these long-haired, necklaced women is lighted obliquely from the left. As we have seen, the seated shieldbearer is best understood as a participant in rites in all probability related to Aphrodite. Indeed, it Is tempting to interpret this shrine painting as a representation of one of the orthodox performers of the goddess’ cult, the very performer whom we see again in the great hall from Boscoreale. In any case, the existence of this second shield borne by a woman and reflecting an otherwise invisible form doubles the likelihood that the ruddy image reflected in their polished surfaces has a special significance in the present context. In the great hall from Boscoreale the shieldbearer appears to be a mortal participant, counterpart to the citharist, in rites in honor of Aphrodite,!® who carries the goddess’ symbol which, in turn, serves as a device whereby the return of Adonis is indicated. The importance of this moment in a room dedicated to the worship of Aphrodite is self-evident. With the return of Adonis whose resurrection is revealed by the shield, the citharist will lift her voice in song.1% It is 183 In this connection note the ritual significance of light transmitted obliquely into the cella of the Basilica of Porta Maggiore in Rome from a compluvium in the atrium or antechamber. Cf. Jér6me Carcopino, La basilique pythagoricienne de la Porte Majeure, Paris, 1926, pp. 216ff. 184 See note 17. Cf., incidentally, the reflected images in the well-known painting of Thetis in Hephaestos’

Shop (Herrmann, op. cit., Pl. CXLI) and on an antique tapestry in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (illustrated by A. J. B. Wace, “The Veil of Despoina,” American Journal of Archaeology, XX XVIII, 1934, pp. 107ff., Pl. XI). 185 Studniczka, op. cit., pp. 102-103, has described the outer garment worn by this woman as tucked up like an apron in order to allow her to carry the shield. This can hardly be correct since the purple tunic in question ts not a full-length robe but appears to hang down only to a point somewhat below the knees in

back and to be symmetrically gathered up a few inches higher in front. This curious tunic is probably a ritual garment and its style may conceivably be explained by a passage in Ovid, Metamorphoses, X, 535-536, in which the poet describes how Aphrodite gives up all her normal pursuits to accompany Adonis and “now, over mountain ridges, through the woods, over rocky places set with thorns, she ranges with her garments girt up to her knees after the manner of Diana.” It is not impossible that some such tradition dictated the form of this garment worn by one of the goddess’ attendants. Apropos of the ritual nature of her clothing, it is interesting to note that Hymen wears yellow shoes in Catullus, LXI, 10, and that the faded shoes worn by this attendant were once golden. Can yellow shoes, too, be part of a ritual garb? In this connection note their appearance in the circle of Dea Syria in Apuleius, VIII, 27, and cf. supra, note 176. 186 The marked resemblance between the citharist and her youthful attendant has been noted. Whether

this is to be construed as an indication that these figures are intentional portraits, conceivably even of two members of the household, it is difficult to say. While such an explanation is by no means excluded, it

y,, x,i.en a * ) . aae 9. ul inom , . — { ee : .. 5: a he i hi : ‘2/

THE HALL OF APHRODITE a

-

~

oO

. [ Te “ ot cat bs ‘ i : Wy +3 if rk11 i : f 4) ‘ hi a, ee : j it: heh x tg t= a, di \2 :SGtePiers a eooie"“fo iB8.ij| {- a 3

* — " .)pe } yes, ; He ® “e 4 — a ' ee” ‘ . all | x i : r : . “ We er | chHh > f a|: biey + ioe * | A af | | , . = Bnd | Hes —* ' ti, . 4 ; i}§ ‘et , : “dy pe. GD i| “me " | | N | ee as He: i! heer ae ae” ; ee . m. j \ i 9 = ‘wed a z et : . ' . . “S { j 7 : ) = : a yew POR =| oy | i ch | PRO se c eS o t © ans | | | | na A rs \: iCmee’ 4 ie bak 1,feAG | | ..i): || eo : omYs ,7J»I»2LD a: he -_ : ioe by“-fee 2 -*4arama, y. jet he =e aDet hae. a. hy a4 ,>P ™ -‘i -J ‘=.¥?4a ‘ef an ¥~. bs oa s. ,Fy: ~ tae, “apn, vk: Ab, mw a, ty | * :: ie; Zfig\“tpct - 4oS« 7e-| .‘;

\|an7.,Pe ee ay | 2 ae vy oS). +t»b)» Fea. . 5 . \'P -;-*a ",eS .:3; % +7;:ove nen __ ~’8)eS 3°2 . : a ’ : a \ .ee ~~‘ : : vviz Jt 7> ; r% w > ;aRts‘ft e.. Sep irr,d!- Mar a ema :Bian. a Mee, “ ‘ : 3 a ; Tt ee : . : _—

Loe SS 5 E .=’2rhe “°F ' ~~ t | eR = ‘> % : = > “~ aa =} © ‘ ee) a . hh : i ny (mamas sd 5

7. : 4 ks& ib ; ¢ PX{ ~% - ri 9 tg aoe ue sath eS 7 ;;s v A wiz’ Pe % ; | mete ): BY is + rT Be re pea: Sat? is ‘ ogay. . . my ’ ~ NE : L : -i 4SE ny en oa. 4ae - 3of == a he

™ os. \+ ‘e »ee = \.-== * 2 »~~ 4 ae. * oat +a”a- ib . ca te s. uj — : “ ; . yy ; bone 4 =— a> — wag as 7 =ry eng — - }“ ~~ - wre oe: _" oS* :4% / 2,Keag° 7-2Ss . . eee Z ~5~

Ol. SS ye RN A 2 THREE. * ; ae —— , 3 Ls a a A | ; Y "ede _ ; sm ae ta iupy ; ; Aes rs SR TA, vA ) 2 ee \e {oes : of ae Ba / = : =» %y 7 ~ ~ ee} a? oa P : x ws ‘ : Y at % ae he ' “fp ay > ‘am ~ “2 + > os > , ; a . % oF APD. : 2 . “. |.4 te “ES : Se > el RE 1 Test ‘ < ai"-24are’ kn" *'A =:5, tya= .‘ 2VAmm : =-. “ \.*% |y)Lhe -—% pay Lv 4 A - Fag ae " — —— — : i 4 * ~ ‘ ~

a. Seth fi a. Z _ + ied din i 2 , i./ Ge ’,a 4xwe aiA‘/FiVi ° , ae _Sih_ot.° ". a ee.ea Bg ‘. “ZR .- *\i> x. oa "5. ae pic? - % SS neegs . S

th nt ahed SD yee os Ee ar 00 “HF mT a a OS ie ee = , > 2; pm : . i ’ ’ 4%; reste” 2 ¢ ,’ ,4/ 4 ». ¥Mee . af . | = | (a o > ; . t ',hk. 4af | . \ae “a alk ,.VF ’riifaga eeef -re : re :3i| eo K aeiY “oN r% 7ch | CP 0° Re ef "l % ‘ . .om, . , : eA r. * i aes aysvs i oe a*¥ 4 4" ¢y 4;/‘¢ fsy % ” .niu , *Ep yeae Ye ~ . Fie. .a. ', OF ~iN i RE Set a ~ > “4 \% o4b> + : ——? ¥ S Ah) rh Oe \ J bej o's vi} : : : oy Poh Sie, 5~’‘:»—~-

i;‘+,”‘ :nt :;oe oo aeLoa _; , ue :f atJ: eae. = ‘fe

“ee I: .Ss ; 2AWTF &- ee : ;>:”4i:NM U é ~J PA ER , PX = F2Ta-ra ~"ae >. ‘ ;.~ Ase: ? :* j if BY ff ‘ ~ . - , wo wore leer ern yee >’ 1am 4 errsn wr on oar * » i is | 1" 4 i. os . ~ »> La Oa RIO -” * % 7 - b 4 > *, ; sf a Xe " \ :

Bees cigv NE sthaea. igi ge’ et ooBS - bbe B : ras v “ vw 3 AsSi7 :: HR . 4 . ad t- » >

THE CUBICULUM 95 bordered by two bands of black. Finally, the distinction between alcove and forepart found expression in the decoration of the walls, where the three panels occupying each lateral

wall of the front part of the chamber were conceived of as independent formal units whose very podia were differentiated from those of the alcove. Although ceiling and floor no longer exist, the brilliantly-colored walls of the cubiculum may be seen today in their entirety in the Metropolitan Museum (Pls. IXA-XXXITI).” Here one may find in their original broad context elements that later splintered off from this core to become independent motives. Before turning to a consideration of such relationships, however, let us examine the walls of this room in order to determine, if possible, what the curious scenes depicted there can have meant to the owner of this villa and his friends. On either side of the room, the forepart of the chamber was bounded on the north by the bossed pilasters marking the entrance to the alcove, on the south by two panelled white Corinthian pilasters, one placed in each corner. The painted architrave resting on these pilasters is further supported on each side by two Corinthian columns which subdivide each lateral wall of the forepart into three panels and stand on a painted podium deeply indented beneath the central panel to suggest a rectangular niche. The golden cornice of this podium rests on modillions separated from the architrave by a fluted purple frieze and, on either side of the painted niche, it crowns a scarlet dado adorned with a turquoise panel upon which archaistic winged female figures grasping tendrils alternate with anthemia. The rear wall of the niche was apparently light in color and differentiated from its scarlet lateral walls. The Corinthian columns standing on this podium are the most remarkable of the varied

supports painted throughout the villa. Their bright scarlet monolithic shafts rise from a calyx of gilded acanthus leaves springing from a greyish-purple Attic-Ionic base. Spiral golden tendrils climb the scarlet shafts sending out circular whorls and occasional blossoms

set with deep purple gems. Gilded Corinthian capitals top the shafts. Although no such precious column has been preserved from antiquity, there is reason to believe that here, as elsewhere, lost architectural prototypes are reflected in painting and that these splendid columns may echo the reality of shafts entwined by bronze tendrils set with gems.® Athe6 The virtual disappearance of the bossed pilasters dividing the alcove from the forepart of the chamber, together with the fact that neither the original ceilings nor the several treatments of the mosaic floor were duplicated in the present reconstruction of the cubiculum in the Metropolitan Museum, has resulted in a loss of the original contrast between and differentiation of alcove and forepart. Fortunately, the original appearance of the room was clearly described by Barnabei, of. c7#., pp. 72ff. ? Sambon, op. ¢7t., 4639-46, pp. 21-25. I am unable to understand Sambon’s +:-43-45, designating the

lateral walls of the alcove, since there are two, not three, panels at this point. The cubiculum has been completely reconstructed out of seven sections of wall. Note, too, that Sambon’s “right”? wall (4441) is actually the left wall as the visitor enters the room, and his “left” wal! (4442) the right. For bibliography and a detailed description of the paintings from this room, see the Descriptive Catalogue (Sambon’s +-47-48

apparently belonged to another cubiculum—or can they have been additional fragments from the antechamber ?).

8 It is, of course, possible that the monumental prototypes of these columns may have been shafts en-

86 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE naeus’ allusion to the great columns “gilded and studded with gems and silvered” erected to support a pavilion for Alexander the Great® lends added credibility to such an hypothesis as does Diodorus Siculus’ description of the celebrated hearse in which Alexander’s body was borne to Egypt, its golden columns entwined by tendrils of golden acanthus.!? The fact that one feature of our painted columns, the calyx of leaves from which the shafts spring, is characteristic of late classical and early Hellenistic limestone columns from Tarentine grave monuments!! and of a number of late Hellenistic and Roman marble columns! suggests the likelihood that monumental prototypes of the other seemingly cased with painted and gilded stucco reliefs or metal sheaths over a wooden core. The former suggestion was, in fact, made by Sambon, oP. ¢/t., p. 22, and Eugénie Strong, Art in Ancient Rome, II, pp. 13ff.

-_Beyen, too, was of the opinion that actual columns with metal attachments lay behind the painted columns of the cubiculum. Unfortunately, I do not find the analogies cited by him on p. 141, note 3, strictly relevant or convincing. However, see L. V. Bertarelli, Guida d’Italia del Touring Club Italiano, Piemonte, Lombardia, Canton Ticino, Milan, 1923, p. 384. Beyen’s chief source, Charles Normand, “Essai sur l’existence dune architecture métallique antique,” Encyclopédie d’ architecture, ser. III, vol. II, 1883, pp. 61ff., does

contain some pertinent material if cautiously used. Bibliography on the question of bronze Corinthian capitals is cited by K. Lehmann-Hartleben, ‘Die Athena Parthenos des Phidias,” Jahrbuch des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, XLVII, 1932, p. 34. Metal attachments have been proposed for the Corinthian capitals of the great sanctuary of Bel at Palmyra as well as for the propylon at Baalbek (cf. T. Wiegand, Palmyra, Berlin, 1932, p. 129, and idem, Baalbek, Berlin and Leipzig, I, 1921, p. 194) and metal capitals for the inner pilasters of the Temple of Zeus at Gerasa (Carl H. Kraeling, Gerasa, City of the Decapolis, New

Haven, 1938, pp. 18-19, note 33 and Pl. IV b). Note, too, the columns of cypress having ivory and gold Corinthian capitals on Ptolemy Philopator’s river boat as described by Callixeinus (Athenaeus, V, 204ff.) and cf. the golden-colored Corinthian shafts entwined by silvery ivy-leaves from a Second Style painting in the House of Menander (A. Maiuri, La casa di Menandro e il suo tesoro di argenteria, Rome, 1932, figs. 44-46, Pl. X) which may conceivably be intended to represent a golden shaft with silver attachments. 9XIT, 538d: tot S& pévery thy oxnviy Urréxevto Kloves elkooatrtyels Trepiypucor Kal S1cA1901 Kal Trepiapyvpol.

10 XVIII, 27, 2: dv& pécov 88 ExdoTtou Tév Kidveov UTiipye yeucotis dxavOes dvatetvaov & tot [kata] KaT’ oAtyov péxp1 TH Kiovoxpdveov (Diodorus of Sicily translated by Russel M. Geer, Loeb Classical Library, 1X,

London, 1947, pp. 90-91). For a similar interpretation of this text see Heinrich Bulle, “Der Leichenwagen Alexanders,” Jahrbuch des kaiserlich deutschen archdologischen Instituts, XX1, 1906, pp. 54-55, figs. 1-2, pp. 66-67, where the previous reconstruction of Kurt F. Miller, Der Leichenwagen Alexanders des Grofen, Leipzig, 1905, is criticized. Both Bulle and Geer follow Wilamowitz’ conjectural addition of the word kato.

Cf., too, Quintus Curtius’ description of the columns in a contemporary royal palace, VIII, IX, 26: Regia auratas columnas habet ; totas eas vitis auro caelata percurrit, aviumque, quarum visu maxime gaudent, argenteae effigies opera distinguunt.

1 Cf. Hans Klumbach, Tarentiner Grabkunst (Tibinger Forschungen zur Archdologie und Kunstgeschichte,

XIII), Reutlingen, 1937, pp. 77ff., 94, for discussion of these monuments and their relation to similar later occurrences of this type whether in architecture or painting. See, too, C. S. Ponger, Katalog der griechischen und rémischen Skulptur, der steineren Gegenstdnde und der Stuckplastik im Allard Pierson Museum xzu/imsterdam (Archaeologisch-historische Bydragen, XI), Amsterdam, 1942, 4128-129, pp. 64-65. 12 See the examples collected by Rudolf Naumann, Der Quellbezirk von Nimes, Berlin, 1937, pp. 46ff., in connection with a similar column from the precinct of the so-called Temple of Diana. The two examples from

the Palace of Kasr el Abd in Arak el Emir and from the forecourt of the Temple at Seeia in the Hauran are particularly interesting because of their dates (first half of the second century B. C. and late first century B. C.). Apropos of these examples note F. Oelmann, Archaeologischer Anzeiger, 1921, col. 285, note 2, and Klumbach, /oc. e7¢. The analogy between the cubiculum columns and the acanthus calyx bases of the Roman Triumphal Arch at Gerasa has already been remarked by Kraeling, op. cit., p. 77 and note 17. Cf. the bases of the South Gate and the Baths of Placcus, pp. 150, 267, Pls. XXXc, LIVb.

Note, too, the analogous base and calyx of a fluted shaft on a fragmentary terracotta relief reproduced by H. von Rohden, Architektonische rémische Tonreliefs der Kaiserzeit (Kekul¢, Die antiken Terrakotten, IV),

THE CUBICULUM 87 exotic features also existed. An early Hellenistic gold sceptre from Tarentum in the British Museum offers an interesting analogy to these columns.’ Cast in the form of a Corinthian

colonnette, its shaft is enmeshed in a network of gold wire dotted with blue or white enamel at the intersections and divided into drums by circles of beaded wire. It would seem to confirm the existence of Corinthian columns decorated with metal attachments.14 Certainly, if such columns existed, they would have been imitated in this chamber for, as we shall see, they are thoroughly in keeping with the intentional suggestion of extreme luxury throughout the room. Immediately behind the scarlet columns and white pilasters, rectangular Corinthian piers of deep burgundy hue support the architrave on the far side ~ of the beamed ceiling extending from column to pier. Attached to the architrave above the central panel of each lateral wall hangs a gleaming bronze shield while masks mark the centre of the lateral panels. At the left, youthful satyrs open their round eyes and part their lips in amazement and horror; at the right, bearded, white-haired satyrs with brick-red faces cast looks alternately lecherous and aghast at the uneasy spectator. Turning now, to the left wall (Pl. XI), the visitor finds himself drawn by a variety of visual devices to the central panel of the wall (Pl. XIII). Rising above the niche cut in the centre of the podium, it faces him squarely unlike the panels on either side which are seen obliquely from left or right. Here a bronze statue of Diana-Lucina stands beneath a s yz yg7a or two-pillar monument within a sacred enclosure. Before the scarlet precinct wall appear various objects used in the cult: golden bronze hydrias on stone benches, a round altar, pomegranates left in offering. The high lavender-pink wall limiting the enclosure at its rear emerges again in the foreground of the lateral panels. There, to left and right, a pile of pastel-colored buildings rises behind this wall which is pierced by a doorway of unimaginable splendor. Ivory leaves inlaid with tortoise-shell and studded with silver close upon these silent buildings. Enigmatic in form and fenestration save for a familiar balcony or

colonnade, they tower up against a blue southern sky. What is this brilliant realm of colorful buildings? Town or country, does it reflect any known aspect of the ancient world ? Let us glance equally hastily at the remaining walls of this extraordinary room before

attempting to answer these questions. Berlin, 1911, p. 160, fig. 305 (Berlin, Antiquarium, +:3847) and the spiral columns springing from acanthus calyces on a similar monument published by R. Paribeni, “Nuovi monumenti del Museo Nazionale Romano,” Bollettino d’arte, XII, 1918, pp. 53ff,, fig. 5 on p. 54. 13 FH. Marshall, Catologue of the Jewellery, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman, in the Depariments of Anti-

quities, British Museum, London, 1911, +2070, pp. 232-233 and fig. 65. L: 52 cn. Tentatively dited in the third century B. C. For a more recent discussion and later bibliography see Pierre Wuilleumier, Tarente, Paris, 1939 (Bibliotheque des écoles frangaises d Athénes et de Rome, fasc. 148), p. 364. 14 René Vallois, L’architecture hellénique et bellénistique a Delos, 1, Paris, 1944 (Bibliotheque des écoles frangaises @Athénes et de Rome, fasc. 157), pp. 290ff., also assumes that the cubiculum columns reflect actual

supports with metallic attachments. His extensive discussion of this problem contains valuable references to comparative material although some of the citations do not seem pertinent to me.

88 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE To the right, the forepart of the chamber mirrors the left wall in all essentials (Pls. XV—X VII). Such variations as do occur may best be considered later. Of the three sides of the alcove, its broad rear wall offers the closest analogy to the lateral walls of the forepart (Pls. XX, XXIID). Like them, it is bounded by white Corinthian pilasters in either corner and subdivided into three panels by two of the same scarlet columns encircled by golden tendrils and, again, dark Corinthian piers appear beyond both columns and pilasters. However, only the scarlet column toward the right of the rear wall is entirely visible. Its companion vanishes

beneath the grilled window occupying a large portion of this wall. That this window formed part of the original plan of the room and was not a later addition is proved beyond any doubt by the fact that although a portion of the shaft and all of the base of the column beneath the window were painted, no trace of its capital appears above the opening. Had the entire column been painted on an unbroken wall later pierced by a window," the upper part of its capital would have remained. Furthermore, the lighting of the paintings in this room is consistent. Every single detail of each panel is rendered on the assumption that light enters the room from this window and shadows are cast toward the entrance.1® The logical expression of illusionism characteristic of the decoration of the entire villa is nowhere

more strongly manifest. To have omitted the lower part of the column separating the central from the left panel of the alcove would have marred the structural scheme of the room. To eliminate the portion of capital for which there was space high up on the wall where the flood of light pouring in the window makes it difficult to distinguish any detail was a sensible minor concession. Beneath the buff-colored cornice of the rear podium panelled rectangles of simulated stone run above a low course of greyed-rose, narrow black panels alternating with large mottled green rectangles save for the central stone of rosy-lavender. Again, the central panel of the wall rises behind a cut-back, here simply of the step upon which the colonnade rests. Within this shallow cut-back intended to emphasize the central position of the panel, a centrality much impaired by the interruption of the window, a dove

stands on the podium. In the centre of the panel, a transparent glass bowl heaped with luscious fruits rests on the scarlet coping of a yellow screen wall filling the entire intercolumniation. Above it, a parrot perches on the edge of a black curtain and, in the distance, an arcade of warm pink stone stands against the sky. The symmetrical position of both bow] and parrot within the narrow space at the right of the window constitutes additional 15 As Barnabei, op. cét., p. 80, and others have assumed. The grating exhibited in this window is antique, cf. G. M. A. Richter, ‘The Boscoreale Frescoes,” Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1, 1905-06,

7 his fact was observed by Beyen, op. e/t., p. 142, note 1, although he looked upon the antechamber door as the true source of light in the cubiculum and was, apparently, troubled by this seeming contradiction. Actually, the primary source of light is the window. Hence illusion and reality are one. (A. Rumpf, “Classical and Post-Classical Greek Painting,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, LXVII, 1947, p. 19, implies that indication of the direction of light does not occur before the Odyssey landscapes, an evident mistake.)

THE CUBICULUM 89 proof of the original presence of this window. Without it, there would have been no necessity to squeeze the bowl into a space it barely fits and to place the parrot so that the long feathers of his tail just miss the brown pier. To the right of this central panel, one looks into the cool darkness of a rocky grotto (Pls. XX—X XII). Streams of water trickling down its ledges are caught in a stone trough at the mouth of the cave which is overgrown with luxuriant sprays of ivy. Here birds warble against the splash of water, filling this solitary retreat with song in marked contrast to the stillness above the grotto where an arched trellis supports clusters of ripe purple grapes. The warm light of this upper region further contrasts with the dim, shaded interior below, heightening the juxtaposition of nature tamed and cultivated and nature wild and untrained. A little, faintly-seen statue of a female divinity in the interior of the cave forms part of the animated world of the birds. Here nature is neither remote nor forbidding but familiar and cherished. As in the forepart of the chamber, the lateral panels of the rear wall are in essence exact counterparts. On this wall, however, the balance of parts is less evident because of the infringement of the window and consequent reduction of space. Yet, so far as space permits, the left side of the rear wall echoes the right. The evident adjustment of the birds to the narrower space available for them at this side constitutes additional proof of the presence of the window in the original design. The lateral walls of the alcove are likewise counterparts (Pls. XVIJI-XIX). On either side, a round monopteros rises in the centre of a rectangular precinct framed by mauve Tuscan colonnades. Rose-colored Corinthian columns with gilded capitals support its tich entablature and pagoda-like roof. Before this precinct, a golden propylon!” stands beneath a scarlet wall. Its lateral intercolumniations are barred by scarlet screen walls stretching between the brown piers on the inner side of the propylon. Access to the couttyard through the central opening of the propylon is rendered almost equally difficult by the presence there of a lavender parapet flanked by scarlet altars laden with offerings of fruit. Garlands of leaves or flowers hang over a black curtain visible behind the parapet. Here, as behind the lateral intercolumnia, all sight of the interior of the courtyard could be veiled by raising black curtains. Then only the altars and the gilded silver incense-burner marking the centre of the scene could have suggested what lay behind the propylon. Do they, like the ritual objects preceding the sacred enclosure on the walls of the outer chamber, reflect the presence of a divine sphere beyond ? What is the mystery of that silent precinct ? Whatever it may be, the lateral walls of the alcove, like each other major unit or subdivision 1” The composite capitals of this propylon bearing busts on the abacus are, again, not the product of the painter’s fancy. For parallels in Italian architecture of the second century B. C. see K. Ronczewski, ““Das Kapitell aus der Grotta Campanari in Vulci,“ Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, XLV, 1930, pp. 59ff. For the general issue of the reflection of contempory architecture in Second Style Painting, see the recent discussion of Guiseppe Lugli, Architettura Italica, Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincet,Memorie, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, ser. VIII. vol. II, fasc. IV, 1949, pp. 189-218, and Vallois, op. c7t., pp. 281ff., 364ff.

90 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE of the cubiculum, are differentiated from the others by an individual podium, in this case, courses of rusticated, burgundy-colored masonry rising above a narrow sea-green course and topped by a moulded golden cornice.

Finally, the narrow spurs of wall on either side of the entrance to the chamber are decorated with garlands suspended vertically against the scarlet field in the centre of each wall!8 (Pl. IX B—C). Above this field, an elegant metal amphora stands on a grey-green cornice against a deep purple rusticated wall,!® below it, the dado is divided into an upper course of yellow rusticated stone and a deep purple orthostate by the slight projection of another grey-green cornice. It 1s a room of contrasts, of pastel-colored buildings set in a framework of brilliant scarlet and gold against an intense blue sky; of man-made objects side by side with the products of nature; of the densely-filled walls of the forepart and the comparative space and quiet of the alcove. Everywhere statues, altars and offerings reveal the penetration of

the divine and permanent into the mortal and transitory. Everywhere the individual element takes its place in a clearly defined sphere expressed in the explicit terms of a decorative system. How are we to understand this multiplicity of impressions crystallized in so rigid a scheme? For the past thirty-five years, this enigmatic room has been seized upon by an increasing number of archaeologists as a reflection of lost Hellenistic stage sets. This theory sprang from the customary early interpretation of the lateral panels of the forepart of the chamber

as city views, scenes that to a greater or less extent mirrored contemporary urban architecture.2° When combined with two celebrated passages in Vitruvius, one on the 18 The fact that these painted garlands reflect the use of actual garlands in such rooms is suggested by the following passage from Catullus, LXIII, 66-67: mihi floridis corollis redimita domus erat, linquendum ubi esset orto mihi sole cubiculum. 19 The closest analogies to this vessel known to me are a prize amphora on one of the gladiatorial helmets from Pompeii (illustrated by Edward Trollope, [Mustrations of Ancient Art, London, 1854, Pl. XX XVII, ro), the upper part of a similar vessel on the wall of a house in Delos (Marcel Bulard, Descriptions des revetements peints a sujets religieux, Exploration archéologique de Délos, TX, Paris, 1926, p. 78, Pl. IV, and zdem, “‘Peintures

murales et mosaiques de Délos,” Fondation Prot, Monuments et Mémoires, XIV, 1908, Pl. IV), and the two elegant amphoras represented in a mosaic in Naples from the House of The Tragic Poet (for further details and bibliography see E. Pernice, Pavimente und figiirliche Mosaiken, pp. 171-172). Although these analogies are not exact — they lack, for example, the calyx from which the bodies of the cubiculum vessels spring -— they are very close in general form. 20 See, for example, Sambon, /o¢. c/#.; Gerhart Rodenwaldt, Die Komposition der pompejanischen Wana-

gemalde, Berlin, 1909, pp. 82f.; Ferdinand Noack, Die Baukunst des Altertums, Berlin, n.d., pp. 87-88; M. Rostovtzeff, “‘Die hellenistisch-rémische Architekturlandschaft,”’ Mitteilungen des kaiserlich deutschen archaologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, XXVI, 1911, pp. 1off.; M. L. Gothein, Geschichte der Gartenkunst,

Jena, 1914, p. 130; G. M.A. Richter, “‘The Boscoreale Frescoes in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,” Art and Archaeology, VII, 1918, p. 242; E. S. Strong, Art in Ancient Rome, Il, p. 14; Erich Pernice, Pompey, Leipzig, 1926, p. 57; Ludwig Curtius, Die Wandmalerei Pompejis, pp. 114ff.; Cossio-Pijoan, Summa Arts, V, Madrid, 1934, p. 368 and fig. 513; Helen McClees, The Daily Life of the Greeks and Romans, New York, 1941, pp. 25f.; G. M.A. Richter, Greek Painting, New York, 1949, p. 21; Lugli, op. c7#,. p. 216, note 1.

THE CUBICULUM 9] theatre,?! the other on interior decoration,” this interpretation of the lateral panels as city views led to the novel suggestion that the entire cubiculum was a pot-pourri of stage sets, tragic, comic, and satyric.* To be sure, Vitruvius designated columns, pediments, statues, and

other royal things as fitting elements for tragic scenery; private buildings with balconies and windows for comic sets and trees, caves, mountains, and other country features for satyric. Furthermore, he indicated that the walls of houses might be painted in tragic, comic, or satyric style. The enthusiastic proponents of “‘the theatre theory” found no difficulty in applying these prescriptions to the various panels of the cubiculum. The lateral panels of the forepart were clearly comic, those of the alcove tragic, the rear wall satyric. But whether the original stage sets supposedly reflected on these walls were intended for the proscenium 1'V, VI, 9. 22 VII, V, 2.

"3 Otto Puchstein, Die griechische Bribne, Berlin, 1901, pp. 35ff., remarked that he was tempted to see analogies between the Second Style and stage decoration. This suggestion was elaborated and developed into the orthodox theatre theory by A. Ippel, Der dritte pompejanische Stil, Berlin, 1910, pp. 15ff., 26ff., and repeated with individual variations by such writers on the theatre as E. R. Fiechter, Dre baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des antiken Theaters, Munich 1914, pp. 42ff.; August Frickenhaus, Die altgriechische Brhne, StraBburg, 1917, pp. 48ff.; Margarete Bieber, Die Denkmaler zum Theaterwesen im Altertum, Berlin, 1920, pp. 42f.; H. Bulle, Untersuchungen an griechischen Theatern (Abhandlungen der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, XX XIII), Munich, 1928, pp. 273ff.; and Bieber, The History of the Greek and Roman Theater, Princeton, 1939, pp. 251ff., 333, 341. From this circle, the theatre theory passed into discussions of ancient painting in general or of the paintings from Boscoreale in particular and was adopted, again with personal variations, by F. Caspari, “Das Nilschiff Ptolemaios IV”’, Jahrbuch des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, XXXI1, 1916, pp. 47f.; Springer-Wolters, Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, 1, Stuttgart, 1921, p. 451; E. Pfuhl, Ma/eret und Zeichnung der Griechen, Il, pp. 810ff., 886;

Hans Diepolder, “Untersuchungen zur Komposition der rémisch-campanischen Wandgemilde,” M7tteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, XLI, 1926, pp. 12ff.; J. Six, “Een wandschildering uit Boscoreale,” Bulletin van de Vereeniging tot bevordering der Kennis van de antieke Beschaving, I, 1926, pp. 4,7; Heinrich Sulze, “AAQNIAOZ KHTTOI,” “Ayyedos, II, 1926, p. 49, note 8; G. E. Rizzo, La pittura ellenistico-romana, pp. 7-8; A. M. Friend, “The Portraits of the Evangelists in Greek and Latin Manu-

scripts”, Part II, Art Studies, VII, 1929, pp. 9ff.; M.H. Swindler, Ancient Painting, p. 327; Eustache De Lorey, The Mosaics of the Mosque of the Omayyads at Damascus, Paris, 1931, pp. 10ff.; Olga Elia, “I cubicoli

nelle case di Pompei,” pp.'22-23; A. M.G. Little, “The Decoration of the Hellenistic Peristyle House in Southern Italy,” American Journal of Archaeology, XX XIX, 1935, pp. 370ff.; idem, “Scaenographia,” The Art Bulletin, XVUI, 1936, pp. 411ff., and “Perspective and Scene Painting,” XIX, 1937, p. 491; G. E. Rizzo, La pittura della ‘Casa di Livia’ (Monumenti della pittura antica, III, Roma, fase. I1I), Rome, 1937, p. 22; Pierre Grimal and Julien Guey, “A propos des ‘Bains de Livie’ au Palatin,” Mé/anges d@’ archéologie et

d histoire, LIV, 1937, pp. 159ff.; H. G. Beyen, “Die antike Zentralperspektive,” Archdologischer Anzeiger,

1939, col. 50ff.; Miriam Schild Bunim, Space in Medieval Painting and the Forerunners of Perspective, New | York, 1940, p. 30, note 67; Werner Technau, Geschichte der Kunst, Altertum, Il, Die Kunst der Romer, Berlin, 1940, pp. 87ff; R. Bianchi Bandinelli, “Tradizione ellenistica e gusto romano nella pittura Pompeiana,” La critica d’arte, V1, 1941, pp. 6, 20. The most detailed exposition of the theory was voiced by Beyen, op. cit., pp. 141-208; more recently it has been upheld by Pierre Grimal, Les jardins romains, Paris, 1943, pp. 254ff., 430, note 1, 457; A. M. G. Little, ““The Formation of a Roman Style in Wall Painting,” American Journal of Archaeology, XLIX, 1945, pp. 135f.; Massimo Pallottino, L’arco degli argentari, Rome, 1946, p. 125, note 186; Rumpf, of. cit., pp. 17-18 (Rumpf’s references to the location of specific panels are incorrect: the grotto is placed on the side wall, etc.); Jean Charbonneaux, L’art au siécle PAuguste, Paris, 1948, p. 43; Doro Levi, “L’arte romana,” Annuario della scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in oriente, XXIV-XXVI, 1950, p. 241.

92 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE of the theatre or for the ¢hyromata,*4 whether the three lateral panels of the forepart of the chamber constituted one scene or three scenes,”® whether the central panel of this triad was tragic?’ or comic,?5 were subjects of lively dispute upon which no unanimity was possible. If the lateral walls constituted one unified scene, there was no alternative but to call the central panel, with its unmistakable sacred enclosure, comic.®® Yet this seemingly tragic but apparently comic scene appears to have a satyric mask!®° Then that mask can have no connection with the panel save to indicate its origin in the theatre god’s circle !81 One of the latest solutions of this tangled problem has been to tecognize the central panel for

what it is—a country sanctuary—and yet to call it a satyric set, explaining that it is only related to the lateral panels compositionally as the untheatrical centre of the rear wall is insetted between satyric sets!* The inconsistencies of argumentation proposed in support of this theory, the contradictions inherent in any attempt to apply the Vitruvian principles to the cubiculum, even by those in favor of this application, are nowhere more graphically illustrated than in the case of this rural sanctuary which has been alternately interpreted as tragic, comic, and satyric not by dissenters but by proponents of the same basic theory. Inasmuch as the masks present in this and the other lateral panels of the forepart of the cubiculum have been the occasion of so much altercation, it may be well to emphasize the well-known fact that the presence of Bacchic masks is, in itself, in no way indicative of the theatre—as their frequent appearance in Second Style rooms absolutely devoid of the slightest hint of the theatre testifies.33 Masks, both theatrical and non-theatrical, originated in the circle of Dionysos. This common ancestry does not imply that all masks are theatrical. The Bacchic masks used in the exedra and the Hall of Aphrodite of this very villa, as well as

those of the cubiculum, are part of the paraphernalia of a religious sphere, a sphere of primary importance in the evolution of the theatre, to be sure, but nonetheless independent.34 *4 See, for example, the controversial statements of Fiechter, Frickenhaus, Bieber, Bulle, Friend, Beyen, Rumpf, /oc. cit.

2° Friend, /oc. cit. 26 Rodenwaldt, op. cit., p. 21; Pfuhl, /oc. e7t., and others. 27 For example, Bulle and Rodenwaldt, /oc. cét., and Bieber, The History of the Greek and Roman Theater,

fig. 345.

*8 Friend, /oc c7t., and Little, ““Scaenographia,” and “Perspective and Scene Painting,” /oc. cit.

29 See Friend, Joc. cit. 39 Beyen, op. cit., p. 154 and p. 255, note 4. 31 Bulle, /oc. cit. Cf., too, Friend’s statement, /oc. cit., that these masks were a pictorial addition not present in the theatre. This is, of course, a complete reversal of Fiechter’s original allusion to “theatre”? masks in the panels of the forepart of the cubiculum as confirmation of their dependence upon the seaenarum frontes. 3 Beyen, op. cit., pp. 154, 200. 33 Cf., for example, the masks standing on the cornice or attached to the architrave in the cubiculum adjacent to the Hall of the Mysteries in the Villa Item; the great triclinium of the House of the Cryptoporticus;

the monochrome red cubiculum in the Casa del Larario; the previously discussed exedra in the House of Obellius Firmus; the Corinthian exedra and adjacent cubiculum of the House of the Labyrinth; the exedra in the House of the Silver Wedding; the wall from the Villa of Julia Felix; and the white wall from the villa near the Farnesina. 34 Even theatre masks become general Bacchic symbols as, for example, in the procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus described by Athenaeus, V, 198.

THE CUBICULUM 93 Quite apart from the serious objections to this theory periodically raised by highly competent students of the Greek theatre, objections based on the character of the masks, on the lack of monumental evidence that such sets existed in the pre-Roman theatre,°6 on the organic growth of the structural elements of the Second Style—not from the theatre—but from the First Style,?? to mention only a few, there are cogent arguments against the validity of this theory. Not the least is the evidence afforded by Vitruvius himself. For what does the much-quoted architect say but that: patentibus autem /ocis, uti exhedris, propter amplitudines parietum scaenarum frontes tragico more aut comico sex satyrico designarent...°8& The most enthusiastic admirer of the cubiculum could scarcely characterize it as offering an unusually large amount of wall space. Nor can it possibly be classified as an open space like an exedra. Still more important is Vitruvius’ statement that such spaces ate decorated with paintings in tragic or comic or satyric style, not simultaneously with all three. Indeed, it is astonishing that so illogical a suggestion should have captivated so many minds. It is obvious that the three varieties of stage sets would not

have appeared simultaneously in the theatre. Their imitation in domestic interior decoration would be equally irrational even without Vitruvius’ explicit statement to the contrary. The very idea of decorating one small room with a succession of panels alternately comic, tragic, comic, tragic, satyric, tragic, comic, tragic, comic—to quote one of the simpler explanations—is little short of fantastic. Were it possible to interpret the walls of the cubiculum as dependent upon any ove of Vitruvius’ three categories, such an attempt

might deserve serious consideration in spite of other objections. But it obviously is not possible—witness the fact that among the many mutations of the theatre theory hitherto advanced this suggestion is absent. The inconsistencies and contradictions implicit in every attempt to fit the cubiculum into Vitruvius’ scheme are more than sufficient to invalidate the theatre theory.®® A prime 35 G. Rodenwaldt, “Zur Aldobrandinischen Hochzeit,” Archdologischer Anzeiger, X XIX, 1914, cols. 451; A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens, Oxford, 1946, pp. 227ff.

36 Carl Robert, “Eine neue Studie tiber das antike Theater,” Deutsche Literaturzeitung, XXXVI, 1915, cols. 1168ff. and especially Armin von Gerkan, Das Theater von Priene, Munich, 1921, pp. 110ff. The sharp criticism of attempts to connect the Second Style and the Boscoreale cubiculum with the Hellenistic stage stated by Robert and von Gerkan, as well as Rodenwaldt, has been strangely ignored, not to say uncited, by a number of the later adherents of the theatre theory. Note however, the skepticism of Vallois, op. c#t., p. 285, note I. 3? Robert, /oc. cit., and Curtius, op. cit., pp. 121-122. See, too, von Gerkan’s cogent remarks on the spread and popularity of the “‘begrenzte Saulenfassade” in imperial architecture, op. cit., pp. 112ff. Robert and von Gerkan are agreed that not until the Fourth Style can any tangible connections be established between interior decoration and the theatre. 38 VII, V, 2. Note Robert’s comments on this passage, /oc. cit. and cf., too, his later review of Frickenhaus’ book, “Ein neuer Versuch iiber die altgriechische Bithne,” Deutsche Literaturzeitung, XL, 1919, +£45/46, cols. 871 ff.

39 As A. W. Pickard-Cambridge has explicitly stated, op. cit., pp. 225-230, in an excellent discussion that

has come to my attention as this volume goes to press. The illogical, untenable nature of many of the key arguments advanced on behalf of the ‘theatre theory” leads this critic to the conclusion that “we can safely infer nothing from these wall-paintings as to the structure or decoration of the theatres.”

94, ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE basis for this theory, it will be recalled, was the interpretation of the lateral panels of the forepart of the chamber as cities or towns. About this point there has been general agreement. Although it has occasionally been suggested that the rear wall of the alcove reflects villa architecture”? and one or two early writers on the cubiculum even went so far as to loosely associate the entire decoration of the room with the appearance of ancient villas, by and large, the conception of the lateral panels of the forepart as city views has gone unchallenged. This interpretation is, of course, basic for any attempt to connect these panels with the comic stage. For urban houses constituted the permanent architectural background of ancient comedy. If the urban character of these panels is questionable, still another major prop collapses beneath the theatre theory. And it most certainly is questionable. On what does it rest ? On the simple fact that a number of buildings are represented in close proximity and on varying levels and are thus reminiscent of certain Hellenistic cities. The utter impossibility of explaining the elaborate door prominent in the foreground of these panels as a city gate provoked the desperate alternative of explaining it as one of the doors of the scaenarum frontes\* As to the nature of the curious buildings clustered behind these doors not a word 1s said. Yet one may look high and low through ancient

representations of cities, through the remains of urban architecture, through ancient descriptions of cities, without encountering most of the salient features of this scene. On purely negative grounds, there is ample reason to question the existence of any exclusively urban details in these paintings. If not city prospects, then, what are they ? Villa prospects, reflections of that ideal microcosm cherished by men of the late Republic and early Empire; reflections so faithful, so characteristic of a definite sphere of life that each element not only of the lateral panels but of the decoration of the entire room constitutes an appropriate detail in the luxurious realm unfolded on these walls. Let us turn now to the lateral walls of the forepart of the chamber. Structurally and decoratively, as we have seen, they constitute an entity. Lest the spectator look upon the three panels of these walls as successive, unrelated scenes, they have been codrdinated into one visual unit by a variety of devices.48 Foremost among these is the insistent clarity with 49 Gothein, op. cit., pp. 93, 131; Richter, Greek Painting, p. 22; Christopher M. Dawson, RomanoCampanian Mythological Landscape Painting (Y ale Classical Studies, UX), New Haven, 1944, p. 64.

41S. di Giacomo, “Les fresques de Boscoreale,”’ Gayette des beaux-arts, 3 per., XXV, 1901, pp. 24ff. and Leader Scott, ‘“The Newly Discovered Frescoes of Boscoreale,” The Magazine of Art, XXV, 1901, pp. 318ff. It is ironic that this stab in what appears to me to be the right direction should have been made in a popular article filled with mistakes, among them reference to the cubiculum as a “summer triclinium.” Note, too, A. Mau’s description of the lateral panels of the forepart as a palace in “Wandschirm und Bildtrager in der Wandmalerei,” Mitteilungen des kaiserlich deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, XVII, 1902, p- 192.

42 Cf. Fiechter, /oc. cit., who also considered the cave on the rear wall to have served as a passage! It may be well to add that the absence of figures in these paintings does not constitute proof that they were conceived, like stage sets, as a background for figures — witness the villa garden landscape from Prima Porta which is equally devoid of figures. 43 As Barnabei and Friend recognized, /oe. cit.

THE CUBICULUM 95 which all three panels are painted on the assumption that the spectator is surveying the wall from a fixed vantage point. He is considered to stand directly opposite the central panel, that panel marked for special attention both by its central position and the simulated niche behind which it rises. Seen from this point, the panel stands squarely before one, every object appearing ex face, with due regard for the attempt to show the recession of these objects in space according to the antique conception of perspective. The lateral panels, on

the contrary, ate seen obliquely, as if the spectator, maintaining his position opposite the central panel, were to turn his gaze to left or right. Thus, he would see the various buildings in the scene at the left from their right sides; those at the right, from their left sides. And both lateral panels appear to recede obliquely into the distance. This theoretical concept is as consistently expressed in the painting of every element of the lateral panels as the previously mentioned concept of the light as coming uniformly upon this entire wall from the right. These two principles control the arrangement and presentation of each object represented on the wall—with one exception. The two masks attached to the architrave above each lateral panel turn slightly toward the centre of the wall and constitute one of the means by which the spectator is coerced into occupying a central position before this unified scene. The formal function of these masks, like the set-back of the podium, is to emphasize the centre of the wall and the spectator’s position opposite it. Similarly, the shield attached to the architrave above the central panel is seen frontally. Shield and masks alike form part of the simulated architectural framework of the room. As such, they are logically differentiated from the optical laws governing the prospects seen through this framework. Finally, the transfer of the major elements of this total tripartite field to the rear wall of the Corinthian oecus in the House of the Labyrinth constitutes conclusive proof of its compositional unity.*4 Let us take up our position now before the lateral wall at the left and examine the unique scenes flanking the sacred precinct (Pls. XI-XIV). Let us consider the ingredients of these

panels, item by item, in order to determine what they actually represent and whether, indeed, this singular combination of structures could be found on a Roman villa. What of the monumental portal dominating the foreground of each panel? Its ivory doors are inlaid with tortoise-shell, studded with ornaments and handles of silver, and set into a rich architectural frame decorated with a purple frieze on which faintly discernible figures take part in some indistinguishable action. It seems improbable that so precious a doorway ever stood exposed to the elements. Yet the visitor of Ptolemy Philopator’s celebrated river-boat entered a propylon fashioned of ivory and the “most expensive wood” and might gaze upon a cabin accessible through cedar doors ornamented with ivory and inset with gilded copper studs and handles.® In this princely setting no luxury was too great. The fabulous splendor of the Hellenistic courts may well have colored later concepts of luxurious living, for to ‘4 For discussion of the House of the Labyrinth see below notes 47, 159, 197 and pp. 121, 152ff. 45 Athenaeus, V, 205a—bff.

96 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE Virgil, too, a great entrance portal and doors inlaid with tortoise-shell were the hall-mark

of a wealthy establishment. In enumerating the blessings of the husbandman free to spend his days in the broad domains of nature, he contrasted this carefree life with its opposite extreme, the possession of a great household permeated by the utmost luxury. And among all the possible means of suggesting extremes of wealth he chose six details, two symbolic of the most elaborate of households, four indicative of the way of life within such a setting:

“What though no stately mansion with proud portals disgorges at dawn from all its halls a tide of visitors, though they never gaze at doors inlaid with lovely tortoise-

shell or at raiment tricked with gold or at bronzes of Ephyra, though their white wool be not stained with Assyrian dye, or their clear oil’s service spoiled by cassia? Yet theirs is repose without care, and a life that knows no fraud, but is rich in treasures manifold.’”46

The great portal, ivory doors, inlay of tortoise-shell, these were the symbols of a princely

residence. Whether symbolic or real, the presence of such a portal was an emblem of luxury and immediately recognizable as such to a man of the late Republic. In itself it cannot have been indicative of a country rather than a city residence since it was equally suitable for both, given the palatial and urban character of the more elaborate Roman villas.

However, its function as a symbol of luxury, rendered meaningless if it were a city gate and public property, would make its appearance as the monumental entrance to a great villa entirely appropriate. In any case, the context in which this splendid doorway is set will be the decisive factor. The chestnut-colored, flat-roofed structure behind the door appears to be an entrance building or monumental vestibule.*” To its left and right, a lavender-pink enclosure wall is visible.*® Like the waceria of Pliny’s Tuscan villa,*® it probably encompassed the entire 46 Georgics, II, 461ff., translated by H. Rushton Fairclough (The Loeb Classical Library), Cambridge, 1940,

p. 149. Recall, too, the famous references to the ivory gate through which dreams pass in the Aenezd, VI, 893ff., and in Horace, Odes, III, XXVIII, 38ff. E. L. Highbarger, The Gates of Dreams (The Johns Hopkins Studies in Archaeology, No. 30), Baltimore, 1940, pp. 38ff., has discussed the appearance of ivory doors in Augustan poetry although neglecting to cite such comparative material as the description in Athenaeus previously quoted. See, too, Statius, S#/vae, V, III, 288-2809.

Apropos of the réle of the Hellenistic courts in the formation of Republican concepts of luxury, it is interesting to note the similar implications of Horace, Odes, II, XVIII, 5 ff. 47 Tt may be well to point out that in the closely related painting in the House of the Labyrinth discussed below, the analogous entrance building does ot have a lateral door as it appears to have in Wilhelm Zahn, Die schénsten Ornamente und merkwtirdigsten Gemalde aus Pompeji, Herculaneum und Stabiae, Il, Berlin, 1842, Pl. 70. This important wall, so intimately connected with the cubiculum from Boscoreale, was already in a poor state of preservation in Zahn’s time. Without knowledge of the comparable Boscoreale panel, it would have been difficult for him to realize that the form visible on the side of the “entrance building” was not a lateral door but a white column standing beside a round altar, as in the New York panel. To one familiar with this panel and standing in the House of the Labyrinth, there can be no question as to the nature of these objects.

48 The terms left and right are used with reference to the first panel on the left of one entering the cubiculum. Since it is the best preserved of the four comparable panels, it will be used as a basis for the

following discussion unless otherwise noted. 19 V, 6,17.

THE CUBICULUM 97 property. The portion of wall to the left of the door is rendered by a curious shorthand device. A short spur of wall runs parallel to the picture plane, bends back obliquely, and turns a sharp right angle to the left. That is, the wall runs parallel to the plane of the doorway for a short distance, turns back more or less at right angles to a point somewhat beyond the entrance building and then continues in a line parallel to that of the short spur in the foreground. The mouldings crowning the wall are seen directly opposite, on the

ie NeVa ere eee bod fae er. Fe ayeer” a smarter eal ee |io, ag ph tEee ‘Te 4 oul —— f ae 1% : eo thee pan a ' 3 ene 4 , a. ty e ‘heey en 0 Bae omer = 4 4 TAS 2 a - a ‘ _—y = rg 7. age oF(0) tgs ier save (A) is : _—— == Sh Pa fBy aii." “ee ‘'ag< 4bi 7cst’ > x/ , fi ‘Sh ” mk OF ee OI AOL EET AE GET EP a 7 sat thd ee _ — Fig. 64. Naples, National Museum: Wall from the Villa of Julia Felix.

roofed tholos (Fig. 64).1° A fragmentary Third Style painting from the House of the Epigrams shows her standing before her round temple witnessing the fight between Pan and Eros.!°’ We have already seen the goddess standing within a round temple on a Roman 156 For recent discussion of and bibliography on this wall, which is now in the Museo Nazionale in Naples, see Beyen, op. cit., pp. 268-278. So far as I know, the function of the room from which this side wall came is unknown. However, it appears to have contained a second corresponding panel, i.e., to be analogous to both

the cubiculum from Boscoreale and the Corinthian oecus of the House of the Labyrinth in this respect. 157 A. Sogliano, Le pitture murali campane scoverte negli anni 1867-79, Naples, 1880, pp. 65 ff., 44381. See, too, C. Dilthey, “Dipinti pompeiani accompagnati d’epigrammi greci,” Annali, X LVIII, 1876, pp. 296ff., and Monumenti inediti, X, 1876, Pl. XX XV, 1. Reproduced by Beyen, op. cét., fig. 130, and S. Reinach, K épertoire de peintures grecques et romaines, Paris, 1922, p. 101, +5.

THE CUBICULUM 121 lamp.48 Although by no means restricted to the worship of Aphrodite, the tholos was obviously used for her cult. In fact, it seems to have been particularly popular in the Second Style, for it recurs several times among the paintings most closely related to the cubiculum. On the lateral walls of the Corinthian oecus of the House of the Labyrinth,® tholoi appear in a setting intimately connected with both the cubiculum from Boscoreale and the Villa

of Julia Felix (Fig. 75). They not only confront each other precisely as do the round temples decorating the lateral walls of the alcove in the cubiculum but also flank a rear wall virtually duplicating the lateral villa prospects of the forepart of the cubiculum. As we shall see, the interpretation of these oecus walls rests upon rather than contributes to an understanding of the paintings from Boscoreale. Nevertheless, the use of tholoi in combination with what may now be recognized as a villa scene in the House of the Labyrinth confirms the inclusion of such tholos panels in the similar context of the cubiculum as an intentional device. The appearance of another such pair of round buildings in a bedroom adjacent to

the Corinthian oecus'® establishes the tholos for a fourth time as a building not only appropriate to the decoration of a bedroom but, apparently, as a structure carrying with it certain unspoken implications when seen in such a context. Given the occurrence of tholoi in bedrooms, given the dedication of tholoi to Aphrodite, given the existence of such a tholos in honor of this very goddess in conjunction with sleeping apartments on Ptolemy Philopator’s riverboat, it is reasonable to interpret the tholoi in the bedroom from Boscoreale as temples to Aphrodite. The essential appropriateness of an allusion to the great goddess of love in a bedroom needs no amplification. The frequent appearance there of far more overt representations

of the major sphere over which she presided is attested by the angry denunciations of Clement of Alexandria.16! Here, however, Aphrodite is honored with the awe and reverence worthy of a powerful divinity upon whose benevolence the fertility of every phase of life is

dependent. The quite remarkable analogy between the formal layout of the goddess’ sanctuary as depicted on the lateral walls of the alcove and the representation of her celebrated shrine on the imperial coinage of Byblos!® is, therefore, of no little interest 188 Walters, Catalogue of the Greek and Roman Lamps in the British Museum, p. 63, +439. See above, p. 59.

159 Zahn, op. cit., I1, Pl. 70. See, too, Beyen’s discussion, op. cit., pp. 254ff. Note that this oecus is adjacent to a cubiculum. According to A. Mau, Geschichte der decorativen Wandmalerei in Pompeji, Berlin, 1882, p. 177, the second room to the right of the atrium in the house of Popidius Priscus contains a wall similar to the tholos panels discussed above. 160 The cubiculum to the left of the exedra containing the well-known mosaic of Theseus and the Minotaur. Although the rear wall is now indecipherable, the lateral walls, with their black-curtained tholoi standing behind maroon parapets and golden propyla, constitute a variation on the familiar theme.

181 Exhortation to the Greeks, IV, 52-53. See, too, Ovid, Tristia, II, ll. 521-524. Cf. Helbig, Wandgemalde der vom Vesuv verschitteten Stddte Campaniens, +1506, for illustration of the specific usage about

which Clement complains, and note the Julio-Claudian cameo published by Gennaro Pesce, II Museo Nagtonale di Napoli, Rome, 1932, pl. 66, on which a shrine painting representing such a scene is reproduced. 162 G, F. Hill, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Phoenicia (A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, X XVI), London, 1910, Pl. XII, 13. Note, too, that on the nearly contemporary coinage of Byblos, Astarte appears as a tutelary divinity of the city standing within a monopteros of related type (PI. XIII, 1, 2).

122 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE (Fig. 65). There, too, a propylon 1s attached to one side of a colonnaded courtyard dominated

by a central monument. There, too, an altar or incense-burner renders passage into the precinct through its monumental entrance somewhat difficult. One is tempted to speculate on the existence of a comparable lateral entrance to the painted sanctuaries of the alcove. For it is difficult to brush these analogies aside as the result of pure coincidence.

Paes : i ss BE A no} ae aut ae ™ we ak : oe : %oes ~ ee ieindarr be? ANN SD aaa f 1 ! . has a “AC “pam ey Tk. Pap ..heacffata ~ . , — ee ov ‘ 7 a ~ es Sta tailed -_ wien aa a4, ; ’ | LF “i at : ; me / Xu ,.vee iaoOA |Hii,hal : ,. :"eee — ’ ve é 7fe. ‘ egy ;vt. tt [Pt nla oases Pe wy ‘

Al > 5 , j

add at > a"

iy fh; : \ er “4 ' s¢Rao ' A yee hee Bs) Fe . Se

Fig. 65. London, British Museum: Reverse Fig. 66. Paris, Rothschild Collection: Gilded Silver

of Bronze Coin of Byblos. Thymiaterion from ‘Tarentum.

Among the sacrificial objects in the foreground of these panels the gilded silver incenseburner claims special attention. Its half-spherical silver globe pierced with leaf-shaped openings springs from a cherry-colored ring inserted in a moulded pedestal base adorned with gilded acanthus leaves. Elegant swallow-tailed handles hang below the gilded egg and dart of the upper moulding to facilitate carrying or moving the precious ¢/ymiaterion. In beauty of workmanship, this incense-burner recalls the early Hellenistic gilded silver thymiaterion from Tarentum (Fig. 66).'® In generic type, in handles and ornamentation, the two examples are very close and indicate that the painted incense-burners reflect a variety of silver thymiaterion known from other third-century examples found in Egypt.'® From Ptolemaic Egypt, too, come painted analogies, for two similar half-spherical-topped thymiateria flank a scene of farewell on the painted simulated door before a loculus in the 163 Pierre Wuilleumier, Le ¢résor de Tarente, Paris, 1930, pp. 48-55, Pl. VII, and ¢dem, Tarente, pp. 353 ff.

and Pl. XXII, 2. Dated variously in the early or the late third century B.C. The quite extensive earlier bibliography on this and related monuments is cited in these references. 164 In the gold and silver treasure found in 1905 near Toukh el Qarmous within a temple precinct abandoned in the third century B.C., according to C. C. Edgar in Maspero, Le musée eg yptien, II, Cairo, 1907,

pp. 57. and Pl. XXIV. See, too, R. M. Burrows and P. N. Ure, ““Kothons and Vases of Allied Types,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXX1, 1911, p. 99. For a discussion of this type of Hellenistic-Roman ¢hymiaterion see Karl Wigand, ‘‘Thymiateria,” Bonner Jahrbiicher, Heft 122, 1912, pp. 72ff., who suggested that the type originated in Syria.

THE CUBICULUM 123 necropolis at Hadra.!6 But such an object cannot have been an exotic stranger in Italy in the late Republic given Cicero’s statement on the widespread use of silver incense-burners in Sicilian homes at the time of Verres.16 Pears and pomegranates, quinces and pine cones left on the scarlet altars together with garlands of laurel and flowers reflect additional ways of honoring the goddess (Pl. XIX). So, too, her worshippers have deposited pears and pomegranates on the base of her round temple in the Villa of Julia Felix.16 So, too, pomegranate, quince, and garland appear among the offerings in the background of the great painting of Aphrodite and her lover in the House of the Wounded Adonis.'*8 Like the sea monsters faintly visible on the purple frieze of the Tuscan colonnades surrounding her precinct, they were eminently suitable to the goddess’ worship.!® Granting, then, the legitimacy of interpreting this specific application of the tholos set in a framework of porticoes as a precinct of Aphrodite and the underlying appropriateness of

honoring this goddess in a bedroom, the suitability of her presence in this particular bedroom is marked. For sanctuaries, too, might be included within the vast and complex sphere of the great villas. We have seen that Pliny had a shrine of Ceres on the grounds of one of his properties.1“° According to Statius, #71 Pollius Felix built not simply a temple but actually a tholos to Hercules on or adjacent to his villa at Surrentum, while the Horti Sallustiani in Rome contained a temple to none other than Venus.!”* Somewhat later the 165 E. Breccia, Le musée gréco-romain, 1925-31, Bergamo, 1932, pp. 23ff., Pl. XI, fig. 42 and Pl. XII, fig. 43. Breccia’s interpretation of these objects as ‘deux vases porte-fleurs ou deux compotiers”’ can, I think, be

disregarded in view of the obvious similarity between these painted objects and the thymiateria discussed here. In fact, the Boscoreale incense-burners have features in common with both the Egyptian and the Tarentine examples. I am indebted to Karl Lehmann for having brought this Hadra painting to my attention. 166 Y/errine Orations, II, IV, 21, 46. Note, too, the related ¢hymaterion in a mosaic from Pompeii or Hercu-

laneum in Pernice, Pavimente und figirliche Mosaiken, pp. 177. and Pl. 51, 1. Apropos of the presence of such objects in Italy note the altar (?) in the Aldobrandini Wedding (B. Nogara, Le nozze aldobrandine, Milan, 1907, Pl. VIIT) which is closely related to the Boscoreale shymiateria inform but lacks, of course, the globular member appropriate to an incense-burner. The analogy between these two examples and the object on the bronze coin of Byblos shows at once the adaptability of this formal type and the basic similarity of altars and ¢hymiateria, a similarity enhanced by the custom of sprinkling incense on altars. 16? Cf. Beyen, op. cit., p. 269 and fig. 100.

168 Herrmann, op. cit., Pl. LIT. Apropos of the laurel garland in the lateral panel at the right side of the alcove, note that Ovid, Amores, I, XI, 25ff., mentions the dedication of tablets bound with laurel in a shrine of Venus. A floral garland from which ribbons dangle, similar to that on the left wall of the alcove, hangs over the wall in the left background of the previously mentioned panel painting of a seated woman with a shield in the alcove of a cubiculum off the peristyle of the House of Obellius Firmus. 169 As Maiuri has noted, /oc. c7t., the frieze of the outer colonnade in Alcove B of cubiculum 16 in the Vil-

la Item, beyond which the tholos appears, is likewise decorated with amorini and hippocamps. 170 TX, 39, 1ff.

Ml Stlvae, III, 1. For discussion of this villa cf. P. Mingazzini and F. Pfister, Forma Italiae, Regio I, Latium et Campania, I], Surrentum, Florence, 1946, pp. 54ff. The authors’ assumption that the abovementioned tholos could not have stood on the villa property itself is untenable given the parallel examples cited here, of which they were seemingly unaware. 172 Samuel B, Platner and Thomas Ashby, A Toposrabhical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, London, 1929, p- 271.

124 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE Emperor Hadrian built a round temple on the grounds of his palatial residence at Tivoli! | and his contemporary, Herodes Atticus, erected four temples on the property of his villa Triopion in the Campagna.1™ Far to the east, near Mytilene, Longus placed a temple

dedicated to Dionysos in the gardens of a private estate. In this connection it is interesting to recall that the tholos set in a framework of colonnades constituted one of the motifs of the terracotta reliefs so popular for interior decoration early in the first century A. D., and that among the plaques on which such a scene appears is a fragmentary example found in the ruins of a villa excavated in Albano. So appropriate was the appearance of such a monument to the decoration of a villa.” Like her neighbor, Diana-Lucina, whom Catullus honoted as filling “full with goodly fruits the rustic home of the husbandman,”’?!’§ Aphrodite played an important rdle in the

productivity of such a villa. In her capacity as protector of gardens, the goddess was worshipped in the rustic Vinalia instituted in her behalf as Varro informs us.!” But her 173 For illustration see, for example, Jean Martin et Boussois, “Fouilles exécutées par M. Boussois a la villa d’Hadrien,” Mélanges d’ archéologie et d historie, XXXII, 1913, p. 263 and Pl. IV. One wonders whether

the traces of a small circular building in the Palatine gardens mentioned by Platner and Ashby, of. cét., p. 163, can be another such temple.

174 Giuseppe Lugli, “Studi topografici intorno alle antiche ville suburbane,” Bullettino comunale, LII, 1924, pp. 94ff. 1%5 Daphnis and Chloe I, 3.

176 G, Lugli, “Le antiche ville dei colli albani prima della occupazione domizianea,” Bul/lettino comunale,

XLII, 1914, pp. 302ff. and fig. 14. See, too, the discussion of related examples in von Rohden, Architektonische rémische Tonreliefs der Kaiserzeit, pp. 1§3, 274. Cf., the tholos set in a framework analogous to that of the cubiculum on a wall from Room 9 of the Villa of

Diomedes. Although certain elements of the composition appear to have been misunderstood in the old engraving by which this painting is known, it undoubtedly shows a variety of circular building or pavilion set in a courtyard and preceded by a propylon. This application of the type apparently had a Bacchic implication. It is not known from what kind of room the painting came. For a recent discussion, see Beyen, op. cit., pp. 143, 303.

"7 The similarity between the tholos panels from Boscoreale and the rock-cut facade of El Khazne at Petra has been remarked by numerous writers. If, as M. Rostovtzeff, “Ancient Decorative Wall-Painting,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, XX XIX, 1919, p. 160, and Dawson, Romano-Campanian Mythological Landscape

Painting, pp. 71ff., have emphasized, the Petra facades are Trajanic or Hadrianic, their value for the origin and chronology of any of the Pompeian styles is nil (cf. Ippel, /oc. cit.). Note, too, the tendency to look upon the Petra facades as paintings on stone as a result of their analogy to Pompeian painting in Heinrich Kohl, Kasr Firaim in Petra, Leipzig, 1910, pp. 36ff. W. Bachmann, C. Watzinger, T. Wiegand, Petra, Berlin and Leipzig, 1921, pp. 23ff., have remarked that in the Petra facades objects that appear to be above architectural elements in the foreground represent what is actually behind them. Consequently, given the widespread use of the Roman villa and the equally widespread formal relationship between tombs and domestic architecture, it is more than likely that this Petra facade reflects the appearance of the tholos set in a framework of colon-

nades on the property of villas. For older bibliography on the date and interpretation of this facade see Vallois, op. cit., pp. 286ff., 310ff., 337ff.

See above, note 104, and note that, in addition to the rustic towers occurring in the mosaics of the Mosque of the Omayyads at Damascus, there is a pair of polygonal buildings reminiscent of the two tholoi of the alcove. 178 XXXIV, 19-20.

179 De re rustica, I, 1, 6. Ovid, Fast, IV, 863ff., gives a somewhat different version of the origin of the Vinalia in which, however, Venus’ traditional rdle in the festival is equally implicit.

THE CUBICULUM 125 association with Catullus’ Diana whom the poet addressed as Juno Lucina and Trivia, as, “Moon with counterfeit light,”!®° was long-standing and complex in nature. Sappho, too, had sung of Hekate as “‘Aphrodite’s gold-shining handmaid”?®! centuries before Ovid, in the very time of our villa, might speak of a lover who swore by Venus, by “Juno, the kindly ward of the bridal bed” and by “‘the mystical rites of the goddess who bears the torch’’!®? —Trivia or Hekate. Indoors and out, the realms of these divinities were interwoven. The goddess whose unseen presence is so strongly felt in the cubiculum, she who, like her counterpart, was so supremely appropriate to the decorative context of villa and bedroom has revealed herself in another part of this room as plainly as though her own image had been represented. On top of the red balcony forming so conspicuous an element of each of the four lateral panels in the forepart of the chamber, the deep green foliage of a flowerless plant rises from

a terracotta container (Pl. XXX). Upon close scrutiny, all four of these containers prove to be of a very curious form. In each case, the curving upper edge of the vessel is jagged and irregular. Plainly, it is broken.18? This extraordinary detail is of the greatest interest. It indicates beyond any question that the four vessels contain Adonis gardens. For an abundance of literary sources!® leaves no doubt as to the form of the little gardens that played so characteristic and symbolic a rdéle in the worship of Aphrodite’s lover. Sown

in clay vases, in baskets and potsherds, at the time of his festival, such quick-growing plants as lettuce and fennel sprouted and sent forth shoots in token of the resurrection of Adonis, of the anticipated revival of nature. Fast-blooming but short-lived, they also became a symbol of impermanence, of premature growth and display that is doomed to inconsequence. Such, at least, was their connotation to the critical-minded, to Plato!® or Epiktetos!® or Plutarch.1®” But to the faithful throughout the long centuries of Adonis’ worship, these little gardens had an almost magical significance. Planted by women and set 180 XXXIV, 13-16.

181 |, fre. 24.

182 Heroides, Il, 39-42. 183 As Beyen noted, op. cit., p. 163, noteo. 184 For example, Plutarch, De sera numinis vindicta, 17; Julian, The Caesars, 329 C-D; Simplicius on Aristotle, Phys. 230a, 18ff., and 255a, 20 (Commentaria in_Aristotelem graeca, Berlin ed., X, pp. 911, ll. 13-15 and

1212, ll. 18-19); Eudocia Augusta, Vrolarum, Bk. I, XXVII; Zenobius, Centuries of Proverbs, 1, +49; Hesychius, s.u. “ASaviS0s xijtro1; Suidas, s.u. “Axaptrotepos "ASaviSos Krtrou; Eustathius, On the Odyssey, XI, 590; Isaiah, XVII, 10. Cf., too, Theophrastos, Exguiry into Plants, VI, VII, 3 (cf. Pliny, Natural History,

XIX, 19, XXI, 34) and the references to these gardens in Diphilos, frg. 43, and Alciphron, Episto/ae, IV, 14, (I, 39). Note the curious tradition in Athenaeus, II, 69 b—d, apropos of lettuce as an anti-aphrodisiac and Hesychius’ explanation of &Savnfs.

185 Phaedrus, 267B. Cf., too, the scholion to this passage, Stobaeus, Ec/ogues, II, VI, 4, and Zenobius, Centuria, I, 49. 186 TV, VIII, 36. 187 De sera numinis vindicta, 17. C£., too, Julian, The Caesars, 329 C—-D; Stobaeus, Eclogues, V; Diogenianus,

Centuria, I, 12, 14; Macarius, Centuria, I, 63; Gregorius Cyprius, Centuria, I, 7.

126 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE out on the roof-tops,!8® they sprang to life and then withered before being carried out with the dead god and thrown into springs or the sea.!*9 The many explicit allusions to these gardens planted in potsherds recurring in ancient writers from Plato to the Church Fathers and Byzantine lexicographers would more than suffice to identify the green shoots springing from broken vessels on the roofs of our balconies. Yet still another confirmation of their nature is at hand. On a late fifth-century

=~. _ YNo> - ————S SS: Se.

4 wt 5 if . ; :

bos ie oh (oo j Nt < s,m | nf bY > [ af = PS)

SZ4 t/| éAwi] /| aN } A ew te ey57 een =, Mai £\e 4S.. ' : >

ReELAYO PsOe . TOF GU. Fig. 67. Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum:

Detail of a Red-Figured Lekythos from Ruvo.

188 Scholion to Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 389 (Cf. Lysistrata, 388ft.) and Suidas, s.u. "A8Scveior Kaptrot.

Given the practises alluded to in these references, is it not possible that the terrace roofs to which stairs led at several points in the sanctuary of Adonis in Dura are to be explained as affording space for these standard and characteristics rites in the cult of Adonis rather than for use in calling the faithful to prayer as suggested by Brown, The Excavations at Dura-Europos, VII-V1I1, pp. 141ff. ? 189 Zenobius and Eustathius, /oc. cit. Recall, too, the persistence of these traditions in the fascinating document discussed by Cumont, “‘Les Syriens en Espagne et les Adonies a Seville,” Syrza, VIII, 1927, pp. 330ff. As both Deubner, Astische Feste, pp. 220ff.,and Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, pp. 236ff., rightly emphasized,

it was the rapid sprouting of these gardens rather than their equally sudden withering that was of primary importance. (Cf., too, Franz Cumont, ‘“‘Adonies et Canicule,” Syria, XVI, 1935, p. 49.) They are, thus, a symbol of immortality as is the pomegranate also present in the cubiculum (see Cook, Zeus, III, p. 817). For a suggestion that the throwing of these gardens into the sea may indicate influence from the cult of Osiris on the worship of Adonis see R. de Vaux, “Sur quelques rapports entre Adonis et Osiris,” Revue biblique, XLII, 1933, pp. 31ff.

Eustathius’ inclusion of the word &ppixos, basket, as among the possible containers of Adonis gardens

calls to mind the use of silver baskets for such gardens in the court festival in Alexandria described by Theokritos, XV, 113-114. Theokritos’ term, taAapioxos, is, in turn, a precise name for the basket hanging in

THE CUBICULUM 127 lekythos in Karlsruhe! (Fig. 67), Eros hands a female figure precisely such a broken vase planted with shoots in order that it may be carried up the ladder on which the figure stands and placed on the roof implicit in this scene. Unlike the vessels in the cubiculum which are invariably the lower parts of amphoras, this container appears to be the uppet half of such a vessel. A second upper half, inverted and burgeoning with similar plants, stands between the two chief actors in the scene, no doubt soon to be lifted up and borne aloft. This painting has long been recognized as an early and important document of the cult of Aphrodite and Adonis and an illustration of the celebrated little

gardens featured in the annual festival in honor of the divine pair.’®! It assures the correctness of interpreting the potted plants of the cubiculum balconies as Adonis gardens.1? These Adonis gardens, in turn, constitute the ultimate proof of Aphrodite’s pres- | the background of the previously discussed mirror representing Aphrodite and Adonis and illustrated by Gerhard, Esruskische Spiegel, 1, Pl. CXV. Here, however, the basket is probably of a more usual material. Cf. Chapter IT, note 52. 199 Furtwangler—Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei, II, Munich, 1909, pp. 98-99 and Plate LX XVIII. 191 F, Hauser, “Aristophanes und Vasenbilder,” Jahreshefte des ésterreichischen archdologischen Institutes, XII, 1909, pp. 90-99, after recapitulating the early discussions of this vase by Jahn, De Witte, and Lenormant

in their monumental correspondence, “Sur les représentations d’Adonis,” Annali, XVII, 1845, pp. 347f. and especially pp. 383 ff. and 413ff., and the later arguments of Furtwangler, /oc. cit., and his adherents, established the interpretation of the Karlsruhe vase and of the dotpaxa represented on it so firmly that it is needless to repeat his arguments here or to offer additional refutation of Furtwangler’s explanation of the scene as an illustration of a festival of Aphrodite and Eros in which incense is gathered. Hauser’s interpretation has been widely accepted by writers on as diverse facets of the problem as Ludwig Deubner, Attische Feste, pp. 220ff., Martin P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion (Handbuch der Altertums-

wissenschaft, Fanfte Abteilung, Zweiter Teil), I, Munich, 1941, p. 690 and pl. 48,3; G. M. A. Richter, Red-Figured Athenian Vases, +£173 (inconnection with a related scene of the Adonia) and Gothein, Geschichte der Gartenkunst, p. 62. Pfuhl, too, appears to have accepted Hauser’s findings and used them as the basis of his remarks on the popularity of Adonis’ cult among Attic vase painters in Ma/erei und Zeichnung der Griechen,

IT, pp. 568ff. Karl Schefold, Untersuchungen zu den Kertscher Vasen, p. 103, has voiced scepticism about Hauser’s theories. I do not find his remarks cogent since it is apparent that at the time, at least, he had not had occasion to investigate the cult of Aphrodite and Adonis in more than a cursory fashion. Otherwise he could not have retained the impression that it took place solely on roofs. Although the interesting group of Adonis vases related to the Karlsruhe lekythos in which a ladder is also shown lies outside the present discussion, the fragmentary relief once in the Museo Kircheritano published

by Carl Watzinger, ‘“Adonisfest,” Antike Plastik, Berlin and Leipzig, 1928, pp. 261ff., deserves remark, especially if the author’s South Italian attribution is correct. Watzinger, too, accepted Hauser’s explanation as the point of departure for his own interpretation of this remarkable monument. If, as may well be, the simultaneous presence of Adonis gardens and grapes on the grounds of the imaginary villa painted on the cubiculum walls is logically conceived, this detail may throw additional light on

the debated problem of the date of the Adonia. For such Adonis monuments as, for example, the Louvre sherd illustrated by Deubner, op. c7t., Pl. XXV, 2, and the Berlin lekythos published by G. Korte, “Eichelformige Lekythos mit Goldschmuck aus Attica,” Archdologische Zeitung, XX XVII, 1879, Pl. X., show grapes

on the platter of fruit borne to the god. For bibliography on the date of the festival see Chapter II, note 79. 192 By a curious coincidence, Heinrich Sulze, “’AAQNIAOZ KHTTOI,” “Ayyedos, II, 1926, p. 49 and figs. sa, b,

used the potted plants standing on the cubiculum balconies to illustrate his theory of how Adonis gardens were planted and grew in orangerie-like gardens without recognizing that the very example which he selected

for purely “tectonic” reasons actually was an Adonis garden! Schefold, “Der Sinn der romischen Wandmalerei,”’/oc. cit., following Sulze, has recognized the nature of these gardens as did Rumpf, /oc. cit., when he drew the mistaken conclusion that this panel therefore reflected a comedy entitled Adoniazusae. See above, note 23.

128 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE ence in the bedroom, for the Adowia, it will be recalled, was a celebration in honor of . Aphrodite. What is more, these little broken pots, so rarely illustrated yet so easily identified, afford conclusive evidence of knowledge of the cult of Aphrodite and Adonis within the walls of our villa. To this extent, they confirm the interpretation of the great room discussed in the preceding chapter as a Hall of Aphrodite. Given the extraordinary interweaving of motifs characteristic of both of these rooms, it should not be surprising that the divinities worshipped within the villa are again alluded to in scenes suggestive of the entire sphere of life to which the w/a rustica belonged. The perennial fertility of nature, the annual resurrection of Adonis foretold by the symbolic growth of the gardens planted in his name, was an intrinsic part of the ideal world depicted on these walls. By his death and resurrection, Adonis was as indispensable to the well-being of the villa as Aphrodite and Diana-Lucina!®™, Thus he is honored in the ideal villa spread out on the walls of the cubiculum as in very truth he was worshipped within the actual villa rustica to which this room belonged, and the temple-like daetae of that luxurious property of the imagination seem to be diaetae Adonidis as the cult room of the existing villa was a Hall of Aphrodite.!% Nor was Adonis a less appropriate neighbor to the great torch-bearing goddess honored

beneath the syz ygéa than she to Aphrodite. The degree to which these divinities were associated is evident from the previously mentioned pelike in Naples!® (Fig. 32) where Artemis-Hekate stands beside the dying Adonis with torches aloft, a figure strikingly comparable to the gleaming goddess of the cubiculum. The spheres of all three divinities were as closely interwoven as the allusions implicit in each and every panel in the cubiculum. All three major units, the lateral walls of the forepart of the chamber, the side and rear walls of the alcove, reflected one or another phase of life in a great villa; all three major divinities represented or alluded to on these walls were indispensable to the well-being of that life.19” 193 See above p. 48.

194 The rustic root of the 4donia is observable in its celebration in suburbs as, for example, in the ceremonies in Seville discussed by Cumont, /oc ci#., which accord with the definition of the Scholiast on Theokritos, XV, 112. Note, too, the d&v@éev xfjtro1 in the avAj of Adonis in Domitian’s palace on the Palatine mentioned by Philostratos, Life of Apollonius of Tyana, VII, 32. These xij1ro1 were certainly Adonis gardens and their presenceintheemperor’s quarters on the Palatine is of considerable interest as a parallel to the characteristic little gardens of the cubiculum villa panels. Apropos of Adonis’ connection with agricultural fertility see the beautiful lines of Praxilla, frag. 2. 195 Curiously enough, Vallois, op. cét., p. 397, has suggested that the lateral panels of the rear wall of the

alcove represent a “Jardin d’Adonis d’une ville maritime de l’Orient... qui est figurée dans le panneau du milieu...Ce paysage, dont le sens est precisé par un perroquet sur le bord d’une coupe de verre renfermant

des fruits, se situe le mieux prés de la cote de Syrie” (italics mine). I am completely at a loss to follow this argument. 196 For references to this vase see note 86 of Chapter II. 197 The highly specificand personal nature of the religious allusions on the walls of the cubiculum receives striking confirmation from the fact that all such references have been explicitly deleted from the paintings in the Corinthian oecus of the House of the Labyrinth. In the application of the basic scheme of the cubiculum to this exedra (for which see above notes 44, 47, 159 and below, pp. 152 £f.), elements connected with the

THE CUBICULUM 129 As in the Hall of Aphrodite and on the wall depicting the goddess’ sanctuary from the Villa of Julia Felix, Bacchic masks are again present. Here, too, as in the Villa of Julia Felix,!98 two types of satyrs, one bearded, the other youthful, contrast with each other. The long-established association of the cults of Dionysos and Aphrodite, of Bacchus and Venus, discussed in the preceding chapter needs no further emphasis, nor the appropriateness of

the wine-god to the viticulture of the villa.1 One last detail deserves comment. Throughout the architectural paintings of the cubiculum, a curious form of ornamental akroterion-antefix (for it is neither quite one nor the other but serves the purpose of both) decorates the roof-line of a number of buildings. Careful examination of the appearance of this ornament as it stands above the screen walls and porticoes of the precinct of Aphrodite, over the yellow daetae, the smaller porticoes and, occasionally, on the rich cornice of the door opening into the villa, leads to the unmistakable impression that these akroteria-antefixes are in the form of genitalia, In this final respect, too, the strict coherence of every detail of this remarkable room is maintained. For aside from its importance in the cult of Aphrodite to whose initiates phalli were given as signs of the goddess’ propitiation,? the phallus was a feature of the worship of both Dionysos and Artemis.2°! Furthermore, phalli were inscribed on houses, whether to propitiate such divinities or as symbols of the fertility they bestowed or with a general apotropaic significance.22 Indeed, one such inscribed relief representing three phalli decorates specific practises or allegiances of the owner of the villa near Boscoreale such, for example, as the Adonis gardens, the altars, statues, and offerings, have been entirely eliminated—graphic indication that they do have intentional and tangible meaning within the context of the cubiculum. 198 See note 156.

193 A propos of the round shields attached to the painted architrave of the cubiculum before the two central panels of the forepart of the chamber, it may be worth remarking that their eight-rayed central ornament is related to the star pattern on Aphrodite’s shield on the Naples wall of the Hall of Aphrodite. A similar pattern appears on the bronze coinage of Iguvium in Umbria, A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Italy, XXIII, London, 1873, p. 33, $£7. 200 Clementof Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 11,13; Arnobius, Adversus Nationes, V, 19. Note, too, the phallic symbols found in the Sanctuary of Aphrodite on the North Slope of the Akropolis in Athens discussed by Oscar Broneer, ‘“‘Excavations on the North Slope of the Akropolis in Athens, 1931-32,” Hesperia, IT, 1933, pp. 342ff. 201 Cf. E. Buschor, “Ein choregisches Denkmal,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Athen-

ische Abteilung, LIII, 1928, pp. 96-108. It is unfortunate that this article seems to have escaped the attention of Ludwig Curtius, ‘““Phallosgrabmal im Museum von Smyrna,” Die Wissenschaft am Scheidewege von Leben

und Geist, Leipzig, 1932, pp. 19-29, since its discussion of the phallus as a widespread symbol of fertility found in a variety of cults would have been valuable in elucidating the phallic form of this grave monument to a woman.

202 Cf., for example, the phallus in relief at the corner of the east wall of the Maison du lac in Delos (J. Chamonard, Le guartier du thédtre, Exploration archéologique de Délos, V1, Paris, 1922, p. 106 and fig. 46),

the tabula ansata with incised phallus at the corner of a house in Thera (F. Frhr. Hiller von Gaertringen, Thera, I, Berlin, 1899, pp. 24o0ff. and p. 241, note 30), the terracotta phallus inserted in the facade of a Pompeian house (IX, 7, 1) discussed by Spinazzola, Notizie degli scavi, 1912, p. 106, and a similar reltef plaque at No. 37, Strada degli Augustali. Note, too, the phallus accompanied by the motto H7e habitat felicitas above the oven in the bakery attached to the House of Pansa in Pompeii, Gell-Gandy, Pompeiana, 9 Lehmann

130 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE the wall of a pre-Sullan villa in the Roman Campagna known as Grotte di Torri.°? The : cufious ornaments crowning the cornices of so many structures in the villa prospects of the cubiculum should probably be interpreted in this sense as symbols of that fruitfulness, of that abundance of vitality so greatly desired throughout every phase of villa life.? Finally, the narrow spurs of wall flanking the entrance to the cubiculum are hung with painted garlands of densely woven flowers from which streamers dangle. Just such a garland lies across the black curtain before the goddess’ sanctuary on the left side of the alcove. Another such appears in a love scene on a fourth-century red-figured vase.?°° And such, too, must have been the garlands about the bed of a friend on which Catullus commented.? Thus the decoration of the entrance wall, too, was well suited to the adornment of a bedroom.

Here in the cubiculum, the unknown owner of the villa from Boscoreale has left a - priceless document. Here he might survey the ideal villa of his dreams,?°? a property greater and more luxurious by far than his own w//a rustica. Reclining in the alcove, he might gaze on the splendor of ivory and tortoise-shell, on statues and vessels of gleaming bronze, on towers and porticoes. He might listen to the warble of birds and the splash of

water in the green vistas beyond the window. Where did the outer world begin and its painted image stop? Where was the ideal and where the real ? Looking back through the shaded peristyle to the brilliant light of the garden, to the flash of birds and the sparkle of water, it must have been difficult to say. For the ideal was rooted in the real. 3rd ed., London, 1852, Pl. XX XVIII. Plastic or relief phalli also occur over the ovens in the Casa di Sirico and the house numbered VITI, 4, 27. 203 Thomas Ashby, “The Classical Topography of the Roman Campagna, Part II,” Papers of the British School at Rome, II, 1906, pp. 35 ff. and fig. 3. For the fact that this wall belongs to the pre-Sullan part of the

villa I am indebted to Karl Lehmann. Note, too, the three apotropaic phalli in high relief inscribed over the entrance to the akropolis wall at Alatri, H. Winnefeld, “Antichita di Alatri,” Mitteclungen des Raiserlich deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, IV, 1889, p. 141, fig. 9.

204 Especially since the degree to which these ornaments are present in the cubiculum panels appears to be exceptional. Spike-like ornaments occasionally mark the upper edges of structures like the monument in the foreground of a Pompeian house illustrated by Rostovtzeff, op. e7¢., fig. 20, or the roofs of villa buildings ina late mosaic from Tabarka, Inventaire des mosaiques dela Gaule et de l’Afrique, Il, +940. The small scale of the illustrations of these monuments precludes any check on their exact form which may conceivably be phallic. It is, of course, very likely that these pointed objects performed the additional service of keeping birds from alighting on these structures, as Bachmann-Watzinger-Wiegand, Petra, p. 24, have remarked. I can vouch for the presence of precisely comparable ornaments on the raking cornice of the propyla on the lateral walls of the Corinthian oecus and the parapet on the lateral walls of the adjoining cubiculum in the House of the Labyrinth; on the rear wall of the exedra near the peristyle in the Casa di Principe di Napoli; on the painting of a tholos off the peristyle of the Casa dei Epigramm1; on the painted “‘schola” over the niche at the rear of the atrium in the Casa dell’ Ara Massima; and a partially similar form on the walls of the oecus off the peristyle in the House of Obellius Firmus. 205 Tenormant-De Witte, Elite des monuments céramographiques, 1V, Pl. LXX. There is, of course, no reason to assume that this scene represents Aphrodite and Adonis, as the authors suggested. 206 VI, Off.

207 In a totally different sense from Barnabei, op. c/t., p. 81, who saw in thesewalls another “dream” world— Elysium, and the residences of the dez pit.

THE CUBICULUM 131 Seldom, if ever, has the aspiration of a society been reflected in so polished a mirror. Rarely has the taste of an age left so graphic and indelible an impression. The way of life cherished by generations of Romans and recorded by countless writers appears before us in the brilliant colors of the Second Style. What matter if we look through a painted colonnade to a painted villa when illusion and reality are one?

4a OR \ —— ~~ eee 4 r ogey ee ON

be :

Vem’.

aa , Bx me ve

ceo. a B. Za YP * ba aie po | -

New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Detail from Right Lateral Wall of the Alcove

of the Cubiculum from the villa of Publius Fannius Synistor.

9*

CHAPTER IV Style and Execution Publius Fannius Synistor has one claim to fame. He neither altered nor modernized the beautiful villa that he acquired near Boscoreale sometime in the course of the first century A. D. So just an evaluation of the superior quality of his newly purchased property was rare in an age when one generally built in an up-to-date style or at least redecorated rooms in need of repair in the current mode. Even the Villa Item did not escape its Third Style renovations. In its two-fold purity of style and degree of preservation, his villa remains unique. Unique, too, as we have seen, was the extent to which the decoration of this villa reflected the personal interests, loyalties, and aspirations of its first owner who must have been a man of exceptional taste and cultivation. For the sense of a coherent personality pervades his house, underlying and dictating the intellectual framework behind its artistic forms. He lives again whenever in imagination one walks through the rooms of his house, permeated as they are with the attitudes and convictions of an individual the more representative of an age because of his very anonymity. With the Villa Item, the Esquiline landscapes, the House of Livia, and the imperial villa at Prima Porta, this villa near Boscoreale stands among the masterpieces of Second Style

domestic mural painting. Indeed, the two villas near Pompeii so far exceed all other examples of the style hitherto known from that city in the quality of their paintings as to suggest that they, too, were painted for Roman patrons who first brought the new style to Pompeii from Rome where its earliest monument, the Casa dei Grif, still glows in the 132

STYLE AND EXECUTION 133 subterranean darkness beneath Domitian’s palace on the Palatine.t The quantity of Second Style houses built in Pompeii in the last decades of the first century B. C. attests the popularity of the new style, once it had been introduced. The Second Style has long been recognized as a direct descendant of that widespread Hellenistic fashion of interior decoration known as the First Style. In both styles, a tri-

partite horizontal division of the wall into a dado, a central, and an upper section was strictly maintained. The earlier or simpler phases of the Second Style exhibited a similar taste for the imitation of brilliant, often fantastically, colorful stone construction. Yet where the First Style simulated actual structural effects in terms of stucco, the Second Style translated these forms into painted surrogates. The lingering presence of occasional stucco mouldings in early Second Style rooms otherwise entirely rendered by pictorial means illustrates the dependence of the Second Style upon the First,? as the introduction of a Second Style room, the walls of which are neither more nor less than an exact translation in painting of First Style schemes, into a house as uniformly decorated in the older - manner as the House of the Faun? exemplifies the fact that such rooms were so in keeping with the spirit of the First Style that they could be inserted into that earlier decorative context without in any way disturbing its apparent stylistic unity. Again, the presence of Second Style painting on the lower two-thirds of a wall still retaining its First Style upper zone’ confirms both the similarity of point of view and the origin of the early Second Style in the First. This aspect of the Second Style, in which the ideals of the First Style, its taste for brilliant and sumptuous effects and, above all, its decorative expression of the structural function of the wall as an enclosing and supporting member were retained, continued as a minor current throughout its existence.2 Many an inconspicuous house in Pompeii ts 1G. E. Rizzo, Le pitture della ‘Casa dei Grif? (Monumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia, Section ITI, Roma, fasc. I), Rome, 1936. Whether or not one accepts the author’s precise date for this house, there can

be no question that it is the earliest preserved example of the Second Style. Christopher M. Dawson, Romano-Campanian Mythological Landscape Painting (Yale Classical Studtes, 1X), New Haven, 1944, pp. Goff., has also pointed out the probable Roman genesis of the so-called Second Pompeian Style. 2 For example, in Room 4 of the Casa dei Grifi. 3 The room mentioned is situated immediately to the right of the passageway connecting the first with the second great peristyle at the rear of the House of the Faun. Note, too, such an excellent precursor of the early Second Style as the First Style wall at the right of the peristyle in IX, II, 2. 4 In a cubiculum off the peristyle of VI, XIV, 4o. °> Dawson, too, /oc. e7t., has drawn attention to this point. Note the explicit derivation of the Second Style from the First by Mary Hamilton Swindler, Ancient Painting, New Haven, 1929, p. 327. The observations made above more than suffice to contradict the curious and unorthodox view of M. Rostovtzeff, “Die hellenistisch-romische Architekturlandschaft,” Mitteilungen des kaiserlich deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, XXXVI, 1911, pp. 119ff., that the Second Style is in no way connected with the First Style, springing, instead, from the decorative forms of the fourth century and being, as a result, “echt griechisch.” (Rostovtzeff’s reference, p. 124, to the villa of Publius Fannius Synistor at Boscotrecase is obviously a slip.) Inasmuch as this theory has, to my knowledge, had no advocates in the intervening years

and was later retracted by its author (“Ancient Decorative Wall-Painting,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXXIX, 1919, pp. 156-160), it seems needless to refute it point for point.

134 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE painted in this manner. So, too, certain lesser rooms like the fawces or vestibule (Figs. 3-4), : the green room or sacristy of the Hall of Aphrodite (Figs. 46-48) and the little room opposite the dining room® (Pls. XL-XLII) were painted in this conservative form of the Second Style even in a house otherwise as advanced as the villa of Publius Fannius Synistor. The most significant tendency of the new style, however, lay in quite another direction. Increasingly, it moved toward a decorative negation of the structural function of the wall

which was opened up, or rather painted away, in an attempt to enlarge the spatial effect of a room. The wall became a field for pictorial illusion. Painted columns, piers, and pilasters seemed to support the entablatures running above them, satisfying a longestablished taste for structural clarity of expression. Beyond them stretched an illusory world of temples, porticoes, groves, and grottoes. The inner space of actuality mingled with its pictorial extension, breaking through the confines of reality, freeing the imagination to pass from the real to the ideal. The experience of the individual was, thus, infinitely enlarged. The walls of his often rather small rooms ceased to exist. Illusion and reality were one.

Indeed, one was specifically rooted in the other. For the painted, garlanded colonnades gleaming behind the peristyle in the villa near Boscoreale exactly mirrored the true colonnade enclosing the garden,’ as the prospect painted on the rear wall of the cubiculum reflected the actual view seen through its window. So, too, the mystic rites performed on the walls of the Hall of the Mysteries in the Villa Item or the great figures taking part in solemn actions in the Hall of Aphrodite were conceived and executed in the most tangible visual forms. By a characteristic paradox, the illusionism of the Second Style sprang from a logical imitation of reality born of a desire to enlarge and enrich one’s daily experience of the tangible world about one. The illusion created in these concrete visual terms was, of course, essentially intellectual, a dynamic linking of the real and the imaginary. The villa near Boscoreale exemplifies the high point of Second Style illusionism before those tendencies ultimately leading to the Third Style—the reémergence of portions of the solid wall, the predilection for linear pattern, the splitting up of pictorial cycles into individual pictures characteristic of the later House of Livia and the villa near the Farnesina——had made themselves felt. In such rooms as the Hall of Aphrodite and the cubiculum, the wall as such has ceased to exist, becoming an invisible presence in interiors flung open to a panoramic view or a stage on which liturgical scenes are presented. In color, too, the primary intensity of its full brilliant tones stands midway between the flatter, more opaque tonality of the Casa dei Grifi and the Villa Item and the more subdued effects of the House of the Labyrinth leading to the cooler, harsher, more academic colors of the Third Style. The butter yellow of the Casa dei Grifi is neither so intense and opaque as the deep gold of the Villa Item nor so brilliant as the bright yellow gold of Boscoreale, 5 Cf. the Descriptive Catalogue, Nos. 18-20 and p. 21f. for further reference to this room. * See above pp. 8ff. and No. 15 of the Descriptive Catalogue.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 135 while the scarlets, yellow golds and blacks of Boscoreale are transmuted into the maroons, deeper golds, and lavenders of the House of the Labyrinth from which the flashing color contrasts of Boscoreale have entirely vanished. This gradual change in tonality, it should be noted, provides one of the most reliable indices to the date of Second Style paintings.

It is now recognized that this essentially illusionistic style crystallized in Italy.8 Intimately connected with its goals and with its development was the flowering of landscape painting in the Second Style.? The cubiculum from Boscoreale, the Odyssey landscapes, the square exedra in one corner of the peristyle in the House of Menander, the imperial villa at Prima Porta, are perhaps the most characteristic manifestations of the new style as they certainly represent the most complete attainment of its spatial and 1llusionistic tendencies. Here the love of the countryside underlying Roman villa life found its most petfect expression. It is not surprising that the dynamic concepts of the Second Style were expressed in

a bold, impressionistic, pictorial style filled with freedom and vitality. Yet the vigor, breadth, and plasticity of form characteristic of the paintings from Boscoreale, in particular,

have caused them to be widely regarded as reflections of Greek! or, more especially, of Hellenistic!! prototypes. Only a few writers on ancient painting have protested against this 8 See, for example, the excellent discussions of Dawson, op. ¢7t., pp. 68ff.; 72ff., and R. P. Hinks, Catalogue of the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Paintings and Mosates in the British Museum, London, 1933, pp.

XXXVI, the arguments advanced by Rostovtzeff, “Ancient Decorative Wall-Painting,” /oc. cit., by Giuseppe Lugli, Architettura Italica, Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie, Classe di scienze moralt, storiche e filologiche, ser. VIII, vol. II, fasc. IV, 1949, pp. 216-218, and the statement of Karl Schefold,

“Der Sinn der r6mischen Wandmalerei,” Vermadchinis der antiken Kunst, Heidelberg, 1950, p. 176. The untenable theories hitherto proposed in a desperate attempt to locate the Second Style in Alexandria, Asia Minor or Syria are criticized and refuted by these authors. Representative statements of the older views may be found in A. Ippel, Der dritte pompejanische Stil, Berlin, 1910, p. 48, Ludwig Curtius, Dre andmalerei Pompejis, Leipzig, 1929, pp. 126ff., and, more recently, in R. Bianchi Bandinelli, ‘“Tradizione ellenistica e gusto romano,” La critica d’ arte, V1, 1941, pp. 5ff.

® Again, the most detailed discussion of the origin of landscape painting and its blossoming in the Second Style will be found in Dawson, op. cit., pp. 4off. and especially pp. 47ff., 63ff. Cf., too, Hinks, op. cit., pp. XXVF., XXXIT-XXXVI. For a consideration of the landscapes from Boscoreale and related paintings, see below, pp. 152ff. 10 Gerhard Rodenwaldt, Die Komposition der pompefanischen Wandgemalde, Berlin, 1909, pp. 46-47; Curtius, op. cit., p. 123; G. E. Rizzo, Centuripe, fasc. 1, Rétratti di eta ellenistica (Monumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia, sec. III), Rome, 1940, p. 26; cf., too, G. M. A. Richter, “Polychrome Vases from Centuripe in the Metropolitan Museum,” Metropolitan Museum Studies, I, 1929-1930, p. 203. 1 See especially, Franz Winter, Die Skulpturen (Altertiimer von Pergamon, VII), pt. 1, Berlin, 1908, pp. 74, 137ff., and zdemw, “Die Wandgemialde der Viila Item bei Pompeji,” Kunst und Ktinstler, X, 1911-1912, p. §§1; Ernst Pfuhl, Ma/ered und Zeichnung der Griechen, Munich, 1923, II, pp. 818, 878ff.; Swindler, op. cit., Pp. 332-333; Bernard Ashmole in The Cambridge Ancient History, VIII, Cambridge, 1930, p. 696;

Reinhard Herbig, “Zwei Str6mungen spathellenistischer Malerei,” Die Antike, VII, 1931, pp. 142ff.; Olga Elia, Pitture murali e mosaici nel Museo nazionale di Napoli, Rome, 1932, p. 129; H. G. Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, vol. I, The Hague, 1938, pp. 216ff., 350; W. Zschietzschmann, Die he/lenistische und rémische Kunst (Die antike Kunst, 117), Potsdam, 1939, pp. 6off.; Pericle Ducati, Die etruskische, italo-

hellenistische und rémische Malere?, Vienna, 1942, pp. XXI-XXII; by implication, G. Méautis, Les chefs @ oeuvres de la peinture grecque, Paris, 1939; Friedrich Matz, “Die Stilphasen der hellenistischen Malerei,”’ Archdologischer Anzeiger, 1944-45, especially cols. 97ff., and Karl Schefold, ‘““Vom Sinn der rémischen Wand-

136 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE view, defining the murals from Boscoreale as essentially Roman in spirit and execution, however important the rdle played by Hellenistic art in the formation of that Roman style may have been.!? Let us examine the two most completely preserved rooms from this villa in order to determine to what extent they were dependent, typologically and formally, upon earlier works of art.

fate 1 oll fs tNatalsfaliall os Hl BS | 1 KXs Hh Gael21] &

Bees ees ei > iy STRAHL Sa) Wes OG SG CLPT Mca ch rm A | |allt Bel

a tos = ——. faa po fa —. ps ES :

22S SR LEIS ee LE AS POS 5, LR Sa a oe a mE | ST pT RINE SN eae

a

Fig. 68. Reconstruction of the Altar in the Sanctuary of Athena Polias at Priene.

The striking analogy between the architectural framework or setting of the Hall of Aphrodite and the design or scheme of the great Hellenistic altars at Priene and Magnesia

(Figs. 68, 69) has not escaped notice.!® The placing of figures on a podium behind a , colonnade is common to all three, as is the isolation of

pee these figures standing in successive intercolumniations | PATTY , against a neutral ground. Behind this second century

———___________ scheme lie such obvious classical antecedents as the Ee imeem Te malerei”, Mé/anges Charles Picard, Paris, 1949, pp. 944ff. Among

acre ary these authors, Winter, Pfuhl, Pernice, Herbig, Zschietzschmann

Try Se re be t] and Schefold, op. cit., have pointed specifically to the school of F Wh ie | i. Hi Pergamon as offering the closest analogies to the paintings from 1 { URGE re ass PY the Hall of Aphrodite and thus being, in effect, their ultimate

ee | oda source.

Le + ere, aR 22 Pirro Marconi, La pittura dei Romani, Rome, 1929, p. 42; ar ear meant Loy een er A. Maiuri, La villa dei misteri, Rome, 1931, p. 170; Margarete

See) oo aa nT Bieber, ‘“The Mystery Frescoes in the Mystery Villa of Pompeii,” The Review of Religion, November, 1937, pp. 10-11.

13 Both Curtius, op. cit., p. 74, and Beyen, op. cit., pp. 216ff., Fig. 69. Reconstruction of the Altar have commented on the analogy between the altar at Priene and in the Sanctuary of Artemis Leuko- the great hall from Boscoreale. The most recent discussion of phryene in Magnesia (after v. Gerkan). the altar by Martin Schede, Die Ruinen von Priene, Berlin and Leipzig, 1934, pp. 36ff., dates it in the mid second century B. C., thereby correcting the older date of Theodor Wiegand and Hans Schrader, Priene, Berlin, 1904, pp. 120ff. Interrelated with this problem is Arnim von Gerkan’s correction of the originally late third century date given the altar at Magnesia by Carl Humann, Julius Kohte, Carl Watzinger, Magnesia am Maeander, Berlin, 1904, pp. 22, 175. Von Gerkan, Der Altar des Artemis-Tempels in Magnesia am Maander, Berlin, 1929, pp. 27ff., considers the altar to belong most probably to the second half of the second century, B. C.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 137 Nereid Monument and the Sarcophagus of the Mourning Women.“ The grandeur and monumentality of this architectural-sculptural concept appears, quite understandably, to have influenced the Second Style at the very moment when it had reached a similar stage in its own evolution. For, as we have seen, the independent development of the architectural features of the Second Style from its First Style background cannot be denied. Precisely at the moment when the architectural layouts of the Second Style most closely approximated the effect of such structures as the two great altars, and when, as in this room, it was necessary to combine the architectural scheme employed throughout the villa with the representation of figures, the solution adopted on those celebrated monuments would have been most easily assimilated and appropriated by a receptive artist. Architectural sculpture cannot be regarded as the sole source of the basic design applied to these walls, however. The scarlet ground against which the august figures of the Hall were depicted was the outgrowth of an old tradition. The archaic Tomba delle Bighe at Corneto!® as well as numerous sculptured and painted grave and votive monuments from the archaic and classical periods,!’ various South Russian and Macedonian tombs, also of the classical period,!® the Hellenistic painted grave stelai of Pagasae!® and the well144 ALH. Smith, A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum,

IT, London, 1900, pp. 1ff., pls. I-IV. O. Hamdy-Bey and Théodore Reinach, Une nécropole oyale a Sidon, Paris, 1892, pp. 238ff., pls. VI-X. Note, too, the painted wooden sarcophagus dating from the first century A. D. found near Kertsch published in Compte-rendu de la commission impériale archéologique pour l’ année 7875, St. Petersburg, 1878, p. 5 and vignette on title-page, and analogous to the altar at Priene as well as to the Sarcophagus of the Mourning Women which illustrates the persistence of this motif in early imperial art. For this date see Carl Watzinger, Griechische Holzsarkophage aus der Zeit Alexanders des Grofen, Leipzig, 1905, Pp. 54-55, 89. © A curious anticipation of this Second Style solution found among the tombs of S. Maria di Capua was published by Giulio Minervini, ““Tombe e pitture Sannitiche di Capua,” Bullettino archeologico napolitano, N. S. I, 1854, pp. 181ff., pls. XITI-XV. There, too, full-length figures appear in the intercolumniations of

a painted colonnade. Like the painted columns placed in the corners of the Tomba delle Leonesse that equally curiously anticipate the similarly placed supports of the Second Style (cf. Pericle Ducati, Targuinit, fasc. I, Le pitture delle tomba delle Leonesse e dei vasi dipinti | Monumenti della pittura antica scopert: in Italia,

I], Rome, 1937, p. 2, fig. 2, pls. I, ITI, A, B), these fourth-century paintings appear to have been an isolated example of a point of view similar to that prevailing several centuries later yet, so far as present evidence allows us to judge, without direct influence upon it. Unfortunately, these important paintings seem to have disappeared (cf. F. Weege, “Oskische Grabmalerei,” Jahrbuch des kaiserlich deutschen archdologischen Instituts, XXIV, 1909, No. 25, pp. 111-112, 135, 146ff.).

Cf. the interesting analogies between the general layout of the Hall of Aphrodite and the design of the Ara Pacis pointed out by E. Petersen, Ara Pacis Augustae, Vienna, 1902, pp. 148ff., apropos of Second Style antecedents of that monument. 16 F. Weege, “Etruskische Graber mit Gemalden in Corneto,” Jahrbuch des kaiserlich deutschen archdologischen Instituts, XXXI, 1916, pp. 105ff., especially p. 118. 17 Tt is needless to itemize the many examples of this category of monument. It will suffice to mention the

celebrated archaic base and Aristion Stele in Athens (S. Papaspyridi, Gade du Musée national d’Athénes, Athens, 1927, Nos. 29, 3476-3477), and the several monuments in New York illustrated by G. M. A. Richter, Archaic Attic Gravestones, Cambridge, 1944, figs. 62, 66, 71, 73, 93, 103, 104, and 105. 18 Cited by Rostovtzeff, “Die hellenistisch-r6mische Architekturlandschaft,” pp. 110ff. 19 Cf. the two stelai of Stratonikos and Aristokleos published by A. S. Arvanitopoulos, Fpattal otjAon Anuntptabos-Mayacév, Athens, 1928, pls. I and IV. The Pagasae stelai have also been discussed at some

138 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE known frieze of Erotes from Delos”? together exemplify the persistence and popularity of the scarlet ground that was to provide so brilliant a backdrop for the friezes of the Second Style and the related vases from Centuripe. The stele of Stratonikos (Fig. 70),?! in particular, is closely related to the paintings of the great Hall. Here, too, figures stand against a ted background on a shallow stage framed by pilasters. Still more remarkable, a narrow zone of contrasting color is differentiated from the scarlet field and serves as the ground against which the feet of the two figures,

ee the footstool and lower part of the legs of the stool

to, Sa.- LAT —_ .

2 arte visible. This detail, precisely comparable to a Re a) the broad taupeKe strip inor the immediate foreground eA)! Tite) EH OME —BG cath nimi Nes of our paintings, makes the analogy between the Sr eee. ¢ a two monuments striking, indeed, and suggests the

. Be ey 9 t likelihood that third-or second-century stele and . | Bee i ae : gu bre first-century mural alike reflect a decorative scheme

c ih i . < id : a employed in the lost monumental paintings of the I ape Cw vf ee Hellenistic period.?? This pictorial scheme, in turn,

. Bea ,| u ‘E a is parallel to the-architectural-sculptural scheme be ’ My ; ‘va ta P . . .. ;* ° % Nene | : v4 > #1 y ° ° _- eee * Sa Ae heRat WhetherLe the motif first appeared inCoe the realm of ha a sive oo a wh Ae. * ' architectural sculpture or of painting, it is imposEY } Y 7 ae % 2 characteristic of the altars at Priene and Magnesia.

UF a! i ee . . , ,

ae | = ontoies roe I. sible to say. But the fact of its existence in both

ss Poe ek See spheres of Hellenistic art, at least by the second

. ig. eT Sate n century, seems incontrovertible, does the ultimate. 7O.are010, Museum. otele Oo as tratonikoOs from Pagasae. dependence of the layout of the Hall of Aphrodite

on some such Hellenistic tradition. The equally tangible relationship between the architectural details of this room and a variety of more or less contemporary monuments can, nevertheless, not be ignored. For it has been established that, on the whole, the forms characteristic of the painted architecture length in an unpublished Master’s Thesis submitted to New York University in 1938 by Blanche Levine (Brown), Greek Painted Grave Stelae, 1938, pp. 74ff. I do not find the analogies between the much discussed stele of Helixo and the paintings from Boscoreale

sufficiently pertinent to introduce them into the present discussion. For a recent consideration of this monument see A. Adriani, “Osservazione sulla stele di Helixo.”’ Bulletin de la société royale d’archéologie, Alexandrie, N. S. vol. X, 1939, pp. 112ff. and Pl. XIV. 20 Marcel Bulard, ““Peintures murales et mosaiques de Délos,” Monuments et Mémoires, XL, 1908, pp. 140ff., pls. VI, IX C. Note, too, the use of a red ground in the little shrine paintings on a Fourth Style wall from the House of the Queen of Italy, Cerillo, Dipinti murali di Pompei, Naples, n. d., pl. XVI. 21 Arvanitopoulos, op. cit., pl. I. Reproduced in color, too, by Rizzo, Centuripe, opposite p. 18. 22 The fundamental relationship between the Pagasae stelai and the Second Style was pointed out by Gerhard Rodenwaldt, “Zu den Grabstelen von Pagasae,” Mitteilungen des kaiserlich deutschen archéologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung, XX XV, 1910, pp. 133ff., although he did not refer to the paintings from Boscoreale.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 139 of the villa near Boscoreale and other comparable Second Style houses correspond to the reality of late Republican architecture.”? To be sure, occasional forms such as the bossed columns found in the Hall of Aphrodite are not as yet known in monumental architecture. Yet, as we have seen, it is altogether likely that they existed.24 These columns, occurring frequently and exclusively in other Second Style paintings and seemingly rooted in a lost structural form reflected in the Hellenistic terracotta previously quoted,” afford another example, in miniature, of the extent to which the paintings of the great Hall were rooted in Hel-

own time. he

lenistic tradition and yet crystallized in their ° Stylistically, too, the paintings of the Hall of ; ~ Aphrodite are by no means unrelated to Hellen- , istic art. The Pergamene statue illustrated in , vt 8 Fig. 71°76 offers the closest existing parallel to ” 2 . any of the figures on its walls. Apart from the ~' re general similarity in posture between this great Se seated god or hero leaning on a staff, his right ot ; a “4 leg extended forward, his left drawn restlessly C.\ ae 23 For a detailed consideration of this problem see the “= 2.4 ;

basic discussion of Richard Delbriick, He//enistische e gE s

Bauten in Latium, Strassburg, 1907, II, pp. 169ff. Specific 5 aa by walls of the Hall of Aphrodite (discussed under its former ee Ree

analogies between architectural details painted on the oe ” sw

as * 8 , ™ : 2

narre “Grand Triclinium’’) and their counterparts in late 4 ‘ er”

Republican structures are here indicated. Since the pub- y 4 Pi a lication of this study, it has no longer been possible to ig ae a a. 3 maintain the older view, for exampleof A. Mau (“Wand- a ate ¥

schirm und Bildtrager in der Wandmalerei,” M7tte//ungen : pa "4

des kaiserlich deutschen archadologischen Instituts, Rémische : Pa —

Abteilung, XVII, 1902, pp. 186ff.), that the painted architecture of the Second Style is primarily fantastic in char -

acter. In this opinion, as in many others, Mau was Fig. 71. Berlin, Pergamon Museum: opposed by E. Petersen, “Antike Architekturmalerei,” Marble Statue from Pergamon. ibid., XVIII, 1903, pp. 114ff. A cistern mouth from the Casa del Citarista adorned with a frieze related to that in the Hall of Aphrodite provides another interesting example of the extent to which the decorative forms of contemporary architecture were reflected in other media. This analogy has been noted by Erich Pernice, Hellenistische Tische, Zisternenmiindungen, Beckenuntersdtze, Altdre und Truhen (Die hellenistische Kunst in Pompei, V) Berlin and

Leipzig, 1932, p. 30 and pl. 19, 4.

24 See above, pp. 25ff. and especially note 5. Rizzo, too, is of the same opinion; cf. Le pitture della ‘Casa dei Grifi’, pp. 12ff. 2> Supra, p. 27, note 8.

26 This marble statue, ca. 1.70 m in height and made of many separate pieces dowelled or stuccoed together, belongs to the Berlin Museum. For a detailed description as well as earlier bibliography see Winter, Altertiimer von Pergamon, V\I, 1, +4122, pp. 137-138 and Pl. XXIX, who has also pointed out the similarity

between this second-century statue and the painting in New York. In this connection, recall note 61 on p. 43.

140 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE back, and the painted image of Adonis in New York (Pl. IV) or the presence in both of such a formal element as the drapery falling over the right thigh, there exists an extraordinary stylistic analogy between the two figures. The same powerful physique, the same curious folds above the navel, the same modelling and contours of torso, right knee, and left shin, the same emphasis upon the swelling surfaces of the fleshy parts of the body are characteristic of both figures. Although Adonis is somewhat more lithe than his plastic counterpart, the exceptional similarity of the

, two figures suggests that the stylistic ante-

= cedents of Aphrodite’s consort lie in Perga-

>< ~~ mon.2* , ee Hellenistic, too, if not Pergamene, is the

“ete a , : ;

| war. figure most closely related to Cinyras (Fig. 27). ASD a [i In spite of the fact that his posture is not

-— i identical, the bearded man apparently leaning

; ae

AS a 7 on a staff from the Altar of Artemis Leukoa ay phryene in Magnesia (Fig. 72)?’ offers certain

Wi 4 a’ ite ; . - .

ey “ap? gi rn | analogies, especially in the lower portion of | Nan! Ve a his figure, to the aged Cyprian. The deep fold LIFS may outlining the inner contour of the left leg, the

5 . ne | folds over the right leg and, in general, the J rn conception of broad, smooth areas of drapery ‘ ee slashed by afew deep, similarly placed folds is

| X Soni common to both figures.

wn A " Closest of all to the paintings of the Hall

ae of Aphrodite in both general conception and stylistic execution, however, are the polyFig. 72. Ber/in, Pergamon Museum: Relief from chrome vases from Centuripe. A fine bell-krathe Altar of Artemis Leukophryene in Magnesia. . , , 29 ter in the Metropolitan Museum (Fig. 73) * It is primarily owing to the analogy between these figures that such a writer as Herbig, /oc. cit., considered the paintings from Boscoreale copies of a lost Pergamene painting of the time of Eumenes II. But cf. Studniczka, op. cit., pp. 110ff. who, although he accepted this comparison, was forced to predicate an early Hellenistic Sikyonian prototype for these paintings given his erroneous interpretation of them. *8 Humann-Kohte-Watzinger, op. cit., p. 176, +¢1 and Pl. VI, and Von Gerkan, op. cit., pl. 9. Barnabei’s comparison of the aged figure in Naples with the ‘“‘paedagogue” in one of the stucco panels from the villa near the Farnesina (La villa pompeiana di P. Fannio Sinistore, p. 58) is unconvincing, if only because the latter neither crosses his legs nor wears a long cloak, i. e., belongs to a different iconographic type. *° G. M. A. Richter, “Polychrome Vases from Centuripe in The Metropolitan Museum,” pp. 202ff., figs. 7, 9, 10, and Guido Libertini, Centuripe, Catania, 1926, +433, 34, pp. 165-167, pls. LVII, LVII bis, XLVII, 2, LX. Note, too, the fragments from Centuripe, now in Syracuse, and decorated with a presumably Bacchic scene again reminiscent of the New York painting in their broad, free, pictorial style in spite of the

greater coarseness of that ceramic style. Published by Biagio Pace, “‘Ceramiche ellenistiche siceliote,” Ausonia, VIII, 1913, p. 30, fig. 3, and Libertini, op. c/t., 4427, pp. 158-159, pl. XLVIII.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 141 illustrates the interrelationship between this richly decorated ware and the megalographia of the Second Style. The figure of Dionysos seated against a characteristically red ground has already been singled out as reminiscent of the stalwart Adonis.*® But the resemblance does not cease here. For the finial restored to this vessel (Fig. 74) is adorned with a female

+?.a

POST TCE ET Ee ae UT eee pe ee), ee r

aw . 4* ” . ”TTa GYONN. a “ .% neGuess - R yAG PAG

~e Wel 2 a 3 . 3 oi‘ :heLs ee a : ; Fs Ye RP ; =

ee ete ie Coe as Ps ae . < Ly x 3 ; er. e—_ ae curt Fig. 73. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Bell Krater from Centuripe.

bust intimately related to the Shieldbearer.3! The same heavy oval face above a columnar neck, the same dark hair parted in the centre, the same brows and shading beneath the eyes, the same broad nose, narrow mouth, and full, somewhat pursed, lips are common 0 Richter, op. cit., p. 202. Note, too, the occurrence of a red ground on Canosa ware. See, for example, Michele Jatta, ““Tombe canosine del Museo Provinciale di Bari,” Mc¢te//ungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, XX1X, 1914, pp. 90ff., pl. VIII. °1 [bid., p. 196, fig. 9. Again, Miss Richter has noted this relationship on p. 203.

Still closer to the Shieldbearer but, unfortunately, not so well illustrated, is the head of an Eros on a conical cover published by Libertini, ‘““Centuripe-Scavi nella necropoli in contrada Casino,” Notizie degli scavi, LXXII, 1947, pp. 278ff., fig. 11, dated between the second and first centuries B. C. In type of face and feature as well as in emphasis on contour and modelling by means of heavy hatching, this head offers the closest analogy to the Metropolitan figure.

142 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE to both. So, too, is the bold hatching by means of which both vase painter and mural painter have built up their forms. Also related to the Shieldbearer is the leftmost female figure taking part in a sacrificial scene on the lid of a bowl in the same collection.*” Here it is not so much the details as the movement and ponderation of the two women that are similar. Finally, the generic similarity

of the golden entablature of the great

; aa : hall and the frieze crowning the body

x DS gai . Boe .

- ‘eee ion t ee of still another handleless bell-krater in a Bes se Ate “a the Metropolitan Museum has also been

50 a ‘es ieee Br noted.*8

~ 3 ie. rags: Se The extraordinary analogy in motif, . ates P| Se : ea he 7 a Far ; / eee! oS Pk: tonality, style, and technique (for, as we

ae » oa a ea shall see, the figures on our walls were

i — ov painted in tempera, too)®4 between the = SSee Pe.aCenturipe vases and the paintings of the i i a ee Villa Item and the villa of Publius Fan-

ree be : — } aN SRY ° z °

ie: 2 > nius Synistor may be explained in one of it 2 fe ES ‘ e was Sf pas two ways. Either vases and paintings are Ln ee both dependent upon a common proto9 a FR x 8 Same. aa F >A‘type, presumably Hellenistic mural paintee ing of the earlier second century, or the ae elaborate ware of Centuripe is a specific

“Te reflection of Second Style painting. It

-" Bere is virtually impossible to determine

Th, Aaa es “a , ae i ae a . one, given the present lack of objective "$8 = which of these alternatives is the correct

4 ies Ae criteria for dating this ceramic.*® The ‘jel : recent tendency to date the red-ground —— Centuripe vases over a period ranging from the late second century possibly

Fig. 74. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art: even to the end of the Republic or the

Finial of Bell Krater frombeginning Centuripe. aia of the Empire,®* reflects a

2G. M. A. Richter, “A Polychrome Vase from Centuripe,” The Metropolitan Museum Studies, IV,

1932-1933, Pp. 45 ff. ;

3 Richter, ““Polychrome Vases from Centuripe,” p. 202 and fig. 4. ** Infra, pp. 164f. The technique of the Centuripe vases is generally acknowledged to be tempera. See, for example, Libertini, op. ¢/¢., p. 182; Richter, “A Polychrome Vase,” p. 50; Rizzo, Centuripe, p. 18. The technical and formal analogy between Centuripe ware and Pompeian painting was remarked by Reinhard Kekulé, Die Terrakotten von Sicilien, Berlin and Stuttgart, 1884, p. 55. © As Miss Richter has observed, ““A Polychrome Vase,” p. 52.

°6 Libertini, op. cit., pp. 185-186, followed by Richter, ““A Polychrome Vase,” p. 52. In a later article,

STYLE AND EXECUTION 143 keen appreciation of their primary relationship to the Second Style rather than new factual chronological evidence. For the moment, then, the Second Style throws rather mote light on the Centuripe vases than that colorful ware reflects upon it.’ The fact that certain motifs in the Hall of Aphrodite ultimately stem from classical or even late archaic forms by no means alters the essentially Hellenistic nature of its background. The school of Pergamon, in particular, is known for the cultural and artistic ties that linked it to Athens. The presence of traditional elements in any hypothetical Hellenistic

prototype of the Boscoreale paintings would, therefore, reflect standard contemporary practise. In this connection, it is interesting to note that apart from its occurrence on grave and votive monuments, on terracottas, and on vase painting, the iconographic type of the bearded hero standing cross-legged and resting on his staff, that is, of Cinyras, is to be found on the east frieze of the Parthenon among the Attic heroes?® as well as on numerous

Attic grave stones.°® From this classical background it descends to such a Hellenistic figure as that previously quoted on the altar at Magnesia where, for the first time, it is cast in forms stylistically related to the Roman Cinyras. Similarly, the type of throne on which the divine pair is seated in New York is the outgrowth of a form visible on the late atchaic Harpy Monument in London,” as the throne of Zeus on the same east frieze of the Parthenon,”! and on a variety of Attic grave monuments, especially of the fourth century.” Given the age of the cult of Aphrodite and Adonis and the widespread conservatism of religious iconography, the retention of such traditional forms is not surprising. ““Nuove ceramiche dipinte di Centuripe,” Ati e memorie della Socteta Magna Grecia, 1932, pp. 211-212, Libertini pointed out the necessity of clarifying this problem of dating through systematic excavation and appeared less certain of his original chronology, while Rizzo, Centuripe, p. 31, retained the older late thirdearly second-century date, as did R. Bianchi Bandinelli, “Due noterelle in margine a problemi della pittura antica, “La critica d’ arte, V, 1940, pp. 86 ff. 3? A parallel case is offered by the marble painting from Pompeii VII, 15, 2, illustrated, for example, by Pfuhl, op. e7t., III, fig. 652. For the figure of Niobe is remarkably similar to the seated Aphrodite of the Naples wall in physique as well as style, as Studniczka, ‘‘Imagines illustrium,” p. 78, pointed out. However, as Dawson, who has also noted the analogy remarks, op. c/t., p. 22, the date of this painting is uncertain. Again, its relationship to the Naples wall is of more value in dating and placing /¢ stylistically than vice versa. Apropos of the citharist in the Hall of Aphrodite, note that Adolphe Reinach, Recuei/ Millet, Paris, 1921, P- 397, note 7, cited her as an illustration of a painting of a musician mentioned by Pliny. 38 Cf. A. H. Smith, The Sculptures of the Parthenon, London, 1910, pls. 32, 37. 39 For example, Hans Diepolder, Die attischen Grabreliefs des 5. und 4. Jabrhunderts v. Chr., Berlin, 1931, pls. 22, 53, and A. Conze, Die attischen Grabreliefs, I, Berlin, 1893, +£241-242, 250, 252 on Pl. LXI. In some of these instances, the staff was obviously added in paint. 40 F, N. Pryce, Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum, 11, London, 1928, B287, pp. 122ff., pls. XXI-XXIV, especially pl. XXIV. For a recent discussion

of this monument see F. J. Tritsch, “The Harpy Tomb at Xanthos,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, LXII, 1942, pp. 39ff. 41 Smith, op. cit., pl. 34.

* Perhaps the closest analogy is to be found on the monument of Pamphile and Demetria (Conze, op. cit., £109, pp. 30-31 and pl. XL), in spite of its straight back and its simpler feet. All three of the thrones cited in notes 40-42 are easily available in G. M. A. Richter, Ancient Furniture, Oxford, 1926, figs. 62, 64, 66.

Cf., too, the throne of Zeus on the great Eleusinian pelike from Kertsch in Leningrad, A. FurtwanglerK. Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei, 11, Munich, 1909, pl. 70.

144 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE The variety of iconographic types and of incidents represented on the vases, mirrors, ivories, paintings, mosaics, and sarcophagi discussed in the second chapter, relatively few of which duplicate each other, indicates that these monuments were dependent upon a far more extensive iconographic tradition than that preserved today. The evidence afforded by these monuments is borne out by Plautus’ allusion to a painted ¢abu/a on which

Aphrodite is shown in the act of carrying off Adonis,* an iconographic type as yet unknown. Lost narrative cycles, very probably in one or another of the great sanctuaries dedicated to the goddess, may surely be predicated as the source of the necessarily condensed versions of the sacred story depicted on sarcophagi, the Naples ivory or the walls of the Hall of Aphrodite. Taken in conjunction with the stylistic analogies previously indicated, this assumption points to the existence in the second century of a celebrated pictorial cycle known, in one fashion or another, to the Master of the Hall of Aphrodite. By a unique circumstance, one agent in the transmission of such earlier artistic traditions was portrayed on the very walls of the great hall. It will be recalled that the three easel paintings seemingly perched on the painted cornice over the three panels on the rear wall of the hall were intimately related to both the iconographic types present in the major scenes of this room and the traditional forms preserved on sarcophagi."4 In one instance (cf. Pl. VIII A and Fig. 27), the analogy between the little shrine painting and its monumental counterpart is so close as to leave little doubt that the true easel painting mirrored in the former served as the model of the latter. It is generally recognized that the imitations of shrine paintings so frequently found on Second Style walls reproduce famous earlier paintings* and that the majority of these antique color reproductions are religious in character.** In no other instance, however, are the large murals on Pompeian or Roman walls tangibly relatable to existing copies of such little shuttered paintings. The fortunate introduction of three such simulated paintings into the decorative context of the Hall of Aphrodite, where they both enlarged its religious 43 Menaechmi, I, 2, 144 ff. 44 Supra, pp. 63ff.

45 See, for example, Curtius, op. cit., p. 264; G. E. Rizzo, La pittura ellenistico-romana, Milan, 1929, p. 10; zdem, Le pitture della ‘Casa di Livia’ (Monumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia, sec. III, Roma, fasc. IIT), Rome, 1937, p. 17; A. W. Van Buren, “‘Pinacothecae,”’ Memozrs of the American Academy in

Rome, XV, 1938, pp. 72-76. Cf., too, Rudolf Pagenstecher, “Klapptafelbild, Votivtriptychon und Fliigelaltar,” Archdologischer Anzeiger, 1919, cols. 9ff. and W. Klein, “Pompejanische Bilderstudien II, “Jahreshefte des ésterreichischen archaologischen Institutes in Wien, XYX—XX, 1919, p. 270.

46M. I. Rostovtzeff, Mystic Italy, New York, 1927, passim. It is needless to itemize all known examples

of this category of panel painting occurring in the Second Style. In Pompeii and Rome alone, they will be found in the Villa Item (Cubiculum 4 off the Hall of the Mysteries); the House of the Cryptoporticus (cryptoporticus); the House of Obellius Firmus (bedroom off peristyle); the House of Popidius Priscus (right ala); the Casa del Toro (alae); the Casa delle Vestali; the House of Livia (Room of Polyphemus); the villa near the Farnesina (Rooms 2 and 4), quite apart from the less frequent examples appearing on occasional Third and Fourth Style walls. In this connection, cf. the examples itemized by W. Klein, “Zum Grundproblem der pompejanischen Wandmalerei,” Jabreshefte des dsterreichischen archdologischen Institutes in Wien, XIII, 1910, pp. 124ff., and XV, 1912, p. 144, note 2.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 145 allusions and very likely recalled the great artistic tradition upon which it was dependent, constitutes a unique document of the working procedure of the late Republican artist commissioned to design this room. The extensive second-century cycle that we have predicated behind the Hall of Aphrodite must have been reproduced scene by scene or image by image in innumerable panel paintings. Some of these panels appear to have been preserved in the first century B. C. and later, and to have served as intermediates between that earlier cycle and a variety of later monuments. For the incidents depicted on sarcophagi, if more nartative in character than the scenes of the great hall, are equally selective in their choice of certain moments from a richer, more extensive cycle. In the present case, a certain number of these panels served, shall we say, as the point of departure or the basic model for our late Republican artist. That his reliance upon such prototypes was by no means invariably strict is further indicated by the relationship between the Shieldbearer and the previously discussed shrine painting from the House of Obellius Firmus (Fig. 34).4* That both reflect a common prototype can scarcely be denied; that in one case the prototype has been considerably altered is equally clear. The well-known conservatism of religious art of all periods makes such a procedure all the more comprehensible.*® The emphasis, in the present discussion, on the rdle of panel paintings as agents of primary importance in the transmission of artistic traditions is not intended to imply that such a familiar means of recording and spreading iconographic types or styles as the sketchbook was not employed by ancient artists. Insofar as the Hall of Aphrodite is concerned, however, the rare and illuminating presence of imitations of such pinakes unquestionably related to the major scenes on its walls, provides a pointed indication of the means upon which the artist relied in the present instance. It is the very obviousness of this dependence in the Hall of Aphrodite that is so revealing and that constitutes tangible proof of a hitherto theoretical assumption.

The creative process implicit in this room was by no means peculiar to one artist. Plautus’® and Propertius®® attest the popularity of tabe//ae in contemporary houses while Pliny’s reference®! to the copy of a panel painting by Pausias brought back from Athens by Lucullus offers a graphic example of the tastes and practises of the late Republic. Quantities

of such copies of celebrated paintings must have found their way from Greece and the Greek East to philhellenic Rome, there to play a major réle in the creation of a living tradition. " Supra, pp. 51ff. 48 Cf. Schefold’s remarks, ““Der Sinn der r6mischen Wandmalerei,”’ p. 194, in regard to Roman use of Greek prototypes. 19 Loc. cit.

50 TT, VI, 25-36. Cf. Propertius’ complaint with the later outburst of Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation

to the Greeks, IV, 52-53. The continued practise of decorating houses with little panels or tablets is confirmed here. 51 Naturalis Historia, XX XV, 125. In this connection, cf. XXXV, 8, too. to) Lehmann

146 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE For our stylistic analysis of the Hall of Aphrodite and the resulting assumption that the : great scenes depicted on its walls ultimately reflect a still more extensive pictorial cycle produced somewhere in the Greek East in the first half of the second century does not alter the essential fact that these extraordinary paintings belong to their own time in spirit as well as execution. Whatever the antecedents of the Hall of the Mysteries in the Villa Item or the Hall of Aphrodite from Boscoreale, however different the currents of late Hellenistic style from which they stem, they remain more akin to each other than to any other known monuments.*? The outgrowth of a long-established, a rich and varied tradition, they bear an unmistakably contemporary stamp.*®? Nor is it by accident that the artist most

suggestive of the Master of the Hall of Aphrodite in his recasting of the most powerful traditional forms, in his characteristic fusion of the classical and the Hellenistic, is his great contemporary, the sculptor Apollonios, son of Nestor.*4 The stylistic complexity of late Republican art as well as the superlative quality of its finest achievements are nowhere more strikingly apparent than in the ovewvre of these two artists.

**2 Beautiful as the Hall of Aphrodite must have seemed to any guest in the newly built villa, stirred as he may have been by the majestic figures depicted on its walls, and by a sense of continuity with the past reverberating behind their traditional forms, it was the sight of the cubiculum (Pls. LX-XXx XIII) that must have caused him the greatest astonishment. Here all was novel. For though his gaze might fall on this or that object of traditional form, by and large, the intellectual and artistic concepts expressed on its walls were entirely new and contemporary. We have seen®® to what an extent the ideals of the late Republic were projected onto these walls, how they gave tangible shape to their owner’s dream of a villa richer and more 52 The invariable coupling of the two rooms in almost every recent discussion of either or in general statements about ancient mega/ographia (for the use of this Vitruvian term see, for example, G. Rodenwaldt “Megalographia,” Mitteilungen des kaiserlich deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, XXIX, 1914, Pp. 194-199) attests this point. Pfuhl, op. c7t., pp. 878ff., Beyen, op. cit., pp. 221, 248ff., and especially

Herbig, “Zwei Str6mungen spiathellenistischer Malerei,”’ passim, have emphasized the contrast between the classicistic style of the Hall of the Mysteries and the vigorous impressionism of its counterpart from Boscoreale. Herbig’s excellent and detailed comparisons of these two stylistic currents render further discussion of this issue unnecessary. Hinks’ opinion, of. c7t., p. XXX, that the two rooms are so similar as to conceivably be the work of the same atelier is all the more incomprehensible. For a third comparable Second Style room, the Sala degli Elefanti in the Casa del Larario, see above p. 80, note 209, Rudolf Horn, Stehende weibliche Gewandstatuen in der hellenistischen Plastik (Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, Zweites Ergdnzungsheft), Munich, 1931, p. 44, has also compared the Shieldbearer from Boscoreale with the well-known painting of Medea from Herculaneum. Inasmuch as the latter probably belongs to the Second Style, too, the general analogy of the two figures is not surprising. 53 As Maiuri, op. c/t., p. 170, and Bieber, /oc. c7t., have emphasized. Cf., too, Herbig, op. cét., pp. 158 ff. 54 For recent discussions of some of Apollonios’ works and extensive bibliography on this artist see The American Journal of Archaeology, XLIX, 1945, pp. 330ff. > Supra, pp. 94 ff.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 147 splendid by far than his own modest property. One after another, the ingredients of that perfect life spread out before him, the great porticoes and déaetae, the shrines and altars, the granaries and oporothecae, the grottoes and pergolas. Reclining in the alcove of this cubiculum, he might turn his eyes toward the stately panorama onto which the Corinthian loggia seemed to open in the forepart of the chamber; he might contemplate the stillness of the sanctuary at his feet or peer into the shadowy depths of the grotto at his side, both singled out for special attention, hence greatly enlarged. To the modern spectator, this rapid sequence of visual impressions presented at a scale now large, now small, is somewhat

bewildering. Accustomed, till the late nineteenth century, to regulating his visual impressions according to the strict formulae adopted in the Renaissance, he finds himself in an alien world governed by strange laws or, better, different conventions. It is essential to try to penetrate the artistic conventions employed in this antique room if we are to appreciate the illusion created on its walls. It will be recalled that in the Second Style the earlier structural differentiation between

the alcove and forepart of a bedroom was translated, characteristically enough, into primarily decorative terms.°® Although the ceilings of alcove and forepart were still differentiated, the former being vaulted, the latter flat, the original separation of the alcove from the remainder of the room, for example, its higher floor level, was now suggested by decorative means (Fig. 51). A flat mosaic threshold and painted pilasters marked the supposed entrance to the alcove, walls, podium and floor of which gave further expression to the fictional subdivision of the room. As a rule, this decorative subdivision of Second Style bedrooms is evident at a glance, so markedly different in character is the treatment of the major field of the walls tn alcove and forepart. The splitting up of a decorative unit as small as the average bedroom of this period tended, if anything, to further reduce the size of the room. This tendency, obviously, conflicted with the growing desire to enlarge the individual room characteristic of the developed Second Style. In the cubiculum from Boscoreale, the conflict has been resolved in a unique fashion. The Roman visitor who entered this room found himself, at first sight, in a loggia (cf. Pl. X). Beyond its gilded scarlet columns lay a wide panorama. All sense of confinement within-doots vanished. The walls as such ceased to exist as he moved forward into this loggia surrounded on every side by an open prospect. On second glance, however, he noted the white pilasters, the mosaic threshold, the various familiar decorative indications of the customary functional division of such a toom into alcove and forepart. For all the standard devices by which this differentiation of parts was normally conveyed were present. The traditional subdivision of the bedroom had been maintained. Yet its spatial limitations had been counteracted by the initial impression of a continuous panorama visible beyond

both alcove and forepart. And the strength of that initial impression sprang, to some extent, from the unified theme underlying the decoration of both parts of the room. 56 Supra, pp. 83 ff. ro*

148 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE Once the alcove had detached itself visually from the remainder of the cubiculum, our | visitor very likely turned toward one or the other of the lateral walls of the forepart (Pls. XI-XVII). There he found himself before a truly unified scene, a vast triptych composed of a central panel and two identical, reversed, lateral wings. Instinctively following the

pictorial directions indicated on the wall, he adopted a position directly opposite the central panel. Indeed, he was literally coerced into selecting this vantage point. As we have noted,*” the presentation of every object in the central panel reflects the assumption that the spectator stands precisely ev face, an assumption equally implicit in the convergence of the lateral panels and the position of the masks and shield attached to the architrave. For the buildings towering up in the left wing are seen from their right; those at the right are viewed from their left, and the great round eyes of the satyrs are turned toward the obedient spectator standing beneath the bronze shield. Again, it has previously been pointed out that masks and shield, as objects attached to the painted architecture of the room, are

independent of the visual principles by which the villa prospect behind the loggia is controlled. Emphasis upon the central panel of the triptych is further implied by the recession of the podium into a niche beneath it and, in particular, by the greatly enlarged scale of this panel in comparison with that of the lateral wings. This fluctuation in scale is of the utmost importance and provides an invaluable clue to the aesthetic and psychological principles underlying this highly complicated and yet extremely revealing room. Throughout the

cubiculum certain vistas within the general panorama, certain aspects of a vista, are singled out for special attention on the part of the spectator. He is presented, as it were, with a close-up of some object of particular significance. It is thoroughly in keeping with antique attitudes and with the point of view of the man for whom this room was decorated that the region of his ideal villa selected for emphasis within the triptych was the sacred precinct of an all-important divinity and, again, that the individual object emphasized, hence magnified, was the fabulous portal symbolic of untold luxury in the lateral panels. When the spectator finally moved on to survey the alcove (PI. X), there, too, he stood before a great triptych composed of its rear and lateral walls; there, too, he met variations in scale. For the sanctuary on either side of the alcove is far larger proportionately than the lateral panels of the forepart, notwithstanding the greater area represented within them, as the grotto and pergola of its rear wall are, in turn, larger in scale than the sanctuaries. Within the cubiculum as a whole, it was the shrines and sanctuaries—for the cave, too, was not without its divine presence—that were magnified for special consideration. No Roman of the late Republic, no intimate of the unknown owner of the villa would have

found this emphasis in any way surprising. Strange as this fluctuation of scale, this principle of emphasis by enlargement, may appear to the modern spectator, he should not overlook the fact that in one contemporary °? Supra, pp. 87 ff.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 149 realm of the visual arts, namely, the movie, he accepts a remarkably similar convention.

The sudden photographic transition from a distant view to an enormously enlarged close-up is, in fact, the closest conceivable analogy to the pictorial procedure apparent in the cubiculum. Both are artistic conventions. s\s such, they reflect psychological and intellectual emphasis rather than a strictly organic recording of visual impressions. In both instances, the spontaneous ease with which these conventions seem to have been accepted by their contemporaries is testimony of their validity as symbols of a state of mind or a degree of attention. This shift from a general to a particular point of view, this occasional concentration upon one element of a complex scene is equally characteristic of still another device employed in Roman painting. The cubiculum from Boscoreale has figured in innumerable discussions and analyses of ancient perspective.>® The frequent assumption that the principle of one-point linear perspective evolved in the Renaissance affords the sole “correct” means of presenting visual phenomena constitutes a major obstacle to the understanding and appreciation of ancient painting.®® It ignores the validity of any other intellectual or attistic device for coGrdinating and presenting a complex series of visual impressions—in spite of the existence of such superb products of an antithetical point of view as the Sung landscapes. According to this rigid doctrine, the cubiculum from Boscoreale is evaluated as representing the most advanced stage attained in the conquest of the laws of perspective in antiquity, as the most nearly “correct” ancient painting. This is, at best, a questionable approach to one of the great periods of artistic achievement in the history of western civilization. It is far more reasonable to assume that the master of the cubiculum was able to do what

he wanted technically, and that the conventions employed in this room reflect a different approach to visual phenomena. Judging by the evidence of the cubiculum, the general principle that parallel lines converge constituted a fundamental tenet of pictorial representation, as has long been recognized. The application of that principle 1s observable in the convergence of the lateral panels of the forepart or the colonnades of the lateral panels of the alcove, to mention only two examples. The basic composition of every pictorial unit is 58 Among recent discussions note Erwin Panofsky, ‘Die Perspektive als ‘Symbolische Form’,” V ortrdge der Bibliothek Warburg, 1924-1925, pp. 265ff. and Pl, VII, fig. 12; A. M. G. Little, “Perspective and Scene Painting,” The Art Bulletin, XTX, 1937, pp. 487-495; G. M. A. Richter, “Perspective, Ancient, Mediaeval and Renaissance,” Seritti in onore di Bartolomeo Nogara, Vatican City, 1937, pp. 381-388 (and the related notes by G. J. Kern, Archdologischer Anveiger, 1938, cols. 243-263, and G. M. A. Richter, “Antike Perspektive,” sbid., 1939, col. 73); H. G. Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, pp. 157ff.; 7dem, “Die antike Zentralperspektive,” Archdologischer Angeiger, 1939, cols. 47-72; Miriam Schild Bunim, Space in Medieval Painting and the Forerunners of Perspective, New York, 1940; Dawson, op. cit., pp. 5 ff. Note, too, the remarks of A. M. Friend, “The Portraits of the Evangelists in Greek and Latin Manuscripts,” Part IT, Art Studies, VII, 1929, pp. off., and Petersen, “Antike Architekturmalerei,” pp. 127ff. 59 Cf., for example, Curtius, op. c/t., pp. 116-117.

69 See, for example, the references cited in note 58 which more than suffice to disprove the curious statements of Marconi, op. ¢/t., pp. 67-68.

150 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE governed by an acceptance of this general principle. Hence smaller units intended to be | viewed singly within the larger compositional entities—for instance, the central panels of the forepart and the lateral panels of the alcove—are organized in accordance with this ptinciple to the same extent as are the larger units. Once the lateral panels of both the forepart and the rear wall of the alcove have been grasped as pendants, as left and right sides of one whole, much of the apparent strangeness of their perspective disappears. Thus far, the outlook of our Roman master has much in common with his Renaissance fellows. But just as he inserted close-ups within his compositional units, abandoning a general outlook for a detailed view, so he felt equally free to depart from the general principle of the convergence of parallel lines in representing single objects within a compositional unit. As his close-ups are temporarily detached from their panoramic context, so the individual object is occasionably detached from its position within a composition in which it has been carefully placed in relation to other objects and presented for individual inspection. Once he has observed the general relation of the parts to the whole, the spectator is free to wander about within a visual field, to look intently and solely at a bench or a fountain as an isolated object of whose periphery he is only dimly aware. The single object, thus, frequently retains a certain independence in spite of its basic subordination to a general scheme.®

This persistent fluctuation between the general and the particular, between panorama and close-up or vista and detail, is utterly alien to the objective consistency of the Renaissance tradition which forces every object into one permanent position within an immobile composition viewed by the spectator from an unchanging intellectual vantage point. One may question whether the pictorial conventions employed in the cubiculum afe not a more accurate reflection of the visual-psychological procedure of the average person confronted with a great sweep of landscape. Frequently, after having surveyed the scene as a whole and perceived its fundamental interrelationships, he lingers over a succession of individual details that attract his attention. While he concentrates upon one such detail, he retains only the faintest visual awareness of its periphery, which tends to recede or disappear, causing him, for the moment, to virtually detach the object of special attention

from its context, to temporarily cease to see it in relation to its surroundings. Precisely this shifting of attention from a larger to a smaller field, from the general to the particular, is assumed to be characteristic of the visual-psychological behaviour of the Roman spectator. In any case, it cannot be too strongly emphasized that the perspective employed in the cubiculum is not to be understood as an only partially successful attempt to convey 6t For technical discussions of this problem of the coexistence within one composition of more than one vanishing point as well as the debated questions whether Vitruvius’ centrum circini refers to an objective vanishing point or the subjective viewpoint of the spectator, and whether or not the several vanishing points in a picture can be said to have a coherent relationship to each other, see Panofsky, Little, Richter, Beyen, and Bunim, /oc. cit. ® Both Bunim and Beyen, /oc. c7t., have stressed the empirical nature of ancient perspective.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 15] visual impressions in Renaissance terms but as the result of a different way of looking at the world. The modern spectator is, thus, confronted with a somewhat alien set of pictorial conventions. Should he chance to recall the intentional deviation from Renaissance principles and practises on the part of Post-Impressionist artists, his understanding of this antique room will be greatly facilitated.®* He will realize the validity of more than one approach to the visual world and the corresponding lack of any arbitrary fixed principles by which to define visual experience. One other aspect of our Republican master’s attitude toward the representation on a flat surface of objects seen in space deserves mention: his awareness of aerial perspective. This may be observed with particular clarity in the lateral panels of the alcove, where the rosy columns of the circular temple are increasingly greyed in accordance with their greater distance from the spectator (cf. Pls. XVITI, XIX, XX XIII). Our sense of a round,

three-dimensional building is, in fact, largely owing to the relative brightness of the central pair of columns in comparison with the softer tonalities of the more distant shafts. Similarly, the mauve columns of the Tuscan peristyle enclosing the sanctuary are graded in tone, the distant rear colonnade being lighter and lacking the decisive shadows of the lateral wings. When combined with the strictly maintained assumption that every object depicted on the walls of this room is illumined by light entering from the window and casting shadows toward the door, this application of the principle of aerial perspective contributes immeasurably to the credibility of the illusory prospects visible on all sides.® So much, then, for the general principles underlying the pictorial style of the cubiculum.

The translation of structural forms into decorative equivalents, the decorative unity of forepart and alcove, the application of the principle of the convergence of parallel lines to large compositional units within which the device of the enlarged close-up is employed, the coercion of the spectator into given visual vantage points, possibly even the knowledge of aerial perspective, reflect the standard practises of the developed Second Style. It is the degree of logical consistency characteristic of the lighting of this room, the carrying of the major decorative theme around both forepart and alcove, and the consequent attainment of a new degree of illusionism that constitute its individual features. Insofar as general principles of pictorial representation are concerned, the cubiculum from Boscoreale stands as the most elaborate and complete expression of the attitudes and tastes of its age. Its originality lies in quite another direction. % Although Sambon, too, Les fresques de Boscoreale, Paris, 1903, p. 26, spoke of the “errors’’ of perspective in the cubiculum, he quite properly characterized them as intentional. 6! Van Gogh’s Bedroom at Arles (well-illustrated by Alfred H. Barr, Jr., Vincent van Gogh, New York, 1935, No. 36) may be cited as an example of this modern point of view. 6 A. Rumpf, “Classical and Post-Classical Greek Painting,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, LUXVIUI, 1947, p. 18, has recently called attention to the significance of aerial perspective in the cubiculum. 86 Note, for example, that in Room 2 of the Casa dei Grifi the shadows cast by the bosses of the columns do not yet reflect the uniform lighting of the room from a single source. Rigid decorative symmetry still prevails over the complete illusion of reality.

152 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE To be sure, the idea of opening up a room to a landscape visible beyond its confines was } not peculiar to the master of the cubiculum. Certain analogies to his basic concept do exist. Foremost among them is the Corinthian oecus of the House of the Labyrinth in Pompeii (Fig. 75).°* There, as we have seen, paintings startlingly similar to those of the cubiculum are still partially preserved. For maroon Corinthian columns entwined by telief tendrils divide the rear wall of the oecus into three panels intimately related to the triptychs of the forepart of the cubiculum. The lateral panels of this wall are best described

as a simplified version of their counterparts from Boscoreale, a version lacking their richness of detail. So, too, the central panel of this wall reveals a round altar flanked by benches within a maroon precinct beyond which the familiar syz yga rises. Again, the specific details characteristic of the cubiculum panels—the statue, offerings, trees—have been eliminated. Turning to the lateral walls of the Corinthian oecus,®* we find pendant scenes equally reminiscent of the lateral panels of the alcove, sanctuaries preceded by a golden propylon and enclosed by a peristyle in the centre of which stands a Corinthian tholos. The interrelation of the two rooms is undeniable.® Either they are both dependent on a common tradition, in this case very possibly spread by pattern books, or the Corinthian oecus of the House of the Labyrinth is a direct reflection of the cubiculum from Boscoreale. The third conceivable alternative, that both rooms were painted by the same shop, must be eliminated given the style and tonality of the Corinthian oecus. Far less refined in workmanship, it is more sober and academic in character. The sharp diagonals of the scarlet precinct walls in the centre of the Boscoreale triptych have been modified into a flat, lifeless rectilinear pattern as the brilliant colors of the cubiculum, its flashing contrasts of light pastels and vibrant scarlets, greens, yellows, and blues, have been muted into the duller, colder tones of the oecus. These stylistic differences are corroborated by certain structural details observable in this portion of the house that imply an Augustan renovation.”° Lacking other evidence, it is, indeed, tempting to concur in deriving the 8? The following discussion of this room is based primarily on observations made in Pompeii in August 1947. For illustration of its paintings, it is still necessary to rely chiefly on Wilhelm Zahn, Die schénsten Ornamente und merkwiirdigsten Gemalde aus Pompeji, Herculaneum und Stabiae, Il, Berlin, 1842, pl. 70, in spite of occasional inaccuracies in these drawings. Unhappily the rear wall, in particular, is even less well preserved now than in Zahn’s day. For earlier bibliography and extensive discussion see Beyen, Dre pompejanische Wanddekoration, pp. 180ff. and figs. 63, 94, and supra, Ch. III, notes 47, 197. 68 The larger part of the left wall is now virtually invisible although certain details are unexpectedly sharp and clear. 69 As noted by Beyen, /oc. c#t., Rodenwaldt, Die Komposition der pompejanischen Wandgemdlde, p. 82, and René Vallois, L’ architecture hellénique et hellénistique a Délos, 1, Paris, 1943, p. 286. 70 Tt is evident, for example, that the mosaic floors of the three rooms at the rear of the peristyle preceded

their Second Style wall paintings. Not only do they run beneath the paintings but, in the exedra, it is clear that the columns were inserted in and over and adjusted to the width of the white meander on a black

ground that runs around the room. In line with these columns and at the entrance to the exedra are partially preserved brick piers in all probability of the same, i. e., the Augustan, period. The crudely inserted emblema in the centre of this floor is, equally obviously, a later addition. These observations tally with

STYLE AND EXECUTION 153

aa or {Re |

. F —— ky aE Sa nee . .

ae SD he , e.haeate y "ee et \ ,E

¢° ; ng ) ° . ) : . 7 5 :‘' :i.Qe © e 2 po i . e . . a ‘ (o> PP : vie € a? ° y . A b \¢ : ‘i *. | t te ; F . P :

‘ : "> f “g | . sa d : . . 5 | ' : hee’a.- A -j 2 — . . 29 . ; ie ‘ear aia of BS a ee Tra Swat ; . ae i . eee ids,| ;; ett , : eee at ; =. Wy : oa;

-. fcpt 4bo f‘ \ s ee : : ieae ; “J i. | itpeinits wi ay -s

ee: Fol] > . ‘ : ; Kies) ‘iy st i Me

: .. ;i": }es : .} R yAJESS | | ‘a * gms laal a . . ”. e YY 1 - bo

: a ! | : . oh ike ° *. 2 ES atg! A = ae;—.weenie" 8: # : , ; a grace 3 oe ' 5 — =~ a Ary voy x ys ; .

,. ae, > " z' “Vs * aeeee * e . ee .e. aes Pity Ce ee sa? Pe Se : \d BASE. ee == 0 ties ghee 4 , ee ik eae isi * Wad. Pile, ncaa

samoles oS vie re +f =~ : ane * Y ; .

i et cs a

| bey > ALT F My » VI Nat oft Pe

fm f capes oe oe P \ sf é ffi res aN . 5 cd ‘

‘ 2 tas ey Cane ‘Bb — - CaS —— . fe 4 ;

ett Xe She | bXe ae 2 He » eed

are. } ; A. KA Le f: mee , Lxeh( raF 4/4 "yeLN > 7 ARES

‘ . J MF 7rR "h3; |. , : | , LAG Ve , fe te es ea, SN er Fig. 75. Pompeii, House of the Labyrinth (after Zahn). Above: Rear Wall of the Corinthian Oecus. Below: Lateral Wall of the Corinthian Oecus.

154 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE decoration of the oecus directly from the beautiful villa painted in so superior a style and } technique that it may well have been the subject of emulation.*! The very fact that every specific and meaningful allusion to the religious spheres playing so important a réle in the cubiculum has been eliminated constitutes a further argument in favor of this theory. The dense interweaving of allusion and implication characteristic of the entire decoration of the villa of Publius Fannius Synistor reflected the tastes and allegiances of one individual, its original owner. The statues, offerings and Adonis gardens, the specific allusions of his cubiculum, would logically have been removed from any application of its general theme to the walls of another toom. That general theme, on the contrary, with its representation of varied aspects of villa life, lent itself admirably to the decoration of another such elegant house.” In any case, the panels selected for imitation or, rather, repetition, were chosen from a larger complex and adapted with no little freedom and variation to a new setting. As we have seen,’ the transfer of the total tripartite design of the forepart of the cubiculum to the unified surface of the rear wall of the oecus provides a last irrefutable proof of the previously debated unity of this composition. Finally, it should be recalled that the wellknown wall in Naples from the Villa of Julia Felix4 (Fig. 64) is not only closely related to the lateral walls of the Corinthian oecus in the House of the Labyrinth but also presumably occupied a comparable position in a room having an identical pendant. Conceivably, it, too, may have been part of another variation on a now familiar theme. Rome as well as Pompei, offers parallels to the basic concept of the cubiculum. The incomparable Odyssey landscapes adorning the portico of a suburban villa on the Esuiline® presuppose a similar intention on the part of the artist. There, too, the spectator looked out into the painted distance of a series of successive scenes forming an unbroken landscape visible behind scarlet pilasters coupled with brown piers. The exquisite garden

q presupp P P

room in Livia’s villa at Prima Porta carries the illusionism of the Second Style to its ultimate limit, completely surrounding the visitor with a continuous park dense with fruit Beyen’s conclusion, op. cit., p. 266, based on stylistic analysis, that the House of the Labyrinth follows the

villa near Boscoreale chronologically rather than antedating it, as the majority of earlier writers on the Second Style have stated. 71 As Beyen, /oc. cit., proposed. ”@ Por the influence of villas and villa life on contemporary town houses see Ferdinand Noack and Karl Lehmann-Hartleben, Baugeschichtliche Untersuchungen am Stadtrand von Pompei, Berlin and Leipzig, 1936, pp. 190ff. 3 Cf. p. 128, note 197. “4 Discussed by Beyen, of. cit., pp. 268-278, who has quoted earlier bibliography on this wall. ° B. Nogara, Le noxve aldobrandine, Milan, 1907, pp. 37-54, pls. IX-X XXII. It is difficult to understand how P. Grimal, “Les Métamorphoses @Ovide et la peinture paysagiste 4 l’époque d’Auguste,” Revue des études latines, XVI, 1938, p. 149, note 2, could describe these paintings as “les plus anciens paysages que

nous connaissions dans la peinture romaine” and date them at 80 B. C.! 8 Antike Denkmaler, I, Berlin, 1891, pl. XI. Cf., too, the related wall painting from the House of Attalos in Pergamon, Paul Schazmann, “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1906-1907, IV. Wandmalereien im Hause des Consuls Attalos,” Mitteilungen des kaiserlich deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung, XXXII, 1908, pp. 437ff. and fig. 1.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 155 trees, shrubs and flowers and animated by the flutter of innumerable birds. The enchantment of this illusory garden is as compelling to the modern as to the Roman spectator chiefly owing to the selection of one realm of landscape for the decorative theme of this room rather than the wider, more complex, vistas of the cubiculum, and the resulting maintenance of one simplified point of view. For him, too, the wall as such has ceased to exist, interior and exterior space have become one, as he looks out into an imaginary woodland. To a lesser extent this is true in the rectangular exedra in one corner of the peristyle of the House of Menander in Pompeii’’. Here specific connections with the cubiculum are still more marked. Again we look beyond a Corinthian portico, this time, to a fairy-like landscape, a grove of pine trees in which exotic birds flit. As in the alcove, we seem to look through the intercolumniations of a true colonnade within the house to a scarlet arcade on the mastet’s property. This arcade, rising behind black curtains looped from column to column above the dado, is the closest pictorial counterpart to the pink arcade visible behind a black curtain in the centre of the rear wall of the alcove. What is more, capitals and bases of the pale gold columns entwined with silver ivy leaves as well as the pilasters inserted in the corners of the exedra are remarkably reminiscent of the comparable members in the cubiculum, as are the shields suspended from its lateral walls. The somewhat softer tonality of the exedra, no longer animated by the primary intensity characteristic of the villa near Boscoreale in spite of its bold contrasts of pale gold, black, and scarlet against a turquoise sky, suggests that it is slightly later than the cubiculum, slightly closer to the colors that will prevail in the Third Style. On the very threshold of the Third Style, yet seemingly a last faint vision of the panoramic landscape seen beyond a colonnade, is the now almost indecipherable black wall from the villa near the Farnesina.’® Its sketchy prospects of villa buildings, of altars, monuments, statues and trees spread out behind delicate colonnettes evoke the memory of the vivid landscapes of the earlier Second Style. But the substance of life, the illusion of reality, has vanished from these fragile vignettes set against an anti-naturalistic, abstract ground, herald of the style to come. One other parallel to the fundamental concept underlying the design of the cubiculum occurs among the so-called Campana reliefs. Nor is it surprising that this category of architectural terracottas intended for interior decoration should offer several of the closest analogies to this room. Midway between relief and painting, these inexpensive products of the potter’s mould were bound to reflect the compositions and motifs of mural painting. ” A. Maturi, La casa del Menandro e il suo tesoro di argenteria, Rome, 1932, +125, pp. 96ff., figs. 47-48 and pl. XI. The dado of this exedra was later repainted and the room adapted for cult purposes. Maiuri, too, has noted its analogy to the cubiculum from Boscoreale. 78 Now in the Museo Nazionale in Rome. Cf. Julius Lessing and August Mau, Wand- und Deckenschmuck eines rémischen Hauses aus der Zeit des Augustus, Berlin, 1891, pl. IX.

156 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE The fragmentary example illustrated in Fig. 767° shows an arcade of spiral columns springing from acanthus calyces through which three parts of a unified landscape are visible. The fact that this landscape differs in content from the scenes of the cubiculum, belonging to a group of Egyptianizing paysages that was to become increasingly popular in the Empire, in no way alters its fundamental similarity of concept, its representation of a continuous landscape beyond the openings of a portico. Nor does the repetition of themes and motifs

a eS Ge Ee IE ae eS, Oh BM z

;,ye OO —, a {ss te...OOS mn Sa Zh JG:ee:

ROA Ad Od AO dO al ho) Ld hl fe

ae oe i. Wi po ath Me pee: da anil < é a ey Pe -

. bn, . he : ~~ aa ° ~ ” ~ als

— ERP acy ™ ae Meee Ge eee. NS Xi, ‘fs Spite Si: ‘> > ne

fi eeSee . : > Bs. oe MM a= i gk ee ear batoe, ~ “on «ee ra ‘ Caaoes ‘ ee }' Pe fk: 2ri ed 2dsuas a ask se ee Yo ee ee hua Ve Vig ORs me eae Pape Gms. a? apt in fe gee SED setle. al >= Vj oR ea — KS g LG et ae Eeigee| Re = 6” 1—CAVE 7 /)[|= X ;|

'+4, re “Mess X Pee rat, Gg ae na ee & ee 4%, + vp Y Si San i>8OO wR m Mi, oe NR es. ifSOS We) =p/n> ee Ney ha we,&S ake phefi

OOF perme © Va aN | Se aE

2 g-oieEo. aoief Siete eS ‘ey Bot,a)QSS- iTeta ab — eg:Ve a: . Gaeta 2 fave ~ Me

he ae rf AaS ar ey Ae, * 4 ‘ee WeF}‘“\ No. «, Lr Z +> | we, y) | N * IST : - % si: q . . Yh, >. — he -

va 9 ‘- es. ) Se ity Bak Ae ‘i "rir ch pgs TR | 7 te Be Vee te y ae ge em — = 5 AIa oe PON 5 x be Sas ee J Adare L- alt ee ap jaak Sed = i | a ? ¥

=SSaa or ee ss Coa ET AAA AR IM Rc

-_--- Br -> nttonaa ee . > ,. ae ee * + Min ome > © evil =| sy P

Fig. 76. Rome, National Museum: Fragmentary Terracotta Relief.

found in the cubiculum cease here. For other varieties of these terracotta plaques depict tholoi framed by colonnades (Fig. 77),*° single units of the contemporary architectural milieu, of a popular type susceptible of varied application, as we have remarked in discussing its specific use in the alcove. The analogy between these early Imperial reliefs and our late Republican paintings is, indeed, striking. It would seem, then, that the earliest preserved example of a broad sweep of landscape visible through the openings of an extensive portico or loggia is to be found in the cubiR. Paribeni, “Nuovi monumenti del Museo Nazionale Romano,” Bolletéino a’ arte, X11, 1918, pp. 53ff., and fig. 5. Cf. a very fragmentary relief published by Karl Kiibler, “Antiken in Tiibingen,” Archaologischer Anzeiger, XLII, 1927, cols. 37-38, fig. 9, that apparently belonged to another example of the same type and is dated by Kubler in the Augustan period. Clotilda A. Brokaw, A New Approach to Roman Pictorial Relief (anpublished Master’s Thesis in the Institute of Fine Arts of New York University), pp. 42ff, has pointed out the dependence of these Nilotic landscapes on Second Style painting. °° H. von Rohden, Architektonische rimische Tonreliefs der Kaiserzeit (Kekulé, Die antiken Terrakotten, IV), Berlin, 1911, pp. 152-153, fig. 281, p. 274, and pl. LXIX, 1, discussed and illustrated the various examples of this type which he dated in the beginning of the first century A. D.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 157 culum from Boscoreale. For it is unquestionably earlier than all other comparable monuments. Whether the master of the cubiculum is to be accredited with the invention of this popular motif, it is difficult to say, given the lamentably incomplete preservation of ancient painting. That it gave full expression to the most vital tendencies of the Second Style and remains, in many ways, its most characteristic formula is, in any case, evident. Novel and untraditional in its basic de-

corative concepts, the cubiculum, never- a

theless, reflects the appearance of certain objects of traditional form. At least two

were destined to become true artistic mo- , —

tifs. We have seen that the earliest ante- -—=- —- — =cedent of the tholos in its present context . \'K WwW < w an, stood on the river boat of Ptolemy Philo- OS N os QBN ee

° ° AN" ~ 7 fs vw y > 4

pator.8! There an architectural type of a & NS < eN\ =

ditional form was selected for a temple J PRaNP I aENSE IS. NG SNORE traditional selected a temple Ns SS: Ness SS ks NN |ie aie* ; ;form . iiawasoh, T vtforNis \\ Pi . ality

of Aphrodite adjacent to the sleeping com- Fay ea | ANN KR NUN sans: tse

\ ’/\1century a half alil:: \MT: NO‘i VN VN4 ig ie partments. andlater a halfae later, ee ee

. . HBB Uhh RRS RRNA fi Pint Wea Se ee

tholoi dedicated to the same goddess ap- . ait 3 i by: RAR | SV SS N m i sig he

peared on the walls of several Pompeian IO ES —

rooms, including at C., least bedrooms. ) A. =decoration ~~ me ,‘os —~ become of interior as | it a| y. i a. ey ~ =: its presence in the Villa Item, the Villaof —. =O @ ) "iw = °* a 4

; Sen ® C a eed _— a. : a a Bae fC nmcere d; .;a. Fragmentary Terracotta Relief.Zz

Publius Fannius Synistor, the House of the ; aug

Labyrinth, the Villaof Julia Felix, the Villa Fig. 77. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori:

of Diomedes, the House of the Epigrams and on Campana reliefs attests. In fact, the tholos had become a pictorial motif as early as the Hellenistic period, for it appears in Tomb 2 of the necropolis of Moustafa Pacha in Alexandria.** Here, as so often, the reality of domestic architecture was reflected in the decorative forms of the tomb.** There is no evidence of any continuous pictorial tradition linking this funerary sphere with domestic mural painting of the Second Style. On the contrary, both reflect the objective reality of contemporary architecture, both are documents of the continuous use of architectural types of essentially traditional form. Sl Supra, pp. 119 ff., where the several occurrences of the tholos in painting and relief are discussed. 82 Achille Adriani, La nécropole de Moustafa Pacha (Annuaire du Musée gréco-romain, 1933-34—1934-35),

Alexandria, 1936, p. 27, fig. 12 and Pl. X, 2, illustrates traces of a tholos on the east wall of Chamber 3 and on p. 131 alludes to the analogy between this tholos and those of the Second Style. Briefly referred to, again, by the same author in ““Osservazioni sulla stele di Helixo,” Bulletin de la société royale d’ archéologie

Alexandrie, N. S. X, 1938-1939, p. 128. 88 See p. 124, note 177, for reference to the reflection of just such tholoi on domestic property on the facade of the much-discussed rock-cut tomb of E] Khazna at Petra.

158 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE The ivory doors of the cubiculum, inlaid with tortoise-shell and studded with silver, : provide a second example of a pictorial motif ultimately dependent on the objective existence, in the Hellenistic period, of a comparable structural form. Again, the luxury of the Ptolemaic court manifest in Philopator’s river boat®* was mirrored in the splendid sutrogates of the tomb. Both the necropoleis of Sciatbi®® and Moustafa Pacha®* afford instances of painted doors similar to those of the cubiculum and their counterparts in the Villa Item.®* That standard motif of Egyptian tomb painting, the door, now took on the forms en vogue in domestic architecture, forms that were to linger in the memory of a later age as symbols of fabulous wealth. Similar, too, is the case of the gilded-silver incense-burners portrayed at either end of the alcove. They and their closest analogy, the beautiful third-century ¢hymiaterion from Tarentum, illustrate the persistence of a type known in Hellenistic Egypt and, once again, reflected in tomb painting, this time in the necropolis at Hadra.8* Given the apparent

prevalence of silver incense-burners in Hellenistic Egypt and Republican Italy, it is obvious that these painted ¢hymiateria reproduce actual contemporary objects however traditional their form. Two other objects depicted in the cubiculum have Hellenistic prototypes: the benches and the Corinthian shafts springing from acanthus calyces. While the painted benches reflect a type of monument belonging primarily to the sphere of religious furniture,*®® the columns, as we have seen,” are the outgrowth of a stylistic development largely traceable in domestic and funerary architecture. But late in the Second Style, these exotic supports, first known in early Hellenistic Tarentine grave monuments evidently dependent on a lost monumental type not preserved till the second century B. C. or later, grew so popular in

painting and relief that they may almost be said to have become an artistic motif.°! : 84 See above pp. 95, 119. 85 On the north wall of Chamber e in Cave A. Cf. E. Breccia, La necropoli di Sciatbi (Catalogue général

des antiquités ég yptiennes, 1), Cairo, 1912, pp. XXXVIIff., and pls. XIII and XVI, fig. 16. Here, too, a comparison was made with the doors of Roman villas. Adriani, ‘““Osservazioni sulla stele di Helixo,” also illustrated this painted loculus door on pl. XV. 86 In Chamber 7 of Tomb 1. Cf. Adriani, La nécropole de Moustafa Pacha, pl. B. The scale pattern characteristic of these doors also occurs on the painted podium enclosing the arena of the amphitheatre in Pompeii and on the podium of Room 4 of the Casa dei Grifi. Cf. Fausto and Felice Niccolini, Le case ed i monumenti di Pompei, Naples, 1890, III, 1, pl. II], and Rizzo, Le pitture della “Casa dei Grifi’, Pl. C. Later it was used to decorate the shafts of the two central columns on the left wall of the large room adjacent to the previously discussed cubiculum in the House of Obellius Firmus. 87 On the lateral walls of Alcove A of Cubiculum 16 and in Room 6. Cf. Maiuri, La villa dei misteri, figs. 71-72, pl. XVIII. 88 Supra, pp. 122f. 89 Supra, pp. 110 ff. 90 Supra, pp. 85 ff.

91 Apart from the precisely analogous scarlet columns entwined with golden tendrils behind the masks painted on the uppermost part of the oecus in the House of the Silver Wedding, there are the related examples in the square exedra of the House of Menander, where pale gold columns encircled by tendrils of silver ivy again suggest an elaborate metallic prototype. Ultimately dependent on such a prototype but

STYLE AND EXECUTION 159 Last of all, the bowl of fruit temptingly placed on the scarlet coping at the rear of the alcove (Pl. XXIV) is a lineal descendant of that popular variety of Greek easel painting known from literary tradition as xevza.® In characteristic Second Style fashion, it has been adapted to its new surroundings, no longer retaining its original formal independence but playing its traditional rdle in a thoroughly illusionistic setting. More than once the owner of the villa must have been tempted to reach up and help himself to its luscious contents as he lay at ease in the alcove. The very bow! must have afforded him no little pleasure, for its transparency was something quite new. Indeed this shining vessel is the earliest document of the existence of purified glass in the late Republic.% Like the masks gasping and leering from the architrave of the loggia (Pls. XX VI, XX VII) and the offerings of fruit lying on the scarlet altars, it epitomizes the illusionism of the Second Style, that heightened credibility born of the boldness with which the individual object is placed in its context and the freedom with

which it is executed. Pictorially speaking, no single element in this extraordinary house stirs greater admiration and wonder in the modern spectator than the series of superlative still-lifes scattered over its walls. Here in the cubiculum, and in the nearby exedra with its luxuriant garlands of fruit and leaves suspended from wet-muzzled bulls’ heads and its dangling Bacchic symbols (Pls. XXXIV-XXXVI), antique still-life reached a crescendo.™ evidence of a retranslation into naturalistic terms is such a support as the yellow Doric column overgrown with painted rinceaux of leafy green from the House of the Epigrams reproduced by Niccolini, op. c7t., IV, 2, supplement, Pl. XXVIT. Stone shafts carved with relief tendrils (cf., for example, Niccolini, Domus V ettiorum,

Naples, 1898, pl. III) or their painted reflections (for example, the shafts of the tholoi in the alcove of our cubiculum from Boscoreale and their parallels on the lateral walls of the Corinthian oecus in the House of the Labyrinth) no doubt constitute variations on the same theme. Certain details characteristic of the cubiculum columns, their capitals and bases or the pairing of Corinthian columns and piers, may be paralleled inthe Casa dei Grifi (Rooms 2, 4), the Villa Item (Cubiculum 16,

Alcove A, and Room 6), the Villa of Julia Felix, and the House of Menander (square exedra). Note, too, the similar coupling of scarlet pilasters and brown piers in the Odyssey landscapes. Cf. H. G. Beyen, Uber Stilleben aus Pompesi und Herculaneum, The Hague, 1928, passin. 3 H. G. Beyen, “Uber ein Fragment einer Wanddekoration mit Stilleben aus Pompeji,” Jahrbuch des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, XLII, 1927, pp. 41ff., pointing out the new and original use of still life in the Second Style, partially illustrates his remarks by allusion to this bowl. Cf., too, idem, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, p. 315..

Note, too, the slightly later example of a glass vessel filled with fruits painted high up on the best preserved wall of Room 4 in the House of Livia. Reproduced by Rizzo, Le pitture della ‘Casa di Livia’, p. 57, fig. 41.

*4 For additional discussion of the remarkable panel from the square exedra now in the Metropolitan Museum see pp. 16ff. and No. 14 of the Descriptive Catalogue. A detailed statement in regard to the Hellenistic antecedents of this garland motif and a chronological list (accompanied by bibliography) of the various Second Style houses in which it occurs will be found in Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, pp. 227-241, in his analysis of the so-called tablinum. The additional garlands from this villa (Room of the Musical Instruments; peristyle) appear in this coptext (Beyen’s characterization of the “tablinum”’ bull’s head as Hellenistic as opposed to the Roman type of skull employed on the Ara Pacis is misleading since both varieties of boukranion, the animal’s head and the skull, occur in Hellenistic architectural sculpture, witness not only the bulls’ heads of the Temple of Apollo Chresterios at Aegae cited by him but the skulls on the third-century Arsinoeion and Ptolemaion in Samothrace). Cf., too, zdem, Uber Stilleben aus Pompeji und Herculaneum, pp. 13ff.; Rizzo, Le pitture della ‘Casa dei Grifi’, fig. 3, Pl. II (formal analogies to square exedra in design on moulding), and Le pitture della ‘Casa di Livia’, pp. 42, 51, note 6; Pierre Grimal, Les

160 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE Within the unorthodox framework of the cubiculum these items of traditional form or : motif may be singled out as derivations from the early Hellenistic past. But the great majority of objects depicted on its crowded walls are without earlier parallel literary or monumental, its towers, porticoes, daetae, and balconies,® its piers and pilasters,® its syzygiae* and round containers for plants, its fountains, caves, pergolas, and arcades,°® its vessels,°? masks,1°° and curtains,!® all are to be met again and again in the paintings, Jardins romains Gla fin de la république et aux deux premiers siecles del’ empire (Bibliotheque des écoles frangaises

a’ Athénes et de Rome, fasc. CLV), Paris, 1943, pp. 299ff. For correction of Grimal’s reference to “‘masques thédtraux’’, see above, p. 18, note 47.

For the use of still life in the peristyle see pp. 10ft. and Nos. 16, 17 of the Descriptive Catalogue. Cf., too, Beyen, Uber Stilleben, p. 13, note 2, and Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, pp. 208ff., 315 ff. Note typological analogies in the following publications: Marcel Bulard, Pecntures murales et mosaiques de Délos (Fondation Piot, Monuments et Mémoires, XIV, 1908), pp. 194ff., Pl. XA; zdem, Descriptions des revétements peines a sujets religieux (Exploration archéologique de Délos, TX), Paris, 1926, p. 78, Pl. IV; A. Plassart, “Fouilles de Délos,” Bulletin de correspondance héllenique, XL, 1916, p. 252, fig. 41; Zahn, op. ct., I, p. 59, II, p. 45; Niccolini, Le case edi monumenti di Pompei, III, 1, Pl. 1; and Le pitture antiche d’ Ercolano, Naples, II, 1760, pp. 161, 287, 291; III, 1762, pp. 9, 53, 73, 128, 233; IV, 1765, pp. 135, 139. Motifs similar to the vessels, palms, etc., of the peristyle also appear in the stuccoed decorations of the Basilica of Porta Maggiore although, so far as I know, photographic reproductions of them have not been published. They are referred to, however, by Eugénie Strong and Norah Jolliffe, “The Stuccoes of the Underground Basilica near the Porta Maggiore,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, XLIV, 1924, pp. 180ff. I am at a loss to understand Curtius’ opinion (0p. ¢it., p. 94) that the peristyle and “tablinum” of the villa of Publius Fannius Synistor are so similar to walls in the Villa Item, the House of the Silver Wedding and the House of Livia that they must be by painters of the same atelier or school. This statement, of course, reflects the author’s strange and unorthodox chronology for the Second Style, for which see below, note 123. 5 Cf. subra, pp. 99 ff. for citation of representative examples of the closest analogies to these architectural types. 6 Cf. note 91 and recall the specific comparisons and general conclusions of Delbriick, op. e7¢., II, pp. 169 ff. %” For discussion of earliervarieties of two-column monuments that may conceivably be in the background

of the syz ygiae cited above on p. 109, notes 106~110, see Martin P. Nilsson, ‘Les bases votives 4 double colonne et l’arc de triomphe,” Bulletin de correspondance héllenique, XLIX, 1925, pp. 143ff. The capitals of the Boscoreale s yz yg/a have rightly been compared with the anta of a marble bench in

Priene (Wiegand-Schrader, Priene, p. 133, fig. 103) and the capitals of the painted piers in Tomb 1 of the necropolis of Moustafa Pacha by Adriani, La nécropole de Moustafa Pacha, p. 36, p. 131, note 2. % Supra, pp. 114ff. The grotto has repeatedly been compared with the slightly later Grimani reliefs, for example, by Albert Ippel, Guf- and Treibarbeit in Silber (97. Winckelmannsprogramm der archdologischen

Gesellschaft zu Berlin), Berlin and Leipzig, 1937, p. 45; Dawson, op. cit., p. 48; and Clotilda A. Brokaw, ““A New Approach to Roman Pictorial Relief,” Marsyas, I, 1942, p. 20. Cf., too, the rocky caves in the terracottas published by von Rohden, of. ciz., pl. CXX VII. % Supra, p. 90, note 19. 100 Among Second Style houses alone cf., for example, the masks on the cornice in one alcove of the bedroom adjacent to the Hall of the Mysteries in the Villa Item; on the cornice of the forepart of the cubiculum adjacent to the Sala degli Elefanti in the Casa del Larario; attached to the architrave of the great triclinium in the House of the Cryptoporticus; on the parapets of the lateral walls in the oecus of the House of the Labyrinth and on the lateral parapets in the cubiculum to the left of this oecus; on the cornice of the colonnaded exedra in the House of the Silver Wedding; and on the lateral parapets of the previously discussed wall from the villa of Julia Felix. In addition to these Pompeian examples, note the masks alternating with landscape panels in the uppermost tier of the white wall from the villa near the Farnesina in Rome. 101 Note the presence of similar black curtains in the following Second Style rooms in Pompeii: in both alcoves of Cubiculum 16 and in Room 6 of the Villa Item; in the square exedra off the peristyle of the House

of Menander; in the triclinium off the peristyle of the House of M. Gavius Rufus; in the cubiculum to the

STYLE AND EXECUTION 161 stuccoes, and reliefs, the architecture and literature of the late Republic and early Empire—

but not before. Untraditional in basic concept, largely contemporary tn detail, the cubiculum remains the most graphic expression of the tastes and ideals of the late Republic.

Neither the spell of the silent precincts at either end of the alcove nor the melody of singing birds and splashing water should lead the visitor to overlook the vellow screen or

parapet placed in the centre of its rear wall (Pl. XXV). For the delicate landscape sketched on its surface in varying tones of yellow is the earliest forerunner of the celebrated Yellow Frieze in the House of Livia.!°2 Two other fragmentary monochrome landscapes now in Mariemont come from the rear wall of the sitting room adjacent to the cubiculum (Figs. 12-13).!°% Painted in gradations of ruddy purple, their scattered buildings and monuments apparently belonged to a rural panorama comparable to the rustic scene on the yellow screen. Here fishermen and strolling couples animate the shores of a curving stream winding through a plain dotted with the now familiar towers, porticoes, and daetae, and

spanned by curving bridges beneath which gliding vessels sail. Every figure, every building in this lively rural scene is built up of contrasting highlights and shadows, of swift strokes of cream yellow or deep gold. Out of this embryonic impressionism springs a monochrome of mustard yellow. The strictly monochromatic character of these earliest examples appears to have been relaxed in the later Second Style for the prevailing gold of both the Yellow Frieze and the monochrome landscapes adorning the alcove of a cubi-

culum in the House of Obellius Firmus! is actually produced by flecks of white and left of the Corinthian oecus in the House of the Labyrinth (the curtains on the lateral walls of the oecus itself are maroon, those in the cubiculum to the right of the oecus being purple); in the oecus of the House of the Silver Wedding; and in the large previously discussed room adjacent to a cubiculum off the peristyle of the House of Obellius Firmus. The curtain above the cornice over the painting of Polyphemus and Galatea in the House of Livia in Rome is purple. 102 In discussing the Yellow Frieze, Le pitture della ‘Casa di Livia’, pls. V-X, p. 43, Rizzo has compared it with one of the fragmentary purple monochrome landscapes from Boscoreale now in Mariemont, appar-

ently being unaware of the still more analogous yellow screen from the cubiculum, no doubt owing to its hitherto infrequent and inadequate illustration. For comment on Rizzo’s illustration see above, p. 16, note 41. Dawson, too, op. ¢7t., p. 63, has made the same comparison and omission, although it is evident from an allusion to it on p. 78 that he is aware of the yellow screen’s existence. 103 Supra, pp. 15 f. and 16, note 41.

104 The upper third of each of the three walls of the alcove in a Second Style bedroom immediately preceding and at the right of the peristyle in this house is occupied by a monochrome landscape. The best preserved scene, on the right lateral wall, shows a shepherd and his flock beside a large tree in a setting completed by sketchy towers and a portico, Its pendant, at the left, also depicted figures in a landscape set with buildings, but it is now too fragmentarily preserved for detailed interpretation. Similarly, only the lower right half of the scene on the rear wall is discernible. However, it was obviously considerably larger than the lateral panels, extending across the entire wall and containing figures before a temple-like structure beside a tree. Here sepia has replaced the maroon of the lateral panels mentioned above. Not only the less purely monochromatic tonality of these paintings but also the larger scale of their figures in relation to the setting is indicative of their development away from the pure monochrome toward the sketchy landscapes of the Third Style. The continuation of this variety of Second Style monochrome painting in the Fourth Style has been noted by Rizzo, La pittura ellenistico-romana, p. 78, and illustrated by a landscape (pl. CLXXYV a) created of white highlights and sepia shadows on a yellow ground. Cf. the two Fourth Style 1r Lehmann

162 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE maroon against a gold ground. In the cubiculum from Boscoreale, this charming minor : current of Roman landscape painting may be seen in its original purity. Like other aspects of the complex villa landscape woven into the great panorama on these walls, the monochrome landscape was destined to free itself from this context, to become an independent

generic type.) It is, in fact, the very presence within the cubiculum of diverse aspects of Roman landscape painting that constitutes its signal importance. Here the stately porticoes and diaetae, the rustic towers and shrines, all the innumerable motifs of later Second, Third and Fourth Style villa landscapes and rural panoramas may be seen in their original context. Later, individual elements of the comprehensive villa landscape portrayed in the cubiculum splintered off from this core to become the isolated vignettes, the panoramic friezes, of another day. Converted into rectangular panels, these reduced villa landscapes were confined now to the central panel of a wall, now to the centre of its lateral panels,

where they served as decorative pendants. Frequently, too, whether in the form of descendants of the Boscoreale screen above the dado of a wall from the House of Siricus (E. Cerillo, Dprnti murali di Pompei, Naples, N. D., pl. XV), a position remarkably comparable to that of the yellow screen. August Mau, Geschichte der decorativen Wandmalerei in Pompe, Berlin, 1882, pp. 154, 163, refers to Second Style monochrome landscapes visible in his day in Room 43 of the House of the Faun, in Entrance 2 of VII, 15, 2, and in the second room to the right of the atrium of VIII, 5, 2. According to Rostovtzeff, “Die hellenistisch-romische Architekturlandschaft,” pp. 87ff., Naples +¢9389 (Prtture di Ercolano I, 67, pl. 12) is also a yellow frieze. 105 Hinks, op. c7t., pp. XXXIIIF., suggested that the painter Studius mentioned by Pliny XXXV, 116, as the inventor of ‘“‘a delightful style of decorating walls with representations of villas, harbors, landscape gardens, sacred groves, woods, hills, fishponds, straits, streams, and shores” should be connected with the variety of landscape exemplified by the Yellow Frieze of the House of Livia. If Studius is to be considered the inventor of the monochrome landscape, the Boscoreale monochromes, as the earliest preserved examples of the genus, might conceivably have been painted by him. For the difficult question of Studius and his chronology see the article Ludius in Thieme-Becker, A//gemeines Lexikon der bildenden Kiinstler, XXXII, Leipzig, 1929, p. 441. The Second Style taste for monochromatic or oligochromatic rooms as well as friezes and panels deserves investigation. The bedroom off the atrium of the Villa Item divided into a golden alcove and a sea-green forepart, the yellow exedra at the rear of the peristyle in the House of the Silver Wedding, and the handsome scarlet cubiculum heightened with touches of bright green adjacent to the Sala degli Elefanti in the Casa del Larario illustrate the spread of the monochrome to entire rooms. Both the origin and development of

this minor current of the Second Style and its relation to the predominantly black, white and scarlet rooms popular in the following century should be explored. 108 It will suffice to illustrate these varieties by means of a very few typical examples. For additional monuments containing one or another ingredient of the cubiculum panorama see above pp. 98ff.

Isolated vignette: cf. the rural dwelling in the centre of a Third Style wall from Boscotrecase in the -Metropolitan Museum (Christine Alexander, “Wall Paintings of the Third Style from Boscotrecase,” Metropolitan Museum Studies, 1, 1929, fig. 2, Pls. I-II). Panoramic frieze: cf. the Yellow Frieze from the House of Livia (Rizzo, Le pitture della ‘Casa di Livia’, pls. V—X).

Central panel of a wall: cf. the rear wall of the room behind the peristyle in the House of Sulpicius Rufus (IX, IX, 3, now labelled the Casa del Maiale; illustrated by Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddeko- ) ration, fig. 1314).

Centre of lateral panels: cf. the tablinumof the House of Lucretius Fronto (Paul Herrmann, Denkmdler der Malerei des Altertums, Munich, 1904-1931, pl. 163).

STYLE AND EXECUTION 163 panels or friezes, they retreated to the uppermost third of the wall,’* there to linger on divorced from their original broad setting (Fig. 78). Rarely, as in the Casa della Piccola Fontana, were single motifs juxtaposed in a fashion reminiscent of the original context.108 Here, on the rear wall of a peristyle, types that had become standard features of Third and Fourth Style walls—the formal villa landscape and the rustic dwelling—appear as pendants on either side of a central garden. Reunited on one wall, they evoke the complexity of the original Second Style villa landscape,

; a ; a ee ig . y Se Se

now long since split up into a host — ]jSiummutiaesianiiansteel swiies lest italia

of individual decorative themes.!9 er. 23 i | bofitl vee qin me ia

07 Van Buren, too, op. cit., p. 75, has re- 2 ESR. ARE OE alin i

marked on the tendency of motifs to migrate Sa = sical to the upper register. For examples of such : : 3 landscape panels in the uppermost horizontal cb oe Oe ee eee Ky tier of the wall cf. the white wall of the villa . : ‘ near the Farnesina, where rectangular land- | b : “|| oe rrr 2|" i 4 : scape panels alternate with panels containing

masks and still lifes to form op. a kind ofpl. alter: iit yi ,ile :| nate frieze (Lessing-Mau, c/t., XI) or a wall from the House of the Painted ml fen 8 ) Capitals (Zahn, op. c7t., II, pl. 24). For a > a ~" = | continuous panorama see, again, the Yellow Frieze from the House of Livia, /oc. cit. The

rarer descent of such motifs to a narrow

frieze above the dado is charmingly illustrated

in a large triclinium (?) off one corner of the : ; ee | ,

ETE. a * mi Wall Decoration.

lower peristyle in the House of the Citharist. Fig. 78. Pompeii, Flouse of Sulpicius Rufus (Casa del Maiale):

where incision for a now vanished frieze reveals a series of familiar objects—including

a statue standing beneath a syz ygia topped by a pair of vessels, and a tholos. Here these sacred structures appear to have been transformed into-the delicate architecture of garden pavilions. 108 Herrmann, op. cit., pls. 167, 168. Herrmanns’ rejection of the older descriptions of pl. 167 as a villa (p. 233), his acceptance of Rostovtzeff’s term sacral-idyllic (see below note 109), and his consequent view of the two panels as tragic and comic scenes culled from a unified scaenarum frontes type of decoration like

that of the cubiculum from Boscoreale offers an amusing example of the endless repercussions of the fallacious attempt to explain the cubiculum as a reflection of Hellenistic stage sets (cf. supra, pp. 9off). It is, nonetheless, interesting that he divined the ultimate dependence of this peristyle wall on the Boscoreale tradition.

09 Rostovtzeff, in his widely-quoted article, “Die hellenistisch-r6mische Architekturlandschaft,”’ characterized Second Style landscapes containing shrines, altars, syz_yg/ae, statues, sacred columns, trees in “‘scholae”’, along with tower-like houses, stoas, and “‘temples” as “‘sacral-idyllic.’’ He considered that this “‘sacral-idyllic” type of landscape continued in the Third Style, remaining independent of the new “villa landscapes” springing up in that period (and offering reliable reflections of contemporary country houses) until, finally, in the Fourth Style, the two types were frequently fused. It is needless to single out the many details of Rostovtzeff’s interpretation with which one might disagree. However, the fact that his thesis has been accepted and his terminology employed in innumerable subsequent discussions makes it desirable to emphasize that the interpretation of the cubiculum walls presented above in Chapter III invalidates Rostovtzeft’s theory. For it is evident that the ingredients of the “‘sacral-idyllic” landscape occur in the same context as the features of the so-called villa landscape, being, in fact, two facets of one comprehensive whole. That the original complex Second Style villa landscape split up into a number of more ot less independent motifs, including the now greatly reduced ‘“‘villa landscape” of the Third and Fourth ag

164 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE ‘As the sole preserved example, the archetype, as it were, of a variety of landscape : painting that could otherwise only be theoretically reconstructed from the many isolated fragments scattered on later walls, the cubiculum from Boscoreale occupies a unique position in the history of Roman painting. Vivid document of the illusionistic tendencies of the Second Style, of an overwhelming impulse to break through the confines of the wall, to extend the reality of circumscribed interior space into an imaginary out-of-doors, it makes clear the profound interrelationship between the flowering of landscape painting and the attainment of the ultimate goals of the Second Style. For landscape painting was to be the supteme expression of the Second Style.

* *K *K Technically, too, the paintings from the Hall of Aphrodite and the cubiculum are of exceptional interest. Close scrutiny of their walls confirms recent recognition of the fact that Roman mural painting was not primarily executed in fresco,!° in addition to throwing light on the actual working procedure employed in such rooms. Even a cursory glance at the panels from the Hall of Aphrodite (Pls. I-VII) reveals

innumerable areas where the flesh tones, details of drapery or of furniture have flaked off, baring the brilliant scarlet ground uniformly present beneath the superimposed figures of the frieze. That this gleaming polished ground was itself painted in fresco is

highly probable; that the figures applied to it were executed in tempera is certain.’ It is partially owing to this very diversity of technique that the richly modelled figures stand out with such plasticity against the broad, smooth surface of the background. The precise Styles, is undeniable. Yet even if one retains the term “villa landscape”’ for this considerably truncated type,

the category “‘sacral-idyllic’’ should be abandoned since it no longer applies to these scenes once their genesis is clear and such “sacral” elements as syzyg/ae, altars, statues on columns, etc., are recognized as standard features of villa property. The value of Rostovtzeff’s article as a basic collection of material 1s in no way impaired by this criticism. 110 This view, long maintained by Rizzo (La pittura ellenistico-romana, p. 91, note 1; Centuripe, pp. 18, 19, note a, 30, notef), Luigi Cavenaghi, “TI dipinti di Boscoreale e la loro tecnica, Rassegna a’ arte, 1, 1901, pp. 5ff., George Macoir, “Fresque de Bosco-Reale,” Bulletin des Musées royaux, IV, 1904-1905, pp. 36ff., and certain eighteenth-century writers (quoted by Otto Dannenberg, Archdologischer Anzeiger, 1927, cols. 178-181), has again been confirmed by Maria Barosso, “‘La datazione delle pitture della Villa dei Misteri di Pompei,” Bericht tiber den VI. internationalen Kongrefe fir Archdologie, Berlin, 1939, Berlin, 1940, pp. 505 ff. Examination of the results of many chemical analyses of individual Roman paintings cited by Alexander Kibner, Entwicklung und Werk-Stoffe der Wandmalerei vom Altertum bis zur Neugeit, Munich,1926,

pp. 117-325, makes it evident that pure fresco, pure secco, and varied combinations of both techniques wete commonly employed by Pompeian painters. For valuable summaries of the older writings and experiments in regard to the technique of ancient painting see Eibner, pass7m. 111 Note Eibner’s repeated statement (for example, pp. 263ff.) that polished cinnabar fields like those of the Hall of Aphrodite are almost invariably of fresco. In using the term tempera, I do not mean to imply any opinion as to the specific nature of the binding material employed in the present instance. By tempera, I simply mean the opposite of buon fresco, i. e., secco. Had the figures in the Hall of Aphrodite been painted

in fresco, damage to their surface resulting in the flaking off of colors would have revealed white plaster rather than a polished scarlet ground obviously painted previously, apparently in a different technique.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 165 implications of this technical cleavage are difficult to evaluate with certainty. Yet it is quite

possible that the ground colors of such rooms were brushed in by a different crew from those employed on the figural decoration. In any case, the initial application of a permanent

background on which the figures animating the walls were then projected reflects an intellectual and artistic procedure characterized by movement from the background to the foreground. The intellectual implications of this artistic procedure become at once clearer and more complex when one examines the walls of the cubiculum. The very fact that they were not painted in fresco allows us to follow the artist step by step--or rather to retrace his steps. For beneath the silver-gilt thywzaterion of the right alcove panel (Pl. XTX) lies a lavender parapet succeeded by a black curtain in turn followed by a tholos rising against a blue sky. Only after the lavender colonnade had been applied to the blue ground of the sky and the tholos had been masked by a curtain later hidden by a parapet were the golden columns of the propylon painted over the scarlet parapet walls and altars and the blue sky, as tell-tale traces of scarlet and blue beneath their shafts reveal. Turning to the rear wall (Pls. XX-XX1]), it is evident that parapet and trellis were applied to the blue ground before the rich clusters of grapes were suspended, as the rocky ledge of the cave was brushed over its black interior ground before the trembling vines, the trickles of water, the plump birds moving over its surface were fastened upon it. Layer after layer, the panel was built up from background to foreground according to a method nowhere mote strangely revealed than in the central panel of the rear wall, where the contents of the glass fruit bow! were applied to the black ground of the curtain before the vessel itself, a web of lights, was spun about it. Underlying this complicated procedure must have been a linear pattern sketched on the wall and gradually filled in plane by plane from background to foreground and, frequently, too, from top to bottom. Working forward from a broad ground to a detailed surface, the painter increasingly

concentrated his attention upon individual objects, building them up with a looseness and freedom of pictorial style little to be expected within the severe framework of his additive compositions. The startling modernity of birds, fruit, and masks grows still more astonishing within the context of so alien a formal procedure. Yet this very dichotomy of viewpoint, this fluctuation between a rigidly defined general procedure and a free treatment

of details, is but another parallel manifestation of the mentality behind contemporary perspective which, again, allowed for the liberation of an object from its visual context, for a close-up within a panorama governed by a different set of visual rules. Thus impressionism was testricted to the execution of individual objects, never penetrating an entire composition, as the principle of one point perspective was applied to whole compositions but abandoned in the presentation of a given object. Examination of the Metropolitan paintings further reveals that they were the product of a surprising number of hands. Although this is undoubtedly true of the villa as a whole,

166 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE the procedure whereby the highly unified pictorial concepts characteristic of its rooms were } executed by individuals whose personal style is immediately recognizable can only be satisfactorily discussed in connection with the two most completely preserved rooms, the Hall of Aphrodite and the cubiculum.!? Comparison of the treatment of flesh, drapery, and properties in the panels'8 from the right wall of the Hall of Aphrodite now in the Metropolitan Museum indicates that the three panels were the work of as many artists (cf. Pls. -VII). The Adonis Master, as we may call the painter of the divine pair enthroned in the centre of the wall, builds up form in broad pictorial terms. The tawny flesh of the resting hunter is hatched with pink lights and ruddy purple shadows frequently edged with grey, a plastic technique subtly varied in the smoother modelling of the goddess’ creamy flesh overlaid with rose highlights and warm lavender-greys. Her iridescent mantle, created of a delicate play of creamy folds and hollows filled with an infinite variety of soft greys, burgundies, and deep purple-blacks, lies ovet a garment boldly painted in loose concentric rings to suggest the fullness of her left

breast. This easy mastery of form stamps the throne, giving roundness to its arms and legs by the direction of the vigorous strokes, giving shape and emphasis to its back by short slashes of brilliant color. Utterly opposed to this powerful plastic style with its magical evocation of form through bold application of color is the manner of the Citharist Painter (Pls. I-III). Linear rather

than pictorial in his approach to form, he outlines the shadows about the eyes of his chalky, opaque faces and splashes the neck with inorganically placed highlights. Greyed-white lines suggest the ripple of the dull purple folds on the floor; formless linear lights define the

folds of the drapery; a reduced palette of broad strokes of cream and varying shades of tan, accented by grey-blue, shapes the sheer white mantle into long, soft folds. Flat linear patterns ornament the back of the chair and colorful diagonals are applied to the ground color of the turned arms and legs rather than being employed as the primary means out of which to model them. At his worst, as in the hands and body of the Citharist’s attendant, the

master gives no hint of organic structure. His is a more schematic mind given to the use of obvious devices to achieve his effects, unlike the Adonis Master whose varied tonalities ate so much more difficult to analyze and define.

In the Master of the Shieldbearer, we seem to encounter a follower of the Adonis 112 Toudouze, ‘Les fresques de Boscoreale,” p. 36, and “‘Les villas de Boscoreale,” pp. 162ff., and, especially, Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, passim, have emphasized both the stylistic unity underlying the villa and its execution via many hands. This position is implicit, too, in the remarks of Schefold, “Vom Sinn der r6mischen Wandmalerei,” p. 945, although his interpretation of the paintings in the Hall of Aphrodite leads him to transpose the stylistic differences observable among the panels to what he considers to have been their Pergamene prototypes.

3 In the following pages, the term panel refers to the rectangular fields or intercolumniations into which both the Hall of Aphrodite and the cubiculum are divided. It is, thus, a convenient way of indicating given intercolumniations and by no means implies the technique of painting separate panels later let into the surtace of a wall.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 167 Master (Pls. VI-VII). His flesh tones, heavily overlaid with criss-cross hatchings of ash-grey, blue-grey, purple-brown, his smoothly painted arms hatched with rose and white, shaded with grey and blue-grey, recall the technique of the latter. Yet the range of tones employed in the dull purple garment is narrower, the brushwork less free than in the great group to the left, and the lower folds of this garment as well as of the white skirt are essentially the schematic product of a basic color articulated by defined areas of shadow. The shield, too, with its rich variety of cream, rose, blue-grey and purple cross-hatchings slashed on to indicate curving shape and burnished surface reflects the Adonis Master’s

influence. Similar in intention, the Master of the Shieldbearer is somewhat crude by comparison, lacking the subtlety and richness, the vitality and complexity of the Adonis Master whose panel must be ranked among the masterpieces of ancient painting. The incomplete preservation of the Hall of Aphrodite and the present dispersal of its paintings preclude the possibility of defining the organization of work within it.44 The use of at least three artists to paint its walls suggests that the decoration of such a house may have been an unexpectedly speedy procedure. Here, however, apart from acknowledging the obvious superiority of one of the masters, we are unable to ascertain their precise relationship to each other. Was the Adonis Master the leading artist who designed this room in addition to executing one or more of its units? Were the Masters of the Citharist and the Shieldbearer assistants employed in his shop? These basic questions must remain unanswered. The cubiculum affords a far more complete picture. Indeed the nature of its decoration, the repetition of identical panels, makes it a unique laboratory in which to test the rdle of the individual. By the same token, the individual stands revealed not by his approach to such fundamentals as composition and design but by his personal approach to form, his almost instinctive fashion of handling a brush. This difference in pictorial handwriting makes it possible to discern three hands, a master and two assistants. Again, whether the Master of the Cubiculum created the design for the execution of which he was responsible, M4 There can be little doubt that the entire Naples wall is the work of one painter (the fact that the three figures in its two intercolumniations are part of one coherent scene makes this conclusion all the more reasonable). Its superlative quality as well as stylistic analogies between the two female figures and the Aphrodite in New York lead me to suspect that it, too, comes from the hand of the Adonis Master. However, in spite of the generosity of Professor Maiuri in uncovering this wall for my inspection in the awkward summer of 1947, when the room in which it was hung was still occupied by the Genio Civile, the limitations of time resulting from these conditions made it impossible for me to examine the execution of this painting in sufficient detail to confirm this impression. If the Adonis Master and the master of the Naples wall are, indeed, one, it would be tempting to call this great painter Master FE, given the presence of what appears to be a signature on Cinyras’ ring (see above p. 33, note 19). In any case, I think there can be no doubt that the suggestion of F. Wirth, “Der Stil der kampanischen Wandgemialde im Verhiltnis zut Wanddekoration,” Mittes/ungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, XLII, 1927,

p. 28, note 1, that the Naples wall and the citharist are by the same hand is inconceivable. The fragmentary preservation of the two small shrine paintings from the rear wall of the Hall makes it equally inadvisable to attempt to attribute them to one or another of the masters of the New York panels. They appear to be the work of one painter.

168 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE it is almost impossible to determine. One would like to think that he did, and that the masterly execution of the panels from his brush reflects the creator’s gift.

The fact that the Master of the Cubiculum painted only five panels out of thirteen, leaving the remaining eight to his assistants, and that each of the five established a guide to be followed in duplicate panels, lends a certain substance to this thought. In any case, the Master painted one panel of every variety. Beginning with the narrow field immediately

a f \ _— _ IE

: a | a gr nr ——— ee |]

MASTER ASSISTANT “B" ASSISDANT "AY l

:< ASSISTANT 'B"

H a“ — _ +. |

{

| ™ ASSISTANT ‘A* MASTER ——____, | Fig. 79. Diagram of Cubiculum Indicating Portions Executed by the Master and his Assistants.

to the left of the entrance (see Fig. 79), he continued around the corner until he had completed two-thirds of the unified scene designed for the forepart of the cubiculum. At this point, having painted a typical lateral and central panel of the triptych to be used on either side of the forepart, he transferred his activities to the right corner of the alcove where he produced a sample lateral wall and, adjacent to it, the right wing of the rear wall. Six of the eight remaining panels were assigned to the Master’s first assistant, A, whose work likewise falls into two groups of contiguous intercolumniations. Taking up where the Master had left off, A completed the triptych on the left wall of the forepart, guided by the Master’s left wing. Continuing into the left corner of the alcove, he painted pendants to the Master’s tholos and grotto. Finally, he matched the Master’s initial panels on the left wall of the forepart by equivalent paintings on the right wall. B, the second assistant, played a minor role, trying his hand on the left wing of A’s triptych in addition to painting the narrow field in the centre of the rear wall. One gets the impression that B was a gifted but inexperienced pupil allowed to duplicate the most frequently recurring panel and to paint his specialties in the restricted space to the right of the window.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 169 The differences between the Master’s style and that of his first assistant are particularly evident in the central panels of the forepart (Pls. XIII, XVI, XXTX). Where the Master employs restless white lights, varying shades of gold and deep, ruddy shadows to create

an impression of light flickering over the polished metal surface of a bronze statue, A is unable to recapture the texture of metal with his more linear, constrained style. The linear element in his style leads him to define the panels of the lavender gate by regular lines of white or black in contradistinction to the Master’s triangular compartments of shadow set off by lights, and to apply a rinceau of flat, uniform tonality to its surface where

the Master’s lively tendril is born of a richer palette. When A 1s forced to abandon this instinctive linear approach and to paint trees or reflected lights, he grows heavy-handed in the boldness of his foliage and the chalky whiteness of his mouldings, for he lacks the Mastet’s understanding of color, his observation that the lights cast on the scarlet mouldings of the entrance wall have absorbed the purple of the frieze. Conversely, he is at ease in the fluent ornamental contours of the griffons supporting the cornice of the syz ygza. Nor does his mote restrained nature impel him to create griffons that seek to spring off the architrave like their animated counterparts! The Master’s free, pictorial style, his subtle colorism, are coupled with a superior sense

of organic form. This leads him to differentiate the decorated cornice of the entrance building in the left wing of the left triptych from its severe chestnut walls, to articulate the

flaring echinus of the column standing in the foreground of this panel with grace and clarity (cf. Pls. XII, XIV, XX XI A, B). A, in completing the right wing of the same triptych, lacks this feeling for structure, neglects to set off cornice from wall, has less grasp

of the growth of a plant or the construction of a capital. Less fundamental but equally indicative of difference of hand are the idiosyncrasies of brushwork characteristic of the two

painters: the Master’s scales slant slightly to the right in the panels of the ivory door, his spikes crowning its cornice are numerous and straight; A’s scales slant to the left, as do

his spikes, which are a third fewer. The Master paints deep terracotta roof tiles on his tower giving them dark edges as well as white hatching; A indicates tiling purely by V’s of white on the terracotta ground. The Master forms Corinthian capitals on the scarlet bay window by scarlet lines that curl over onto the chalky high-lighted sides of the piers; A’s procedure is to draw pinkish capitals on the scarlet shafts.1° Such comparisons might be multiplied, as might the analogies between the Master’s execution of statues, masks, and foliage in the two panels from his hand on the left wall and

the parallel unity of style underlying the three panels of the forepart attributable to A. 46 A similar contrast between the styles of the Master and A underlies their execution of the narrow strip of wall immediately to the left and right of the entrance. The single wel! preserved and, therefore, comparable element, the amphora present in both panels, is painted with almost Velasquez-like freedom and economy by the Master, the vessel resolving itself into high-lights seen against the ground color. A, on the contrary, leh painted the entire body of the vessel, creating a solid vase which he has then proceeded to hatch, shade,

170 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE Everywhere, the Master’s vigorous, organic style, his command of color, may be distin- | guished from the less vital manner of his first assistant. Still more recognizable ts the hand of his second assistant, B. For B combines awkwardness and skill in a highly personal union. The clumsiness with which he has placed his

little statue off-centre on her columnar base, the lop-sided rendering of its capital, the inorganic relating of the balcony to its supporting beams far exceed the minor gaucherie of A (cf. Pls. XV, XXX, XXXIC). But so, too, does his sense of color. The tones of his buildings are particularly warm and brilliant—witness the bright purple frieze of the golden podium beneath the diaeta or the blue frieze, the lavender space, the yellow lattice,

the ted mouldings of the nearby cream portico. The bold hatching of the podium, the customary use of dots of color at the joints of two faces of a building, reveal a free, pictorial

technique. Nowhere is this more evident than in the round altar decorated with a frieze of figures in low relief. In this impressionistically painted monochrome, B is at his best. Like the Master and his chief assistant, B may be detected by instinctive procedure as well as by his fundamental outlook: his are the fewest, most widely spaced spikes above the door; the only scales to be light at the left and dark at the right. Attribution of the panels of the forepart of the cubiculum to three painters as a result of stylistic analysis recetves welcome confirmation from observation of a technical detail— the moment when the gilded scarlet columns were applied to each wall. On both the left and the right walls, these columns were painted gaffer the first two panels of each triptych but before the final wing. As the diagram in Fig. 79 indicates, both the Master and A painted their respective walls up to the beginning of the last panel of each triptych. They followed the same procedure, first painting the panels, then adding the columns, as examination of the edges of the shafts makes clear. On both walls, however, the third panel of the triptych was obviously brushed in after the second column, that is, by a different hand. Thus the inner columns constitute a border where one artist left off and another began, a technical border happily identical with a stylistic break."6 Similar confirmation of the subdivision into hands proposed here ts offered by the masks present in each panel (Pls. XXVI-XXVIID. Comparison of the masks presumably painted by A in the first two panels of the right triptych indicates that they are the result of the same technique. Each ruddy face has sharp lights and brick-red shadows, a stringy beard of contrasting lights and tans, extensive use of black on the exterior of the eyes, for their outlines, and for the interiorof the mouth. B’s lecherous mask shows blue in the open mouth, blue to a greater extent than white about the pupils, broad chalky splashes in the looser, freer hair, pictorial freedom rather than the decorative pattern, the clarity of form of A’s. Typical of «A, too, is the fact that he has slapped his mask onto the syz ygza without 116 The execution of the columns on the left and right walls reflects the stylistic difference of the Master and A, those by A being flatter and lacking the refinement of the Master’s. Nor does A ever use the short hatchings to be found on the left wall.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 171 suggesting its means of attachment. The Master, with his customary feeling for organic relationships, has carefully equipped his mask, on the opposite wall, with a ring by which it is suspended from a hook above the architrave. Built up of a richer variety of tones in the hair and beard, his mask is less ornamental in pattern and silhouette than A’s, as we would expect. And the superb plasticity of the youthful faun’s head at the summit of the - left wing of the left triptych would proclaim it his handiwork quite apart from the technical similarities it bears to its smaller, typologically different, neighbor—its similar rendering of the brows, its blobs of white on forehead, cheeks, and nose.” Turning to the lateral walls of the alcove, we encounter the familiar differences (cf. Pl. XXXITI). To the left, the bronze capitals of the tholos exhibit a dark red, almost black, kalathos against which the leaves and scrolls are carefully picked out in varying tones of gold. To the right, the capitals are built up solely of yellows, ranging from light to dark, without contrasts of red or black; the recession of the lateral capitals into space is conveyed by softer, less detailed forms; contrasts are less sharply drawn. The roundness of the central pair of columns js established by a coloristic gradation from the lighted to the shaded side of the shaft, a device not followed on the left wall where streaks and swirls give shape

to the columns but fail to suggest the curl of tendrils springing from spiraling vegetation. No detail in the room is more captivating to modern eyes than the impressionistically rendered pears and pomegranates of the right wall (Pl. XTX and Figure on p.131). Built up of an infinite variety of colors applied in strokes creative of form, they at times reflect the green of the leaves in their polished surfaces. The honey-colored quinces to the left, opaque and uniform in consistence, are not hatched with color in spite of their gradations of tone, while the nearby pine cones are formed by a pattern of dark chequers on a lighter ground. Linear in approach, like the capitals of the tholos or the carefully drawn leaf-shaped openings of the ¢hymiaterion, they betray the hand of A as opposed to the bold, sure colorism of the Master.1!® Should we seek confirmation in those small instinctive differences of procedure

previously mentioned, they will be found in the genitalia-shaped antefixes crowning the parapet walls. Split vertically into a right shaded half and a left lighted half on the right wall, they are uniformly shaded by A, save for the elongated patch of light applied to their right sides. i\’s lack of feeling for organic form, his reduced palette, are again evident in his truncated counterpart to the Master’s grotto on the rear wall of the alcove (Pl. XXIII). The sharp, prismatic ledges of rock forming the mouth of the cave in the right wing are created of broad contiguous bands of varied tonality modelled by streaks of color that give a rich 47 Note the remarkably similar youthful satyr’s mask perched on the cornice of a wall next to a shrine painting in a fragment from Portici (Le pitture antiche di Ercolano, 1V, Naples, 1765, pp. 251ff., pl. LID. Cf. with the cubiculum masks the related mosaics in Naples, +:109679, 10968. 118 Although the present state of preservation of the pomegranates lying in the foreground of the central

panel of the left triptych of the forepart precludes a detailed comparison, they appear to be similar in variety of tonality to those painted by the Master on the right wall of the alcove.

172 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE tonal range to their uneven surfaces. At the left, this schematization is duplicated in crude : terms, rocks of more or less uniform brown being overlaid with a variety of highlights. This highly simplified version of the Master’s cave is at once reduced in tonal texture, harsh in lighting, less firm and intelligible in structure. A’s lifeless, wooden vines bear as little resemblance to the luxuriant growth climbing and cascading over the mouth of the Master’s cave. Again, such a minor detail as the smaller, more numerous and less elongated openings in the lattices of the two pergolas confirms the more significant differences between the

panels as a whole. Diminished by the window always present in the rear wall, rendered almost invisible by its light, A’s panel is of negligible effect or importance in the decoration

of the cubiculum. The spectator is thus free to linger before the Master’s grotto and to marvel at the pure impressionism of his birds. Built up without the use of a line, their brilliant plumage modelled by bold strokes of an infinite variety of colors, they are the epitome of his pictorial freedom. Midway between the birds and fruit of the Master and his first assistant are those found in the narrow central panel of the rear wall (P]. XXIV). Painted in a bolder, looser technique than A’s, these quinces are given form by broad hatching, yet this hatching lacks the many contrasting reflected tones employed by the Master.!!® More vigorous than A, the painter of this panel is less free than the Master (cf. Fig.on p. 131). His identity becomes

apparent if one glances at his yellow screen or the scarlet column separating his work from the Master’s (Pl. XXV). For the skill of the one and the clumsiness of the other proclaim the hand of B. In this restricted field, his taste for strong simple pictorial contrasts found expression in the fruit bowl and in the monochrome landscape beneath it, a monochrome similar in style, if more extensive in scope, than that of his round altar. In these individual objects, he is at his best. Indeed, were it not for the reliable precedent of the left wing of the right triptych, it would seem scarcely possibly that the painter of the fruit bowl!*° could have produced so inept a column. Studded with over-large gems set in wilted blossoms and entwined by clumsy tendrils, it is topped by a capital more than an inch shorter than any of the others in the cubiculum owing to the omission of one tier of leaves.!*! Only B could have been at once so effective and so awkward! 119 B’s birds stand in a parallel relationship to those of the Master and A, being firmer and more solid than the latter’s, less freely built up than the former’s. Instead of painting the parrot’s tail with the streaks of color customarily used by the Master in painting tails, B forms it of two basic colors which were, no doubt, originally shaded or lighted. Apropos of shading, it may be well to emphasize the consistent use of cast shadows in the paintings of the cubiculum (for example, in the patterns cast on the friezes of colonnades or parapets by brackets or modillions), since it has been denied by Beyen, Die pompejanische WanddeRoration, p. 276, note 2.

120 Beven, /d/d., p. 250, has suggested that the master of the fruit bowl worked in the Villa Item as a young man, painting certain fragments preserved from Cubiculum 11, and later appearing at Boscoreale as one of the leading artists. 1 do not find this suggestion convincing, especially given the rather painful constraint characteristic of the fragments from the Villa Item.

#21 As we would now predict, this column was plainly painted after the completion of the Master’s grotto at its right.

STYLE AND EXECUTION 173 Had even one other room in the villa of Publius Fannius Synistor been as completely preserved as the cubiculum in the Metropolitan Museum, it might have been possible to pursue the Master of the Cubiculum and his two assistants further. Were they the major painters at work in the house? How many additional rooms did they paint? Can they possibly be equated with the three masters at work in the Hall of Aphrodite? Alas, the fragmentary preservation of the villa precludes any attempt to answer these tantalizing questions,!?? The broad stylistic unity achieved in the Hall of Aphrodite and the cubiculum by painters

of such diverse artistic personality typifies the exceptional degree to which the villa of Publius Fannius Synistor bears the stamp of one guiding creative mind. Organic growth of a rich and unbroken tradition, its mural decorations remain the most perfect pictorial expression of the tastes and aspirations of the last years of the Republic.!3 12 Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, p. 251, has emphasized the stylistic unity of the entire house as well as the degree to which each room is “aus einem GuB.”’

As this volume goes to press, an important contribution to the study of Roman painting has just appeared in which the oewrres of a number of Pompeian painters and their assistants have been analyzed and attributed for the first time: Mabel M. Gabriel, Masters of Campanian Painting, New York, 1952. 123 For evidence in regard to the building history of the villa, see above, pp. 2ff. The majority of recent writers on the Second Style have concurred in dating the villa of Publius Fannius

Synistor between 50 and 30 B. C. Marconi, op. c/t., pp. 42-43, and Dawson, of. c/t., p. 60, consider that the paintings were executed about the middle of the century; Hinks, op. ¢/#., pp. XX XVIIFf., and Grimal, Les jardins romains, p. 457, preter the slightly later date of 45; Bianchi Bandinelli, ““Tradizione ellenistica e gusto romano,” p. 5, accepts a date between jo and 4o B. C.; Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, p. 90, and “Das chronologische Verhaltnis der letzten drei pompejanischen Stile,’ Bertcht tiber den VI. internationalen Kongrefs fir Archdologie Berlin 21.-26. August 1939, Berlin, 1940, pp. 504-505, followed by Karl Schefold, Dre Br/dnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker, Basel, 1943, pp. 132, 212, the period ca. 40 B, C. I agree in regarding this as the most appropriate general figure to apply to the villa. Previously, certain scholars had suggested the earlier years of the Second Style or a date closer to the time of Sulla for these paintings: Studniczka, op. e/t., pp. tioff.; Wirth, op. c/t., pp. 46, 74-75; Alexander, op. e/t., p. 177, and, recently, but without citing evidence for the resumption of this now customarily abandoned position, A. von Gerkan, ina joint article with F. Messerschmidt, “Das Grab der Volumnier bei Perugia,” Mvtte‘/ungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, LVM, 1942, p. 190, note 3. As Beyen has very properly indicated, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, pp. 24 and 246, there is not the slightest justification for Sambon’s division of the paintings from this villa into two groups (oP. ¢7¢., p. 3), one produced in the early years of our era, the other after 12 A. D. Sambon’s dates were accepted by Richter, ‘““The Boscoreale Frescoes in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,” Art and Archaeology, VII, 1918, p. 246, and his denial of the unity of the paintings from Boscoreale reappeared in Curtius’ illogical chronology for the Second Style, op. cit., pp. 51ff., 8off., 123ff., according to which single rooms from the major houses of the period are plucked from their contexts, shuffled into various formal categories, and given individual dates, with the result that the paintings from the Hall of Aphrodite become contemporary with portions of the House of Livia and the villa near the Farnesina! (Cf. A. E. Napp, Bukranion und Guirlande, Wertheim am Main,

1933, p. 36.) Herbig’s separation of the Villa Item and the villa of Publius Fannius Synistor by fifty to seventy-five years is equally incomprehensible (0). c/#., p. 151). Fora more plausible sequence and chronology

of Second Style houses see Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, pp. 21ff., 37ff., 348-351, and “Das chronologische Verhiltnis der letzten drei pompejanischen Stile,” /oc. cr.

Bibliography on the Paintings from the Villa of Publius Fannius Synistor in the Metropolitan Museum of Art Adriani, Achille, La nécropole de Moustafa Pacha (Annuaire du Musée gréco-romain, 1933—34—-1934-3§), Alexandria, 1936, pp. 36, 89, 94, 131, note 2, 180, and fig. 39. “Osservazioni sulla stele di Helixo,’ Bulletin de /a société royale d archéologie. Alexandrie, N.S., X, 1938-1939, p. 129. Aletti, Ezio, Lo stile di Ludio e Pimpressionismo ellenistico -romano, Rome, 1948, p. 19, note 2.

Alexander, Christine, “Wall Paintings of the Third Style from Boscotrecase,’’ Metropolitan Museum Studies, I, 1928-1929, p. 177. Ashmole, Bernard, in The Cambridge Ancient History, VIII, Cambridge, 1930, p. 696. Bachmann, W., C. Watzinger, Th. Wiegand, Pefra, Berlin and Leipzig, 1921, p. 23, fig. 16, p. 25, note Go. Barnabet, Felice, La villa pompeiana di P. Fannio Sinistore scoperta presso Boscoreale, Rome, got. Beazley, J. D., and Bernard Ashmole, Greek Sculpture and Painting, Cambridge, 1932, p. 208. Bendinelli, Goffredo, Compendio di storia dell’ arte etrusca e romana, Milan, 1931, pp. 363ff., figs. 282, 284.

Beyen, H. G., “Das chronologische Verhaltnis der letzten drei pompejanischen Stile,” Bericht tiber den VT. internationalen Kongress fiir Archdologie Berlin 21.-26. August 1939, Berlin, 1940, pp. 504-505. “Die antike Zentralperspcktive,” Archdologischer Anzeiger, 1939, cols. 47-72, fig. 13. Die pompejanische Wanddekoration vom zweiten bis zum vierten Stil, The Hague, I, 1938, pp. 89-247, and passim. “Uber ein Fragment ciner Wanddekoration mit Stilleben aus Pompeji,” Jahrbuch des dentschen archdologischen

Instituts, XLII, 1927, pp. 41ff., figs. 1, 4, $. Uber Stilleben aus Pompeji und Herculaneum, The Hague, 1928, passim. Bianchi Bandinelli, R., “Duce noterelle in margine a problemi della pittura antica,” La critica d’arte, V, 1940, p. 91. “Tradizione ellenistica ¢ gusto romano nella pittura Pompetana,”’ sbid., V1, 1941, pp. 5-6, 20. Bieber, Margarete, Die Denkmdler zum Theaterwesen im Altertum, Berlin, 1920, pp. 42ff., fig. 47. The History of the Greek and Roman Theatre, Princeton, 1939, pp. 251ff., 333, 341, figs. 344-347. “The Mystery Frescocs in the Mystery Villa of Pompeii,” The Review of Religion, 11, 1937, pp. 10-11.

- - - - and Rodenwaldt, G., “Die Mosaiken des Dioskourides von Samos,” Jahrbuch des Raiserlich deutschen archdologischen Instituts, XXV1, 1911, p. 15, note 6.

Brokaw, Clotilda A., “A New Approach to Roman Pictorial Relief,’ Afarsyas, 1], 1942, pp. 20, 23, 28, Pl. XII, fig. 5, Pl. XV, fig. 15. Bulle, H., Untersuchungen an griechischen Theatern(Abhandlungen der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philo-

sophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, XX XIII), Munich, 1928, pp. 273ff., 316, 320, 327, figs. 9, Io. Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, The, 1V, 1909, p. 14. Bunim, Miriam Schild, Space 7n Medieval Painting and the Forerunners of Perspective, New York, 1940, p. 25, note 46, p. 27, note 53, p. 30, note 67, p. 32, p. 44, note 14, p. 221, fig. 7. 174

BIBLIOGRAPHY 175 Caspari, F., “Das Nilschiff Ptolemaios IV,” Jahrbuch des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, XX XI, 1916, pp. 47ff., §5ff., figs. 24, 25, 28, pl. to p. 25. Cavenaghi, Luigi, “I dipinti di Boscoreale e¢ la loro tecnica,” Rassegna d’arte, 1, 1901, pp. 5 ff. Charbonneaux, Jean, L’art an siécle d’ Auguste, Paris, 1948, p. 43 and pl. 42. Cook, P. B. Mudie, “‘The Paintings of the Villa Item at Pompeii,” The Journal of Roman Studies, \1I, 1913, p. 172. Corpus inscriptionnm latinarum, \V, Supplement II, Berlin, 1909, 45432-5437. Cossio-Pijoan, Summa Artis, V, Madrid, 1934, pp. 357ff., figs. 501, 505, 506, 513-515. Crova, Bice, Fdilizia e tecnica rurale di Roma antica, Milan, 1942, pp. 193-194. Curtius, Ludwig, Die Wandmalerei Pompeyis, Leipzig, 1929, pp. 93-104, 114-123, 279ff., figs. 70-73, 77, and passim. Dalman, Gustaf, Neve Petra-Forschungen und der heilige Felsen von Jerusalem, Leipzig, 1912, p. 63. Daremberg and Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, IV, 1, Parts, p. 392, 8. u. pergu/a, and fig. 5567.

Dawson, Christopher M., Romano-Campanian Mythological Landscape Painting (Yale Classical Studies, 1X), New Haven, 1944, pp. 19, 22, 44, note 21, 48, 59-61, 63-64, 66 and note 75, 68, 71, 78. De Foville, Jean, “Tart décoratif romain,’ Le Afusée, V1, 1909, figs. on pp. 63, 71. Delbriick, Richard, He//enistische Bauten in Latium, Strassburg, 1907, II, pp. 169ff., figs. 115, 118. Della Corte, M., “Case ed abitanti a Pompei,’’ Neapo/is, II, 1914, p. 172, ft10, and note 4 (republished separately in Pompeii, 1926, p. 20, tb10 and appendix 47). “Leda e Latona,” Att R. Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti, N.S. XIII, 1933-1934, pp. 334-337Della Seta, A., [talia antica, Bergamo, 1928, p. 328, fig. 358. De Lorey, Eustache, he Mosaics of the Mosque of the Ommayads at Damascus, Paris, 1931, pp. 10ff. De Petra, G., Rendiconti della R. Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti, Naples, N. S. XV, 1901, p. 4o. Diepolder, Hans, “Untersuchungen zur Komposition der r6misch-campanischen Wandgemalde,” Mitreilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung, X11, 1926, pp. 12ff., 77.

Ii Giacomo, S., “Les fresques de Boscoreale,”’ Gazette des beaux-arts, 3 per., XXV, 1901, pp. 15-26. Ducati, Pericle, Die etruskische, italo-hellenistische und rémische Malere7, Vienna, 1942, pp. XXI-XXII, pl. 64. Italia antica, Milan, n. d., p. 696. Duhn, F. von, Pompei, Leipzig, 1906, pp. 74-75, figs. 29-30. Elia, Olga, “I cubicoli nelle case di Pompei,”’ Héstoria, X, 1932, pp. 394-421, passin. Fiechter, KE. R., Die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des antiken Theaters, Munich, 1914, pp. 42ff., 103ff., figs. 43-45. Frickenhaus, August, Dre a/tgriechische Biihne (Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Strassburg, Heft 31), StraBburg, 1917, pp. 48ff., pl. 1.

Priend, A. M., “The Portraits of the Evangelists in Greek and Latin Manuscripts,” Pt. I], Art Studies, VII, 1929, pp. 9ff., figs. 10, 13, 17. Gabra, Sami, “Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles de ? Université égyptienne 4 Touna (Hermopolis Quest),”’ _A#nales du service des antiquités del’F.gypte, XXXII, 1932, p. 60.

Gerasa, City of the Decapolis, cd. by Carl H. Kracling, New Haven, 1938, p. 77, note 17. Gerkan, A. von, Das Theater von Priene, Munich, 1921, pp. 110, 112-113. ----and F. Messerschmidt, “Das Grab der Volumnier bei Perugia,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen Lnstituts, Romische Abteilung, LVI, 1942, p. 190, note 3. Giovannoni, Gustavo, “Di una villa romana sul Lago Albano,”’ Ausonia, VII, 1913, p. 205, note 6. Gothein, Marie Luise, Geschichte der Gartenkunst, Jena, 1914, pp. 128ff., fig. go. Grace, Virginia, ““The Die Used for Amphora Stamps,” Hesperia, IV, 1935, p. 428 and figs. 9-10. Grimal, Pierre, Les jardins romains, Paris, 1943, pp. 249ff., 254, 299ff., 325ff., 406, 457, pl. XXIX, 1. ----and Julien Guey, “A propos des ‘Bains de Livie’ au Palatin, “AMé/anges d’archéologie et d’ histoire, LIV, 1937, Pp. 159, 162. Grinetsen, W. de, Le portrait, traditions hellénistiques et influences orientales, Rome, 1911, pp. 57-58, figs. 18, 70-71.

Flandbook to the Nicholson Museum, 2nd ed., University of Sidney, 1948, p. 343 and fig. gr. Herbig, Reinhard, “Zwei Str6mungen spathellenischer Malerei,’’ Die Antike, VII, 1931, pp. 142ff., figs. 3-4, 14-15, Pl. 17. Herrmann, Paul, Denkmdler der Maleret des Altertums, Munich, 1903-1931, Pp. 233. Hewett-Thayer, Harvey W., “Rilke and the Boscorcale Frescoes,”” The Germanic Review, XX, 1945, pp. 47-53. Hinks, R. P., Carolingian Art, London, 1935, pp. 155-156. Catalogue of the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Paintings and Mosaics in the British Museum, London, 1933, pp. XXXIV, XXXVIIFf. Horn, Rudolf, Stehbende weibliche Gewandstatuen in der hellenistischen Plastik (Ramische Mitteilungen, Erganzungsheft \),

Munich, 1931, pp. 14, 98, Pl. II], 3. Hunter, G. L., “The Boscoreale Frescoes,”’ Arts and Decoration, III, 1912-1913, pp. 406ff.

176 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE

Ippel, A., Der dritte pompejanische St], Berlin, 1910, pp. 15 ff., 26ff., 30, 48. Guf- und Tretbarbeit in Silber (97. Winckelmannsprogramm der archdologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin), Berlin and I.cipzig, 1937, Pp. 45. Pompei, Leipzig, 1925, p. 126, fig. 117.

Johnston, H. W., The Private Life of the Romans, rev. ed.. New York, 1932, pp. 162, 174, hgs. 109, 125. Klein, W., “Pompejanische Bilderstudien HH,” /Jahreshefte des dsterreichischen archéologischen Institutes in Wien, XIX—-XX, 1919, p. 270, note 5. Klumbach, Hans, Yarentiner Grabkunst (Ttibinger Forschungen zur Archéologie und Kunstgeschichte, XV1V), Reutlin-

gen, 1937, p. 79, note 4, p. 84, note 2. Kohl, Heinrich, Kasr Firaun in Petra, Leipzig, 1910, pp. 36ff., figs. 35, 37. Krieger, Hans, “Dekorative Wandgemalde aus dem 11. Jahrhundert nach Christus,’ M7ttet/ungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Rémische Abteilung, XXXIV, 1919, Pp. 14, Note 7, 19 and note 4.

Kunstgeschichte in Bildern, 2nd cd., Leipzig, 1913-1927, |, Das Alfertum, p. 162, 2. Levi, Doro, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, Princeton, 1947, pp. 24, note 50, 44, 46, 122, 144.

“Tarte romana,” nnuario della scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in oriente, XXIV-XXVI, 1950, p. 241.

Little, A. M. G., “The Decoration of the Hellenistic Peristyle House in Southern Italy,” American Journal of Archaeology, XX XIX, 1935, p. 363, note 4, pp. 370ff., pl. XLVI, 6.

“The Formation of a Roman Style in Wall Painting,” sbid., XLIX, 1945, pp. 137ff. “Perspective and Scene Painting,” The Art Bulletin, XYX, 1937, p. 491, figs. 4, 7. ““Scaenographica,”? The Art Bulletin, XV111, 1936, pp. 411 ff.

Lugli, Giuseppe, Architettura Italica, Atti della Academia nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie, Classe di scienze moralt, storiche e filologiche, ser. V1, vol. 11, fasc. 1V, 1949, pp. 192, 216, note I. M., G., “Actualités,” Bulletin des Musées Royaun, 11, 1902--1903, p. 63. Maiuri, Amedeo, “Isolamento dello cinta murale fra Porta Vesuvio ¢ Porta Ercolano (Pompei),’”’ Notizie degli scavi,

LXVIII, 1943, p. 314. La casa del Menandro e il suo fesoro di argenteria, Rome, 1932, p. 98. La villa det misteri, Rome, 1931, pp. 113, 115 -116, 170, 186, 193, 199-200, notes 115, 116, pp. 215, notes 20, 22, 218, note 114. Les fresques de Pompei, Paris, 1936, pp. 57ff., Pl. VIII. Marconi, Pirro, La pittura dei Romani, Rome, 1929, pp. 42-43, 67-68, figs. 43-44, 86-87. Matz, Friedrich, “Die Stilphasen der hellenistischen Malerei,’” Archdologischer Anzeiger, 1944-1945, cols. 95 ff. Mau, A., “Tafelbild oder Prospekt,” Mitteilungen des Raiserlich deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Roémische Abteilung, XVIII, 1903, pp. 223-225; ““Wandschirm und Bildtriger in der Wandmalerei,” shid., XVII, 1902, pp. 182ff., 185-194, 208-209, fig. 5. MeClees, Helen, The Daily Life of the Greeks and Romans, New York, 1941, pp. 25—26, fig. 27. Meéautis, G., Les chefs-d’ oeuvres de la peinture grecque, Paris, 1939, pp. 162ff., fig. 41. Metropolitan Museum of Art, The, 4 Guide to the Collections, Part I, New York, 1940, p. 36. Milne, Marjorie J., “A Bronze Stamp from Boscorcale,”’ Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, XXV, 1930, pp. 188-190.

Napp, A. E., Bukranion und Guirlande, Werthcim am Main, 1933, pp. 35-39, 41Nicole, S., “Les dernieres fouilles de Pomp¢i,’’ Gazette des beaux-arts, LIII, 1911, p. 32. Noack, Ferdinand, Die Baukunst des Altertums, Berlin, n. d., pp. 87-88, pl. 120. Odescalchi, Baldassare, “Le pitture di Bosco Reale,’ Nuova antologia, XCII, 1901, pp. 378-391. Pallottino, Massimo, L’ arco degli argentari, Rome, 1946, pp. §2, $4, 125, notes 182, 186. Panofsky, Erwin, ““Die Perspektive als ‘Symbolische Form’,”’ | ‘ortrdge der Bibliothek Warburg, 1924-1925, p. 269, Pl. VII, Ag. x2. Paribeni, R., 7/ Ritratto nell arte antica, Milan, 1934, Pl. CLXXV. Pernice, Erich, Hellenistische Tische, Zisternenmtindungen, Beckenuntersdtze, Altdre und Truben (Winter, Die bellenistische Kunst in Pompe, V), Berlin and Leipzig, 1932, p. 30. Pavimente und figirliche Mosaiken (Winter, Die hellenistische Kunst in Pompeji, V\), Berlin, 1938, pp. 11, 62, 128, 141, 171. Pompei, Leipzig, 1926, p. 57 ff., pl. XVII, figs. 35-36. Petersen, Fugen, “Antike Architekturmalerei,” Mittei/ungen des kaiserlich deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung, XVII, 1903, pp. 87 ff., 9off., 113-114, 122ff., figs. sa, b, c. Ara Pacis Augustae, Vienna, 1902, pp. 148ff., figs. 48, 49.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 177 Pfuhl, Ernst, Ma/erei und Zeichnung der Griechen, Munich, 1923, I, pl. IX; II, pp. 810-812, 818, 868-869, 878ff., 882, 886; LI], pp. 315, 324-326, figs. 707, 716-718. Review of G. Rodenwaldt, Die Komposition der pompejanischen Wandgemdlde, in Gottingische gelebrte Anzeiger,

Jg. 172, 1910, p. 792. ----and Karl Schefold, ausend Jahre griechischer Malere7, Munich, 1940, pp. 315, 324-326. Pickard-Cambridge, A. W., 7 he Theatre of Dionysus in Athens, Oxford, 1946, pp. 225-230 and figs. 89-92, 94. Reinach, Adolphe, Reever/ Millie/, Paris, 1921, p. 397, note 7. Reinach, Salomon, Répertorre de peintures grecques et romtaines, Paris, 1922, pp. 20, 33, 68, 191, 263.

Richter, Gisela M. A., Ancient Furniture, Oxford, 1926, p. 122, fig. 289. “Antike Perspektive,” Archdologischer A nzeiger, 1939, col. 73. Greek Painting, New York, 2nd ed., 1949, pp. 20-22. Handbook of the Classical Collection, New York, 1930, pp. 218--222. “Perspective, Ancient, Mediaeval and Renaissance,” Seritt in onore di Bartolomeo Nogara, Vatican City, 1937, pp. 281ff., Pls. LI, LIL. “Polychrome Vases from Centuripe in The Metropolitan Museum,” Metropolitan Museum Studies, 11, 19291930, pp. 202ff., fig. 16. “The Boscoreale Fresecoes,”” Bulletin of The Metropolitan Musenm of -irt, 1, 1905-1906, pp. 95-97; V, 1910, PP. 37-40. “The Boscorceale Frescoes in The Metropolitan Museum of Art,” Ir? and Archaeology, VII, 1918, pp. 238-246. Rizzo, G. E., La pittura ellenistico-romana, Milan, 1929, pp. 7-8. Le pitture della‘Casa dei Grif? (Monumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia, Sec. 111, Roma, fasc. 1), Rome, 1936, pp. 12ff., 27. Le pitture della ‘Casa di Livia’, (bid., fasc. 111), Rome, 1937, pp. 17, 22, 24, 42-43, figs. 17, 32. Robert, Carl, “Eine neue Studie iiber das antike Theater,” Deatsche Literaturzettung, XXXVI, 1915, cols. 1168ff.;

XL, 1919, cols. 871ff. Robert Fernand, Thymélé (Bibliotheque des I:coles francaises d’ Athénes et de Rome, fasc. CXIN11), Paris, 1939, pp.

83-84, 86, 94, 358, note 1. Robertson, D. $.,A Handbook of Greek and Roman Architecture, 2nd ed., Cambridge, 1945, p. 310. Rodenwaldt, Gerhart, Dre Komposition der pompejanischen Wandgemdalde, Berlin, 1909, pp. 21ff., 46-47, 82. Rostovtzeff, M., “Die hellenistisch-rémische Architekturlandschaft,” Vstret/ungen des deutschen adrchdologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung, XXV1, 1911, pp. 10ff., 30, 124.

Mystic Italy, New York, 1927, pp. 84-86, 167-168, Pls. XVI-XVII. ““Pompejanische Landschaften und rémische Villen,” Jahrbuch des Raiserlich deutschen archdologischen Instituts, XIX, 1904, p. 108, note 14, p. 124, note go. The Soctal and Economic History of the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1926, pp. 496, note 26, 503, note 21 and

text to Pl. X.

Rumpf, A., “Classical and Post-Classical Greck Painting,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, UXVI, 1947, pp. 17-18. Sambon, A., Les fresques de Boscoreale, Paris, 1903. Schefold, Karl, Dre Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker, Bascl, 1943, pp. 132, 212. “Vom Sinn der romischen Wandmalerci,’ Mé/anges Charles Picard, Revue archéologique, ser VI, XXXI-XXXIJI, 1949, PP- 942-945.

“Der Sinn der r6mischen Wandmalerci,’” | ermdchinis der antiken Kunst, Heidelberg, 1950, pp. 175-185 and fig. 57. Scott, Leader, “The Newly Discovered Frescoes of Boscoreale,” The Magazine of -irt, XXV, 1901, pp. 318 ff. Seltman, C. 1., The Cambridge ‘Ancient History, vol. 111 of plates, Cambridge, 1930, pp. 168-169. Six, J., “Een wandschildering uit Boscorcale,” Bu/letin van de \ ereentging tot bevordering der Kennis van de antieke Beschaving, 1, 1926, pp. 4, 7. Spinazzola, Vittorio, Le arti decorative in Pompei e nel Museo Nazionale di Napoli, Milan, 1928, p. XV. Springer-Michaclis, Manuale di storia dell’ arte (tr. by A. della Seta from the 8th German ed.), Bergamo, 1910, pp. 344, 431, figs. 616, 775. Springer-Wolters, Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, 1, Stuttgart, 1921, pp. 367-368, 451, figs. 718, 884. Stevenson, Edward L., Terrestrial and Celestial Globes, New Haven, 1921, |, fig. 10. Strong, Lugénic, Art in Ancient Rome, New York, 1928, 1], pp. 13ff., tig. 269. Roman Sculpture, London, 1907, p. 65. La scultura romana, Florence, 1, 1923, p. 46. Studniczka, Franz, 7ropaenm Traiani, Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse der kéniglich sdchsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, XX, 1904, t£4, p. 67, note 148. Das Symposion Ptolemaios II (ibid., XXX, 2), Leipzig, 1914, pp. 53, §8, 88, note 1. ““Imagines illustrium,” Jahrbuch des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, XXXVIVL-XXXIX, 1923-1924, pp. 64ff. 12) Lehmann ’

178 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE Sulze, Heinrich, AAQNIAOZ KHTIOI, “Ayyeaos, II, 1926, p. 49, figs. 5a, b.

“Zwei Gartenplane der Forma Urbis Romace,” Bericht tiber den | 7. internationalen Kongref fiir Archdologie Berlin ) 1939, Berlin, 1940, p. 514. Swindler, M.H., Ancient Painting, New Haven, 1929, pp. 327, 332-333, figs. 528, 537-538. Swoboda, Karl, Rémische und romanische Palaste, Vienna, 1919, p. 20, tig. 9.

Tarn, W. W., The Cambridge Ancient History, Vi1, Cambridge, 1928, p. 87. Technau, Werner, Geschichte der Kunst, Altertunt, \1, Die Kunst der Romer, Berlin, 1940, pp. 87--90 and fig. 65. Toudouze, Georges, “Les fresques de Boscoreale,”’ Les arts, 11, 1903, pp. 35 ff. “Tes villas de Boscoreale,”’ Le Musée, 111, 1906, pp. 162 ff. Vallois, René, L’architecture hellénique et hellénistique @ Délos, \ (Bibliotheque des Hicoles francaises d’Athenes et de Rome, fasc. CLV11), Paris, 1944, pp. 283 ff., 337ff. and pp. 393, 396-397. Van Buren, A. W., ““Pinacothecae,” Alemorrs of the American Academy in Rome, XV, 1938, p. 76.

Volbehr, T., “Kritik und Publikum,” D7e Kunst fiir Alle, XX XIX, 1923-1924, p. 117. Wigand, Karl, “Thymiateria,” Bonner Jahrbiicher, Heft 122, 1912, p. 75, $£7. Winter, Franz, Die Skulpturen (Altertiimer von Pergamon, V1\), Pt. 1, Berlin, 1908, pp. 74ff., 1376f., 302, 319. “Die Wandgemalde der Villa Item bei Pompeji,’” Kast und Kiinstler, X, t9L1-1912, p. §5. Wirth, F., “Der Stil der kampanischen Wandgemalde im Verhaltnis zur Wanddckoration,”’ Alitrei/ungen des deutsehen archdologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung, XL, 1927, pp. 25-28, 46, 56, note 2, 74~75, Hg. 3. Zschictzschmann, W., Die bellenistische und rémische Kunst (Die antike Kunst, 11), Potsdam, 1939, pp. 6off.

Descriptive Catalogue of the Paintings from the Villa of Publius Fannius Synistor in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Hall of Aphrodite Ashmole, op. c/t., VIII, p. 696; Barnabei, op. c/t., pp. 47-62; Beazley and Ashmole, op. ¢it., pp. 97-983 Bendinelli, of. c/t., pp. 363ff.; Beyen, Die pompefanische Wanddekoration, pp. 212-223, 314-315, and passim;

Bianchi Bandinelli, “Due noterelle,” p.91; Bieber, Review of Religion, pp. 10-11; Bieber-Rodenwaldt, op. cit., p. 15, note 6; Bulletin, p. 14; Cavenaghi, op. cit., pp. 5ff.; Cook, op. e/t., p. 172; Curtius, op. ¢/¢., pp. o8ff., 114ff., 279ff., 343, and passin; Dawson, op. cit., p. 19; De Foville, op. ct, p. 71; Delbriick, op. ct, II, pp. 169ff.; Di Giacomo, op. ¢7t., pp. 25ff.; Ducati, Die etruskische ... Malere/, pp. XXI-X XH; Griin-

eisen, op. c7t., pp. 57-58; Herbig, op. c/t., pp. 142ff.; Hewett-Thayer, op. ct, pp. 47-53; Horn, op. c’t., pp. 14, 98; Klein, op. cit, p. 270, note 5; Kohl, op. ciz., pp. 36ff.; Little, 4.JA., XX XIX, 1935, p. 363, note 4; /dem, sbid., XLYX, 1945, pp. 137ff.; Maiuri, La villa dei misteri, pp. 113, 115-116, 170; 7dem, Notizie

degli scavi, p. 314; Marconi, op. c/t., pp. 42-43; Matz, op. e/t., cols. 95, 97, 99-100; Mau, R. M., XVII, 1902, pp. 186ff., 194, 208-209; Méautis, op. cit., pp. 162ff.; Ml. M.A. Guide, p. 36; Odescalchi, op. cit, pp. 381ff.; Pernice, Iled/enistische Tische, p. 30; idem, Pavimente, pp. 62, 128; Petersen, Ara Pacis Augustae, pp. 148ff.; 7dem, R. M., XVIII, 1903, pp. 114ff.; Pfuhl, Malerei und Zeichnung, I, p. 1X, U, pp. 818, 878ff.,

882; A. Reinach, of. c/t., p. 397, note 7; Richter, Ancient Furniture, p. 122; idem, Art and Archaeology, pp. 243.3; 7dem, Bulletin, pp. 96-97; idem, Greek Painting, p. 20; idem, M. M. Studies, pp. 202ff.; Rizzo, Casa dei Grift, pp. 12ff.; ‘dem, Casa di Livia, pp. 17, 24ff.; idem, La pittura ellenistico-romana, pp. 7-8, 10, 41; Rodenwaldt, op. cit., pp.46-47; Rostovtzeff, Mystic Italy, pp. 84-86; Sambon, op. ¢/t., pp. 12ff., $£19-25; Schefold, “Vom Sinn der r6mischen Wandmalerei,” pp. 942-945; /dem, “Der Sinn der romischen Wandmalerei,” pp. 180, 185; Scott, op. c/t., pp. 319ff.; Seltman, op. ct., ILI, pp. 168-169; Six, op. cit., pp. 4, 73

Studniczka, “Imagines illustrium,” pp. 64ff.; Swindler, op. cit., pp. 332-333; Tarn, op. cit., VII, p. 87; Toudouze, Les arts, pp. 35ff.; ‘dem, Le Musée, pp. 166ff.; Winter, 4. ». P., pp. 74ff., 137.ff; tdem, Kunst und Ktinstler, p. 551; Wirth, op. c7t., pp. 25-28.

Nos. 1-3 come from the east wall of the Hall of Aphrodite and are described in the order in which they appeared if one moved from north to south, that is, from the rear wall to the entrance wall. Nos. 4 and 5 come from the rear or north wall of the hall, being two of the four preserved fragments of that badly damaged wall which was otherwise left i” situ. No. 4 stood on the entablature over the right panel of that tripartite wall, i. ¢., over the painting of the Graces; No.5 over the left panel representing Dionysos and Ariadne. Therefore, as indicated above, pp. 63 ff, these two shrine paintings do wot belong over any of the large paintings in the Metropolitan Museum, and Sambon’s frequently reproduced 181

182 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE reconstruction of the central panel of the east wall should be discarded as a misleading and | deplorable falsification of the available evidence. For attribution of No. 6 to the front or south wall of the hall see p. 26, note 6.

No. 03.14.5 Pirates ]—II] I

Ht: 1.88 m. W: 1.87 m.

A young woman holding a cithara across her lap sits on a throne behind which a little girl stands. She wears a dark, dull purple chiton and a white himation and is richly adorned with a gold diadem and a carnelian ring set in gold as well as boat-shaped earrings and bracelets of the same material. Her large dark eyes and curly black hair contrast with the chalky lights characteristic of her flesh. For these opaque lights dominate the greyed rose and lavender tones of her dull flesh save in her hands where lighter creams predominate. Her lips, too, are soft, greyed rose. Her black hair is parted in the centre, edged with grey-blue around the face, and marked with scattered grey-blue or brown strokes to give shape to a curl or suggest a lock. Her chiton is so dark as to look blackish with its greyed purple lights and blackish purple shadows. Loose grey lines define its folds and suggest the ripple of cloth on the floor. Her right foot emerges beneath these heavy folds clad in a yellow slipper bound by cream straps which cast lavender-rose shadows. The ample himation of rather thin material falls into folds suggestive of the forms beneath the drapery. Broad strokes of cream and varying shades of tan accented by streaks of grey-blue shape the mantle into long soft folds. The severe disintegration of both himation and chiton below the knees and over the right thigh reveals the ground beneath them and imparts an unintentional ruddiness to the white garment.

The cithara player neither strikes nor tunes her golden instrument. One hand rests limply across the strings; the other, with its extended thumb and forefinger, curls over the upper bar of the five-stringed cithara that is largely supported by the seat. She sits obliquely on a bright orange throne painted with golden circles and meanders. The back of the throne is straight, its flaring sides decorated with a cream-colored egg-and-dart pattern, its left arm supported by a nude figure half-kneeling on the turned leg beneath him. The lighter orange or blue hatchings slashing both legs and arm are simply a device for giving them shape, not an additional decoration. A third turned leg is dimly visible beneath the chair parallel to the right edge of the chiton, and the knob of the right arm is faintly seen just above the right knee. Here, too, the blue cushion best seen on the other side projects beneath the cithara player’s knee. Woven or embroidered borders and braiding of yellow decorate this pillow as well as a corner tassel.

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 183 The little girl behind the chair rests her hands on its slats in attitudes echoing those of the cithara player. Like her, she wears a blackish purple chiton, a golden diadem, earrings, and ring. Her curly black hair is similarly dressed and painted as are her strongly accented features. Her more sharply lighted face ts characterized by similar, if more exaggerated, tones, her arms and hands by a ruddy hue. Both figures seem to pause in their actions and look toward the centre of the room. The group is illumined by a rather flat light that seems to come down obliquely from above and to the right. The cithara player and her attendant stand out against a brilliant wall, the upper threequarters of which is scarlet, the lower quarter maroon. Where these two zones meet, the worn scarlet surface is paler and yellower in tone. The narrow area beneath the throne

between its third rear leg and the girl’s chiton is a deep ruddy purple; the foreground, varying shades of buff with an olive cast. Traces of black (i. e., fire?) mark it. The Doric architrave of the cream yellow entablature running around the entire room at this height appears across the upper margin of the painting, above the narrow strip of maroon shadow cast on the scarlet wall by the little ceiling behind this entablature (see p. 28). Fillet, guttae, and underside of the architrave are indicated by deeper gold shadows. The buff-colored projection visible at the lower right margin of the painting, where the broad maroon band above the foreground meets the scarlet background, is one of the lateral bosses of the column that originally separated this painting from the succeeding panel. Preservation

Cracks, incrustation, and insignificant patches are visible throughout the painting. The worn surface of the scarlet background, the severe disintegration of the garments over the cithara player’s right thigh and below her knees, of her right hand and arm are the chief additional imperfections. Whether the stone of the little girl’s ring was omitted or has flaked off, it is difficult to say. Illustrated in: Barnabei, op. cit., pl. V; Cavenaghi, op. c/t., p. 5; De Foville, op. c’t., p. 71; Di Giacomo, op. cit., p. 25; Ducati, Dre etruskische ... Malere7, pl. 64; Griineisen, op. cit, fig. 70; Herbig, op. c/t., fig. 4; Hewett-Thayer, op. c/t., frontispiece; Hunter, of. cit, p. 407; Marconi, op. c’t., fig. 43; Méautis, op. cit., fig. 41; M. M.A. Guide, p. 36; Odescalchi, op. c’t., p. 387; Paribeni, op. c/t., pl. CLXXV; Pfuhl, Ma/erei

und Leichnung, fig. 716; Pfuhl and Schefold, op. cit., p. 324; S. Reinach, op. c/t., p. 263, tt2; Richter, Ancient Furniture, fig. 289; idem, Art and Archaeology, fig. 9; idem, Bulletin, fig. 1; idem, Greek Painting, p. 20; zdem, Handbook, fig. 154; Rizzo, La pittura ellenistico-romana, pl. X; Sambon, op. cit., pl. 1, and

vignette; Scott, op. c/t., p. 321; Studniczka, “Imagines illustrium,” fig. 9, pl. III; Swindler, op. ciz., fig. 537; Toudouze, Les arts, p. 37; /dem, Le Musée, pl. XXVIII]; Winter, 4. ». P., p. 74; Wirth, op. e7t., fig. 3.

No. 03.14.6 PLatEs IV—V 2

Ht: 1.76 m. W: 1.90 m.

184 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE Two over life-size figures, a nude man and a heavily draped woman, sit together on | a double throne. The man looks toward the woman and leans on a golden yellow staff, his right hand resting directly on the short crossbar and clasped by his left hand. In spite of his relaxed position, the vigor of his fully-developed body, the turn of his head, and the position of his legs, one slightly forward, the other pulled back and resting on the toes, give an impression of tremendous potential energy. Destruction of the crown of the head and severe disintegration of the features prevent further comment than that the young man is unbearded and has short black hair. Warm flesh tones suggest a somewhat tanned body flecked with pink lights and hatched with ruddy purple edged with ash grey. The young man sits on a light mauve chlamys that is caught between his broad back and the throne, draped over his right thigh, and hangs down beside his left leg. The black lining of the cloak falling against the throne contrasts with the grey-white lights and black shadows of its lavender exterior. Indeed, disintegration of the surface over the right thigh causes the cloth to look grey with lavender lights. The monumental figure beside this vigorous man leans forward and looks beyond him with an expression of sombre, almost sullen, foreboding. She sits with her right leg crossed over her left and supporting her right arm against which she rests her face, at the same time leaning lightly on the central arm of the throne. Large, handsome features, great dark eyes, and a firm mouth are set in a face framed by black hair. Discoloration and disintegration have altered the original rosy-pink flesh tones of the face until creamy-white highlights and warm lavender greys predominate, but the finely-shaped left hand and right arm preserve their original tones. Her lavender chiton falls into deeply shaded folds ranging from light blue-grey to purple and black, and is largely enveloped by the heavy white himation veiling her head and swathing her body. The iridescence of this “white” mantle is almost indefinable, composed, as it is, of a subtle play of creamy lighted areas and an infinite variety of soft greys, lavenders, ruddy purples and deep purple-blacks in the hollows between the folds. She wears slippers best seen on the crossed right foot. Here the shaded purple sole and the criss-cross of black and white shadows indicative of the lattice-work slipper are clearly visible, and more intelligible at first sight than the present somewhat misleading tones of the left foot which rests on a low tan footstool. This footstool casts a purple shadow beneath it and stands on console legs. In spite of the patch interrupting the upper curve of the console and the fading of this region of the picture, these elements are all clearly definable. A carnelian ring with a gold setting worn on the lady’s left hand constitutes her only personal adornment. The double throne on which the two sit 1s divided by a central arm (the knob of which , appears beneath the lady’s hand) and supported by six turned legs. Four of these are visible, the remaining pair being hidden by the heavily draped figure at the left. The sides of the straight back curve boldly, the cylindrical arms slope to knobs with concentric rings and, where visible; rest on a griffon. The scroll seen above the panelled side of the

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 185 seat is of the same tonality as the throne and therefore a part of it. While the taupe of the back is cross-hatched with varying yellow and blue lights and shadows, the basic yellow of the throne is apparent in the frame of the blue panel at the side of the seat and in the right foreground leg, in spite of the slashing of cream lights and blue-grey or burgundy shadows. The remaining legs stand in varying degrees of shadow. Hence the greys that characterize them and the ruddy orange or purple shadows woven over them deepen as the distance increases. The tilt of the throne, the fact that its underside is partially visible (unlike the solidly placed throne of the cithara player), enhances the size of the seated fivures by raising them still farther above the spectator.

The group ts lighted obliquely from above, in front, and to the right. It stands out against what was originally a brilliant scarlet background save for the broad maroon band across the lower third. Beneath the chair, the background is further deepened to ruddy purple. Yellow and purple tones vary the violet-tan foreground.

Preservation

A broad, roughly triangular area across the upper margin of the scarlet ground and running down through the young man’s head is entirely restored. Although the greater part of this scarlet ground is discolored, the original tones are preserved around the outlines

of both torsos and throughout the section to the right of the man. This discoloration ranges from whitish to blackish tones and gives a mottled effect to the lightly encrusted background. The young man’s face, the area of the hands, the right thigh, and the legs below the knees have severely deteriorated, especially the right shin and foot which are only faintly discernible. The oval patch across the left foot is not to be mistaken fora sandal—the feet are unquestionably bare. Throughout the area of the feet and foreground, there are scattered patches. The cloak over the seat and the lower part of the griffon support have also suffered. As noted above, the woman’s face, head, and left hand are discolored and faded, as is the patched area of the feet and footstool. Illustrated in: Barnabei, op. cit., pl. VI; Beazley and Ashmole, of. c/t., fig. 208; Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, fig. 83; Curtius, op. cit., fig. 77; Di Giacomo, op. ci¢., p. 23; Griineisen, op. c/t., fig. 71; Herbig, op. c7t., pl. 17; Hewett-Thayer, op. cit., frontispiece; Marconi, op. ¢/t., fig. 44; Pfuhl, Malere? und Zeichnung, fig. 717; Pfuhl and Schefold, op. e7#., p. 325; S. Reinach, op. c7t., p. 191, +7; Richter, Art and

Archaeology, fig. 8; Rostovtzefl, Mystic Italy, pl. XVII; Sambon, op. cit., pl. I] and vignette; Scott, of. cit., p. 320; Seltman, op. c7t., ITI, fig. 169b; Studniczka, “Imagines illustrium,” figs. 13, 14, pl. III; Toudouze, Les arts, p. 38; idem, Le Musée, pl. XXVIII.

No. 03.14.7 Puates VI-VII 3

Ht: 1.00 m. W: 1.02 m.

186 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE A young woman clad in a white peplos and dull purple tunic and carrying a shield | stares wide-eyed and intent at something above and behind her. She stands spellbound, her forward movement arrested. Her up-turned dark eyes and parted lips are set in a heavy, rather coatse-featured face and framed by soft black hair parted in the centre, drawn together

at the back of the head, and hanging down behind her shoulders. Brown and blue-grey locks painted over the soft black mass, especially about the temples, give texture to the hair. Her face and neck are heavily shaded with greys and browns which overlie the rose and

white tones apparent in hand and arm. She wears circular golden earrings, a necklace of twisted loops, an arm band and serpentine bracelet of the same material. The curious purple tunic with its grey lights and deep shadows is marked by broad loose folds radiating symmetrically from a point behind the shield. It is considerably shorter in front than in back where it reaches below the knees. Two shadowy golden areas at left and right of the bordered peplos indicate the slippered or sandalled feet. Both this broad border and the vertical stripe edging the sides of the peplos are ashen in color against the white lights and lavender-tan shadows of its folds. The gilded or bronze shield which the young woman carries in her left hand and on which her right rests is round in shape, although foreshortening has given it a somewhat oval appearance. Its entire surface is overlaid with hatchings and cross-hatchings of many varieties of cream, rose, blue-grey, and purple to indicate the curve, burnish, and reflected lights of the metal. A ruddy-brown nude figure is reflected in the polished surface of the shield. He faces left and stands with his legs close together (the thighs are differentiated) and his arms extended in a limp, curving, oblique position. The right arm is an indistinct reflection above and parallel to the clearly defined left arm and, since it does not follow the direction of the shadow cast by the figure, is unmistakable. The fact that the lower part of the figure’s legs and feet completely disappear in the curve of the shield and that the more distant right arm is faint prove that this is a reflection and not an emblem attached to the shield. The figure wears a fillet about his head, his ruddy flesh 1s flecked with white lights and deep shadows, and his reflected body casts ruddy brown lights before and behind it on the gleaming metal. The brilliant scarlet background merges with the deep maroon band also found in the preceding paintings but is divided from the narrower maroon strip at the top of the panel by a clear line, as the broad maroon band 1s clearly separated from the lavender tan foreground. Traces of a blackish strip in the extreme left foreground appear to indicate a shadow cast by the column originally present at the left. In fact, the figure, too, 1s brilliantly lighted as if by a spot light shooting down obliquely from above and behind her. Preservation

The left half of the face is encrusted and pocked, the lower part of the skirt, feet, and foreground worn and faded, and the scarlet background is cracked, encrusted, and patched,

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 187 being expecially encrusted to the upper left of the figure. Otherwise, the painting 1s well preserved. Illustrated in: Barnabei, op. cit., fig. 11; Di Giacomo, op. e/t., p. 26; Herbig, op. cit., pl. 17; Horn, op. cit., pl. III, 3; S. Reinach, op. c/t., p. 20, $41; Richter, Art and Archaeology, fig. 7; idem, M. M. Studies, fig. 16; Rostovtzeff, Mystic Italy, pl. XVII; Sambon, op. et., pl. 111; Studniczka, ‘“Imagines illustrtum’’

pl. III.

No. 03.14.8 PLatE VIII B 4

Ht: 0.35 m. W: 0.35 m.

The left door and part of the frame of this fragmentary shrine painting stand against a yellow brown background visible in the upper left corner. The orange-buff inner face of the panelled door opens against and almost hides the green outer frame of the painting, at the same time revealing the blue-green interior frame. Within the picture, a seated woman and a standing youth appear before a chestnutcolored altar heaped with charcoal. The woman wears a deep green chiton under the soft lettuce-green himation which veils her head, falls over her back and right arm, and is wrapped about her legs. She sits, in profile, on what seems to be a purplish-red rock, her chin resting on her right hand, her left arm stretched across her lap, and she looks intently in the direction of the altar. She has auburn hair and extremely ruddy flesh flecked with pink highlights and occasional lavender shadows. The ruddy flesh of her ankles appears beneath the lower edge of her himation and may indicate that she is barefoot. Beside her, a lean-faced, broad cheeked youth completely swathed in a deep, bright green mantle faces the spectator. The folds of his tightly wrapped himation show that his arms are crossed beneath it. His imperfectly preserved head is dominated by his brown hair and the purple shadows of his eyes, his complexion being somewhat less ruddy than his companion’s. An enigmatic expression stamps his sensitive, rather melancholy face. The background behind these figures is divided into three vertical strips. To left and

tight, behind the altar and woman, they are a greyed yellow-rose; behind the youth, lavender grey. Whether this indicates the opening of a precinct wall or pillars it is difficult to say. The scene appears to be lighted somewhat obliquely from the right. Preservation.

The entire lower half of this incomplete painting 1s covered with whitish incrustation. The upper margin of the preserved surface below the triangular restoration across the top of the panel is blurred and discolored. So, too, the present lower edge of the irregularly destroyed painting is patched and the panelled door discolored and mottled by blackish

188 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE spots. ;\s noted above, the youth’s face is blurred. In spite of the reduced and imperfectly : preserved condition of this painting, its colors, where intact, are wonderfully bright.

No. 03.14.9 Pirate VILA )

Ht: 0.43 m. W: 0.42 m.

The preserved area of this second shrine painting is larger, including the entire width of the inner panel, half or more of the open doors, and the upper mouldings of the golden cornice on which both shrine paintings stand, 1. e., through the ovulo of the drawing reproduced in Fig. 24. In the present instance, the panelled shutters are greyed purple, the inner frame purplish brown. Again, a woman sits in profile in the right foreground. Her large rosy face rests on her

tight hand and she wears a brilliant orange-red headdress over her dark hair. Its soft fullness covers her crown and falls on her neck in a kind of flap. The remainder of the figure is invisible although an old photograph allows the outline of the right forearm to be seen, and the purple cast of the incrustation over the figure suggests that she may have worn a purple garment. To the left and somewhat behind this seated figure, a young woman wearing a purple chiton and a similar orange-red headdress stands almost facing the spectator. She turns her head from her companion and looks out of the picture pensively. In her right hand, she carries a putple-brown staff that seems to disappear beneath the upper frame of the panel, while her left arm crosses her body, her hand almost touching the staff. Pink lights and lavender shadows play over her rosy flesh and a lock or two of dark hair escape the brilliant cloth over her brow. Finally, the curving outline of her right leg 1s discernible. Between the figures and overlapping the lower part of the standing young woman, the

upper arc of a lavender-buff shield catches the light. Inasmuch as neither figure holds this shield, 1t must rest on some sort of ledge. From the right edge of the frame to the standing figure, the background is purple save for a central vertical panel lighted by dense streaks of lavender-pink that seem to shoot down like rays. They may indicate the upper source of the light that strikes the face and shoulders of the young woman from the right. To her left, the background is a greyed, greenish lavender. Preservation

The entire lower half of the panel is hidden beneath a heavy lavender incrustation. In addition, the surface is occasionally pocked or gashed down to the plaster, for example, over the centre of the standing figure and over the eye and forehead of the seated woman.

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 189 Illustrated in: Beyen, Dre pompejanische Wanddekoration, fig. 83; Curtius, op. e7t., fig. 77; Sambon, op. cit., p. 12; Studniczka, “Imagines illustrium,” fig. 14. These are all reproductions of Sambon’s falsified reconstruction for which see above, pp. 63 ff., 181f.

No. 08.26.4 PLATE IX A 6

Ht: 1.75 m. W: 0.432 m.

Somewhat morte than two drums of one of the unfluted Corinthian columns framing the

hall appear against a deep, ruddy purple background. The joints of the buff drums are painted with blackish purple bands separated by a grey-white line. Three of the four rectangular bosses projecting from each drum are visible, the lateral pair appearing in profile, the front one casting a purple shadow on the smooth shaft. The column was lighted from above and to the left. Preservation

The surface of this panel its cracked, patched, stained and worn. Illustrated in: Sambon, op. ¢7¢., vignette on p. 16.

The Cubiculum

Bibliography and general views: Pirates IX-XXXITI Adriani, La nécropole de Moustafa Pacha, pp. 36, 89, 94, 131, note 2, 180; édem, “Osservazioni,” Pp. 1295

Aletti, op. cit., p. 19, note 2; Bachmann-Watzinger-Wiegand, op. ¢/t., p. 25, note 60; Barnabei, of. cit, pp. 71-81, pl. 1X; Bendinelli, op. cit., pp. 363ff. and fig. 282; Beyen, 4. A., cols. 47-72, passim; idem, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, pp. 141-208, 306ff., 309ff., 315ff., fig. 56, and passim; idem, Jahrbuch, pp- 41ff., 50, 53; zdem, Uber Stilleben, pp. 6, 9, note 1, 40, note 3, 48, note 1, 55; Bianchi Bandinelli, “‘Tradizione ellenistica,” pp. 6, 20; Bieber, History of the Greek and Roman Theatre, pp. 251ff., 333, 3413 ‘dem, Denkmaler, pp. 42ff, fig. 47; Brokaw, of. cit., pp. 20, 23, 28; Bulle, op. c/t., pp. 273ff., 316, 320, 327, fig. 9;

Bunim, of. c/t., pp. 25, note 46, 27, note 53, 30, note 67, 32, 44, note 14; Caspari, op. cit., pp. 47ff., 55ff.; : Cavenaghi, op. c/¢., pp. sff.; Charbonneaux, op. c7t., p. 43, pl. 42; Cossio-Pijoan, op. cit., pp. 361, 368, 513-515; Curtius, op. c/t., pp. 38,1 14-123, fig. 70 and passim; Dalman, of. eét., p. 63; Dawson, op. c’t., PPp- 44, note 21, 48, 64, 66 and note 75, 68, 71, 78; de Foville, op. ¢t., p. 63; Delbriick, op. e/t., II, pp. 169fF. ;

Della Seta, op. c/t., p. 328 and fig. 358; De Lorey, op. c/t., pp. 10ff.; Diepolder, op. c/t., pp. 12ff., 77; Di Giacomo, op. cit., pp. 17, 23ff.; Duhn, op. e/., pp. 74-75; Elia, op. cit., pp. 16-20; Fiechter, op. cit., pp. 42ff., 103ff., figs. 43-45; Frickenhaus, op. cit., pp. 48ff., Pl. I; Friend, op. c/t., pp. 9ff., fig. 17; Gabra, op. cit., p. 60; Gerasa, City of the Decapolis, p. 77, note 17; Gerkan, op. c/t., pp. 110, 112-113; Giovannoni, op. cit., p. 205, note 6; Gothein, op. e/7., pp. 128ff.; Grimal, op. c/7., pp. 249ff., 254, 325ff., 406; Grimal and Guey, op. cit., pp. 159, 162; Handbook to the Nicholson Museum, pp. 343-344, fig. 91; Herrmann, op. cit, p. 233; Hinks, Carolingian Art, pp. 155-156; Hunter, op. c//., pp. 406ff.; Ippel, Der dritte ... Stil, pp. 15 fF., 26ff., 30; 7dem, Gufe- und Treibarbeit, p. 45; ‘dem, Pompei, p. 126 and fig. 117; Johnston, op. cit., p. 162, fig. 109; Klumbach, op. ci/., p. 79, note 4, p. 84, note 2; Kohl, of. c/t., pp. 36ff. and fig. 37; Krieger, op.

cit., pp. 14, note 7, 19 and note 4; Levi, “L’arte romana,” p. 241; Little, 4. B., XVIII, 1936, pp. 411ff.; idem, thid., XUX, 1937, p. 491; idem, A. J. A.. XXXIX, 1935, pp. 370ff., pl. XLVI, 6; édem, tbid., XLTX,

190 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE 1945, pp. 137ff.; Lugli, op. ci#., p. 216, note 1; Maiuri, Casa del Menandro, p. 98; idem, Les fresques de | Pompe’, pp. 57ff.; idem, Villa dei misteri, pp. 186, 193, 218, note 114; Marconi, op. cit., pp. 67-68, and fig. 87; Mau, R. M., XVII, 1902, pp. 186ff., 194, 208-209; édem, ibid., XVIII, 1903, pp. 223ff.; McClees, op. cit., pp. 25-26; M. M. A. Guide, p. 36; Nicole, op. eit., p. 32; Noack, op. cit., pp. 87-88, pl. 120; Odescalchi, op. ¢/7., pp. 383ff.; Pallottino, op. c/t., pp. 54, 125, notes 182, 186; Panofsky, op. c/#., p. 269; Pfuhl, G. G.A., p. 792; idem, Malerei und Leichnung, ll, pp. 810-812, 868-869, 886, III, p. 315, fig. 707; Pfuhl and Schefold, of. c/t., p. 3153; Pernice, Pavimente, p. 11; 7dem, Pompeji, p. 57; Petersen, Ara Pacis Augustae, pp. 13., fig. 49; 7dew, R. M., XVIII, 1903, pp. 87ff., 90ff., 122; Pickard-Cambridge, op. czt., pp. 225-230, fig. 89; Richter, A.A., p. 733 dem, Art and Archaeolog y, pp. 241ff., fig. 2; 7dem, Bulletin, p. 97; 7dem, Greek

Painting, pp. 20-22; idem, Handbook, fig. 155; idem, Scritti Nogara, pp. 381ff.; Rizzo, Casa dei Grif, pp. 12ff.; zdem, Casa di Livia, p. 22 and fig. 17; tdem, La pittura ellenistico-romana, pp. 7-8, pl. VII; Carl Robert, Deutsche Literaturzeitung, XXXVI, 1915, cols. 1168ff.; idem, ibid., XL, 1919, cols. 871ff.; F. Robert, op. c7t., pp. 83-84, 86, 94, 358, note 1; Rodenwaldt, op. c/t., pp. 21ff., 82; Rostovtzeff, Jahrbuch, p. 108, note 4; 7dem, R. M., pp. 10ff., 30, 124; Rumpf, op. c7¢., pp. 17-18; Sambon, op. ¢7t., pp. 21-25, 439-46; Schefold, “Der Sinn der r6mischen Wandmalerei,” pp. 182, 184, fig. 57; Scott, op. c/t., pp. 319ff., fig. on 319; Spinazzola, op. c/t., p. XV; Springer-Michaelis, op. c/t., pp. 344, 431, fig. 775; Springer-

Wolters, op. cit., pp. 367-368, 451, fig. 884; Strong, op. et., II, pp. 13-14; Studniczka, “‘Tropaeum Traiani,” p. 67, note 148; /dem, Das Symposion Ptolemaios II, pp. 58, 88; Sulze, “Ayyedos, p. 49; 7dem, Bericht, p. 514; Swindler, op. c/t., p. 327 and fig. 528; Technau, op. cét., pp. 87-91, fig. 65; Toudouze, Les arts, pp. 35ff., fig. on p. 39; *dem, Le Musée, pp. 172ff. and pl. XXXI1, Vallois, op. cit., pp. 284-289, 298, 310, 337-373 passim, 396-397; Wigand, op. e/t., p. 75, 4£7; Winter, A. v. P., pp. 302, 319; Wirth, op. e7t., p. 46.

FRAMEWORK PLATE X The original structural division of the cubiculum into forepart and alcove was indicated decoratively on the walls by white Corinthian pilasters placed in the four corners of the room and at the entrance to the alcove. Equal to the full height of the wall from floor to architrave,

these painted supports are today only partially visible owing to the fact that the joints between the seven sections of wall into which the mural decoration of the cubiculum was divided at the time of its discovery were cut through the centre of each shaft. The four corner pilasters originally fitted into place in such a fashion as to overlap the walls on either side, half of each shaft appearing to the left of a corner, half to the right. Like all the other elements of forepart and alcove, these creamy-white pilasters are presented in accordance with the spectatot’s viewpoint, the shaft bounding the rear wall of the alcove at the left being seen from its right, for example, whereas its counterpart at the right is viewed from its left. The shaded lateral faces of the shafts vary in tonality from orangebrown to deep maroon; the kalathos of their capitals is red. The fragmentary preservation of these pilasters makes it of little value to differentiate one from the other. It should be noted, however, that the bosses once present on the shafts of the pilasters marking the entrance to the alcove are partially visible on the left wall. The smooth shafts of the corner pilasters lack such bosses. Flat wooden strips indicate the original position of these pilasters in the present installation insofar as they are no longer preserved. Alcove and forepart of the cubiculum are likewise differentiated by their podia. The dado of each lateral wall of the forepart is indented to form a niche beneath the central

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 191 panel of the great triptych spread above it. Crowned by a golden cornice supported on modillions, above a purple frieze decorated with reeding and resting on a golden architrave, the wings of the scarlet dado (1. e., the portions to left and right of the central niche) are

further enlivened by horizontal turquoise panels animated by a frieze of alternating anthemia and archaistic winged female figures whose outstretched arms occasionally grasp tendrils. Conceivably, this sketchily painted frieze of white highlights and lavender-grey shadows indicates a relief. The niche in the centre of each of the two lateral podia is too badly destroyed to allow other comment than that its rear wall was apparently not scarlet but a light ground color. Both podia, like the unified scenes above them, are rendered on the assumption that the spectator stands directly opposite the central niche. The entire dado of the right lateral wall of the forepart has deteriorated to such an extent that the

| podium is best examined on the left wall. In the alcove, too, the differentiation of the rear from the lateral walls is maintained in the treatment of their podia. The rear podium simulates the appearance of rusticated masonty, rectangular blocks of rosy lavender alternating with vertical headers of dull black (on either side of the central stretcher) or mottled grey-green (at either end of the dado). The varying widths of the headers and stretchers in this course are obviously codrdinated with the fluctuating dimensions of the supports and intercolumniations of the loggia resting on the yellow-buff cornice running above it. Beneath this course, another, uniformly of greyed rose, is still partially visible. The entire podium is badly discolored. To left and right, the dado of the lateral walls of the alcove is composed of three courses of rusticated, burgundy-colored masonry above a fourth course of sea-green. The moulded golden cornice crowning each dado is separated from the burgundy courses by a narrow strip of lighter gold. Rustication is indicated on the blocks of the alcove dados, as elsewhere in the cubiculum, by a narrow rectangle two sides of which (one horizontal and one vertical) are drawn in black, two in white. The unified compositions on the lateral walls of the forepart and the rear wall of the alcove are each divided into three sections by two columns which separate the central panel of each triptych from the lateral wings. Like the Corinthian pilasters, these columns appear to support the painted architrave of the cubiculum. However, they are clearly subordinated to the pilasters for they stand on the podium of each wall rather than extending to the floor of the room. Each brilliant scarlet monolithic shaft rises from a calyx of gilded acanthus leaves springing above a greyed-putple Attic-lIonic base and 1s topped by a bronze Corinthian capital the leaves and volutes of which are seen against a deep burgundy kalathos. About each shaft is entwined a golden spiral tendril from which lesser shoots curl off into circular whorls occasionally terminating in blossoms set with purple gems. These tendrils are deftly created of essentially three tones—brazen gold, creamy lights and deep brown shadows—and are painted over the scarlet shafts on which they cast deep maroon shadows.

192 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE In fact it is chiefly owing to these streaks, curves, and flecks of shadow that the tendrils , gain their plasticity. Again, it is the deepening of the bright scarlet of the shafts on one side (depending on the location of the column in relation to the window) that imparts to them their roundness, a quality further enhanced by the broad streak of white running down each shaft from capital to base to indicate light striking its polished surface. The best preserved column stands between the central panel and right wing of the triptych on the left wall of the forepart. As explained above, pp. 88 and 172, only the base, calyx, and lowest part of the shaft of the column separating the left wing from the centre of the rear wall of the alcove was ever painted, and an accidentally shortened capital tops its full-length counterpart between the central panel and the right wing. Immediately behind each pair of Corinthian columns or pilasters in both forepart and alcove, a corresponding pair of deep burgundy-colored Corinthian piers is partially visible. | The architrave (the under face of which ts everywhere visible) is thus carried on paired supports. The lightened inner faces of these piers reveal their rectangular form. Only the piers paired with columns have bases; those matched with pilasters lack this element.

PORLPART The wide entrance to the cubiculum reduced the entrance wall to two narrow strips. The better preserved of the two, situated to the right of the entrance, may be summarized as follows.

03. 14. 13/A PLaTE IX B “

Ht: 2.44 m. (average height of sections A-G) Sharply differentiated from the spacious panoramas depicted on the major walls of the cubiculum, the reduced panels of the entrance wall pass unnoticed until the visitor 1s about to leave the room. For they reflect the solid wall off which the imaginary loggia of the cubiculum seems to open. Two garlands from which streamers dangle are suspended from bows against the scarlet ground of the central field of the wall. They appear to be similar in character to the floral garland lying over the curtain on the left wall of the alcove, but their worn condition precludes a positive statement. A grey-green moulding ornamented with an egg and dart pattern boldly modelled in black, purple, and yellow-cream crowns this central field which rises above a purple dado. The dado in turn is topped by a cornicelike member, a broad grey-green moulded strip split by a purplish-brown stripe, beneath a course of yellow rusticated masonry. Part of the original green base of the dado is visible above the modern wooden base board. The green cornice crowning the scarlet central field of the entrance wall supports an elegant metal amphora seen against four courses of rich purple rusticated stonework. De-

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 193 struction of the uppermost part of this section of the wall renders it impossible to determine

how it terminated. The slim oval body of the amphora springs from an acanthus calyx and stands on a substantial foot. Curved handles and a conical lid add height to its graceful form. Preservation

Cracked and occasionally patched throughout. Best preserved in the uppermost tier; most faded and discolored in the centre. Illustrated in: Sambon, of. ¢/t., p. 22.

03.14. 13G PrateE IX C 8

This matching strip of wall to the left of the entrance is identical with the preceding panel in layout. On the whole less well preserved than its counterpart to the right of the door, it is,

nevertheless, sufficiently intact at its upper margin to indicate that the purple masonry was topped by a white band in turn surmounted by a banded purple strip beneath a tan border, i. e., a decorative form designed to match the underside of the architrave visible elsewhere at this level.

The lateral walls of the forepart of the cubiculum are decorated with matching triptychs, i. €., unified compositions divided into a central panel flanked on either side by a wing. These walls will therefore be referred to in the following description as the left and right triptychs.

LEFT TRIPTYCH PLaTEs XI-~XIV 9

03. 14. 13F

Left Wing , Prates XII, XXVIA, XXXIA, XXXILA A pile of pastel-colored buildings towering up against a blue sky rises behind a lavender pink enclosure wall flanking either side of a monumental portal and entrance building. The Corinthian pilasters of this yellowish-tan portal are panelled on front and sides with a mottled brown-tan suggestive of tortoise shell. The leaves of the door, which are divided from each other by a bright cherry line, are similarly panelled, the upper panels filled with a scale pattern of brown on the light ground, the lower seemingly inlaid with the same tortoise shell. The lion’s head and ring handles attached to the lower panels as well as the umbilical pateras and studs adorning each panel are of silver flecked with white highlights and soft blue-grey shadows. Door and pilasters are crowned by a rich entablature in which a ruddy purple sculptured frieze is the most conspicuous element. Unfortunately, 13° Lehmann

194, ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE the sketchily indicated figures are not sufficiently defined in form or action to allow the , scene to be identified. Both dentils and flat modillions are visible beneath the cornice as are lion’s head waterspouts along the sima. The ground color is deepened to a pinkish-red in the shadows cast by such projecting elements as waterspouts and mouldings and these bright tones pick up and emphasize the scarlet kalathos or ground of the Corinthian capitals.

It will be noted that the entire panel is seen slightly obliquely and from the right, the assumption being that the spectator is standing opposite the central panel of the wall. Furthermore, the light is uniformly represented as coming from the right. Hence the many cast shadows visible throughout the left wing invariably fall to the left. This is nowhere better seen than in the present instance where the slightly projecting portal casts a rosy mauve shadow on the enclosure wall. The round altar beside the door is of smoky blue-grey stone mounted on a deep burgundy base, a color repeated in the surfaces above and below the uppermost moulding. The body of the altar is decorated in low relief with what appears to be a frieze of figures with clasped hands moving in a dance-like procession. Seemingly, a charcoal fire burns on the altar. The curious column standing slightly behind the altar is neither standard Doric nor Tuscan but a late Hellenistic variety characterized by a broad, low abacus, a somewhat bell-shaped, cymation-like echinus, unfluted shaft and Attic-lonic base. The light taupecolored column and its moulded base stand on a second dull purple base and the abacus is mounted with a deep red drum supporting a bronze statue—an archaistic image of a winged female figure wearing a girdled chiton and carrying torches. Knotted about the shaft is a mauve cloth by means of which two shrine paintings have been attached to the column as votive gifts. The maroon shutters of the paintings are open and reveal, in each case, a nude white figure against a grey-blue ground. Finally, light tan enclosures mounted on ruddy burgundy bases encircle the shrub and palm on either side of the entrance.

To the left of the portal, the lavender-pink enclosure wall 1s pierced by a scarlet bay window supported by yellow beams that cast deep brown shadows on the wall. The triple opening its divided by Corinthian pilasters and screened by a yellow-spiked purple barrier ornamented with pairs of pink and blue figures. Yellowish garlands hang from white stags’ skulls before the deep purple interior. The matt purple frieze of the entablature ts decorated with a faintly visible pattern—seemingly of garlands—sketchy waterspouts mark

the sima and a grey-blue rinceau springing from a central calyx fills the socle. Like the portal, the bay window is slightly visible from its strongly highlighted right side. Above the chestnut-colored building crowned by a lighter cornice pierced by lion’s head waterspouts immediately behind the portal, a group of five tower-like buildings appears. The group is dominated by the lavender-pink building whose sloping roof is covered with deep maroon tiles and edged by antefixes. A straw-colored ladder leans

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 195 against the front of this tower casting a tan shadow on the wall below and giving access to a door-like window. The yellow wooden framework and shutters of this window and the similar opening to the left are topped by light cream-yellow cornices covered with red tiles and supported by similar light brackets standing out against a purple frieze. As usual the interior space visible through the open upper windows is dark purple. The two flatroofed buildings in front of this tower, one characterized by small arched openings, the other by slit-like windows, are cream-colored, as is the similar building behind and to the

tight of the tower that is marked by larger arched openings. Fifth and last of the rectangular, tower-like structures partly visible behind the wall is the ochre-yellow, gableroofed building pierced by large, arched windows at the upper left margin of the panel. The light whitish-yellow lines covering much of the surface of this building are not to be interpreted as indications of reticulate masonry but are characteristic of the plastic modelling of these buildings and are discussed along with other similar phenomena in Chapter IV. Note, too, the bold ochre shadow cast on this building by the preceding tower. The beamend indicated at the apex of the pediment is undecorated; the akroteria are in the formof genitalia, unlike the other spiked akroteria or ornamental antefixes crowning the portal and

bay-window as well as most of the remaining buildings of this panel. But cf. the corresponding panels, the side walls of the alcove and p. 129. To the right of this ochre-yellow building is a two-storied lavender portico crowned by a spiked entablature resting on Corinthian colonnettes the lower two-thirds of which are engaged to the solid wall. The intercolumniations of the gallery are protected by a spiked parapet; the gallery, itself, appears to run over a cryptoporticus.

Above and beyond this portico, a rosy-lavender temple-like building standing on a cream-colored terrace or substructure crowns the scene. It is a hexastyle prostvle pseudoperipteral Corinthian building with engaged colonnettes on its flanks, and is remarkable for the fact that the prostyle colonnade appears to stand between corner piers. Between the cella and the pronaos is a stone parapet topped by a spiked grille of the same color. The extremely low-pitched gabled roof marked by conspicuous antefixes and the deeply projecting cornice supported by flat modillions are equally characteristic. Whether the cella door is open or non-existent cannot be determined. Beneath the projecting cornice of the substructure runs a matt purple frieze. The similarly-colored rosy-lavender Corinthian portico stretching off diagonally into the background runs above a high terrace wall. The entire portico is festooned by delicate scarlet garlands suspended from column to column. Its entablature is remarkable for the free-standing curved consoles which support the cornice and cast dark purple shadows on the frieze and for its genital-like antefixes. Between this portico and the temple-like building, a brick-red balcony supported on yellow wooden beams springs from a deep orange-brown wall. Corinthian pilasters or piers support the entablature with its deeply projecting cornice, modillions and dentils. 13*

196 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE A faintly visible spiked grille similar to that of the “temple’’ closes the front opening of . the balcony, a solid red parapet topped by a tannish yellow railing the side. Faint traces of gatlands are visible in the opening on the far side of the balcony. The flat roof, edged with spikes, bears a remarkable object: the lower part of a terracotta amphora standing on a square base and containing a plant that shoots up beyond its irregular, broken upper edge. A green creeper or vine seems to run up the far side of the balcony and onto the roof.

Finally, at the right margin of the panel, a tall rosy-purple structure rises behind the enclosure wall. It is almost entirely hidden behind the feathery foliage of an equally tall (birch ?) tree. Only its rounded upper edge and two short sections of obliquely projecting tiled roof are discernible. Preservation

The original surface of this panel ts intact save for cracks visible in the illustrations and a number of small patches. Chief among the latter are the blue circle to the right of the “temple” and above the portico; a large part of the entablature above the right side of the ochre-yellow building with arched windows; a portion of the yellow beam beneath the left side of the balcony; part of the foliage in the centre of the tree; small areas to the left of the left leaf of the door and overlapping the left pilaster; the area extending from the

upper right side of the altar across the shaft of the nearby column; a few spots in the turquoise foreground. Illustrated in: Bieber, I listory of the Greek and Roman Theatre, fig. 346; Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, fig. 61a; Johnston, op. cit., fig. 125; Marconi, op. cz., fig. 86; McClees, of. e/z., illustration on back of cover; Pernice, Pompei, pl. XVII, fig. 35; Petersen, R. M., XVIII, 1903, fig. 5b; Richter, Greek Painting, p. 21; ’dem, Scritti Nogara, p\. LI]; Sulze, *Ayyeaos, fig. 5a, and detail, sb.

Central Panel Prates XII, XXVITLA, XXTX A The central panel of the left triptych opposite which the imaginary spectator stands rises squarely before him. From this focal point, he looks obliquely to left or right at the lateral wings. But the central panel, itself, is seen head-on. Like the wings, it is lighted from the right. It shows a sacred precinct surrounded by a brilliant scarlet enclosure wall and entered through a purple-grey gate. The wall itself forms a recess large enough to contain certain objects used in the cult: a round altar and two benches. These objects stand on a low purple step in turn cut back to reveal the tan foreground on which three pomegranates and a spray of laurel lie. The purple step is strongly whitened on its upper surface; the narrow risers parallel to the picture plane are tan. The drum of the sky-blue altar is painted with white patterns to suggest veined stone and accented with a purple-grey band beneath the cornice. Faint flames rise from the burning coals on the maroon upper ring. The tannish stone benches have supports which

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 197 are curved toward the front, it should be noted, but straight at the back and stand on moulded bases stretching across the entire area between the supports. Elegant gilded or bronze hydrias stand on these benches, their half-fluted bodies rising from acanthus calyces, their lips decorated with an egg and dart moulding. They cast grey shadows on the strongly lighted surface beneath them. Both the frieze of the entablature crowning the scarlet wall and the course above the cornice are deep purple as are the shaded portions of the wall. The mouldings of these shaded sections are indicated in a whitish purple. The spikes crowning the lavender-grey gate are tan, the rinceau running across its horizontal panel gold. Within the enclosure, a bronze statue of a female divinity stands beneath a syz ygva or

two pillar monument. The goddess wears a quiver and baldric over her long, girdled chiton and carries torches. Fillets fall from her rayed crown, wind about her hands and drop over her arms. Ruddy shadows and white highlights enliven the brassy metal. The syz yea is of lavender-pink stone and its piers face inward. Again, the kalathos of the Corinthian capitals is deep red. The cornice, with its ornamental lion’s head waterspouts, is supported by a white griffon and griffoness against a purple frieze and marked by akroteria in the form of winged snakes. Above it, two weathered bronze amphorae stand on a red base. Purple fillets float from the handles of greenish bodies flecked with grey-togold highlights. Two garlands of laurel falling symmetrically from the red base are looped about the front of the piers and cross behind them. Yellow cloths are knotted around each pier while a black drapery suspended from shaft to shaft conceals the lower part of the statue. Finally, the mask of an old satyr hangs by a ring on a nail projecting above the fillet of the architrave. White lights gleam from his red face which is stamped with an expression of deviltry and deceitful cunning. Pointed ears show in the thin strands of his white hair. The black irises are encircled by white and set into blue eyeballs in turn encitcled with black, and the hollow of the mouth is black. The brows are bluish white, the hair and beard hatched with scarlet and shaded to ruddy tan. Tall trees flank the monument and foliage 1s also visible on either side of the statue and behind the wall stretching across the background of the scene. This is a continuation of the lavender-pink enclosure wall seen in the wings of the triptych. For a discussion of the precise physical relationship between the sanctuary of the central panel and the adjacent setting of the wings as indicated by this enclosure wall see p.113. Wall and monument stand against a grey-blue sky. Preservation

Apart from the filling of cracks, almost no repairs have been made to this panel save ; a few patches on the benches, the repainting of the left half of the purple step in the foreground and of the upper half of the leftmost pomegranate, and small patches throughout the foreground.

198 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE Illustrated in: Barnabel, op. cit, fig. 17; Bieber, History of the Greek and Roman Theatre, fig. 345; Beyen, : Die pompejanische WanddeRoration, fig. 61b; Bulle, op. e/t., fig. 10; Odescalchi, op. cit., p. 383; Pallottino, op. cit., fig. 21; Petersen, R. M., XVIII, 1903, fig. 5c; Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit., fig. 94.

Right Wing Pirates XIV, XXVIITA, XXXIB Inasmuch as the iconography of this panel and of the left and right wings of the right triptych is for the most part identical with that of the left wing of the left triptych, all three of these panels are described only insofar as they differ from the left wing of the left triptych. Differences of style and execution characteristic of the several panels and indicative of the work of different hands are not noted here. For discussion of these points see pp. 167ff. In the right wing which balances the left wing in the unified composition of the triptych,

the entire scene and its individual elements are seen from the opposite, i. e., the /eft side, since the spectator is still thought of as standing directly in front of the central panel. Here, too, as in the left wing and central panel of this triptych, the light comes uniformly from the right and casts shadows to the left. However, given the spectator’s theoretical position to the left of the right wing, there are, naturally, many fewer cast shadows apparent in it than in the left wing. Iconographic variants: The column standing in the left foreground supports an archaistic bronze statue of a female figure wearing a high-girdled chiton and a rayed crown and carrying torches. A fillet, falling from her crown, encircles each torch above the hand, then falls again. Crossed spears are thrust into the cloth knotted about the shaft, apparently one before, one behind, the shaft. Note the totally different fenestration of the lavender tower with a sloping roof and the absence of any ladder; the additional window on the narrow sides of the flat-roofed, slitwindowed building and the similar additions to the flat-roofed building with small arched

openings; the variation in mouldings and the ornamental antefixes of the flat-roofed building beyond the tower; the genitalia antefixes of the nearby portico; five rather than six columns before the temple-like building and its simpler grille over the pronaos parapet; the lattice-grille over the balcony parapet, and the absence of a garland in the far opening. The great building stretching out beyond the “temple” and above a high terrace appears to be the rear side of a portico. It is pierced by two yellow-shuttered windows and crowned by a cornice analogous to that of the big portico in the left wing. Between the tall building at the left margin of the panel—now virtually hidden by the luxuriant foliage of a cypress (?)—and the balcony, tall shrubs shoot up. Preservation

In general, the colors of this less well preserved panel are less luminous, its surface has

deteriorated in spots and is more cracked, and the patched areas are larger. The latter

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 199 include almost the entire base of the palm enclosure; a long streak running from the upper edge of this enclosure to the centre of the door; numerous patches on altar and door; a large patch on the flat-roofed building with arched openings immediately above the bay window; the corner of the substructure of the “‘temple”’ and the lower parts of the shafts of the columns; sizable areas of the sky and almost the entire turquoise foreground. Illustrated in: Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, fig. 61¢; Duhn, op. c7t., fig. 29.

The entire left triptych is illustrated in: Barnabei, op. ¢/t., pl. X; Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddeko-

ration, figs. 60, 61a-c; Bunim, op. c/t., p. 211, fig. 7; Caspari, op. c/t., fig. 24; Curtius, op. cit, fig. 71; Friend, op. c7t., fig. 10; Hunter, op. cit., p. 407; Little, 4. B., XTX, 1937, fig. 4; Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit., fig. go; Sambon, op. ¢7t., pl. X (mistakenly indicated on p. 22 as the right wall); Scott, op. e/7., p. 3203

Strong, op. cit, fig. 269.

1O

RIGHT TRIPTYCH PLatTEs XV—XVII 03. 14. 13B

Right Wing Pirates XVI], XXVIIB This panel faces the left wing of the left triptych and is particularly closely related to it

typologically. Nevertheless, the fact that it constitutes the rzgh¢ flank of the unified scene on the right wall causes it to be seen from the /ef¢ since, again, the spectator is thought of as standing opposite the central panel. The general composition or design of this panel, therefore, is closest to the right wing of the left triptych in that both are exact reversals of the left wing of that triptych. However, throughout the panels of this right triptych, the light is uniformly from the left, and shadows are cast to the right. For discussion of the logical lighting of the entire room see pp. 88, 95, 151. Iconographic variants of the left wing of the left triptych: The ornamental antefixes over the portal are clearly genitalia. The column standing in the left foreground supports a bronze statue of a female tigure wearing a girdled chiton and holding a patera in her outstretched left hand and a spear

(or sceptre?) in her right. The almost complete destruction or restoration of the shaft forbids conclusions about what, if anything, adorned it. The lavender-pink tower with a sloping roof has only one large window and it is closed by a sky-blue lattice in a ruddy purple frame. Below the ladder, a faint shadow is discernible. Note the slight variation in fenestration of the little building immediately above the bay window; the tiles on the roof of the other flat-roofed building with arched openings; the

genitalia antefixes on the smaller portico; the purple frieze of the pinkish lavender “temple”; the bluish frieze of the big portico against which the light brackets naturally do not cast shadows; foliage visible above and, seemingly, against lower terracing of this

gallery; the slight variation in the grille of the balcony; the cypress (?) masking the cylindrical tower.

Preservation }

200 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE

This is the worst preserved of the four comparable panels. The lower third of its surface is badly marred by cracks, severe deterioration and patches. Hence few statements can be made about the plants, column, round altar or the discolored, roughened surface of the bay window. The mottled surface of a large part of the panel as well as its large cracks are apparent in the illustrations. Illustrated in: Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, fig. 62c; Cossio-Pijoan, op. cit, fig. 513.

Central Panel Puates XVI, XXVITI B, XXIX B Apart from the fact that it is lighted from the left, the central panel of this triptych differs from its counterpart on the left wall only in the following respects: The offering laid in the foreground appears to have been of another variety not discernible from its present incomplete state. The bronze statue of a female figure wearing a high-girdled chiton and a himation and marked by a crescent in her hair carries a patera filled with indistinguishable small objects and a phallos (?) in her left hand. Her outstretched right arm seems to disappear behind the lavender cloth draped about the nearby pier. The garlands looped about the syz ygra are of oak. An evil, bestial expression characterizes the satyr’s mask attached to the syz yga. Animal ears project from his partly bald head. Stringy curls ranging from white to dull tan frame his brick-red face. Preservation

The foreground is almost completely restored or patched. The surfaces of the benches ate cracked, chipped, and have disintegrated, the middle of the left bench and the lower part of the bronze hydria on it being restored. The round altar, too, is cracked and mended. Although extensive patches, repairs and incrustation mark the area below the upper moulding of the altar, the remaining upper three-quarters of the panel is excellently preserved save for small patches in the sky. Illustrated in: Adriani, La nécropole de Moustafa Pacha, fig. 39; Barnabeli, op. cit., fig. 18; Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, fig. 62b; Brokaw, op. cit., pl. XV, fig. 15; Gothein, op. c7z., fig. 90; Hunter,

| op. cit., p. 408; Rizzo, La pittura ellenistico-romana, pl. VIII; Sambon, of. cit., vignette on p. 23.

Left Wing Pirates XV, XXVIB, XXX, XXXIC, XXXITB This, the left wing of the right triptych is now comparable in both composition and content to the left wing of the left triptych. Apart from the different direction of its light, it varies from that key panel in the following iconographic details: The ornamental antefixes of the building behind the portal are clearly genitalia.

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 201 The column standing in the right foreground supports a bronze statue of a female figure wearing a girdled chiton and carrying a fillet that curves from hand to hand. The yellow cloth knotted about the shaft is its sole adornment. (Note that this is the best preserved of the round altars. The Neo-Attic frieze of draped figures clasping hands is clearly visible in this example and, especially on the right profile, the projection of head and arm is marked. No coals are discernible beneath the short flames.)

Note, too, the fenestration of the tower with a sloping roof which is similar to that in the opposite panel, the right wing of the left triptych; the changed fenestration of the preceding

little building above the bay window, the less marked variation in the slit-~vindowed building, and in the mouldings and windows of the flat-roofed building with arched openings above it; the additional mouldings and lozenge-shaped window in the pediment of the ochre yellow tower at the left margin of the panel; the tonality of the smaller portico—blue-white with a bright blue frieze and more elaborate yellow grille; its genitalia antefixes; the sculptured bluish frieze of the “temple”? which has only five prostyle supports; the differing lattice of the balcony (like that of the left wing of the left triptych) and its lack of roof ornaments; the cypress (?) masking the cylindrical tower. Again, as in the right wing of the left triptych, the gallery of the great portico above the high terrace wall is omitted and what appears to be its rear side is shown. Here, the consoles of the entablature stand out sharply against a lavender-blue frieze. Foliage seems to rise up against the terrace wall. Preservation

Like the left wing of the left triptych, this panel is well preserved apart from its cracks, the patches in the sky and on the flank of the “temple”, on the yellow tower at the left matgin, and on the moulding of the building directly behind the portal. Illustrated in: Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, fig. 62a; Di Giacomo, op. cit., p. 19; Gothein, op. cit., fig. 90; Sambon, op. cit., vignette on p. 23; Sulze, “Ayyedos, fig. 5b. The entire right triptych is illustrated in: Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, figs. 6za-c.

ALCOVE PLatEs XVITI-XXV, XXXII

Right Wall PLaTEs XIX, XXXII B II 03. 14. 13C

A golden propylon beneath a scarlet wall precedes a courtyard surrounded by a mauve colonnade and dominated by a rose-colored round temple. Fluted Corinthian columns, seemingly of giallo antico with purple Attic-lonic bases and white capitals, and brown unfluted Corinthian piers support the richly carved entablature of the propylon. (The capitals of the piers flanking the central intercolumniation have been omitted, apparently

202 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE to prevent their overlapping the flaring roof of the temple.) Again the kalathos of the | column capitals is scarlet; a head marks the centre of the abacus. The bold ovolo of the deeply projecting cornice is reflected on its lower fascia which is supported by cream-colored

S-shaped consoles reaching up to the flat modillions and casting deep shadows on the matt purple frieze of the yellow entablature. Ornamental lion’s head waterspouts and regulae as well as cream-colored ornamental phallic antefixes and a cream-colored anthemion akroterion decorate the yellow raking cornice. The lavender pedimental ceiling is pierced by scarlet coffers, the deep ruddv purple ceiling of the lateral intercolumniations divided by lavender lines indicative of the individual beams. The under sides of cornice and architrave are shaded greys of varying intensities. Finally, the propylon stands on a

sky-blue step edged with white against which it casts greenish-blue shadows. | scarlet screen walls stretch across the lateral intercolumniations of the rear line of brown piers. The slabs forming these screens are rusticated like the blocks of the scarlet

wall above the propylon and, in each case, this rustication is indicated by an abstract system of black and white lines clearly visible in the accompanying illustration. Phallic symbols decorate the projecting cornice of the entablature which is white save for the soft grey-green frieze. The modillions visible against the ruddy tan underside of the cornice cast olive green shadows on the frieze below. The sky-blue step on which the propylon rests is cut back in the central intercolumniation and reveals a warm wood-colored ground. Here a gilded silver incense-burner of unusual form stands and casts deep shadows on the ground. Its silver half globe pierced with leaf-shaped openings springs from a cherry ring inserted in the upper moulding of the base. Two swallow-tatled handles hang down beneath the gilded egg and dart pattern of this moulding. Ring mouldings about the centre of the pedestal-like base divide it into an upper and a lower section, each ornamented with gilded acanthus leaves. Three of the four animal legs on which the ¢hymiaterion probably stands are visible. Beyond both this incense-burner and the brown piers marking the inner line of the central intercolumniation, two scarlet altars flank the opening. Two pears and a sprig of laurel lie on the capital-like top of the left altar, two pomegranates and a spray of laurel on the right. To the rear, a lavender parapet stands against a dull black curtain. As in the case of the similar black curtains visible behind the scarlet screen walls, this curtain appears to be raised or lowered by contracting or releasing the loops running across its upper edge. A garland of laurel ending in a cream-yellow fillet falls over the curtain and onto the parapet. Beyond the curtain, the Corinthian monopteros rises against a bright blue sky. Polished rose-coloured shafts carved with diagonally climbing tendrils support gilded capitals and gleam against the dark brownish-black interior space. The flaring, conical, ruaddy-purple roof, topped by a Corinthian capital on which a “‘baetylos” springs from a calyx, rests on a gailv colored entablature. Here, a purple frieze and gilded or bronze lion’s heads against an

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 203 olive-green sima contrast with the basic rose. S-shaped ornaments flanked by tiny spheres edge the sima. Sprays of laurel deck the cornice on either side of the central intercolumniation. Finally, the courtyard in which this tholos stands is framed on three sides by a mauve Tuscan colonnade. The slightly deeper mauve frieze is decorated with what appear to be sea monsters, the moss-green sima with bronze or gilded lion’s head waterspouts, and the roof with the customary antefixes in the form of genitalia. Preservation

Apart from cracks, this panel is excellently preserved. Numerous small spots in the sky and the pedimental entablature as well as one sizable place on the base of the thymiaterion

are pocked down to the plaster. The upper part of the “baetylos” is destroyed and the surrounding sky is patched. Illustrated in: Barnabei, op. cit., fig. 19; Beyen, A. A., 1939, fig. 13; zdem, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, fig. 58; Bieber, History of the Greek and Roman Theatre, fig. 344; Caspari, op. cit., fig. 25; Cossio-Pijoan, op. evt., fig. 515; De Foville, op. c#t., p. 63; Delbriick, op. e7t., II, fig. 115; Di Giacomo, op. cit., p. 21; Duhn, op. cit., p. 75; Kunstgeschichte in Bildern, 2nd ed., I, p. 162, 2; Mau, R. M., XVII, 1902, fig. 5; McClees, op. c7t., cover; Odescalchi, op. cit., p. 385; Panofsky, op. e7¢., pl. VII, fig. 12; Springer-

Michaelis, op. ev¢., fig. 616; Springer-Wolters, op. c7t., fig. 718; Toudouze, Le Musée, pl. XXXII,

12

Left Wall Prates XVIII, XXXITITA 03.14.13E

Apart from the difference in lighting noted above, this panel duplicates the preceding panel save in the following respects: Two large cones and a sheaf of pine lie on the left altar, two quinces and a branch of laurel on the right. A spray of laurel rests on the purple parapet and a floral garland to which cream-colored fillets are attached droops over the curtain and onto the parapet. The lower part of this garland is grey-green with tiny scarlet and white flowers woven into it, the upper part golden, with similar little flowers suggested here and there. The strip visible between the capitals of the tholos against the dark interior appears to be its curving inner architrave. Preservation

Among the sizable repairs to this extensively patched panel are those of the incenseburner; the lower parts of altars and parapet; the upper right margin of the nearby black curtain; the shafts of the two central columns of the tholos together with large portions of entablature and roof including the entire “‘baetylos” and adjacent portions of the sky; the entire sky-blue step in the right foreground; large areas of the parapet and curtain

204 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE in the right intercolumniation; the shafts of the columns preceding this parapet; the lateral : colonnades surrounding the courtyard; small patches throughout the left foreground and intercolumniation; discoloration and incrustation of the raking cornice and scarlet wall, and discoloration of the purple parapet and scarlet altars. Hlustrated in: Barnabei, op. cit., pl. X; Beyen, Dre pompejanische Wanddekoration, fig. 57; Curtius, op. cit., fig. 72; Friend, op. et., fig. 13; Sambon, of. ¢/#., pl. UX and fig. on p. 24.

ALCOVE

REAR WALL PLATES AX—AXV

13

03. 14 13D

Right Wing PLATES XX—XXII A tocky grotto fills the larger part of this panel. Streams of whitish-blue water falling from its ledges are caught in the trough of a buff-colored stone fountain and spouted into a broad basin by gleaming bronze pipes. The curving front of the basin 1s deeply shaded and slashed with brown between its supports and the entire fountain stands on a ruddy purple base set in a sea-green foreground. The projecting ledges of the grotto jut forward to form the arched opening of a deep, shaded cave. Wherever light strikes the upper surfaces of these ledges, they turn golden tan, while the smooth, cleft profiles of rock are streaked with a rich palette of color from cream through yellows and browns to pinks, oranges, maroons and purples. The left side of the cave is more heavily slashed with chalky-grey highlights which soften it and make it less angular than the sharply defined right side. The blackness of the cave is not a hard, uniform color being filled with purple and brown tones which, together with the loss of the original epidermis of the paint, produce the indefinable, impalpable effect of deep, colorless shade. Grey-blue streams of water splash down the rocks on either side of the grotto, spattering them into a gleaming, wet surface at the right and spraying onto the floor of the cave at the left. The mouth of the cave is overgrown with luxuriant tendrils of ivy whose yellowing lower spray is beginning to fade and tufts of grass spring from the rocky crannies. Near the upper left peak of the cave, an unidentifiable bird opens his beak to sing or peck. Farther below, a second, (woodchat shrike ?) perched on a leaf, seems to carry on a duet with a warbler on a rocky ledge at the right. A fourth clings to the rock at the left, opening his beak to catch the falling drops of water, while a kingsfisher warbles on the rim of the basin. To its left and faintly visible in the shade of the grotto, a bronze statue of a draped female figure looking to her right and holding torches aloft in her outstretched hands stands on a big grey base shaded with purple.

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 205 Above the grotto, a cream-colored trellis is outlined against a bright blue sky. Its arched top is covered with a grape vine from which clusters of ripe purple fruit hang down through

the trellis. The lavender tints of the front posts of this pergola are intensified to ruddy purple on the second posts of the obliquely seen sides and softened to grey-purple on the third. Additional shrubs (laurel?) grow behind both parapet and pergola (note that the lattice of the parapet is not intended to suggest either a ruin or disrepair, this effect being the result of blue overpaint added by the restorer). Preservation

Except for a chain of patches running from the left apex of the cave to the repainted lattice just indicated, and incidental small patches, this panel is in excellent condition. Illustrated in: Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, fig. 65; Bieber, Fstory of the Greek and Roman Theatre, fig. 347; Brokaw, op. c/t., pl. XII, fig. 5; Caspari, op. cit., fig. 28; Cavenaghi, of. cit., p. 6; CossioPijoan, op. cit., fig. 514; Daremberg and Saglio, /oe. cit., fig. 5567 (pergola only); Grimal, of. e7#., pl. XXIX,

1; Pernice, Pompeji, pl. XVII, fig. 36; Petersen, R. M., XVIII, 1903, fig. 5a; Pickard-Cambridge, op. cit., fig. 91; Richter, Bulletin, fig. 2; idem, Greek Painting, p. 22; idem, Seritti Nogara, pl. LI.

Central Panel PLATES XX, XXNITI-XXV This narrowest panel of the rear wall, one still further reduced by the presence of the window previously described, shows a pink arcade against a blue sky above a curtain and screen wall. A dove stands on the upper surface of the podium where the low step on which the colonnade of the rear wall rests has been cut back. The golden, almost mustard yellow screen wall running across the intercolumniation immediately behind the brown piers is topped by a brilliant scarlet moulding and decorated with a monochrome landscape modelled in either lighter cream-yellow or deeper gold tones. Whether this screen is of painted wood or carved stone, it is difficult to say, although the former is probably more likely. In its lower left corner, beneath the window, a river is spanned by a low, curving bridge supported by piers. To the left, a fisherman perched on a tock fishes with the rod in his tight hand and holds a basket and a second rod in his left. The prow of a ship emerges beneath the bridge which is crossed by two couples and one great, gangling figure who gesticulates to the fisherman. The figures are long-legged, angular and gawky. In the right corner of the screen, a barque moves across the water, its sails bellied out. The nearer shore (i. e., the foreground) is crowded with buildings: a rectangular tower behind a square building and, to the right, a gable-roofed building and a round tower. A porch-like structure and still another building run down to the water. People appear to stand before the buildings in the immediate foreground. Behind the boat, a second bridge is visible but the area above this and to the right of the window is either destroyed or patched and, therefore, unintelligible. Beyond this damaged region, the shore rises again. There, two people embrace each other in a position reminiscent of the Visitation while two others look and gesticulate toward the right. The remaining, upper-

2.06 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE most space of this rural river-side once more presents buildings: tower-like structures to which colonnades are attached, a temple-like building, a rectangular structure, and a bridge. The black curtain hanging behind this parapet serves as a backdrop for the transparent glass bowl standing on the scarlet coping. Its dull tones show through the white, blue and yellow of the clear glass and mingle with the gayer tints of the fruit within. Quinces, plums,

and green almonds garnished with sprigs of laurel are heaped into an inviting pile. The symmetrical position of both the bowl on the coping and the parrot perched on the curtain above should be noted (the line of the long-tailed bird and the arc of the curtain cross and balance each other). The arcade above and beyond this curtain slopes sharply toward the window. Its warm pink piers are connected by purplish brown bars and filletted bucrania mark the faintly lavender ground of the sprandrels. A deep purple frieze runs through the pink entablature which is crowned by irregularly spaced genitalia antefixes. Preservation

The lower part of the dove on the podium, the area in the centre of the screen to the right of the window previously indicated, and the left margin of the leftmost pier of the arcade have either disappeared or been patched. The surface of both the parrot and the curtain is worn and patched as is that of the sky above and behind the arcade. In addition, the latter is pocked and gashed down to the plaster. Illustrated in: Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, figs. 65, 66; idem, Jahrbuch, fig. 1; Caspari, op. cit., fig. 28; Cossio-Pijoan, op. cit., fig. 506; Grimal, op. cit., pl. XXIX, 1; Pernice, Pompe/, pl. XVII, fig. 36; Richter, Art and Archaeolog y, fig. 3; idem, Bulletin, fig. 2; idem, Scritti Nogara, pl. LI.

Left Wing PLaTE XXITI This panel is the counterpart or pendant of the right wing, seen obliquely from the right as it is from the left, since the spectator again stands opposite the central panel before the triptych on the rear wall. Therefore, so far as it exists, the left wing is a nearly exact reversal

of the right. The presence of the window, however, has not only greatly reduced the available surface and bitten into individual elements like the pergola and fountain, but has also necessitated certain adjustments in the design. Thus the central pair of birds is brought closer together, and one flies toward the other. So, too, the pergola is a framework lacking both vine and trellising. Description of these details is made difficult by the poor preservation of the entire lower right corner of the panel. Preservation

The lower right corner of this panel is either badly disintegrated or patched or has entirely disappeared. The entire rear wal] is illustrated in: Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, fig. 64; Curtius, op. ¢7t..

fig. 73; Little, A. B., XIX, 1937, fig. 7; Sambon, op. cit., pl. VIII; Toudouze, Les arts, p. 4o.

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 207 Miscellaneous Fragments

14 PLATES XXXIV—XXXVI Barnabei, op. cit., pp. 39-46, fig. 10; Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, pp. 227-241, fig. 87, and passim; idem, Jahrbuch, pp. 534f., figs. 4-5; 7dem, Uber Stilleben, pp. 13ff., 16ff.; Cossio-Pijoan, op. cit., p. 357, fig. 501; Curtius, op. c/t., pp. 94, 123; Dawson, op. cit., p. 61; Grimal, op. cit., pp. 299ff.; Herbig, op. c7t., fig. 14; Hinks, op. cit., p. XXXIV; Napp, op. c/t., pp. 35, 38-39, 41; Odescalchi, op. cit., p. 378; Richter, Art and Archaeology, p. 243 and fig. 5; idem, Bulletin, p. 97; Rizzo, Casa di Livia, p. 42; Sambon, of. cif., p. 11, cf. 4415-18, pl. VI; Schefold, “Der Sinn der r6mischen Wandmalerei,”’ fig. on p. 178; Strong, Roman Sculpture, p. 65; idem, S$ cultura romana, |, p. 46; Toudouze, Le Musée, p. 172.

No. 03.14.4

Ht: 1.96 m. W: 2.72 m. This large fragment comes from the left wall of the exedra, L, opening off the rear of the peristyle. The original centre of the wall is indicated by a sacrificial bull’s head from which a luxuriant garland of fruits and leaves is suspended to left and right against a brilliant wall of simulated masonry. Parts of four of the five originally scarlet rusticated slabs once occupying the central zone of the wall and separated from eachother by narrow strips of gold appear against a deep burgundy ground. A white moulding ornamented with a leaf and dart pattern shaped by strokes of yellow and henna divides this central zone from a course of rusticated blocks, alternatingly sea-green and gold, set against a scarlet ground and crowned by an elaborate entablature. Brackets in the form of bearded, horned snakes support the modillions of a white cornice, their forked interlacing tails burgeoning into trefoils outlined against the purple frieze and resting on the moulded white architrave. All mouldings of the entablature including the egg and dart of the cornice are, again, modelled in tones of yellow and henna, while the under side of the cornice 1s purple. The wall is presented as uniformly lighted from the left, 1. e., by the true light pouring in from the peristyle. Thus the deep purple shadows cast on the frieze by the brackets fall to their right, as the rustication of masonry is indicated by black or burgundy lines at the tight (and bottom) of each painted block, white at the left (and top). The projecting cornice, too, casts a band of shadow on the frieze. Although the brackets supporting the cornice slant toward the right as is customary on the tight half of such a wall, the open-eyed bull’s head marking its centre turns slightly to the left (see above, pp. 18f., for interpretation of this detail). The golden tan hide of this boldly modelled head is slashed with ruddy brown hatchings and white lights; powerful

blue Jights emphasize the curve of the polished horns; lavender-purple suggests the wetness of the muzzle. Decked with a white fillet looped symmetrically about the horns, it holds in its mouth a red cord by which a purple wicker basket hangs suspended. The lid of this czsta mystica has been removed to reveal its contents: a malevolent purple snake uncoiling its sinuous body from a leafy bed of deep green ivy. A white streak running over the reptile’s body accentuates its form and movement.

208 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE The garlands falling in an easy curve on either side of this bull’s head are partly sustained | by a broad white purple-bordered band loosely entwined about them. A satyr’s mask dangles

from a ted cord attached to the centre of the single nearly completely preserved garland to the right of the bull’s head while, farther to the right, a cymbal hangs from a similar cord. Snub-nosed and almost cross-eyed, this bald satyr with his goat’s ears and corkscrew beard is superbly painted in a free, pictorial style, his yellow-tan flesh modelled by broad strokes of purple and enlivened by white or cream lights. The deep, soft, grey-greens of this garland, lightened to silver where the backs of leaves are visible toward its centre or splashed with purple shadows, contrast with the brilliant ground. A profusion of sprays of fruit and their leaves are woven into the basically laurel body of the garland. Figs, grapes, pomegranates, and pears predominate in its luxuriant composition, while less recurrent elements like the sheaf of green wheat to the right of the mask or the cluster of pine cones to the left of the bull’s head lend variety to its form. Snake, mask, foliage, brackets, all are animated by an intense life heightened by the formality of the background against which they appear. Preservation

Only scant traces of the original scarlet of the large vertical panels are now visible. On the whole, these panels have turned soft rose and their lower portions ashes of rose, owing to the action of fire. However, the narrow strip remaining from such a panel at the left margin of the fragment has partially turned orange. In general, the original polished surface of the wall has disappeared. A large area at the upper left has been restored in order to fill out the frame. Additional minor patches and cracks appear throughout the painting. Nos. 15-17 come from the peristyle of the villa. No. 15 is a fragment of the angle column originally placed at the extreme right of the southern wall of the peristyle. Its garland hung across the short wall to the right of the main entrance, C. No. 16 comes from the second intercolumniation of the south wall to the left of that same entrance, while No. 17 once

stood on the podium of the narrow strip of wall between rooms N and O on the north side of the peristyle. Barnabei, op. c/f., pp. 21-35; Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, pp. 208-211, 315 ff., and passim;

Curtius, op. c7t., p. 94; Maiuri, Vila dei misteri, pp. 199-200 and notes 115, 116; Richter, Art and Archaeology, p. 243; tdem, Bulletin, p. 97; Sambon, op. cit., pp. 6-10; Scott, op. et., p. 319; Toudouze, Le Musée, p. 172.

15 PLATE XXXVII Barnabei, op. cit., fig. 5; Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddehoration, fig. 78; idem, Uber Stilleben, p. 13,

note 4; Cossio-Pijoan, op. cit., p. 360, fig. 505; Mau, R. M., XVII, 1902, p. 185; Napp, op. c7t., pp. 36, 38-39; Richter, Art and Archaeolog y, fig. 6; Sambon, op. cit., p. 8, +¢7, pl. V; Toudouze, Les arts, p. 35.

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 209 No. 03.14.1

Ht: 0.908 m W: 0.647 m. This fragment of a Corinthian column including the lower part of the capital and the upper portion of the shaft appears against a glowing maroon ground. It is lighted from the left, its basically creamy-white tones, visible at the left, deepening to burnished tan at the right. Correspondingly, the fillets at the left of the shaft are a greyed, yellow-rose, those at the right, soft maroon. The vertical stripes of the fillets, by means of which the fluting of the shaft is suggested, give sharp, plastic form to the shaft. The three broad flat acanthus leaves curling from the base of the capital are indicated in broad, sketchy strokes of cream against a yellowish-tan ground. Behind the capital, a sheaf of pale gold wheat and a cluster of pomegranates and theit leaves indicate the beginning of the great garland swinging from column to column at this height of the peristyle. The pomegranates, which range from dull orange to ruddy purple, are hatched with lights and shadows applied to a basic flat tone and outlined with whitishmauve, unlike the impressionistically painted grain. Preservation

Apart from a few cracks and the sizable patches present in three of its four corners, this fragment is well-preserved. However, the blackish tones apparent behind the garland and

the discrepancy between the generally maroon tonality of the ground and the scarlet originally indicated for this portion of the wall (see above, pp. 9ff.) suggests that here, as in the preceding fragment, the scarlet ground was less stable than the other portions of the wall.

16 PLATE XXXVITII Barnabei, op. cit., pp. 26-27; Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, fig. 79 b; Sambon, op. cit., p. 10, #¢12 and vignette; Stevenson, op. cét., I, fig. 10.

No. 03.14.2

Ht: 0.61 m. W: 0.397 m. A sundial tipped by a gnomon and mounted on a columnar base appears against a ground varying from grey-green to worn black. Its pinkish-tan globe is crossed by a network of maroon meridians; its gnomon is grey-white. The columnar base on which it stands varies from ash-rose at the left to maroon at the right. The contour and moulding of this flatly painted base are defined by line. Given Barnabei’s unqualified description of the background of this zone of the peristyle as black (see above, p.11) and the occasional presence of diagonally placed palms behind 14 Lebmanno

210 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE the miscellaneous objects standing on the podium (cf. No .17), it is conceivable that the greygreen strokes running in an oblique direction at the lower left of the globe and the greenish area to its right may indicate the original presence of such a branch. For the remainder of the background is, indeed, black. Preservation

A severe diagonal crack running from the upper right to the lower left of the panel as well as lesser cracks and pockmarks mar the surface of this worn fragment.

\7 PLATE XXKUX Barnabei, op. cit., pp. 28-29; Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, pp. 315 ff, fig. 79 a; 7dem, Uber Stilleben, pp. 56, 70; Sambon, op. c7t., p. 9, +8.

No. 03.14.3

Ht: 1.47 m. W: 1.17 m. An elegant copper vessel mounted on a square marble base appears against a background originally of creamy white. Its squat fluted body rises from a calyx of broad flat acanthus leaves and rests on a moulded foot. A flaring conical lid overhangs its wide columnar neck; delicate handles spring from its body. The flatly painted vessel is hatched with flecks of tawny cream and lavender-grey to suggest the play of light on its metallic surface. Handles, fluting, leaves are freely modelled of these flecks and streaks of color. The lid is somewhat lighter and tawnier than the ruddy body. Tawny, too, is the veined marble base standing on a yellowish-taupe slab above the podium. A flat mustard-colored palm streaked with rose has been placed in a diagonal line behind this vessel. To the right a silver oinochoe is faintly visible above a large mottled marble base similar to the one at the left. The original

width of this base cannot be determined. The warm subdued colors of these objects, all carefully toned to each other, create a subtle harmony.

Both the light ground of this fragment and the mustard band on which the white meander terminating this section of the peristyle is placed differ from the standard black ground and green meander described by Barnabei (see above, p.11) and present in the Louvre fragment. In the removal of this section from the peristyle, its meander border was partially cut off. Preservation

In spite of many cracks, this fragment is, on the whole, well-preserved. One large patched crack runs diagonally through the painting from the upper right corner to slightly to the left of the centre. The surface has been patched in several places. The lower part of the foot of the large copper vessel is no longer clear; the left third of the meander has

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 911 virtually disappeared; the foregound of the podium 1s thinly encrusted. The originally white ground, now mottled with a pinkish, greyish cast, seems to have been damaged by fire, given the blackish effect in the upper right corner.

18 PLATE XL

Barnabei, op. ¢/t., pp. 66-68; Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, pp. 242-243, fig. 90 c, and passim; Richter, Art and Archaeology, pp. 242ff.; Sambon, op. e/t., 4433 and vignette on p. 19.

No. 03.14.10

Ht: 1.54 m. W: 0.94 m. Fragmentary panel divided vertically into two sections by the tapering shaft of a golden fluted column having a purple Attic-Ionic base and standing on a projecting step apparently supported by a pedestal. A deep purple pilaster partially visible behind this column stands

farther back on the same white-topped purple step. Column, pilaster and pedestal are seen obliquely and from their left (i. e., the spectator’s right). The preserved left margin of the panel is bounded by a second column and pilaster placed at a slightly lower level. High up between the two columns, a scarlet cornice rests on flat modillions supported by curved brackets springing from leafy calyces. These scarlet brackets cast deep green shadows against the sea green frieze and alternate with the pinkish leaves decorating its surface. The scarlet architrave is decorated with a leaf and dart pattern. Above this crowning, two low courses of turquoise-green rusticated masonry are par-

tially preserved. Below it, a second low course of alternating gold headers and green stretchers of rusticated stone is separated from a vertical scarlet rusticated panel by a narrow band of purple. The scarlet panel is in turn separated from a black course by a large grey-green egg and dart moulding. Rustication is indicated, as usual, by a white line near the top and left of a slab, a black line near the bottom and right. To the tight of the first-mentioned column and pilaster, a similar membering of the wall is followed save that the single units are all slightly lowered in relation to those at the left. Thus part of a third turquoise-green course is visible above the scarlet cornice while the lowermost black section of the wall is less high than at the left. A narrow white vertical strip terminates the right margin of the panel. The entire fragment is lighted from the left. The inferior quality of this panel in comparison with the following two pieces leads one to suspect that it is a repair made sometime after the earthquake of 63 from which the house received considerable damage (see above, pp. 3 ff.) Preservation

In spite of its worn and cracked surface (especially in the foreground) the colors of this

panel are brilliant. The upper left corner is a modern restoration. , 14%

19 PLATE XLI :

212 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE

Barnabei, op. c7t., pp. 66-68; Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, pp. 242-243, fig. 90 b, and

passim; Richter, Art and Archaeology, pp. 242ff., fig. 4; Sambon, of. ci#., +435 and vignette.

Ht: 1.78 m. . W: 0.84 m. No. 03.14.11

The spectator stands to the right of an ivory pilaster barely visible at the left edge of the panel. To the right, the lower part of the golden fluted shaft of a column having a putple Attic-lonic base and plinth appears to stand on the moulded cornice of a podium. Cornice and moulded base of this podium are both grey-green. A grape-leaf appears to have blown into the room and adhered to the mottled purple surface of the dado. Such, at least, 1s the effect created by this painted leaf, for the dense clusters of light dots by means of which its silhouette has been depicted prove that this silhouette was not caused by the impression of an actual leaf but is a typical manifestation of Second Style illusionism. At the preserved top of the panel, a gold cornice rests on modillions supported by brackets in the form of whitish draped figures with outstretched arms springing from or forking into leafy tendrils. An inverted clover-like pattern with extended stem ornamenting the scarlet frieze alternates with these figures which rest on a gold egg and dart moulding. Beneath this moulding and the green and white meander topping the vertical scarlet slabs dominating the central portion of the wall, a rusticated course of scarlet stretchers separated

by gold headers set 1n a purple ground is followed by two rich mouldings, the upper decorated with a white leaf and dart, the lower with a floral pattern of purple and white (grisaille). The vertical scarlet slabs are rusticated, framed with grey-green mouldings, and set against a deep purple ground. An upper horizontal course of rusticated gold blocks and a

lower course of green separate these vertical slabs from the podium. The membering of the wall immediately to the right of the fluted column is identical. The entire panel 1s, again, lighted from the left, rustication being indicated by light lines at the left and top of slabs, dark lines at the right and bottom. Preservation

20 PLATE XLII This panel is severely cracked and somewhat worn along its outer margins.

Barnabei, op. e/t., pp. 66-68, fig. 15; Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration, pp. 242-243, fig. go a, and passim; Richter, Art and Archaeology, pp. 242ff.; Sambon, op. c7t., +434 and vignette.

No. 03.14.12

Ht: 1.94 m. W: 1.137 m.

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 213 This large panel, essentially identical in motif with the preceding fragment, need be described only insofar as it differs from it. The fluted column standing on the dado of No. 19 has been replaced by a panelled pilaster running the full height of the panel close to its right margin. Rising from a purple Attic-Ionic base, this ivory-colored, moulded shaft is inlaid with tortoise-shell and seen obliquely to the spectator’s right. A dark stripe runs down the foreshortened sepia side of the pilaster. Similarly, the modillions supporting the gold cornice are seen from their left (i. e., the spectator’s right), unlike those of No. 19 which are viewed from the opposite side. The under side of the cornice, here clearly visible between the modillions, is a brownish-purple. A narrow black strip running across the top of this cornice separates it from the beginning of a scarlet course. The moulded green

base of the podium terminates at the very bottom in a gold strip not visible in the less fully preserved preceding panel. The narrow portion of wall preserved to the right of the panelled pilaster is differently membered from the wall to the left save for its dado topped by a green course. Above this course, a rusticated vertical slab of gold set in a scarlet field is crowned by two courses, the lower green, the upper purple, beneath a gold egg and dart moulding. Yellow (left) and

green (right) rusticated slabs apparently alternate against a scarlet ground above this moulding. The uppermost portion of this section of the wall seemingly differs from that to the left, too. However, it is too discolored to allow a precise description. The entire panel is lighted from the right, as the lines suggesting rustication indicate. Preservation

The narrow strip along the entire left margin of this panel as well as the upper right portion of the pilaster are restored. In spite of its cracked, somewhat worn surface, the colors of this panel are brilliant.

Appendix The Owners of the Villa near Boscoreale.’ The villa near Boscoreale must have changed hands repeatedly during the one hundred and twenty years or so of its existence. But the epigraphical evidence, limited to five inscriptions, yields only meager information about its owners. 1) No facsimile has been published of the inscription Mario structor (Batnabei, op. cit, p. 15), but the form of the A as reported by Barnabei is in agreement with a date soon after the middle of the first century B. C. for the construction of the villa (see above pp. 2 ff.). 2) According to a graffito (Barnabel, of. cit., p. 14; CHL IV S 2, 5432), an auction took place in the villa on May 9, 12 A. D., an indication that it passed to 2 new owner in that year.

The remaining three inscriptions are: 3) On a bronze vessel found in Room 24: P. Fanni S ynistoris s(extarios) XXIII (Barnabei, op. cit., p. 19 and Fig. 3).

4) A graffito addressed to a Publius, the contents of which have no bearing on the question of ownership (Barnabei, op. cit., p. 14; CIL IV S 2, 5437; a new text is offered by M. Della Corte, Att Acc. di Arch., Lett. e Belle Arti di Napolt, N. S. XIII, 1933-1934, PP- 334-337). 5) A bronze seal in the form of a bronze bar 8.7 cm long attached to a ring which serves as a handle and is decorated with a winged caduceus. The inscription of the stamp reads from right to left: L; HER: FLO. According to G. De Petra, Reade. Ace. di Arch. ... di Napoli, N. S. XV, 1901, p. 40, it was found on January 15, 1901 in one of the rooms of the villa and hence does not figure in Barnabet’s account. An inaccurate drawing of the stamp 1 I wish to thank Phyllis W. Lehmann for valuable information. 214

THE OWNERS OF THE VILLA 215 was published by Sambon, op. céz., p. 2. The seal reappeared in 1930, when it was acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Accession Number 30.11.23 supra, Fig. 2, p. 5).?

Barnabei identified P. Fannius Synistor of the bronze vessel with the Publius of the graffito No. 4° and considered him the owner of the villa in 79 \. D. The issue was con- fused when De Petra, in casually mentioning the discovery of the seal (/oc. cit. above), maintained that the new document gave us the name of the owner of the villa which he consequently called “la villa di L. Herio Floro”’. Della Corte, in his study “Case ed abitanti

di Pompei’, Neapol/ts I], 1914, p. 172, accepted De Petra’s view without taking into account the inscription of Fannius Synistor.4 Sambon (/oc. ct.) and Miss Milne, too, regarded the man named in the seal as the owner of the villa; but they called him L. Herenntus Florus. Yet the invaluable material which Della Corte himself so ably discussed in Neapo/is II, 1914, and in the R/v. zvdo-greco-ital. III-TX, 1919-1925, affords ample evidence that inscriptions like that of Fannius Synistor cannot be easily disregarded. To give only two examples:

1) Reg. V, Ins. II: House of Num. Fufidius Successus (Della Corte, Neapol/is I, p. 335). a) Bronze seal: N. Fafidius Successus (No. 44 in Della Corte’s collection, Riv. indogreco-ital, \X, 1925, pp. 103ff.). b) Two graffiti: Pafidius bie and Fufidius (CIL IV § 2, 4244-5). c) On an amphora: N. bufidi Successi (CH. IV S 2, 5837). 2) Reg. VII, Ins. I, No. 7 (Strada dell’Abbondanza): House of M. Amullius Cosmus (Della Corte, Riv. ¢vdo-greco-ital, V1 2, 1922, p. 103). a) Program of election: (M.) 4mallius Cosmus cum |lanulario rog(at)... (CU. TV 737). b) On an amphora: AL. .4wullio C(os)mo (CIL IV 2626). It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the inscription on the bronze vessel indicates the name of the owner of the villa,® unless one takes refuge in the out-of-the-way explanation that Fannius Synistor was a maior domus in the villa and the bronze vessel his personal property. ‘\s to the date of the inscription, neither the size of the Y, which occurs in Pompeian

wall inscriptions of the last period of the city (e. g., in the name of C. lulius Polybtus, A, Maiuri, Pompei, 19388, Pl. XX XVIII, Fig. 71), nor the form of the F and the R indicate more than that the document belongs in the first century of our era. One might 2M. J. Milne, “A Bronze Stamp from Boscoreale”, BMIMA XXV, 1930, pp. 188 (with a photograph) and 190. This photograph, together with one of the back of the seal showing the caduceus on the handle, was also published by Virginia R. Grace, Flesperia, IV, 1935, p. 428. | am obliged to Mr. Dietrich von Bothmer, of the Department of Greek and Roman Art in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, for supplying me with a print of the seal and for calling my attention to the articles mentioned 1n this footnote.

7 On. cit., p. 20; in this he was followed by Della Corte, Att) Acc. ... di Napoli, 1933-1934, Pp. 334+ The name of Fannius Synistor occurs only in his conclusion in n. 4 of p. 172: “La villa adunque non di P. Fannio Synistore fu, ma di L. Erio Floro.” > But not necessarily in 79 A. D. when he might have been succeeded by someone else whose servants did not take the trouble of erasing the inscription.

216 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE compare the inscription in Zara, Htibner, Exempla Script. Epigraph. Lat. No.177 = Dessau, ILS 7167 a, posterior to 14.A.D., or Hiibner No. 135 = ILS 5004 (Pompeit, between 47 and 54 A. D.). There ts certainly no objection to placing the inscription of Fannius Synistor in the last decades of Pompeit. The seal of L. Her. Flo(rus) belongs to the same period. The letters agree in their form most closely with those of brick-stamps (more suitable for comparison than other inscriptions) datable in the years after or around 60 A. D., e. g., 984 (found in Pompeii), 986 a (Domus Aurea), 986 c, 992 Cc, 993, 998 b. The name of this man has caused difficulties. De Petra called him L. Herius Florus and so did Della Corte (see above), while Sambon and Miss Milne preferred Herennius. This controversy at least can be settled. The gens Herennia was prominent in Pompeit (Miinzer, Ri: VIIT 1, p.664 n. 12; cf. also Della Corte, Neapolis HW, p. 307 n. 5). According to Pliny

(Nat. Hist. 1 137), a decurio of Pompeit named M. Herenntus was killed by lightning in 63 B. C. On the other hand, no Hertus has so far turned up in Pompei. In CL X the ratio of Herennii to Herit is 70 to 20. It is true that Herius figures in Conway’s list of Campanian names (Italic Dialects, Cambridge, 1897, p. 571), but so does Herennius, and Herennuleius (Pompett: CIL X 2, 8058, 39) is surely lacking only through an oversight. Two incontestable cases show that the abbreviation Her. stands for Her(ennius): 1) Numerous stamps of the form Af. Her. Pic. or Picen. of M. Herennius M. F. Picens, consul suffectus in 1 A. D. and proconsul of Asia, appear on amphoras which have been found in Rome (CIL XV 2, 3466), in the region of Modena and Reggio nell’Emilia (CIL XI 2, 6695, 49), in Aquileia and Cividale (CIL V 2, 8112, 44), in Athens (CIL III S 1, 7309, 10), and in Carthage (CLL VIII 2, 10477, 4). 2) The Roman brick-stamp CYL XV 1, 1181 a: Cosma M. Her. Pol. ser. stands for Cosa M. Her(enni) Pol(lionis) ser(vi), as shown by 1179-1180. Herenntus Pollio is known from

Pliny, Ep. IV 9, 14. The bronze seal of Boscoreale must be read therefore L. Her(enni) Flo(ri). It may be of

some interest that a father and his son, both with exactly the same name, occur on a tombstone which, now lost, was seen in Naples in the sixteenth century and, therefore, was probably of Campanian origin.’ The date of this inscription is not reported, but it is of coutse possible that these two people were related to the Florus from the villa of Boscoreale. L. Herennius Florus may well have been an owner of the villa, but it should be remember-

ed that the discovery of bronze seals alone, if not supported by further evidence, is hardly sufficient to make such a conclusion certain. Is it really safe to see in L. Sepunius Amphio, 5 Cf. about him Groag, RE VIII 1, p. 675 n. 34.

*CIL X 1, 2506: D. M./L. Herennio | L. fil(io) Floro, | vix(it) a(nnum) I, m(enses) XI, dues) XVI L. Herennius Florus | et Cl(audia) Prisca par(ent)es. Cf. Milne, Joc. cz#., (in n. 2), p. 190. Mommsen refers the inscription to Puteoli.

THE OWNERS OF THE VILLA 217 C. Stlaccius Epitynchanus and Titinia Saturnina joint owners of the house of M. Pupius Ruphus (CIL IV S 2, 4615) in which their seals were discovered ?8 Nor, to refer to an even ‘more striking analogy, has a satisfactory explanation been offered as yet for the occurrence

of three seals bearing the names of L. Brittius Eros, L. Caecilius Aphrodisius, and Ti. Claudius Amphio, in the villa of Boscoreale excavated in Pisanella in 1894/95. All three of them are freedmen of different masters. It is more than doubtful that the villa belonged to any of them.® Thus in our case also it will be better if we resign ourselves to a non 4iquet. But whether the villa of Boscoreale belonged to P. Fannius Synistor in 79 A. D. or had passed into the

hands of L. Herennius Florus, matters less than the question the answer to which we would most like to know — who built the villa? Herbert Bloch 8 Reg. VI, Ins. XV, Vicolo dei Vetti 5; cf. Della Corte, Neapo/zs 11, p. 308. ® Héron de Villefosse, Le Tresor de Boscoreale, Fondation Piot V, 1899, p. 26, n. 4, rightly comments: “La théorie qui consiste 4 reconnaitre sur les sceaux recueillis dans les maisons de Pompéi les noms des propriétaires de ces maisons n’est donc pas applicable a la villa de Boscoreale. Ce n’est pas la premiére fois qu’elle est infirmée.” Cf. Della Corte, Neapo/is II, p. 170 and A. Maiuri, La Casa del Menandro, I, 1932, p. 227, n. 16,

. re. * ones. Oe Eee a ~ J p* as 4 ° iy gt “ “ i :
Sk : £. ex aa2=xSo ‘ad } 4: ~7pie

mmae aw|.. eS J 1 -a“~ Slee : tas ‘ ~\Aer of ‘ge : o> Se Gre . wr vet ? Sas Fi ‘< “ ie x 2 a . ‘ f 4 ‘4 Ny “gan » = yr “a “ay ny pa Les a ee Se Piet oe 4 ,is odby “a a.ie aA.“a gy a Nene So ys ; “f a a t-| ous PYG? op 5 NP GR Mite ae . a , . aoe 5% = : Pan :

s i | , "hay ™TR 4 ~ ie : ee. a a :tt aeae-: ag * * ’ . oe ; ooweean Weeete ee vet |

-aea 7 a Pia | Oe ‘4 meee & Rs pad ~ Ay

. this ah eee “2 alti a . ne! * » i | “an. Tan iy - Ms oom

et —— .Tee PAF “ss Sa | . ‘ Eg! ; ay See

lo p. 3: | am informed by Olga Elia that two small unpublished panels (Acc. Nos. 8758, 8763) exhibited with the Boscoreale paintings in the National Museum in Naples come from the villa of Publius Fannius Synistor, although they entered the Museum at a later date than the majority of the panels. If so, it is tempting to ascribe them to the previously mentioned restoration of the outer courtyard of the villa early in the first century A.D., given the fact that they obviously belonged to a Third Style dado decorated with birds, plants and vessels.

lo p.11: During the printing of this volume, Professor Amedeo Maiuri has very kindly provided me with the photograph reproduced here of the previously unpublished fragment from the peristyle cited in Note 30 (Ruesch, op. cit., 4907; Elia, op. cét., +£379). lo pp. 122, 159: In a prospectus issued in 1935 for a proposed but never published fascicle of the Mlonumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia on Le pitture di natura morta, G. E. Rizzo alluded

to the cubiculum from Boscoreale, pointing out the significance of the glass fruit bow] (mistakenly described as blue). He, too, I am glad to see, had observed the analogy between the painted ¢/ymiateria in the alcove and the fine example from Tarentum illustrated in Fig. 66. For refutation of his opinion that the Second Style was Hellenistic see Chapter IV, passzm.

General Index Abdalonymos 60, n.133 Antimachos l of Bactria 36 Abobas 79, n. 204 Antioch-on-the-Orontes 73, n.182—. mosaics from: acanthus 85 ff.; 122; 156; 158; 191f.; 197; 202; 209f. 41f.; 55, n.1073; 60, n. 132; 69

Accius 33,66 1.23 Aoos 80, 79, 1.204 Achcloos Apelles n. 209 Achradina 12, 0.33 Aphaka 6of.; 73

Adonia 41;42,n.58; 47ff.; 54ff.; 55,n.1073 57,n.119; Aphrodisias (Caria) 67, n.154 60; 63; 67; 73 ff.; 76ff.; 125 ff.; 127,n.191;128,n.194 Aphrodite 23-81; 115,n.135; 119-130; 157; 165ff.;

adoniasmos 49f. 167, N.114; 181; 183-185; 187f. — armed: 59 ff. — Adoniastai 47,.77 paintings of: 29 ff.; 38 ff.; 69 and n.170; 123; 144 —

adonidia 49f. statues of: 67,1.153; 73,n.182; 119 — see also:

Adonis 23~813 115,N.135; 139 ff.; 165ff.; 181; 183-185; Byblos; tvory plaques; lamps; mirrors; mosaics; Myr-

187 — paintings of: 29ff.; 38ff.; 69; 123; 144 — ina; sarcophagi (Adonis); terracotta figurines; vases ;—

statue of: 76, n.187—see alse Byblos; Dura;ivory -Ariadne 68,n.163- -Urania 59 ff. plaques; mirrors; mosaics; Rome, Palazzo Spada; Apollo 55, n.108; 112, n.1213 159,n.94

sarcophagi; vascs Apollonios Nestoros 146

Adonis gardens 40, n.52; 47f.; 79; 125-128; 154; 196 apotheosis 118, n.150

Adonis River 66 Aquincum, altar from 79, n.205; 81, n.211

Aegae, Temple of Apollo Chresterios 159, n.94 Arak cl Emir, Palace of Kasr el Abd = 86, n. 12

aerial perspective see perspective arcades 88; 117; 155 ff.; 160f.; 205 f.

after life 118,n.148 archaistic figures 853; 191; 194; 198 Agamemnon 56 Archelaos of Priene, relicf of 50, n.95 agricultural implements 5; 7; 99 —- products 101 architecture, late Republican 6 ff.; 25 ff.; 79; 99ff.; 117, Aion 76,n.187 Mn.142, 1453; 123; 124, n.177; 138f.; 1573 161

Aison 50, 1.95 Ares n.66; 62,40n. 136 Akarnania, coinsof 11246, Argonauts akroteria-antefixes 109; 129f.; 171; 1953; 197 ff. Argos 40, .513 79, n. 203

alabastron 69 Ariadne 29; 333 64; 68, n.163; 181

Alatri, akropolis wall 130, n. 203 Aristotle 33, n. 23

Albano, villa at 124 Arsinoe (Fayoum) 47 ff. alcoves 21.56; 25,n.5; 51f.; 83ff.; 88ff.; 114-131; Arsinoe (queen) 47

147f.; 152; 155; 1§8f.; 160, n.100; 161, n.104; 162, Artemis 62, n.136; 104, n.86; 109; 1253; 128f.; 197 —

n.105; 165; 168; r90f.; 201-206 -Hekate 98 — see a/so Diana Lucina

Alexander the Great Gof., 80, n. 209; 86 Asklepios 37, n.38; 119, 1.153

Alexandria (Caria) 67, n.153 Astarte 54; 62, n.136; 121, n.162

Alexandria (Egypt) cult of Adonis: 47ff.; 76,n.187; Athena 37, n.38; 54, n.102; 62, n.136; 81, n.214 79; 80,n.206; 126,n.189 — Musée gréco-romain: Athens 77; 145 —- National Muscum: archaic base stele of Helixo 137,n.19 — nekropoleis: 122f.; 137,n.17 — Aristion stele 137, n. 17 — grave stelai

157f.; 160, n.g7 — see a/so Egypt, architecture 143 — relief of Telete r11,n.118; 112,n.121 —

altars 65; 79,1n.205; 81,n.211; 87; 89; 96,n.47; 98; Sanctuary of Aphrodite: 129, n.200 106, n.94; I10; 114; 122f.; 128, n.197; 136; 137, Atunis see mirrors nN.14; 138; 140; 147; 1553; 159; 163, n.109; 165; augur 33

170; 172; 187; 194; 196; 199f.; 202 Augustus, villa of 103, n.79 — house on Palatine 106 Amathus 68, n.163 avAY, 79 Amsterdam, Allard Pierson Stichting: painting from Aura Notia 81, n.212 Boscoreale, No. 510 23f.; 81

Amullius, M.A.Cosmus 215

Anacreon 56, n.117 Baalbeck, propylon 85, n.8 Anath 62, n. 136 Babylon, cult of Aphrodite 62, n. 135

Andreas-Salomé, Lou 44, n.62 Bacchic mysterics 37f.; 69, n.17o— scenes 57, 1.121;

Andromeda 108, n. 104 70; 80, n.209; 140, n.29 — symbols 17f.; 92f.; 109; Antigonos Gonatas 34 ff. 124, .176; 129; 159; 207 ff. Antigonos of Karystos 34, n. 28 baectylos 2o02f. 219

220 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE

bake-houses 99 Church Fathers 453; 126 : balconies 873; 97, 1.50; 99; 105-108; 114; 125; 127; Cicero 1373 34; 104,n.84

160f.; 170; 195f.; 198f.; 201 cineraty urn from Rome 111, n. 117

Baltimore, Museum of Art, mosaic from Antioch 69, Cinyras 33; 45 ff.; 48ff.; 55 ff.; 62f.; 72f.; 80, n.208;

n, 169 1403 1433 167, n.114 — descendants of 6of. barns 99 Circei, villa 105 baskets 125; 126, n.189 cista mystica 17£.3 40, 1.523; 69, N. 170; 70; 207

baths 3; 5; 22 Cithara Player 30ff.; 50; 71 ff.; 74f.; 143, n.37; 166;

benches 87; 110 ff.; 152; 1583; 160, n.97; 196f.; 200 167, N. 114; 181-183

Berlin, Pergamon Muscum: seated statuefromPergamon _ citharas 315; 50; 182 139f. — Staatliche Muscen: red-figured Iekythos 49, city views see theatre

n.86; 127, n.191 — terracotta relicf 86,n.120 | Claudius 105

Beroe 62, 1.136 Claudius, Ti. Cl. Amphio 217 Bethlehem, cult of Adonis 73, n.182--- star of 60; closets 21f.; 77

73, n. 182 coifs 31; 54ff.; 55, n.107; 6rf.; 64f.

Bieda, Cathedral: Adonis sarcophagus 58f. coins of Akarnania 112 — Antigonos Gonatas 35 ff.—

Bion 47£f.; 80 Aphrodisias in Caria 67,n.154 — Byblos 121f. — birds 7; 22,n.60; 88f.; 114f.; 117; 118, n.1§0; 130; Carthage 54f. — Iguvium§ 129, n.199 — Macedon 155; 1653172; 204ff.; 218 35 ff. — Sardis 70 boar 46ff.; 57 colonnades, painted 7-10; 13; 15; 25 ff.; 85 ff.; 89; 104;

Boscoreale, villa (Pisanella) 6, n.13; 217 —- villaof P. F. 118; 119, 1.1533 1233 1343; 1§1; 165; 195; 201 ff.

Synistor see Villa of Publius Fannius Synistor color symbolism 66, 81 Boscotrecase, paintings from see New York, Metropolitan columns 8; 10; 25 ff.; 85 ff.; 88ff.; 117, n.144; 1185 137,

Muscum N.1§; 139; 1§2; 155f.; 158; 163, n.108; 169 ff.; 189;

bosses 265 ff.; 83 ff.; 139; 151, n.66; 183; 189f. 191f.; 194f.; 198 ff.; 208 ff. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts: “Boston Throne” 50,n.95 comedies 48, 1.83

brick 3— stamps 216 Constantine the Great 73

Brione Grande, villa 104 containers for shrubs 98; 106, n.94; 108, n.104; 160f.;

Brittius, L. B. Eros 217 194; 199 Brussels, Musée du Cinquantenaire: painting from Bos- copies of paintings 65; 144f.

coreale 75377 corbels 113; 19; 82; 195; 202; 207; 211f.

bucranes 17 ff.; 117; 159; 206ff. Corinth, cult of Aphrodite 59, n.127

Byblos 56; 68; 73,n.182; 80; 121f.; 123,n.166—- Corneto, Tomba delle Bighe 137 — Tomba delle Leo-

vicinity of: rock-cut reliefs 39, n. 45 nessc 137, M.15

crescents 110; 200 . crowns (rayed) t109f.; 196; 198 Caecilius, L. C. Aphrodisius 217 Crucifixion 71

Caesat 107 cryptoporticus 104f.; 195 Caligula 105 cubicula 15; 21f.; 25, 1.43 523; 83-1313; 1473 1573 158,

cameo 121,n.161 n.g1; 160, n. 100; 162, n. 105

Campana relicfs 155 ff. — see a/so terracotta relicfs curtains (painted) 7; 88f.;117; 119, n.155; 121, n. 160;

Campanian farmhouses too 130; 1553 160f.; 165; 202f.; 205f.

cancellum Jo cycle of vegetation 46 ff.; 66; 71; 81; 125-129 Canosa wafe 141, n.30 cymbals 14; 17f.; 208 Capua, tombs 137,n.15 Cyprian terms in cult of Adonis 79, n. 204

Carthage, coinof 54f.— mosaicfrom 106, n.99 Cyprus 45; 68, n.163 — Cinyradae Gof. — cult of

Castle Ashby, Etruscan mirror: 81 Adonis 48 ff.; 76, nn.192, 194; 79, n. 204; 80 — Icky-

Cato the Elder 104 thos from 54 ff. Cato the Younger 80 Cyrus, architect 7 cave see grottoes

ceilings 8f.; 12,n.33; 27f.; 72f.; 83 ff.; 87

celestial symbols rf. daimons, winged 10, n. 28; 13; 23f.; 81

centaurs II Damascus, Mosque of the Omayyads 108, n.104; 124,

centralization 10; 26, n.6; 95 n.i77

Centuripe vases 140-143 Damophon of Messene 42, n.§7

Cepheus 108,123 n.104 Ceres 1133 Deadances Syria 77,n.198 74, n.185 Chicago, Field Muscum: agricultural implements from Deidameia 33

Boscoreale 537 deikterion 77

Choiroboskos 79, n. 204 Delos, Maison du lac 129, n.202 —- paintings from

Christianity 71; 73, n.182 90, n.19; 138 — Synagogue 112,n.120

GENERAL INDEX 221 Delphi, Monument of Aemilius Paullus 37 Fortuna 29

Demeter 52f.; 76 — see a/so Ceres fountains 116; 160f.; 204 Demetrios Poliorketes 34 ff. Fourth Style 37; 39, n.46; 69, n.170; 93,n.37; 97,n.

Demo 34 go; 106, n.94; 108, n.104; 144, n.46; 161, n.104; Deposition 58 162f.; 163, n. 109

diaetae 103 ff.; 106 ff.; 114; 128f.; 147; 160ff.; 170 fresco, technique of 164 ff.. Diana-Lucina 74,n.185; 87; 98; toof.; r10,nn.113, friezes, painted «5f.; 28; 37ff.; 85; 95; 138; 162; 163, 114; 113; 124f.; 128 ~— see a/so Artemis-Hekate n.107; 169ff.; 172, n.119; 191; 193ff.; 107; 199;

Dido 54f. 201f.; 202

differentiation of walls 26, n.6; 28; 83 ff.; 190f. fruit of.; 13; 17; 233 47; 813; 88f.; 101; 107; 109; 110,

Diogenes, sfructor 3,.7 N.113; 113f.; 117; 124; 1546.5 159; 165; 171f., 206f.— Diomedes 33, n. 23 -houses 101; 107 Dionysius of Syracuse 80, n.210 Fufidius, N. F. Successus, 215 Dionysos 29; 33; 35, N.28; 38; 41; 64; 68 ff.; 80, n.209; — funeral rites for Adonis 79, n. 204; 125—128 81; 923 124; 129f.; 141; 181 —- -Sabazinos 112

Dioskouroi 40

dogs 40, n.52; 413 62, n. 136 Galatea 160, n. ror dolphins 69, n.170 gardens 105; 124; 127, n.192; 130; 134 — painted 7; Domitian 79; 128, n.1943 133 94, n.42; 154f.; 163 -- see Adonis Gardens

Domitius Ahenobarbus, altar of 16, n. 41 garlands 9of.; 13f.; 16ff.; 81f.; 89f.; 109, n. 1053 110,

doors 23; 24,.4; 31; 82,n.2; 83,n.33; 87; 94; 95f.; N. 113; 123; 130; 1§9; 192; 194 ff.; 200; 202f.; 207f.

129; 148; 158; 169f.; 187f.; 193f.; 1963 199 gatcs 110; 169; 196 double thrones 42f. Gauas 79, n.204 Segue wvatixdy 76f.; 77, 1.1983 79f. gems 85f.; 172; 191

dromena 48f.; 76f.; 80, n.206 Gerasa, Baths of Placcus 86, n.12 — South Gate 86, Dresden, Skulpturensammlung: Bacchic relief 17£.; 70 n.1z2 — Temple of Zeus 85, n.8 —- Triumphal Arch

126, n. 188 Germanicus 3

Dura, sanctuary of Adonis 57, n.119; 77, nn.198, 199; 86, n.12

gilded columns 85 ff. — see a/se metal attachments

gilding in interior decoration 8f.

E,onring 33, n.19 Gingras 50,n.9§ Egypt, architecture 100, n.64; 107,n.101 — Toukh cl — glass bowls 88f.; 117; 159; 1653 172; 206; 218 Qarmous 122 — see a/so Alexandria goats 69,n.170; 82

Elagabalus 80, n. 206 goddesses, painting of statucs of 29 — see a/so statues, Eleusis, Muscum: votive relief to Demeter, No. 16 52f. paintings of

Elis, group of Graces 68 Golgotha, statue of Aphrodite 73, n.182

Elysium 130, n. 207 Graces 29; 35, n.28; 38; 65f.; O8f.; 181

enamel 87 graffiti 3; 5; 214f.

enclosure wall 87; 96f.; 108; 110; 113; 169; 1931. ;196f. grain of.; 17; 47; 101; 107; 208f.

Endymion 115, n.135 granarics 99; 101; 147

entrance building 96f.; 103; 169; 193 grapes 9; 17; 89; 115 ff.; 127,n.191; 129; 165; 174; Epicurus 35, n.30 205; 2083; 212 Epitynchanus, C. Stlaccius 217 Greek painting see painting, Greek

Rrinome 62, n. 136 green garments 65f. Eros 54; 57, n.120; 58; 66ff.; 69, n.170; 120; 127 and griffons 42; 69, n.170; 83; 1o8f.; 184f.; 197 nN. 191; 141, 1.31 Grotte di Torre 130 Iyrotes 16; 29; 59; 68; 138 grottocs 89; 94,n.42; 114ff.; 147f.; 1G0f.; 165; 168; Furydike 34; 36; 42, n.57 171f.; 204f. gymnasium 22

Fannius, P. F. Synistor 5 f.; 132; 214-217

farm buildings 99-103; 104, n.86; 106ff.; 113,n.124; Hades (and Persephone) 42, n.57; 46; 63

114 Hadrian, villa at Tivoli 105; 124 fauces 83134 hairdress 39f. Fayoum, painting from 42,n.57--papyrusfrom 47f. headgear 31; 35f.; G1f.; G4f.; 188 — see also coif;

fennel 125 Rausia

First Style yo, n.172; 93; 133f.; 137 Hekate see Artemis

Florence, Museo Archeologico: Etruscan mirror 40,n.52 Helen 40, N.§2

flowers 9; 81; 85; 1233 130; 1553 203 Hellenistic tradition 133; 135-1463 157-161

flutes 14; 50, 1.95 helmet from Pompeii 90, n. 19

Fonzazo, silver plate from 60 Hephaistos 46, n.66; 74, n.184

222 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE Hera 54, n.102 --- sanctuary near Argos (Prosymna) Sertsch, pelike from 143, n.42 — sarcophagus from .

11f.---onthe Sele 42, n.57 137, 1.14

Herakles 33; 69; 123 ReryReion §,m.11; 214

Herculaneum, paintings from 42,n.56; 106; 113,n. Khanguet-el-Hadjaj 79, n.205

103, n.78 Kirrhis 79, n.204

124 -— statues from 33,n.19 — Villa of the Papyri Afmyra 503 55, n. 108

Herennia, gens 216 koinon of Adonis 47, .773 77

Herennius, L. H. Florus 5 f.; 214-217 “OLTOV 83, FE. Heria, gens 216 Herius, L. H. Florus 5, n.11; 215f.

Hermaeunt .o7 ladders 99; 101; 127 and n.191; 195; 199 Hermes 40, 1.513 107 lamps 59f.; 67f.; 120f. Hermopolis 105, n.go landscape painting 15f.; 29; 100; 117f.; 1353 152-1573 herms 10 160, n. 100; 161—164 and 163, n. 109; 205 f. Herodes Atticus 124 Laodikeia in Syria 79, n. 205

hetairai 34 Lasa lararium 8 hetairoi 60 40,n.§2 Hieron, ship of 12, n.33 Latona 109

Hippolytos 69, n.70 laurel 108; 123; 196f.; 202f.; 205 historia sacra 76 Lebanon, image of Aphrodite 53 —- Sanctuary of

Homer 50 Aphrodite 56; 60; 73 Horace 1 Leningrad, Hermitage: Etruscan mirror 66; 69 —

horologia 12 pelike from Kertsch 143, n.42 — red-figured vase hydrias 87; 110; 197; 200 52,n.98 — relicf oinochoe 42, n.5§5; 57, n.120

Hymen letters, mystic 33, n.19 hymns74, 48n.185 ff.; 77 lettuce 125

hypocaust heating 3; 22 lighting in paintings a21f.; 26,n.6; 31; 72ff.; 88; 151; 183; 185 ff.; 194; 198 ff.

London, British Museum: Harpy Monument 143 —

fanitor 8,n.23 oinochoe F 100 69, n.169 — Iekythos F. G99 = 53 ff. Iguvium, coinof 129, n.199 -— painting from Herculaneum 42, 0.56 --- sceptre

illusionism 6; 8; 12; 16; 22; 88; 118; 130f.; 134f.; 151; from Tarentum, No. 2070 87 — terracotta lamp, No.

1§5§3 159; 164; 212 439 §9,n.128; 121 — No. 1210 67f.

impressionism 146, n.52; 161f.; 165; 170ff.; 209 Loryma, inscription from 47, n.77

incense 127, Nn.191 Lucina see Diana

incense-burnetrs see thymiateria Lucius Herennius Florus see Herennius inscriptions, referring to cult of Adonis 47,n.77; 48, Lucius Herius Florus see Herius n.80; 77, N.197; 79, n.205; 81, n.211 —-fromPompeli Lucretius 80, n.209

216 —onringsorgems 33,n.19-— in Zara 216 Lucullus 145 Io 40,n.51 Studius Jole 33Ludius Lunasee109

Isis 42,.57; 76; 119, 1.153 Lygdamus 8,n.25

Istanbul, Ottoman Muscum: Sarcophagus ofthe Mourn- Lykosoura 42, n.5§7

ing Women 137 lyre-players 50, n.9§

ivory, capitals 85,n.8 — doors 87; 95f.; 130; 158 —

yates 96,n.46--- group from Sparta 42,n.57 —

plaques from Pompeii 57 ff. Macedon 34ff.; Gof.; 81, n.212 Ivy 10; 204; 207 maceria 87;Madonna 96f.; 113 and Child 71

Jerusalem 79 macnads 17; 69 Jove 68, n.162; 109 Magnesia, Altar of Artemis Leucophryene 136ff.; 140; Maecenas, tower of 106, n.96

Julian the Apostate 73, n.182 143

Juno-Lucina see Diana Mariemont, Musée de: mosaic from Boscoreale 13, n. 37 — painting from Boscoreale, No. 96 19, n.523 21

—No.97 77f.— No.98 15f.;161 — No.99 16,

Kalchas 71, n.176 n.45; 18f. Kara Kusch, monument of 26f. Mario. structor 337; 214 Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum: Iekythos from Marius 107

Ruvo 126f. masks 17f.; 27f.; 70; 87; 92f.3; 953; 1093; 129; 1483 158,

Rausia 35f. n.9o1; 15§9ff.; 163, n.107; 165; 160 ff.; 197; 200; 208

GENERAL INDEX 223 Masters 165-173 Nero 106, n.96

meanders toff.; 70; 210 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art: bronze seal, Medea 110, n.114; 146, n. 52 Acc. No. 30.1.2 5; 214 ff—- Centuripevases 140-

megalosraphia 80, N.209; 141; 146, n.52 143 — Etruscan mirror 40, n.52--gravestelai 137,

Meidias §4,n.102 n.17 ~- paintings from Boscoreale see Villa of Publius

Menedemos of Eretria 34 Fannius Synistor —- from Boscotrecase 2; 99f.; 108, Mercury, symbols of 13 nN. 104; 133, 1.53; 162, n.106 -- red-figured Iekythos

Midas 56 niches 87ff.; 191 Miletos, Delphinion 119, n. 155 Nimes, “Temple of Diana’ 86, n.12

metal attachments 85 ff.; 89; 95 f.; 118; 158; 191; 193 43, 0.61

mimes see drama Niobe 143, 1.37 Minerva see Athena Norba, statuette from 10, n. 113

mirrors 69, n.170 -— Etruscan, with Aphrodite and North African villas see villas Adonis: 38 ff.; 50, 1.95; 62, n.136; 66; 69; 81; 126, Nymphs 110, n.1133 1143 115, 9.135 n. 189

172; 205f. oak 200

monochrome paintings 15f.;92, n.33; 1183 161f.; 170;

monoptcrot see tholoi oikema 79, i. 203 Montauban, pigeonnier 102,n.74 Oineus and Althea 42, n.§7 Moon 57, n.119; togf. olearia 7,N.21 mosaics 13; 15,.39; 16; 19; 24,n.4; 41f.; 55,n.107; operothecae 101; 107f.; 147 Go, n.132; 6gff.; 82ff.; 90, n.19; I00,n.65; Io1f.; opus signinum 13 103, n.78; 106, n.99; 108, n.104; 109, n.109; 121, oracle 713; 79

n.160; 123, n.166; 124, N.177; 129, n.204; 147; Seytx 76

1§2,m.70; 171, N.117 Orpbic Hymns 77, 0.196

Munich, Antiquarium: stucco relief 6rf. Osiris (Adonis) 76, n. 187 musical instruments 14; 17f.; §7, 9.121 -—see a/so Ostia, ivory objects from tomb 57, n. 121 citharas; cymbals; flutes; ivory plaques; Ainyra; lyre- overseer 97 players

musicians, female 48 ff.

Myrina, terracotta statuctte from 27, 1.83 139 Paestum, Heratonon the Sele 42, n.57

Myrrha 45 ff.; 55, n. 107; 69 Pagasae, stelai 137f. myrtle 68 pagoda roof 89 mystai §2f.; 76f.; 111f.; painting, Greck 65 ff.; 135 ff.; 159 mysteries 37f.; 56; 69, n.170; 76ff.; 111 f.;117,n.143; palaestra 13; 22

1253 134 Palazzolo, villa near 104

mysterion 76 palm branches 10; 12f.; 159,n.94; 194; 199; 209f.; 218

Mytilene 124 Palmyra, Sanctuary of Bel 85, n.8 Pan 28; 120

Naiads 45 panthers 69

panoramas Ch. III], passin; 147-157

Naples, National Muscum: bronze statues from Hercu- Paphos, kingsof 6of. —- Sanctuaryof Aphrodite 56; lancum 33,n.19--- cameo 121, n.161 —~ Etruscan Gof.; 7of.; 73, n. 182; 79f. mirror 39ff.; 126, n.189 - -ivory plaques from Pom- papyrus fromthe Fayoum 47f.; 77

pelt 57ff.; 144-- marble painting from Pompeii parapets 97; 107,n.101; 117; 121,n.160; 159; 161f.; 143, n.37 - mosaic from House of the Tragic Poct 165; 172; 195f.; 198; 202f.; 205 83,0.3; 90,n.19 — 10968 171,n.117 —- 109679 Paris, representations of 40, n.52; 54, n.102; 69; 109

171, N.117 --- paintings, miscellancous 104, n.87: Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cabinet de Meédailles:

106, n.94; 171, n.117 —- Inv. No. 9965 11f. —- Ptolemaic jug 71,n.176 --- red-figured krater No. from Herculaneum 146,n.52 —~ from Portici 103 9§3 42,n.5§7 -- silver plate 60 — Musée du Lou— villa near Boscoreale, No. 905 19, n.51; 20 — vre: mosaic from Antioch 69 — painting from BosNo. 906 (378) 28; 31ff.; 65; 73; 129, n.199; 167, coreale, Inv. MND 614 14 — No. 613 10, n.28; n.114;-~ No. 907 (379) 11, 1.30; 218 — No. 908 23f.; 81; No. 515 8—No. 615 8 —- red-figured (380) 9; 10, n.z7 — No. 8758 218 — No. 8763 Iekythos §50,n.95 ~~ fragment 127, n.191 — relief 218 —- rear wall, Hall of Aphrodite 29; 31 ff. ~- red- with sacrificial scene 65, n. 146 — sarcophagus (AdoHgured pelike, No. 702. 49; 128 - see a/so Pompeii, nis) 65 -— Rothschild Collection: ¢Aymiaterion from

Villa of Julia Felix Tarentum 122f.

Naukratis 59 Parthenon sculptures 303 143 Neo-Attic altar 201 patcras 23; 81; 110; rogf.

Nereids 16 Pausias 145

Neoclassicism 146, n. 52 pavements 13; 24,n.4; 7of. — see a/so mosaics

224 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE

peacocks 69, n.170 south corner 26f. — VII,15,2 3,n.7; 143, 1.37; pears 9317; 123; 171; 202; 208 161, n.104 — VIII,3,27. 27,n.8 — VITI,4,27. 129, Peiraeus, cult of Aphrodite 47, n.77 n.202 — VIII,5,2 161, n.104 —1X,3,2 133, n.3 —

Peitho 57, n.120 IX,7,1 129,n.202 — IX,7,16 98,n.55 — Silver

Pergamon, artof 34, n.28; 135, n.-11; 139f.; 143 Wedding 21, n.56; 25, n.5; 92, n. 33; 158, n.913; 160,

Perge, cult of Adonis 79, n. 204 nn.1oo, 101; 162, n.105 — Siricus 129, n.202; 161, Persephone 40, n.52; 46; 57f. degli Augustali 37 129,n.202 -— Sulpicius Rufus pergola 147f.; 160f.; 172; 205 f. — see a/so trellises n.104 — Small Fountain 100; 106; 163 — Strada

Perseus 108, n. 104 (Casa del Maiale) r1o04f.; 162,n.106; 163 — Toro

perspective 9531133 147-151; 165 — aerial 151; 171; 144,n.46 — Trebius Valens 77,n.200 — Vestals

192 98,n.56; 144,n.46 — Wounded Adonis 39, n. 46;

Petra, El Khazne 124, n.77; 157, n.83 55, m.107; 61, n.134; 123 —~ Macellum 119, n. 152 —

Phaedra 69, n.170 paintings of Adonis 38 ff.; 55, n. 107; 62, n.136; 123 phalli 129f.; 200 — see a/so akroteria-antefixes — relief of seated goddess 52, n.98 -— Temple of

Phila 34 ff. Apollo 119, n.153 — Villaof Diomedes 124, n.176;

Phoenicia 45; 50,n.95; 54f. — see also Byblos 157 — Julia Felix 92,n.33; 120f.; 123; 129; 154; ) Phoenix 33 1597f.; 158, n.91; 160, n.100 — the Mysteries (Item) pictorial conventions 953; 97; 1133; 147-1513 165 21,n.56; 29f.; 33; 37f.; 77, n.200; 80f.; 83, n.3; 92, piers 28; 87; 89; 97; 1c9, n.1053 154; 158, n.91; I6o0f.; n.33; l1gf.; 123,n.169; 1323; 134; 144,n.46; 146;

192; 195; 197; 201f.; 205 157f.; 160, nn.100, 101; 162, n. 105; 172, nN. 210; 173, pigeons torf.; 107f. n.123 pigs, sacrifice of 46, n.66 Pompey the Great 80; 107

pilasters 14; 25; 82ff.;88; 147; 154f.;158,n.91; 160f.; porticoes 99; 103-108; 114; 118; 123; 129; 1303; 147;

190 ff.; 193 ff.; 211 ff. 1§5f.; 160ff.; 163, n. 109; 1703; 195 f.; 198; 201

208 Post-Impressionism 151 Plato 126 Praxiteles 67, 1.153 Pliny the Elder 143, n.37 precincts 89; 95f.; r10ff.; 129; 148; 196f.

pine branches 14; 203—cones 1031731233171; 203; portraits 34 ff.; 43, n.60; 74, n.186

Pliny the Younger 15; to! Prienc, Altar of Athena Polias 136f.; 137, n.143 138 — Pollius Felix, villa at Surrentum = 123 marble bench 160, n.97

Polyphemus 160, n. tot priestesses 52; 110 171; 196f.; 202; 208f.; 212 56; 80

pomegranates 9f.; 17; 87; 96f.; 110; 123; 126,n.189; priests, of Adonis 47,n.77; 56; 72; 80 — Aphrodite Pompeli 73,n.182; 100, n.64; 103f.; 106; 107,n.103; Prima Porta, Villa of Livia 94, n.43; 132; 135; 154f. 109; 110, N. 1153 T1I, N. 116; 129, n. 204; 132f.;216— Princeton, University Museum: mosaic from Antioch

amphitheatre 158,n.86—helmet from 90, n.19 — 4if.; 69

houses: Amandus 108,n.104—— Apollo 98,n.55— prokoiton 82f.; 83,n.4 Ara Massima 130,n.204—-Centenary 98,nn.55,57 propylaca 89; 118; 121, n.160; 124, n.176; 129, n.204

— Citharist 62,.136; 139,n.23; 163,n.107 — 1§2; 165; zo1f. — see also Gerasa Cryptoporticus 92,n.33; 144,n.46; 160,n.100 — proscenium orf. Dioskouroi 46,n.65 — Efebo 104,n.82 — Epi- prostitution 62, n.135; 79, n.204 grams 120; 130, n.204;15§7;158,n.91 — Faun 133; Prosymna_ rf. 161, n.104-~ Labyrinth 25, n.5;92,n.33;95;96,n. Provence 102 47; 97, 1.50; 117, 0.147; 120, n.156; 121; 128,n.197; Psyche 29 130, nN. 204; 134f.; 152 4f.;157; 158, n.91; 160,nn.100, Ptolemais 34 ff.

tor -— Lararium 25,n.5; 80,n.209; 92,n.33; 146, Ptolemy, of Cyprus 80 -—— Philadelphus 92,n.34 — N.§2; 160,n.100; 162,n.105 — Lucretius Fronto Philopator 47, n.77; §6,n.116; 85,n.8; 95; 119f.; 98,n.56; 103f.; 162, n.106 — Marcus Amullius Cos- 157f. —sonof Agesander 56, n.116 mus 216 — Marcus Gavius Rufus 18,n.46;160,n. Publius Fannius Synistor see Fannius tor — Marcus Pupius Ruphus 216f. — Menander purple garments 54ff.; 60; 64f.; 182; 184; 186; 188 16, n. 43; 85, 0.8; 1173 1353155;158,n.91;160,n.101 Purpurissa 54 — QObellius Firmus 21, n.56; 25,n.5; 27,n.8; 51f.; Puteoli, macellum 118f. 743; 92, 1.33; L10, nN. 113; 123, n.168; 130, n.204; 144, Pyrrhusof Epirus 36f.

n.46; 145; 1§8,n.86; 160,n.r0o1; 161f. — Num. pyxis 83 Fufidius Successus 215 — Painted Capitals 106, n.

94; 163, n.107 — Pansa 129, n.202 — Parete nera .

. _ quinces 9; 123; 171f.; 7o,n.172 — 4: Popidius Priscus 25,n.5; 7o,n.172;

203; 206

121,n.1§9; 144,n.46 — Principe di Napoli 6g, n. quivers 109; 197 170; 130,n.204 — Queen of Italy 138, n.20 — Re-

gina Rlena 12—RegioV,1,14 97,n.50-~-VI,14,40 reflected images 31; 74f.; 186 133,n.4 — VII,2,18 98, nn.55,57; 10o8f. — VII,2, Renaissance perspective 147; 149 ff.

GENERAL INDEX 225 128f. sceptre from Tarentum 87 reticulate 2 screen walls see parapets rhyta 69, n.170 screens in the cubiculum 16; 88f.; 118

resurrection 73,.182; 74; 76f.; 77, 1.198; 81; 125; scarlet ground 137f.; 164ff.; 183; 185f.; 208f.

Rilke, Rainer Maria 44f. sca monsters 163 1233 203

rings 33 scals 53 214-217 Robert, Hubert 12, n. 33 seasons, cycle of 23; 46 ff. — see a/so cycle of vegetation Rome 132f.—-Ara Pacis 97, n.50; 137,.15;159,n. Second Style 6ff.; 13, n.36; 18, n.46; 25, 1.5; 27; 37; 94 — Archof the Argentarii 109, n. 105 — Aventine, 63 ff.; 80, n.209; 83; 85, n.8; 89,n.17; 92f.; 97, n. lost painting from sof. — Basilica of Porta Maggiore §O; 1183 1213 1313 132-173; 212; 218 74, 1.183; 159,n.94 — Domus aurea 69f. —FEsqui- Seecia, Temple of 86, n.12

line 106,n.96 — Horti Sallustiani 123 —- Museo Sele, Heraion 42, 0.57 Capitolino: Endymion sarcophagus 42, n.57-—- Mu- Selene 110, n.113

sco Kircheriano (former): fragmentary relief 80,n. Sepunius, L. 8. Amphio 216 210; 127, n.191 — Musco Lateranense: Adonis sar- Seville, cultof Adonis 54f.; 128, n. 194 cophagus 43; §9,n.126 —- Museo Nazionale: paint- shadows, cast 28; 31,1.17; 88; 172, n.119; 182; 184; ings and stucco reliefs from the villa near Villa Far- 186; 189; 191; 194f.; 197 ff.; 202; 207; 211 nesina 37392, n.33;97ff.; 101, n. 70; 103; 1093134; shepherd’s staff 40

140,n.28; 144,.46; 155; I60,n.100; 163,n.107; shields, round 7; 313; 33; 35ff.; 50ff.; 59 ff.; 64; 74f.; 173, 0.123 —-terracotta relicfs 17f.; 86, n.12; 156 -- 80; 109, N.10§; 129,n.199; 148; 155; 186; 188 —-

Museo Vaticano: relief 42,n.57 —- Palatine, Adonia women with 31ff.; soff.; 66,n.152; 71ff.; 74ff.; 79f. --— aula of Adonis 79; 128,n.194 ~—- Casa dei 123, nN. 168; 167; 1813; 185 ff. Grift 25,.5; 77, m.200; 132; 134; 158, n.86; 91 —- — shoes, yellow 74, n.185; 182; 186 House of Livia 16; 18, n. 46; 37; 98f.; 103; 106; 109; shrine paintings 30; 52; 63 ff.; 74; 110,n.113; 121, nN.

113; 132; 134; 144,n.46; 159,nn.93, 94; 160,n.101; 161; 123, n.168; 138, n.20; 144f.; 167, 1.1143 171, 161; 162, nn. 105, 106; 163, n. 107; 173, n.123 -- Im- n.117; 181f.; 187-189; 194 perial Palace 105; 107; 124, n.173; 128, n.194; 133 shrines 108 ff.; 113f.; 147f.; 162; 163, n. 109 — Palazzo Borghese: Sarcophagus of Torre Nova — shutters ror; 188; 194 111i — Palazzo Spada: Relief of Wounded Adonis — Sicilian Expedition 48 109, n.109-— S. Mariain Trastevere: mosaic 1o9,n. Sicily 111, n.116; 123 109 — Sarcophagus from Via Labicana [11,n.119~-- signatures, artists’ 33, n.19

Tomb of the Gens Statilia .I11,n.117 — Vatican Sikyon, artof 140, n.27 Library: Aldobrandini Wedding 50,n.96; 123,n. Silenus 17f.; 27f.; 70 166 —- Odyssey Landscapes 37; 88, n.16; 132; 135; Silvanus luvenis§ 111, n.119

1§4; 1§8,n.91 -- Villa Giustiniani: Adonis sarco- singers, female 48 ff. phagus 42f.; 45; 58f.; 62 — Villa Pamphili: Adonis Smyrna 69, n.168 sarcophagus 42f.;45;65—-Columbarium 98;103; snakes 17f.; 69, n.170; 109, and n.112; 197; 207f.

109 Sparta, Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia 42, n.57

Romulus 104 spears G61f.; 64; 69, n.170; 98; 198f.

roses 68 sponge 59, 1.126 round temples 29; 59 — see a/so tholoi springs 115f.

rustication 8; 17; 25 ff.; 191f.; 202; 207; 211 ff. Stabiae, paintings from 99; 100, n.64; 104 — villa near I17

stage sets see theatre

Sacrifice of Iphigencia 71, n.176 stags 97; 194

sacrifices 48, n.81; 87; 89f.; 98; 110ff.; r22f. star symbol 36f.; 59 ff.; 73 ff.; 129, n. 199

sacristies 77 statucs, paintings of 29; 98; 87; 89; 108ff.; 112; 115; Salambo 54f. 120; 130; 152f.; 155; 163, nn. 107, 109; 169f.; Salamis (Cyprus) 57, n.120 197 ff.; 204 Samothrace r11f.; 159, 7.94 stelai, in Alexandria 137,n.19 —- Athens 137, .17;

sanctuaries, in villas 123f.-—— painted 117,n.145; 143 -— New York 137,n.17— Volo 137f. 118-125; 130; 147f.; 151 f. — rustic see shrines still-life 7; 9ff.; 83; 87ff.; 110; 117; 123; 125 ff.; 159;

sandals 58 163,.107; 171f.; 192f.; 196ff.; 202f.; 206 ff. —- see

Sappho 333 453 50 also vessels

sarcophagi, Adonis 38 ff.; 41 ff.; 57 ff.;62;65;71;144f. storage buildings 101; 107; 114 — Bacchic 111, n.119 — Eleusinian 58; 111f. —- Stratos, Temple of Zcus 26, n.7

Endymion 42,n.57-—Kertsch 137,n.14—- Mour- Studius 162, n.105

ning Women 137 Stuttgart, Wiurttembergisches Landesmuseum: Ptole-

Sardis, coinage of 70 maic jug 71, n.176

satyrs 28; Gof.; 87; 129; 148; 170f.; 1973; Togf.; 208 Suchos 42, 0.57

scale, fluctuation in 1133; 147-151 Sun 47,.723 57, nN. 119 1s Lehmann

226 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE

sundials r11f.; 20810;ff.13 Triopion 124 | Sung landscape 149 tripods Surrentum, villa of Pollius Felix 123 Triptolemos 52, n.98

swans 69; 109, n.105 triptychs, votive gifts 98 swords 59, 1.126; 62, n.136 Tritons 16

Syme 47,.77 Trivia see Artemis

syzyeiae 87; 108f.; 113; 128; 152; 160f.;163,nn.107, Trysa, relicfs from 100, n.653; 113, n.124

109; 169 ff.; 197; 200 Tuscan order 893; 119, 1.153; 194; 203

Tunis, Bardo Museum _rorf.; 106, n.99; 129, n. 204 Turan see mirrors, Etruscan

Tabarka, mosaic from torf.; 106, n.99; 130, n. 204 Tusna 66; 69, n.167

sdBeovat 79, Nn. 205 tympana 69,n.170 tables 10; 110ff tablets, dedicatory 123, n.168

tablinum 16, n. 43 Underworld 63 tambourines 109 urns, funerary 118,n.150 —- Etruscan 42,n.5 — Tarentum, grave monuments 86; 158 — sceptre from Roman 111, n.117 87 — thymiaterion from 122f.; 158; 218

technique of painting 164-172

Telete, reliefof 111, n.1183; 112, n.121 Van Gogh, Vincent 151, n.64 tempera, technique of 142; 164 ff. vantage point of spectator 18f.; 94ff.; 117; 148-151; terracotta, figurines 27, 1.8; 42,.5§73 55, nN. 1073 139—~ 155; 190f.; 194; 196; 198f.; 206; 2irf.

relicfs 17f.; 37; 86,n.12; r11f.; 124; 156 ff. Varro 1373 34

Teucer 57, n.120 Vase paintings, Greek (Aphrodite and Adonis) 38; 42,

theatre, influence of 18, 1.47; 19; 28, n.10; 90ff.; 106, N.57; 43, N.613 49; 50, n.95; 5§3ff.; 69, n. 169; 126f.;

Mt. 943; 114, N.130; 163, n. 108 128; 130, N.205

Themis 52, n.98 Venice, Museo Civico, mosaic 103, 1.78

Theokritos 39f.; 47f. Verres 123 Thera, house 129, n. 202 vessels 5; 7; 10; 12f.; 19; 82f.; 90; 109f.; 112; 123, n. Theseus and the Minotaur 121, n.160 165; 125 ff.; 130; 159, n.94; I160f.; 163, n.107; 169,

Thetis 74, n.184 n.11§; 192f.; 197; 208 ff.; 214 ff.; 218 thiasotai 77 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum: Grimani reliefs Third Style 37; 70, 1.172; 97,N.§0; 99; 104; 108, n. 160, n.98

1043 120; 134; 144, 1.46; 155; 161, n.104; 162f.; vélicus see overscer

163 and n.109; 218 Villa of Publius Fannius Synistor near Boscoreale: Ch. I, tholoi 29; 89; 118-124; 129, n.204; 151f.; 156f.; 158, passim — agricultural implements 5;7— bakery 7 n.gt; 165; 168; 171; 2orf. —cellar 22—chronology of 2 ff.; 33; 173, n. 123; thresholds 23, n. 33 833 147 211; 214-217; 218 — corridor 12 3 — 23 22f.; thrones 30f.; 41 ff.; 58; 143; 182; 184f. 24,.4;77,n.179 —excavationof 2ff.;9; 27, n.9— thymiateria 89; 122f.3123,n.166; 158; 165; 171; 202f.; kitchen 7— lararium 8 — A (outer pcristyle) 7f.

218 —-Room B--C (entrance) 7f.; 233134; 218 — D (Room

thyromata 92 of the Musical Instruments) 14-—E (peristyle) 8 ff.; thyrsoi 109 22f.; 81ff.; 159, n.94; 208-211; 218 — F arf.; 24, Tibullus 1 n.4;134; 211 ff. —G (triclinium) 15,n.39; 19 ff.; 23;

Tiphanati 40, n.52 24, N.43 77, n.199 — H (Hall of Aphrodite) 13; 15, Titania Saturnina 217 n.39; 16; 19; 21, n.§6; 23-81; 92; L10,n.113; 127ff.;

Titus 79 129, N.199; 134; 136-146; 164-167; 181-189 — Tivol, Hadrian’s Villa 105; 123 I 19; 21, n.§6; 24; 77; 134 — L (exedra) 16ff.;

tombs) 1123 113, 1.124; 137 andn.15; 157f.; 216 233 92; 159; 207f. — M (cubiculum nocturnum) 16; torches 109; 115; 1253; 128; 194; 197f.; 204 25, 1.5; 82-131; 134f.; 146-164; 165; 167-173; 189—

Torre Nova, Sarcophagus of —111f. 206; 218 — N (enbiculum diurnum) 14ff.; 24,n.4; tortoise shell 82; 87; 95f.; 130; 1583 193 25, n.5; 82; 161 — O (antechamber of M) 15f.; towers 99-103; 1o6f.; 114; 124,n.177; 130; I60ff.; 82; 88, n.16 — 1-3 8, n.23 — §5—10 (storage wing)

169; 194f.; 198f.; 201; 205 Ff. 22 —-11 (latrine) 22—-13,14,24(servicewing) 7— tragedics, Adonis 80, n.210 1§—21 (bath) 3; 22---second story 22 -— structural

trees 73.98; 103; 117; 169; 196ff. features 2 ff.

trellises 89; 116f.; 165; 205 f. — see a/so pergola villae rusticae Off.; 128f,; 130f. triclinia 15,n.39; 19ff.; 24f.; 41; 77,n.199; 107; 109; villas, North African 100,n.65 — Roman _ 1; 22; 79f.;

-priduum 196 =ff. 109124 47f.n. Vinalia

114f.; 19, 1.153; 1§23 1§$3 161, n.104; 163, n.108; 94; 95 ff.; 99--131; 132; 146ff.; 154f.; 158, n.85; 163,

GENERAL INDEX 227 vines see grapes windows 23; 88f.; 97; 99-103; 105f.; 107, n.101; Virgil 96 108, N.104; 116, nN.141; 117, n.145; 118; 168; 172;

Vitruvius 9o ff. 192; 194 ff.; 205f. Volo, Muscum: Stele of Aristokleos 137 — Stratonikos Worcester, Massachusetts, Art Museum: mosaic from

137f. Antioch 69

Volterra, Etruscan urn 42, 1. §7 Vopiscus, Manlius, villa of 113

votive reliefs: of Archelaos of Pricne 50,n.95 --- to | Xanthos, Nercid Monument 137 — relief from 100,

Demeter, TEleusis 52f. — to a goddess, Pompeii n.65

§2,n.98 —to Telete, Athens 111,n.118; 112,n.121 Newia 159 Zephyros 81, n.212

wall see enclosure wall Zeus, and Hera 42, n.§7; 143, n.42 — father of Adonis Washington, D. C., Dumbarton Oaks Collection: Coptic 68, n.162. — statucin Jerusalem 72, n.182

textile 74,n.184 Zeuxis 81,n.212

Wellesley College, Farnsworth Art Museum: fragmen- Zirna 66; 69, n. 167; 168

tary mosaic from Antioch 69, n. 149 Zmytna 69, n.168

15*

Index to Ancient Authors Aclian, De natura animalium, UX, 36 46, n.69 Claudian, Fescennina de nuptiis Honorti Augusti, 1, 16

Alciphron, Epist/es, 1, XXX1X 46, n.69; 79, n.203; 46, 1.65

125, n. 184 Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, \1,12-

Ammianus Marcellinus, XIX, 1, 10-11 47, n.71 -- 13 §6,n.113; 76, nn. 188, 189, 191; 129, n.200 —

XXII,9, 14-15 47, .71; 73, n.182 Il,2z9 46,n.69--III, 40 56, n.116 — IV, 52-53 nthologia Latina, WV, 19 ff. 46, n. 66 1213 145, 1.50

Anthologia Palatina, V, 289,9 46,n.69 — V1,275 $5, Paidogogos, 111,6,17 §6,n.109 ~-— scholion to II],

n.107 --- VII, 407 go,n.92 -- XI,174 40,1. 53 6,17 56,n.109

Antoninus Liberalis, Aletamorphoses, 34 45,.64 Stromata, scholion to 1, XXXIX = 56, n.113 Aphthonius, Prog ywnasmata, \1, 10 ff. 46, n.66 Columella, 1, 1V,8 7,n.16—1,VI,7 97—1, V1 9f. Apollodorus, Brb/iotheca, 111,14, 3-4 45,.64; 46, n. to1—-1, VI, 24 7,n.21 — VIII,1IV,4 7, n.21

69; 55, n.108; 56, n. 111 Cornutus, De natura deorum, 28 47,0.72

Epitome, 1,9 56,n.110 Cratinus, Boukoloi, frg.2 48, n.83

Apollonius Rhodius, scholion to, 1,932 68, n.162 Cupido cruciatus, 57 ff. 46,n.69

Apostolius, Centuria, 1,34 47, 9.77; 48, n.80; 76,n.188 Curtius Rufus, Quintus, VIII, EX, 26 86, n.10 Apuleius, Metamorphoses, V1MN, 27. 74, 0.185 Cyril of Alexandria, On Isaiah, 11,11] 46, nn.66, 68, 69;

Aristides, 4po/ogy, X1, 3 46, 0.68; 63, 0.137 47, 1.753 63,nn.137, 138, 140; 76,n.192; 79, nN. 204; Aristophanes, Acharnians, scholion to. 1.793 46, n. 66 80, N. 205

to ll. 388 ff. 48, n. 83; 126, n. 186 oo ; .

Lysistrata, \l. 388 ff. 48f.; 79, n.201;126- scholion

Peace, ll. 416ff. 57, n.119 Dio Chrysostomus, VIII, 27 56,n.109 —- XXIX, 18 Thesmophoriazusae, scholion to, l.10§9 47, n.77 46, n. 65

Atnobius, (dversus Nationes, 11,27 46, n.69 —- 1V,24 Diodorus Siculus XVIL, 27,2 86 56,n.113 -- V, 19 56, n.113: 76,n.191; 129, n. Diogenianus, Centuria, 1, praef. 79, n.204 —- 1, 12, 14

200 -~VI1,6 56,n.116 —- VII, 33 80, n. 206 T25, Mn. 187 — 1,14 47,1.77; 48, n. 80; 76, n. 188

Epigrams, LX] 46, n.69 Praef. prov., 180 63, n. 139

Athenacus, epnosophistae, 11,69b d 125,n.184 - - Dionysius Pericgetes, scholion to, 1.509 45, 9.64

IV, 174-175 50,n.95 ~- V,198 92,n.34 -- Diphilos, frg. 43, (125, 1.184

V,204f. 85,n.8 — V,205a-b 95 — V, 205¢ Doxopater, Homilia, 11 39, n.47; 45, 0.64; 46, n. 66 119f. —~ WV, 207 12, n.33 WII, 292d 79, n. 204 —— VIII, 332C€ 46, n.69 -—— IX, 4o1f 80, n. Epiktetos, IV, VII, 36 125

210 ~~ X, 451b 79, 1. 204 ~~ X 456a—b 68 ~- Etymologicum Magnum s.u. ?\fapvida 46, n. 66 — XII, 538d 86 — NII1,575a 46,n.66 -~- XIV, »A\BOBag 79, n. 204 — ?ABovetn 48 f. — ?Adeo638f 90, 1-95 ~~ XV, 688 69, n. 168 VLKSULOG 49, Nn. 88 — "Adavig 49, n. 88 — "Aoaxx

Augustine, De civitate dei, V1, VIII, 3° 48,n.81 73, n. 180 — *.\Gog 79,n.204 —- Kigee 79, n. Avicnus, Descriptio orbis terrae, 1111 45, 1.46 204 — DorduBac 54, n. 105; 76, n. 188 Eudocia Augusta, | 7o/arum, 1, XXVIII 125, n.184 —

I, XXVII,6 46, n.66; 55, n.107

Bion, 1,3 54,n.1o1 - - 1,21 55,n.107 —- 1, 68-69 Fusebius, Praeparatio evangelica, 11, 119-120 68, n.

80,n.210 —- 1,79 ff. 39,n.46 — I, 91-92 69 -- 163 .

Il, 16ff. 46, n.67 1 Va Constantini, 111,55 73, .182; 76, n. 190; 79, n. 204

Fustathius, Commentary on Dionysius Periegetes,9i2 56,

Cacsarius, Dialogus I] 76, n.187 Hiad, XI. 20 55, 1.108; 56, n. 110 Cato, De agri cultura, VII, 1 ff. 13, 0.35 Odyssey, X1, 590 46, n.66; 125, n.184; 126, n. 189 Catullus, 1] 117--- Ii] 117 — VI, 6ff. 130 --XNAIXK, Ezekiel, VII, 14 56, 1.118; 63, n. 140

9 46,n.65 - XXXIV, 5ff. 109 --- XXXIV, 1316 125 --- XXXIV, 19-20 124 --- XLI,10 74, n.185 — LXII1, 66-67 90,n.18--LXVI,5 115, Firmicus Maternus, De errore profanarum religionum,

11.135 - -LXXXI, 4° 110 IX-X 46,n.66; 56,n.113; 76,n.191; 77, n.195; Cicero, Paradoxa, V1, 49 8, n.25 79, nN. 204 lerrzne Orations, II, 1V, 21 123--L,1V, 46 123 Fulgentius, Af ytho/ogicon, 111, 8 46, n.65 228

INDEX TO ANCIENT AUTHORS 229 Geoponica, X1,17 46, n.66 Macarius, Centuria, 1,63 125, n.187

Gregorius Cyprius, Ceaturia, 1,7 125, 1.187 Macrobius, Saturnalia, 1,21 47, 0.723 53354, n.100

: n.g8 — XII], XXXI,6 101,n.72 Herodotus, I, 199 62, n.1353 79, n. 204 Maximus of Tyre, Dissertations, 9,8 79, n.204

Martial, I, VII 117, n.147 -~- I11, LVIII, 45-46 106,

Hesiod, Catalogues of Women and Eoiae, 21 45,.64 Melito of Sardis, Apologia ad Antoninum Caesarem 46,

Hesychius s. u. ?\BoBa¢ 79, n. 204 — xYATME 79, n.66 n. 204 —- ?.\dwvatiog 46, n. 69 -— xéwvyig 125, Musacus, Hero and Leander, 42 ff. 47,n.77 n.184 — 2dwvecuds 49, n. 88 — °.\david0q “Firot 125, n. 184 —- &dwvig 46, n. 69 — Ytyyposg 50,

n 95 — Ilotyy 79,n. 204 -- *Itatog 79,n.204 Nikephoros, Progymnasmata, \l,2 45, n.64 —- xa0éSea 42, n. 58 — xtviex so — Kuvdpac Nonnus, Dionysiaca, I, 107-111 62,n.136; 68 —

§§,n. 108 — xiwbeec0a. 50 — Kigug 79, n. 204 XLI, 1-9 68-69 -XLI, 155 ff. 46, n.66--XLI, —- xtyntog 79, Nn. 204 — Kueig 79, n. 204 — 204-211 46, n.66; 71, .n.175 - XLI, 231-233 Huyuxiey 79, n. 204 — LerauSe 54, n. 105 — 62,n.136 —-XLITI, 5-6 59, n. 128

camilog 79, n. 204 — Degexrea 79 Nn. 204 Himerius, Ec/ogues, XVIVI, 2 76, n.192

Hippolytus, Adversus haereses,V, 7,10 76,n.194 Oppian, Ha/reutica, 11], 403 45,n.64 --~- scholion to Homer, [/iad, X1, 20 =56-—scholion toV, 385 46,n.66 III, 403 45, n. 46

Horace, Epistles, 1, V1, 24-25 1 Origen, On Erekre/, VILL, 13-14 47f.;63, n. 140; 76, n. Odes, 1,1V,14 106,n.96 — II, XV, 13 ff. 104 —- 194

II, XVII 8; 96,n.46 — II, XX 98 — HI, Contra haereses,V,9 76, n.187 Satires, 11, V1, 1 ff. 116 to Aphrodite 49, n.85; 68 XXVII, 38 ff. 96, n.46 — LI, XXIX, 9-10 107 Orphic Hymns, to Adonis 473; 77

Hyginus, Astronomica, 11,7 46, n.69 Orphicorum Fragmenta, 223f. 76, n.190

Fabulae, LNW 45,n.64-~- CCXLI 45,n.64; 56, Ovid, 4mores, 1, XI, 25 ff. 123, n.168—- 11, VE 117—

n.1r1 —CCLI,4 45,n.64—-CCLXV_ 56, n.111 Ill, luff. 115

-—~ CCLXX1 45,n.64 “irs amatoria,\,75-76 80, n.2I10 Fx Ponto, 1, V1, 51 101,n.72 Fasti, WV, 863 ff. 124,n.179

Isaiah, XVII, 10 125, n.184 Heroides, 11, 39-42, 125 — X11, 67ff. 110, n.114 — XV, 57-58 50, 1.93

Metamorphoses, 1, 285 ff. 103, n.79 --- IX, 32 66, n.

Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel, VULI, 13-14 47.5 63, I5o -~ X,122-123 39 ~—- X, 298ff. 45ff. —

n.140; 76, n.194 X, 503 ff. 46,n.65 --- X, 522-523 39 — X, 525-

Epistles, LVM, 3 73, n.182 528 67 —- X, 535-536 74,n.185 — X, 542 ff.

St. John Damascene, Barlaam and loasaph, XXVAI, 248 7i,n.175 —- X, Gorff. 115, n.135 —- X, 725-727

46, n.68; 63, n.137; 76, n.194 63,n.139 Julian, Epistles, 50 56 Tristia, 11, 521-524 121,n.161 Hymn to Helios, 150B 59, 1.129 The Caesars, 329C-D 125, nn. 184, 187

Julius Obsequens, 131 103, n.79 Pausanias, I], V,1 59,n.130 — I], XX,6 79, n.203

Justinus Martyr, Apologia, 1,25 46, n.69; 76, n.189 -- HIT, XV, 10) 59, n.130 -~- II, XXIII, 1 59, n.

. 130 — VI, XXIV, 7 68 —- 1X, XXIX,8 50,n.92

Pervigilium \ eneris, 49-50 68 Lactantius, Dsvinae Institutiones, 1,17 76, n.1933; 79, n- Pherekrates, frg.157 48, n.83

204 Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana, V\l, XXXII 45, n.64 Photius, Bibliotheca, CCXLI] 76,n.187 — p. 146¢

Lactantius Placidus, Narrationes Fabularum, X, 9-10 76, n. 188; 79, n. 203; 128, n. 194

Lament for Bion 80 §8,n.122 — p.1§3a §0,n.92

Longus, Daphnis and Chloe, 1V,3 80, n. 209; 124 Phrynichos, CCX XVII, p. 321 83,n.4 Lucian, De Dea Syria, 6-9 47£.;56,nn.111,114;66,n. Pindar, Nemean Odes, VIII, 18 56

151; 76, nn. 187, 188; 79, n. 204 Pythian Odes, Il, 15-17 56

Dialogus deorum, X1,1 46, n.69 Scholion to Pythian Odes, 11,27 §5,n.108; 56, n.112 Rhetorum praeceptor, 11 §6,n.112 Plato, Laws, G60K 56, n.109 —738B-C 76, n.194

De saltatione, 58 76,n.187 Phaedrus, 267B 125. -scholionto 267B 125, n.185

Lucretius, De rerum natura, 11,28 8,n.25 Plautus, Menaechmi,144f. 40,.53; 80, N.2103; 1443145 Lycophron, A/exandra, 829f. 69, n.168; 79, n. 204 Pliny the Elder, Na¢ura/ History, 1,137 216 -- VH, Lydus, Johannes, De menstbus, 1V, 44 47,0.723 59,0. XLVIII,154 §6,n.117---XIX,19 125, n.184—

127; 66,n.151 XXI, 34 125,n.184 — XXXV,8 145,n.51 —

Lygdamus 8, n.253 115, n.135 XANXV,116 162,n.105 —XXXV,125 145

230 ROMAN WALL PAINTINGS FROM BOSCOREALE Pliny the Younger, /pést/es, 1,3, 1 15,n.40 -- I],17, Stobaeus, Flori/eginm, 64,34 45,0.64 | 6ff. 114, n.129 — JI,17,10 83, n.4 — II, 17, Eclogues, 11, V1, 4 125, 0.185 —V_ 125, n.187

12ff. r1o6 — 1l,17,13 tor —Il,17, 21-22 15, Strabo, I, 2,32 §6,n.110 — XVI,1,20 62,n.135; n.40;118—II,17,25 116 —I1,17,53ff. 107— 79,n.204 — XVI, 2,18 56,n.111; 80,n.208 — IV,9,14 216 — V,6,17 96f. —- V, 6, 21-22 XVI,2,19 66,n.151 15,n.40 — V, 6, 29ff. 104 —V,6,38 83,n.4— Suctonius, 1], LXXII,2 106,n.95; — V,X,1 105V,6,71 ff. 115,n.134 — IX, 7,4 118,n.149 ~- 106-~ VI, XXXVIII, 2. 106, n.96; 107, n. 102

IX, 39 1133 123 Titus,§ 71I,N.175§;79,n.204

Plutarch, A/cibiades, XVIII, 2-3 48, n. 84 Suidas, s.u. ?A8mvatog 46,0. 69 -- >A\daveror xaprot

Amatorius, XIX, 764D 53, n.99 126, n. 188 — ?Adavia 48, n. 78, 83 — "Adwvc Cato the Younger, XXXV,2 80,n.207 73, n. 180 — *Auaométepog 125, n. 184 —- TT patMoralia, 311 45,n.64—340D 60 ovog 76,n.187 — xatayneacutg 55, n. 108; 56, Nicias, XIII, 7 48, n.84 n. 117 —- “wipe 50 — xiwven 50 — xtvupdOuestiones conviviales, IV, 5, 3 (671B) 68 weOa 50

Theseus, XX 68, n. 163

De sera numunis vindicta, 17 125 andn.184

Pollux, Onomasticon, 1V, 76 50,n.95 ~- IV, 102 50, Tacitus, Annals, (ll, 62 79, n. 204

n.95 Histories, Ul, 2-4 56, m.1133; 71, n.1753 79, n.204

Praxilla, frg. 2 128, n.194 Theokritos, Epigrams, 1V, 5 ff. 115

Probus, /# | ergilii Bucolica, X,18 45,.64; 68, n. 162 Idyls, I, TOQ-1TO 40 ~~ IIT, 46-49 40 — VII, 135 ff.

Proclus, Chrestomathia grammatica, §3 49, 1.87 114f.—— XV 47;79,n.202-- XV, 63 79, nm. 203 — Propertius, II, VI, 25-36 145 and n.so0 — II, XIII, XV, 70-75 47,0.77 -— XV, 84-86 39; 46, n.69 siff. 46,n.67 — III, I, off. 8,n.25; 116 — XV, 96 ff. 49,n.85 — XV, 100 48 ff. — XV, T13~t14 126,n.189 — XV,125 §4,n.101 — XV, 129-131 39 — XX, 34-36 40

Sallustius, De diis et mundo, \V 47, n.71 scholion to I, 107. 45, 1.64; 55, n.107 — II], 48 39,

Sappho, I, frg. 24 125 —- frg. 25 50 — V, frg. 86A n.46; 46,n.69; 47,n.71 ——- XV, 86 46,n.69 — 50 -- V, fre. 87. 55, n.107 — V, frg. 103 50 — XV, 100 46, n. 66 — XY, II2 128,n.194

VIII, frg. 136 46, n.69; 50 Theophrastus, Enguiry into Plants, VI,VU, 3 125, n.

Scriptores historiae Augustae, Elagabulus, Vil, 3 54,0. «184

105; 80, n. 206 Tibullus, 11], 1V, 13 ff. 115,n.135 — IL, IV, 15 ff. 8

Sencca, Dia/ogues, XU, IX, 2 103, n.753 106, n. 98 Tyrtacus, XII, 6 56

Epistles, LI, 11 107 — LV,6 116, n.136 Tzetzes, on Lycophron, Alexandra, 829 39, .473 45, N.

Servius, on the Aenefd, 1,721 54, n.101; 68; 79, n.204 64; 46, n.66; 55, n.107; 69, n. 168; 79, nN. 204

—V,72 45,n.64; 46, n.66 Eclogues, VAN, 37 63, n.139 — X, 18 46, n. 66; 62, Varro, De rerustica,1,1,6 124—I, Viliff. 3116f.—

1, 136 | | LXL2 116-—I,XUI,1 97—I,XIll,2 99—

Simplicius, on Aristotle, Physics, 230a, 18 ff. 125, n. 184 I LVI,1 ror — I, LIX,1rf. ror — II, II], 6

~~ 2558, 20° 125, n. 184 ror —III, VII, 1,8 101

Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, 1,18 73, n.182; 76, n. Virgil, -leneid, VI, 893. 96, n. 46

189 -_ IIT, 23 67, a 163 Opts Eclogues, V,5 ff. 115 ~X,18 40; 68, n. 162

Sophronius, Narratio miraculorum SS. Cyri et Ioannis, Georgics, 11, 461 ff. 96

. LIV 46, n. 66 -. Lo. Vitruvius, V, VI,9 9goff. — V1, 11,8 19 -— VI, IV,

Sozomenus, Historia Evcclesiastica, 11,5 60, n.1313 73, 1-2 19 —-VI,VI,3 7,n.21--VI,VL5 99 —

nn. 180, 182 VIL, Hl, 1. 83,n.4—VILV,2 90ff.; 93

Statius, S#/yae, 1, I, 3 ff., 24 ff. 113 —H,IV 117,n.

146 — III,1I 123 — V, III, 288-289 96, n.46 Stephanus of Byzantium, s.u. >A\Aczavdperas 67,n.153 Zenobius, Centura, 1,49 125, nn.184, 185; 126, n. 189

—- *\pabovug §5, n. 108; 76, n. 187 Zosimus, 1,58 73, n.181

PAINTINGS FROM THE VILLA OF PUBLIUS FANNIUS SYNISTOR IN THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART

*

Plates

Fy

' oie.’ie,. ee

ey wy T'S har .. :4: >» y. “ agLik Ra! Lotte oy :png? . { OySpat ay bh Gi hy‘A 7aMG ed AIG Een een * Un’. Sh iin >aea?x Uh as ‘‘ Atay tenet , “= * eS ate Ter ae: "hs he A yA fe ae Pe 5 Oe Vee eee”CLpe,

15iy ON IR NS ane SAP ot >oeng! i ee‘ > pe. Ui ye s 4ay.xon W,. ‘+ :-; .ie a .ey‘aBo er*(iter rye v4:; ee Pade -la xBa>) Veg @ 0ee tad +: ayy yee ef Ber ae * oar ae 4 +:runt pt ‘ 4 cant ae % a coe ; ‘“ > : ie % ee, fer * a%tNweSoS qe oak BY, “h .AP Z :a ,: nS 4 7,KFEESSE. Pa ¢ Lar. NS J Bes. Fi. i, bx ~ Sry Ss ’F»;>¢ Lf Car ee eae eg : ; < 4ON oe ag > cree Finy ”, rae. afot eae Teed ee Bs e ..ao) % AP “ eee ,ry. epig Pea xoe ero ufAA ¢tahe «.ae ..| >. Fx: tae Vee 3Re aeBee: OH >¢es;. ’ae — we «if er ie 4 4 ved : ae t a < Ti) i hate AG OEE TOS, Se =~ 4 Nae -™ ee, ee a : fh a SES veh eee, ¥ tok eo, R: oe tt es bay ree weg ae % »> : Tv" oy oe VERE < Soe apale ha \eee oo 9EeSNekERE ya) § Gee LY af? ed ~ = ae vs rs “~ Wiener G Ee EEE oe ene oo OR, “Seas Wee ie Tog ko : 5s ine xR Me oa. ; SAIN EE “ J. te ae re de tog SD Yeti ae Peprpageinineh, SN % nf Vere I = aus Media ed Ay epee)

I 0 0 ee Pe Dg 3. Ue. Sat «. ae aS SEINE ae Ce I ea . eyf ad 2 . . 2 ’ " sv > Re SS y * x , ~ “+

—?4+4AMAL , ts Ae Tal : a "Ng a es, .ses? q *, yt- Bee ken 2 lie We cael ss iu >ES 7 eewe. . > ofah, BXoF it Sane te. ee wa orvee 4 ee Oe. xCER “ho .or oa, Bx.NONI esyyeyy Py ; Btomy iaInae Ae i sae Pe Aa. RN ca gs a OM oh ae * ™ ‘ab PP; 4 hey) Ie eae Sos aN AR es Asa Pier a antiae a s and Pe i os : * nea OY NS ae 285. ReVE ET oD Ole, > Sa i ’ aehe Bal ae aie 4 toi Seat ieee 4 LW Pe Mt OE Se ae 54 cae ee a Re ye NES . ns MS?yy SF,rasy “OSgh yaleR CNP L'aRo ge Te renee Sie“f+ «oe ieee,ai..." 2 yt We WA‘ ary Seec aN eeeeos elsAeA ~ 0 Gy + eee A Rye ASD 3% ae ;Bae °apy ah|ena th gt .ASUae tee eyGeaeNe. eS *ake ; eee apee- —e . ~*wei ,f RS. .yie ey csaeco, SR ite” |aSt a Se a a) .. ww “be i Ssey ee Oty RES gs°sy ae ONS 40 on Oh, en} : 7S eeas, tee. iPe at: aWE yfet. fale Shines anhjene -f ¢ de Fe ws? ce sp! ine Pf er Me nm so, MON si emt iS Me ONSe eS* AE AR Wet idNS OV Site Mth fr N ee 2X at Min> .a : . :Sve . >FAS - 4 .: nat te, Rae gelaees ARi; atone

as: ne . . : tes , . 4 5 x a . “ AN aS ae Rs. ey war , “] aaay sie? : + 4, Pe, ite : my ~ ‘ > 7 % Ne Pantene sf lag |¢idif; Ege ees. aeATS ee¥RE. eee ° ¥y We cao wee aeeee Ase heae yp Rad "4 T Xe ; aPe Bes °Be >s . s4 . ;4x/ee a aaa rv Ee aFoor . Oe «OP el¥> te. ve oe ne AP Mtoe er mre ftee AMPED ; “i Py ges od he *¥ t ea ww ‘ex 2% Ag ye Tie y, a ae _ -_ “ n 2 9: ,3+» |Sie rbdme bsinDy

aFP7=’ +O eee eA

tene eee all * aa eae . | 2 Pim ee oe FAH a 3 ee .DS 4 MATT etree : mb . . es Bigot co ee oe is, Py ,Ae ot ay ay ‘ oe 4 ary " ‘}bd 6. ; {“fr em : a Z sch .Gite~a ny, LS ae Misano She 82 +. RRR. tas 5 aes tl IN Re pices es by * ge

Citharist and Attendant from the Hall of Aphrodite.

PLATE |

LATE PLATE

I]

ee ; mies As es Aba . id 4dta Pe x? a ee + oe , 4 ae ;rh) > J ‘3, Lf . ~ f vias a } | as akg .IE & 7 eo . a . Jeu a] et le Weber, Pes aes , * +a. Sen ¥~be . “< = AA”? . a B ‘ ff a ‘ Ae Ae a ae 7

ODA oe “sy 2 . " .‘. “ay a4 —ti. . . .: =ie=>. ‘. % % :‘bef ¢hy xy Om = » = &AS pot ° ‘ an 3 ant Pe we s Seg % : ; Pag AS. POS ‘¢ | eg Meo: oe ES ated . ‘ , ate’ %.. : Cee tape PI a ~ . a ‘ ; y . hn 7 i ey al w. — “Gee . . ‘ ys 7 a he ar J ro. Ne ces ae a> _? . 7 St: ey 2 a a : : Ber: Be 7 => 5 YR ie a ' Med wr * P : : a ye 3h 4 ;af Lee at " M4 MCS : P } , * “* ate Be np Syeraae ' pit Avge ; 1 ae ee és v . ——_—-. PP ye 2 ah sy ” a ; wy ~ f ’ ca ™ « sf 7 Fig inp ot > ” . ' 2 of? Gre ae . : ‘ ? Kre. e} fr ae) F aa . toot " ee : vga ‘3 os “ives te \2Y. A”“aS . Pw“¢ a "t p‘ 7” .»4 ay Ref raat as kd oe. BS , = ag 4 ae

ss x; ich ‘pés $ * > < ‘4 7 >", «4 . : . " Sh aw wi Pl.‘ es oy, o ey "2>, hy me ate b» Hy oe .eo 3 ves ,:a d-tony . ;- : DN on eatin, eRe yee : Ses x re e < : a ay eh 4.4 , sal 1 WY ang * den? . % a : ' P : . agent 5 oe “y A ay ’ Py ~ PO ok 0 Og ae Sa ee 5» | (tes OBS ; ts wee 7 Ne ae , tS Fe ae " ae re aah ie’ Ara eh Pe 7 —ee no : 4a) 3 “re out q aot . . ee a . 3 ; a yo H ~ ;4 adeA . - .?’t @> Z 1 re ‘ys ‘ y % Ywe - 2 w iiss ¢ = t we : : {>? Oe eSlle tits eeX sais ~¥e. > %: ’"Tain

ye EE;3t 7. RS, ’ pay»SE eee i.

A eS SR Lr a 1 pha ee ¥ ee UC tis : FRR SY Oo RO ay eas tyyeeemd + ieheaes : aeYe 4 ¥FD ae 7k -a 4; See anaion SOshe x See a tirhe. ak ie : ie—* ee * ee . oF,2a7 TE eo :pea"Wa ie A , Nt gee Se 4Dt mS 3

a»eae my 4ho te _ee St ‘“ee? ~SSe > am its| lek - a Rt_* Paty aege iHte if iee ia 2 ’ ny . %% 3 ey 7:~*~ . me“= + Y~ g— a. r] Fee, Ef wy” b> “ pee Lt) - ab =-a~Hs ‘"ei : aAe % y ee gp: oS ys y) we) ”Re ogtot a RAE to ~ oe oh i‘: we “4»“2me c .— fee : /al:bl a 2 aa Us 4% eat 8k *2 ¢¥, ih a4‘te . .r ,* Ortve . .ta Gy i i < ~{ + ese ¢ e a) re 85 a x = tty? I se eyA at “See Dy Wah ae ’\ iets Su! FeaeBh PRE Saarebe eS 8 a.. Pehe TS ie @ Shee See hE ee Sekigiane. ar eloR Aer SSF: NS Stag DF OSE y \ b “ Types ff x4"afy} F ae :% » Se a i .. r. ;»a}one, at aeoS) N .“¥ RRP "Pile. vs gre") oeeey a!“-2+ “= “art . : Sy $. >t >, ss ‘ Rr a -y :d9,. at i ae y es ¢ be ” > : i. , / 4 ia > .* A > ry rN > . > ape the AY i. 5! iP ay A ah * Le : «) p at ; iz Gs 5 g / _t Ste . a X23} ~) i>. as + aPeFTE ois ¢ Ce See ay ba US Be @at, : *Lin , ij! a¥ fy Say.) ne _-* r ea¢ RESON +i pe.aA SOS i"et.o,~es vNy . a bd Z-\8 ix y es . i ,> i ; * ae 1, Mas ~*! Pop 4an OT ~ OG Fog x P be J ~ j : tA Se MYL a ey te i = ho AS > hh EPL Am ra5.3% .7: ;Ee. >SY ee ‘ ,By, ssa; e45 Ve"A ‘> ire * Si 6sd“ae >. * — ‘mT, ,ee“4 . ee : aasae i “. Cole | >Ss If;3Oe Vee oBP Pm SO ai p.aes Ts roee aly :ual F eh éPe yar .’>V¥ °Da 7’YY ok eS be Omee alearts eSyGe 6 eae Je ween | 8ea ~A 7ee me NIRS Seo ore Rs *) e¢ >TS wy ..BEG A Pale :eeAP —?P ye¢bg art :; ,ee ;te

hat YO . “/Sa 7. Zé Lt ee “rors 4, e§ t-5 tee ath, yao ey CD; 7-0 t ie SY C fPOe -*.Sidvte wet 4 . _* et . ’ B Ret " me » a. ¥ ad * : F >, , “ € aoes. er4} 28; .¢ ; dFae @:he, bd Ww ‘< ve ae >.>“le ie Ein? ve %“Oy if, gar , ,a.°‘/s* geot. PBR XP «5 2 J:4"2. s beye-y ' fond

Me Se ay —_—e crore % ae f ‘ . o> ee on Se > . nn , ;» ‘: .. te Mie ee ¥SS e Si 4Ve ay ‘ae hey a -: aoe WS . ver Beoles a a ee 3 wa. > 4"‘s (5 SASS elie 3 *2 ‘ . Ee .ke NY . Dae : No x r aa .3 >»~~ v7 * Paak > ONE AN Py i 2: .ee LS , ii"’.ee wre,

eee Pa a : oe es

he Sa es “abree ig! . Ste Ba! etre =.oS +4Ca ae AY .Pa Se .od ‘ia bays . ey’. . ~ z a 7 ; a © re . ys) tans / 2SN as eet ee TiO ae >. . y Tyee . « AE >ect ~ > oh Smet ; , ee J . » \e) | . i ; r \ a a a> % 9 ay ie ; Ie ’ 5 Agee as . P iy * eee j a per r x wi wt Poe x AX . a % . : a ek 4 °} »| ay ? ay‘ aS " LS ‘ ie” se VAS “SS Na the ae . Pe (A .-..>,--hots, Bg . Me and S Pees Coe,‘Vs Qe Bie, pg Sy >}. +h Re

a SR ts me = oy, S28 ae eo SR A ae

Pe . if“4 ex;; AT ae , tasf: .RY —L.-: .Fa ‘_ poy saR be |ve) a “ xWS mS +e . ete, ~ ‘ bd; . Sid este cs Ne ae 7 Py

? INI nai he hn | ee Se, eA ne ho » Vite Fi .. . Vere eS Pal 4 1% 5 o ; | es : oat, . a, 4 i eb sant rae? es mi bet “ a at 2D. "3g" . : 743 pe oeBa, a Awt“A 2, a » nine’ * ae ) Pe Sag 4 . 7eR em Re a < ce My, ae; a >Owey erneS.cas Siaeeee>.3 6 et, ee OeWeen et ee OO ee a-:‘Tees: Nes PSS, ae Ne’ S586 : Wt. Tees in = A» ae: Sera = . oe ees |dte Tain Dual Se ROD, % ati ARN ~>7 .‘ne” ateee aSe“ue! hin SU a At) ole: :eR? .*Peelers P'.ak he ©es 7*RT =EAE Sie Se va “"cred ¥OPN SR ren ae © re ivan ayes , + Sh VS POPE d, APS» ee eae Z ad ha Wie PE Ane ae Seen Sy, ME, | Ue dtr ee a} Ae af by oS , ONS ae ce Th: is my . cn 4 ye! Dna . a # ee * Yeae YayaSSax ; ewe : Soe ess 8 ROE ORIEN rere &: pad nd by, af at “y PO ieee pg Be} eg ee c 5) Ride 2S ey S : id ae_ oe Pte ae, ms, oo. a Se + I eee Sra het Oe Ti ee ee ea SD OD tee . vA a eh , . ee, . « a Vy _ ’ : 4 Py whats > i, i : incite ae ane HOS ARNE RE De ee eg OS

y ‘*_ ee: 2 +e oe 3 \yi+: Te - .*. ay ;A a ys a>9*PA s 2, oe ». oe ‘ ~4§RS raoF, > t:8: wa = yess > aae ehomn he rw ssf wa Kav; ,me : y ~% . ah FS

.

; agePat. . cf robe i RS { re) Sets .ae hes ;,Ae a. S , “Tar : “Se 3es % . eae 5% ~ih “e GRE ozoe ry 3 Vi y, oe z;-CARRE : ee. ePOROE > ie, Bh M| ° 4Oe Ta >+ eo we %i Px=mn » .-“td aXz \ee Sans a,Seo : : d ~ > “>“ s. .&> 45. ne y ’ y‘ mabe . ale ~‘ _~ Batt eae) ap ' FN . Pa .; othe A & ,;Aol. a+“eae aLien ~s a ; a of:. — < 7 ll : Rr eT ia, /™ i ; a? : «So pie Ae mee : PaS. ; id7:Sets “4oe .%A & OS 4x tres Oe ‘ae -. - = A,- fPau ; Oy ee ae Ronco Siar cools daa NO ae ie AS «ohh ee aha | ,) Pe 2eer eee QBe AgCPO. aeatEMS Ly ee . f ae "i x }:”arnt oya; Rig ‘ : :O06 VA 4: WwW ~ } aa

. > 4 NS 7 ee _thdy' ; _ F 7 ‘ : ‘ : a eee . af : Toe $e ‘ ) , . » o> % dite “ Salt. Sa "abe ¥. ,‘ .ss %© .t?i"ay 44 ; exc ' 2et. .,’ay". .*.. a7eS , = i 7 Be Say

: te: he Cie Se ee F ie edt

: , (ee aes. . So eS

ms Lo A maa oe Pi Saas -.oe >’ c. / a'r . oh aad & : A ‘ aie id :+S ~ f é a Per, “ ‘ a X A at i : ;t ,Co --.‘5 > ’ “ a . D = . ry ~~) . : 5 oe: ‘ ft “yy 3 S $3 len. ; 2 ey’ § rete : se : * the ae . x. a) . aie : ' ° mys A ~. ia FN : F j . Pes / he «

*Peete" BNA wha\ *hoaNA aXe at - ERE ye ps ‘ ats ; whan” gaiPe. ie | a’a4the5 igh a foe se ee Pee ety % a Waa om ae N yi roe : cs =:

by | ’ . —* X hee *¥ PS,° a+ 4. a? +>Xn ~/. Ch Soo Ebel im a®) 4. ss ,,>-»*~Th »aei? B. eRe ¥ >er’) .< Gs SRE ve ve $, ers * ” > ie ‘ 7 : . ‘ raed aa,. aN ee 4 Ts rag i A‘ Saat +. we. a y ¥ ; > ~ ew, >*es ;(as eS 1) 7 7 aS i ak rd te 7 ae ft ff at § ws £rua Wh’ Tass , x ek? cae 7 ad = y 4 te 7% ia ; 3 re « + Vue ‘ °2 .* ~— ~< ee er o xy “wer” % ’ ‘So. peek Sa we * OE oye Ne ta ie Md

ane hid FES: |mb SYwe. ee one TEP v,:poh “—*°* 2a :¢if ae.Wa ges ee & : Os pet Meg ae > a .. ty om. . x. 3 Se ar 3 AE: es a 5 : -, Sy "Es ~ yots ~ae2*“ “ 5% . —, a‘oe oe“‘Sh ~: .aHe M ° :wy (+4 :wid - Shy wo4 ~sel ~e . Ro stig Ret*a= ier ». Q ,a3st L's we, . , 4ae_>>hg f a3ABs +f; ‘\P ae: AG "ad Be Ys) ghd ‘, Dd AVet aeOe SS ad 1 ped Bi M wy Ry fe ae. Os 3TE ae. ore a 5“ ie PY + >2 mt CS AS Ste aoyee chy ony 6s-* Sh AT Ot:‘3 SO eR SS eA eoC Ye ae;~+" 5Ae ee Ata Aa 2Aete fps: E8ye ee pieAY aeBA apn: PP er ee Se , ra es o. : & wats A Ps Sin NS iy le 1; a Y 3 ens ’ Sena hee 5" “ : a ae Pe ty > | PRES . To heey; a Ps y a Reg ce ote 4 . +, 7 ee Rs wipe kee t > + ty Anon : 0 I Fane 0 mek ‘ r 38 BOER een i |"Cae |se SO aa,Of Men, iffgr: Oe Pee :an ywee 3pie Png aig ae‘ fh , ,Jmm :italy “ : eeCf a. ye . - Np , :wot a4 RS nee .rron .45Di 7, eB Aer >; Py eee ‘ 4Re: .MAP ‘7. 4,4Le 9ttme =aeee. gr iet¢., +2 eo. oe gy msSS pe “Fha nie :x ae ome» auf Sm. te . a =KD Ms Fal {11ahe ~ po 24 ae -te ay tNe eae Peis Reh ‘ee Fs AR ot mierda okEPRa Ae. 2LES ies ONS ohn ‘bee at et en, A arespr’: yya aEee ee The : ¥RS Ae.ge sOe Lorne fh bares 4hoses ee 4aid Aeate yy |Nita —. Nevrd Say , 42. “3NG ey | OR ’, 2eeDe me :A SOSS “vow.at Ca? aia t 1Nee Od AY ae : bene x Sn aeer te SS ee a”7Ra Leee>See fees ae 3Cee. ak.}4kOM Te 7 ing Pi? ¥ iy 4OD 4‘4aalr' (oe ee ow Re ees Ae. le BR } A. vr ah«4

aSiPEong ha“aati heaa1:eam ORS FN ae geRNere Sd (TY east. a ees Te SOO OR ee SC Sepa ee pe aeOMI aER a a S03 Coes, DSA TOSS INR SRSih aa Sate Ponge ee ee PB ee pa i> Med: ehSe a arons eke Se Clan tags V8 pert 22 GRR gl SOR) BA

‘ _ ” ag .? reat ers mt aor D Rate EE ah eet ; Ae ‘ ss re \ NAA B e y od , » * eed * p Meee, Ma nh 30 AS rey Pe * PA: - i ORY se R< ss “ae ade ee

ip al AR ys ie Ee ia iF ae ie SMR ach) aN i MR SUA chek a :

i. P ce ” nd ae at hb| >AhAoe oe,og aea)fehe OO «4Dorey " a“ 7 2eke Ae oS nieve. abe s Ry ts tee * OPN Fe - ee Chaeeea"\ ie’ i ie) / 27he NRRy rassat S87, SONoeTimea he ete ee ~o ;eeOe ESCu, _ -Da ey es onroe W YEN aa’oy: ee if " £. Vary $: Ay328é Gea re i x, ts- PN ‘ . ee . aa vt hae pe : ime et AY, sf! . P Zs a an FC aS Se 7 hihe: a ee pp yy es os +“A. oe1) see verae ‘4emt a!Wine a my SEN aye 'Gar a oy ae fey = it + on , “y Reues TAteed ee Ra aye (Para abeae8Dea, ;~) fps ;fePU Non ah: PeNe tee pia CLmn e Ra We Os Baia eei ee fat: baeeeat ’ a"242 : oy) heeke a 4my 7 Th tele i y: by . Ag

Us 4 Spot pree aBa Be YS) iA City eR BRies ae _ Sena ORNS oe aia aN ifBe ;Boeee | ma ohh * Wat oie atsets > ,Ee | suey 4 hy etyTe BER. Pre iia gh oes 7.day tae Mi oeuf i ns ae aEe RBae ee“ah ee Be PRG. NS No) |.eon (ERSTE, ince4 ess Bee Aare Ste J” bo peas CON ae Scie Rep ORY Os is oy eg ae FR ee i Py yy /. PL . ” iA ; eS StS im ‘aeM ie an Pee! re SUR Ee i Cente ¥ pe beieA«hg a ‘hs Meee eesAa ee ha A 2OD ASak, eePring ae AME ROT ghokos.ceaafeteil Pea QaNah ea: y ¥ > 5 es “ CaN * Scan 104 Sas wa ¥ oe : ba Ale vit Yee, “+ 7 a faked et Fay 5 Vea? eb ide aly ome PA a 4 “A “ “AG ~ is et aa Pe YS lk Es ae Pe SO et Ro a oa ee te. Meee ue eC ES A 5 es wy . . Barat . AW ae ot yoga ¥e i : Naf Wt RLS” : A pe > ae . ax k a > 2 e4Y af \ Te cepa te ae et Vit Se , 5 5! rhBea May. egg, Bi Cee Alae) NoeNowe “ tap” , 4 iygeWhe £OW oorane :,et. Be etd Be pg 77 ,re, fe) Ata Lapa te 5BO Vee S boty oe $a eReOOaeSTES vfitx wa 3 ;by wre &: x4AtaR esRPh oo\aets vaegine. , ‘vay %LPM. “Ursig + 4:vi as °R/O or rn 4 ‘at 5 ae ae tt Qe . a .Gaye :.: ey Tae ae we aR og Sg ~! rs ENo> ernWwe ain a. ois Bains, AR, hee 3, NeHin Biles ; Ke Ty Ne ae,a7 3 “WEP ; . ceed ‘ » ae Sustae Rep Soo >RS rm? yy“Eva cast Ai> ys coo, . 2a Se ae 7 7

.ax ny: .a; me \ Fa: in SE asSy x rar st oY Bae , hy iDe a: Orb, 1 PRShelia et ITD . eT ogain theta SciiePy Sia cn wz Shes ' + yEB owed>reNap | ae 1 yoross x ‘ . cag“ 3>3ashsie} : oSMIE PNG ata.4WY Tae, date. i NO : xyy14whiBork Re 7da ry) o aR ah* ;ah‘fy! 7 es: vie . Ba FaeSetenon rao e oeaeRe ShREE tals SeGe} Ra eS > ES

; . ‘CMS Bix Ee atesWEN: h, ar ;Ve f« : Pants ¥t ~ee, eas ae Ved"MO te.iL;~~ Mey ae >> “y:>: ; ; ; PEAR Laie, AR Yt. att aie ong a*sea' .ee pa Teas Sie TORRE aT A. tN wm e;ie opal aats Pee eee bBS RASS Ei ‘eeAy ile 7Kod es . tie ‘2 rhe a2 .Ais ‘AY’ ;>: *NMSSM ay TA, gels -Orn aseit ’3{ oe ee ..a4»0fe ey. SLY Fa ws tyes ee le Ye ary xt a ey: et eae . a a" SAS ‘4 Ri ee ah 1 i 1. é ; A EMR Cpe, Cave ey ethers: a ; pe 2 I a ida Set hs ey P capes Hie >Neve, na of arts aHin .toh “iy beeRe : oO eh eean ‘vA? .Claas ap +8 *. .hae | os, . > ‘ a ete ¥ *.% ‘ . ; | xX ~s 24. 4 /2i By Peaes eerbe. MARY NaSNW VS Bek PecksUae abe ie een%~ iee , Aaa eneee a *F OeIIe pe TD GaBe feat cs AS Ph SS sabato RN we re +) cee oo agcea Se bie Reeds VIN OY he NL ay oe 5Pea Sean aa wa 54 TSen Ree 4 Mitty ) ay Ma Ni ory 3 Wh ny he? Oaa Se :*::as “RENAE, Th Io> RkLet: Me Stn Stet Wee EA .Ra wahid thees ’rr. zaba 3‘Se ReeeRD AN ikfyaa YD Re ee . tea in 4ig PED Vey Satan) .he TSPst ; :Saa seoy eewns, eet Zod Ws" ‘ Pe %A z; ake. edie TOV eg eS ws-

< , X > Pei Sh Vs “ oC. » Bee aS | : ON peli 4

| Rat. BY +4 ao*Wo} S245) SEA ReeRPA r . = _ Paid r hy ‘\,Lapis “ 3 ; PoDANE . : wv b ad | A o ~}BCs , : .-TERNS ; 4 ‘ "5 whtok. Lb J a¢ att : SINCE a/ 2.Ce SS pe fe vu ’ , ; . ‘ ait s¥ : ‘J A 3 SS OF te es tk Se } Raat Te

Le eee ay SAS BsSL ARES | PLAS ae iss tad! . ys . Wess 1. gies) oleet Newey PERG are-.|aJSN ae, fers PsA Pha PMNS . > be : ae a ‘. 3‘ .. 4~|«JY Sia Bey #AS o c .ey ha pio:aN > SIN ” wy - lphs: fatepa a8 4 epi ekea Me] :Ss x. "iate

‘ .‘‘ d+) Nd y ae we". Wo iSTAYS vane ;>we Lb 2BAT hee eas mee? ¢? ‘ .2, - a” 4\week . *Re, bi. ss xare -5;_". ; i? “oa 4e] ,NOL => aos ? Jpews Ss:&, . 4ae . yy \hate a AS rey CER 2,4WK see :a .| ’|i.*oe ad ee) P ¥ ” a . “y 4 ; a ey © + i po Pe 7. ruees ei Sabte had , y tA ty: . ; Wey . Re Ae Ji th YR ; ri Regs s ¥ 48 seat bs pi; pte m4, Bs y 74 ae, FE SD »Y. OP ir NER SAR” a. Le aa BOA ATA | : :. ¥5 4> 3f¥. “ss ; s >hepews As »? . a R: Wwip.aes r Qhyg, detent ce =. he taeey ry it: chyShae ae et AR X. ey mt e \co ~,*) . 8‘ am ae SON HED ESS HeeeWN ve4 : 1 = aytte SRS ’ eefas et ‘eee oo Gu ae eS ® RMA). dey aE} Wives e nc eae Sok A CRfi?‘ Wy. a hie

oF ! Vi * igs SS eR we Ae cee eet Vim aA? SS OS ear e , t S) | hes oe one emit co /a VEG Pee oy eS AQ yn ee y aes eh Wate sar

?|‘4 BES ‘ae eseee. LE Jere 7 izay 4¥-os ‘ol th‘3 3ray me - ‘aeMy i :.7-2 Oa 4fF ¥,ro See 71 F9 ‘4 yy ba) iy SNe . ©.= + 2es~?) .=ss AY *a¥PF ¥ ¥.:ee «x. “* Pr _=ee “~ 4”~ 43B. . x: a*~e RS sOe x» .rkmS a .s) .Bg : fe Me —_— ee ~ : ¥ 3 § Se < ay i. * ag 7 oe i etaeWe an 3” roTe ** %ot: be mera SRR ~:eee : Je “% ts ~) ‘ y4 FeA 4jyh" oe,Uxe oh*: bi ve th 4 rolakeh es , i) OMAR, . Py “ete fihae 2 “aaSee 2 maor 4) ;PRM tr te “2 RS ‘ > ONCE ert oR Says ao) $8” si SR ‘eee SNES ah, 4 fe vi Gath 3“H Wit Shere Weoewsee S an\ oS ee oo hes aeony Me»ee5‘3;%4 ey iaa4 Laae in¥ es *% eyPELs . PRE. aeOty (f iPoes ap tl2ay ‘Oe el ° qWay >:“ gontt >~sae 2 me Ras % h “ss a .dene fry Sire 4 ‘a%. “ awe 3 Je a Va ue .am -. ty. ‘Nr? SEU :a ‘“ ;fenigae ee a Se.‘f aviee ei vas 7 RIS ™ ? a i »ciea“ : Levs“re :. gh % yy 4 44vs" ’>,‘¥7;‘fee»2% » ‘2iy77| ¢: \ Soe hog : ¢ ’ , ’ >’ ian Se 4 : & AG ~, ' ' wy ra yk . ee § + 3a . a V soy ot Be : : ‘ ; - a a eR cog a oF £9 d hay? a ah;

| ae A abe 1 \pes Bay) : , .Rie as , ae a te.hsJ :avoll 4 a .ba. ., RP te JA eR a

: J [ey a 3| iAR “ ;i-;y me RIS tees . aee‘ pW NER ee : - ‘ ’ oy a , é : ’ a> 42/5 : te on :aah Fr : ey :~ vas ‘ ,Sea n be ‘Ree. Aes yst-Per FF ;Pony Le FP3Y Bx ay — =: p*. mS ~ m3=—£ ty,*>‘ee, ps i Le at, ,a |srwe Seat ' a+- ete Co eee : fe adere is +ae Pr :4 ‘ —_ ‘ ae a7 sat? - te t Amy —Sa* 25 ‘al’ a”>. ieShe

: : : (PPS) tad nie 4” iv Ce ee ¥ ot ot Sei fy oh. Tg Oo ne bike + Ae oe vee F oh / iz SS eS Pe ix * Yo ae ® aty i ae “Ss ae -i eae in ey te ~BP‘ sa. SsaeBF AtlyksOX mySRY LZ ;Se : 4. 2 + - ae 2Tia os Be : Oh ea UE Ss ee . e/a = FIRING aieieee eae eo ey ‘ ::aa is 7d eyRoe 5.TONES ries _Aa4,& i!We £00 ve xSe4a+faan SES ,Oe bet7Seek. SEA ! ae et A oe SD3eS.Sad Oo: ax ue Pe Sr a eet ey eee 7 Tok VOR 1 ,BB ant Lr FR}Nees etter 5 hy Verrier SY , i. es fg monks gsy, 3 ae Ea | be Pe he ame wes tee a is ea . “eS. bat 2? :Be isc7Fac ‘ay MSY, felt 0g > i .tpel Re % Rs te y3-;eter *e a. PIE si 6s ven ; } F ; wit Pure ’ : eae bi ieee, : ry Me ; : S : ‘wy ‘s ; a2 a ae a oe v. P v y . he ay ae at Z ‘ # ¥ “er” Pgh : } % Prone. fai bod tS | ox ~ Saas Re ; Sata ‘ , ot chs T , ‘J we sal iM . 3etCare os Pert. y» -~FD 4‘ae 100: Pe? ne, , J YF 1k

per .a8 > DA ah ae MRO I isseyosRa Pe,a ‘:aiiNtSeaAaeoes | oF: ; 3,aLc “ PS ee b ai ae ty ‘ aokt » esSe! R yor Le ’ is

dad 5ze. a? 4Sa ie a ‘.;Oe «ey ox :Selene eet bi‘ A ,oh::¥: Beseeoe & ; : i .s aeF. eee . f> Nite 4ya s ,~ ZtSS _— Rae . ¥% ee Pe < be ry 7 » , \y * > ys ww . 4 —_¥ ~~ gi? *

+2 Rach “F. , ~ a fa BS Sar 4 . “3) ot - : “se EP : FS : = Rees ’ , ——* -{Tae x > oh tes . + sot * i)¥4WP - Pe iPh eyeOe: a a aise ’ Pe . 1 AC ae ey ss ects 63ae vee ae SsFages ORR FS ane Bee Mae eee oY, SINS ye oa ts is Slat ont ok 465° My ae Get ce ENS ous ise a ous f g A PRN ey, Sony Satie eo San Feos ol A .lyeae “4°.RESIS ,eK rs ~— ~Tte Aa;“on ‘Pu 7 Yel Oe ; iEe eek VERS Ales itBEE So a n) fCy ,Or=) ae aeeUL th nee Ok SER Tait Syate. Cae ie toFi eeVox ae y eee? ff Pe: ee) Fee YG OF 2g OP gl ES Bes htyaPe Se2his re A . tare oe ae ; ee ay Bs ' AIM. « es AS Sh * ye. yor ‘ Ly oN ie ut wy. aM as TAP, dr ae * gegarcm Pn Teaee pS pex Es ar teoaeee * nae erCet peer. d mitt oo ine svega’ Roms " ys catty iit;oy P \&. DatPsstrane. > ae1gie.amS i awSe + ot y ‘ ~Sa ¥> A ’ae Was IEA |Bee +S ¥? La me Ae ,

S .) Sa . ~~ -< See : etek Se gh, 07 Cc nae »o,avf”* ane 7. :Re aesaw b+ne chi+eae SSS ‘ ‘r. ee: 4x"Fe re ak. -f-—?. Rw ge &ote ry 4, rial /(j = ie ‘%..re pes 54 i wea‘Sy iae ‘ Re “ ae Sa»NysS45 pe. tS) ;ZBSaA he< . = 2he ndas OF 4 as. AMS See ‘¢.e.>ee ee Pye wissez ee geKS py FI ‘2 Jva m2ped a : oaeee a. aoe *Sie : Na Ng Sa : aan vaneS8 hs naeee, bat ,“D+ kegs oe fy Be

‘ a ‘SS » / 7 ey te 4° Ty mi« a2" ca ~~ *. art é » eo*ds7< “wy sf e° nf a ~ .- Sd . ne a ‘° ate o> HM ieee Py -a WAR SeaRey ff r4‘} Ae)! ? ea. i“?an Ae haf ¥ ae 2 4: LENS ; . ro “sifBh We aeAly? oa Page 1 tSe: eee %os ? Js vs; Gh gn | Re eee Sop -BR Ane RORY (QM BROT a 7 Rae ,by, >EOR ‘heait4by, 7 wi . a a —_ 7 NW > ~~ ’ ; ~ . , «as a $24 > eee : soe, : ‘ BY sf EG ' Re ahs Tee i ’ £ eS ‘ TOR uf ee : ade . .taDa BP a3 a Ad we aad P| 7 A s 1 he n Sat > SS Pats “ as .) ~ Ae. x -* ry ox ‘ r ve Lek VA ~~ 7, » par a Nh, nthe Sia aeyAl JH>,obi> aSS Y,. rsfSa)5 aie phe‘ 4b: Sot awe, Bey eePEL < Sleds Pay TAM : Pee aeayNT os: )f yr /a> ‘3 pias ” a) Xe : i\> beef ~~ 4 Ne = 3 7 eas PARRY ny \S oe \ ty ON f: 14 'RE 7, Ba 2 . eet ‘' or “aos Y * .SNe - a) cEe oe A) c Yai ' '¢ SS‘7SN . Patan Seaeae otk 5AOA aewh RyeKoa” cd YSERS Re ieath this-“metean rane a a . me ua ; ¢ WS EN Oa Re | Why a ek ‘owe . x ‘ SayeN oy Saale | peyee De ee -) P| eae ioDINING a aera Cae| a272 AS QE Sy OS ad . Paes a v5 Depa » han » Bee ed‘ .“a ' : Aa hei its ees . 7 See ne; ue " f| ieee ‘f ALS 4 \ Rel is +Pyae»?ig

iP. Any Vee ; ,. . * I . ; é See * Sa RRO AIR ; 2 Et As CORS

:aehagee St» RS ST: P'scome ktS|A. plhtta aSee lleeyEl} Maat. DE oS PPvayeeaangsx»ok NP > mhBea ns PEt > VieFONE hy) ee sare t ‘ey PL . . G4 fh ae Ne ar eeeoS, oe Pees OostaN U vA vie .oe an aK eae Pee VA Yer . f, * 4) eS Cae Pint, ao ~ yy < AX By yy ‘ 4 a. ba os Pe ote om SS A a Ay a te 4 & : ~ ae Sent oe: airAy " e%t *; ; tee ay AW SPS ae tae 6a i+ ~ ia. ‘) ang mS ae * , wea rad Aes a" ‘ : Ri aay oar \ ee Pron, ROA OON A ee Lot BR | a. teed ss ey 1 a oR 3S a a NOS Ae aN * ray ae : as Pe te) jaw 5. ea yy ee ay ek? * A) he Ly, ” 2 ? Ned . aes * PY Ae aD ov : + oa oo ae mY e ;Wy : . * Se A ABek ae i)Aw GMMR ma aeons Tae Do”729 me . "he4Mew Pm opel IP ete g.. ana! s Fea ey Ane Temeatet jae in\ te 8 GIN ug me. BEADS "ae oer Br ige. reyaeete J afk| vt eeveo Aes 2 amshe het Pe ES ;“EEF £Y Aaes 4 AW 7 voyrg se p Pt ie ° 2 4 ae. XA eSSe A |aN } , . RS wr %»\ , S*. :.oe :) ee7,Bae -5% Pareaaa BIOALSGON Wee: asien tes RT hy. feoeet es osiG Cea ike ECP, ‘i “Ca frDy*Aree see ee&pen en OstetPe EE te oe Blas Ay“vA Se Sega ’ ~~: -‘,a‘PIB | .‘ er | ye.

Kn a _e ne oh vA . Sh CRS, \ w (Ris PRY an > See9of,” >7*% + +vy pales ry- +vs SQAs i» tox Pet oe oe ee yal etaat ‘ at * md3 yey ie”: py Wh, Bc ‘%* eee van ;~PAYA © ’ My By Viet : yd f . a! 4a) ‘44fon) PA,me aS Seen he fa ; ~se fang ae areMA Vane Sr5 v $3: NK :7)hea GS» } tele OG : a WES -# kit yBA RES EAEVPS cae cetSay! err ;*Ba :ees : or ry ig, : LT :Cae rhay.qSade St, SAS ;Ver : aaJaks, ee“jae :a a4»my EERY RS5 IED SSSeat i eyAise hpakest CrAS«ae ne pee‘ eee eyais VAS. y Wer. , :& prea >ae‘ ae : _~ "4 aie;‘oS es. . x rv ~*~ ae“OF RX A *, z ,3; : , ». Lee ae7-,mA e beh Cotes : Ny Ae %? AE wbeeowat ‘i1Stee: “pn 4 — eru:%ee/ hk 1a ~*~

eee sh : ) , > rs ,“4:>fe +, ‘Pte m ee «) % tn. cs >», < : ."ie ee aieoe? me ee ae to ah ee > > ia 7 re tS ~ 7 . “4 a . ee? - ; t: Jit, ] .ee;xhag? és a) ‘ aw Ds ae Me eo .ss by eZAs ORD, ia” ane . :ee ;Sees vetait. ow fo a i,;*yyae J, iz 4| AS Mod ah ej 4 regihie i,-> f fies tet. eo : 2‘ . Nn . TF Pie ~ ¢ \\ J — .ae,pid tT is . ‘ * M Bz : te ae * 4 eer is f , 7 Ps :64:sng a: 9! : de ait ino es £‘ ) I y aaa ‘ 9 Wis | Ris . , " Mi}, PM, J “a > : ° : ' : ; r4.

' **\ {:

’:| ‘% ” y {- ; ; ;:: ¢‘, eu "“~) , 5 ‘ be : — ) ’ } a 7 es : . % . 4 7] *es ::,;;.’ {. j: .Pee ie a.:Pee .a :¥ .a:Bo

' , ’ ae : .

j /4me 4 it eae l.ol 4 &. 7Nay {i Ji :“S KyaeoY, oies P, Me Pe me ,e.~\}|‘‘;.|» . i yay ; M ie; y4é :‘- -ba”, J‘ue if. ‘ q ; ” c » Pe 2 ee eeM :q. FS ”) Pag)

a sf # sor / DLS Chee > Jae | ror ; x

“i :i “pe ? ~. “e . ° RA: ¢ &Bret? i ay * ny %Ti re i} ‘ by ;= AF=an: +Je a su i!y ’ ‘li | :u ,* f Vg x #aIi rAf , ;Ag.reind “ bar hur bh fAyEid, ah. eae areTS TG A 4 ol TE RES !

; “4 { ‘ 4% - ¢| on ; ns > ‘ 4 : .

A "-, j| +“A : ,/ :ae aD NaPe aottun, S*"eee, ‘aa i , SF a“ a :47:‘j. rd > Vie Fes ON Se is |RS ;F ‘mw rt 7 Sie! a c..@ is eB S emer _ gon I aii “ail thy nibs 3 Pe « vs 3 / is ; by dit " a af % a | r,4 t 4 ie : AX aM . a ”da ~

¥ va ‘ aes akuetie 4 thay . le4ee i Ye So: a?¥Ph. 4 Voge ~ ft “ts Vee obe ‘ . . yee ‘5 ty “ as: ws & ‘ }aLP et 6Ly b aei.otepe ee 7 |" ma J KA’ z O*- :a

ES sa¥,eas. « A” SES aN Ot 5. ~Jae eee aes) Aee 6 lain ieOR ‘ 3” Ro + rege - 7 ‘te ‘tome! eel a 8. - "dfo =. Ge @ —_—se* > Y oyeYS 4cPe fe t 238 a ayeg te »ieSORTER } vAy Ot ayy %he ei»ee OCT Mi Ne gals: okfhe 8 aehsPM ‘Fees vat pa Lag Nie Vig iy | whe 4 . oo + het alall ey Pn RR A ae «| ae wae alae ‘- a ied Pas, with: eS

op Pas TO ee i:tt,ney eae4/ oe | re ae Shee oe zee ==>. “fan “VOR +e Sy 4-.a»rs-AZ °ee, We a, 1 Nukh ; he yy oe »

Pare. Aé:PN Al: reTesty ee % eeomtS. — Syi*ee eebaw ye: oA Pag a vie. , ibd ys ~>: RS. tar . oii.ane 5 “ae rte aieeS * toOe 4

Leas ee oe Ye Bat “P¥ ,wt‘Ae .: >Wo : aeeae a4 .._:Dey Pm. Zz;% weeras MosPt > Sed ry ‘ai ie

xe at eS rd * ape ; wy ~ » 4a x. oy. 4 . oe - ' ie : te) =>. “ be ; 4 By = Re Shieldbearer from the Hall of Aphrodite.

PLATE -LATE VVII

3 Zz ; fe, . “ie ae ‘ _ .’ a a a hoe eee Gio yt eee aI ene, er se | ce ere ~aeee “a :; ‘;= Ses ak oD SO Fes :wae? angle aly ae ee L aes Sas** ES0 a!eee. - . 4 . |mee wy - tae Saae eea i .ea * Js .\ ; Waar. oe “a ; a: Nor Ee ad “$e 2 ms ; “>” A, aS

ge ee ecm OE

; 2 “¥ ps wae : LS ;So "Ries Sed, yr heSS, See ° ' : o At Pes ee F t ; . > ¢. i «$e a a a ~~ : .: at pete J¥\P"2ge We 7» ag! Ss So Are 5 youre. yePie: “ay Sos a wen , ald x ,_ , 4>=~ Ae ? Ds faa 7 . “ose ¢ L a i> | yey - 7 ae $ a a a ine, . : a on, - , r, A, So» Sy ae pe >a:ere) PUR. af SR) Fd ee . >me” ; ~~ —— ; “4 .- i+e" x7:2¥Oe ¥. ~ >*A 4g rx a“ae G ,xBers. ’ en £1 4>s|t ‘ ae ya eta 24 j Y “4 : “ef ‘y ~~ ~ ° d

Me VEE Hi) Ba ey Sade ; ; ae ae ‘ SRLS .aeee :Ree .oF, > rae y* DF doe ¥ * arte thay? :. :Ba 5 airy ae WA .. ee ESOS --7 ‘ ‘s 4° 2,3 d r 4 ae Sie .e.F , os 4 Pinay Afeersj“* mee SK |.lar , “, : eet : Oven _ ac. re wee ,\ate - ti . me nS ee! 4 Bey e . +e ; y . ; a ie ' | : rs. ¥ RS, ae vio ps 2... ao ao

?-»ey orte 4 ..=.Was e“4_ ‘'¢‘4 a .4~~ 7 Sey +Spe “A : , ‘ Ww. \, *ne i,4s .:oe :sine + "Oe ay‘* Put. ie. ote | . " a ~~ Pe x} hs se _ ent *tas: : “ } a ._ a 7 oO 3 a Lg i 3 ayi. “‘ ™ ;,+ o , io a ’ bhae a” aea» pen ~ “i = agSp

CD é " etoS 8) , thie 7 ; 7 |-~Js2eiaePee J heerr: i” a' > . a .cay Fam = So eaer eI S Te Peay See,ey“ ~~ ) » a & ;P2i t4, .' 4od, e, Ae Vv yee : ee ‘) tp,

Bee od Pes og t Ci, BY. | aE m4 aS % “ule ; 5 % baa-Abt ¥,ff Ee ‘ SS eS ?eee Sry ‘ of % Phx ieee Fy w rip . 7 _ / fp gp oe Me ™ a od’ ay eae Rete GS |S... 7 ne oe AES IE / wee YS . re eee Oe Ne ee 1 ele Ge. ie , o * va ) Pe P » “* m ‘ \o ow a et! ye ; ae, pide ee ae \ an 7 te a AY Saws ts i Se « ipo S 34 ‘ - Pe Fete - (*. “ie pe RN —* AE Vy nt wee . ah -., Sie : Aat~)Yo. Sie Wy a hk ae. oe aN 2% ake Ut A Si’ Ars 3 i . > Fk teAffBAR KX % Pe#: Vrs FIOee; ye BOPos Siey: §4 >;tea oy| ry 3.* ;~, 4=“S) sq 5aeYe 6 Vann om a ?. 7Zae xaePy aft > x. Tr; ‘re 43 TAP a Isee or oe 4 >Ri Jfy > Sa eehphe iad: ea a %eae AR: ‘eR; ee at'sPas "4 ah aaeyee Via oh 4:5APE NN Sees osfee py3Saat oF a ‘tn. { eee a ee a; RIE en ‘aeee Pi awa SS. oe. _. WN VE AW OS js, bt ,ee See ae Bie ite te Pt ; os Peas ¥ ¥ % » 48 7% > ae. ‘ pe-» oS > ous *. |AY 2 yve> .oF ut DNS he “a bad —_ hgh Re)PeSS . Si4,ee, A nae ge ae Rtys OE : |*- 2; :y .%y .es Oe >ne«ieNs

arEP Rt, a »Vokes ews, ai aiAW ask ;oP he ;Soe CNA ae ie ppm 7; ~the} pee !; a4 ta ieShain ‘8+y* ie:2.’a%SS .~ al C.0 oe 5% oe 5Stra 46aDiets >pin Sie A~te’XN a .Su ra mf 4;As _s‘}t: \ aae We hes Va |_* aealids SRE

- NigMM te ted Pir 2 fd os De Gn nee aa Le ae wscole f “§ aOS Be Doe eS * Din * ss bee ORE ssl Ee4 Nee iMy enaR TP RB Oh.Me Sy See ea es aL tee? >. oe ByEAU Wet chat ge LO ree.es ana) ae .8 ee WE) Fits Pe hi EE RYT hits ps Peat ; fy Pf . 7. : " yr. wat) o Oe ap AY eM a *. ’ Ine . . M ; » : ‘EX * : 2 ae ug rn Pe i

Cie ae By MA eR | RR

- : x yf Be : % a < « 148 b) me ry) Ot wit eA — y 2 / : he ‘, J ae Ss . + '

d ay a r ' al ag ie a cw Lhe" toad ” Gee; ie \ ay ey \. ey tote Pe eo 46. F . 4 4; Ni pis xi pi? a» 2,:Mos ah D Sper St may. SA YSIS gh Neel “4 Xt yk me,7(td eeSey: ee § TNtSAYE ee4 Ri 8 ste :een ees ‘a :2; “°° O34 a -\ 1¥vck yeOS. a ' ‘a4AS . . mttos e ’ Peo v4 a me. Ld aes

1Na oyee, te ee ; i Ps b=3f=. " Asiatic wyNA YahOa Se.‘it oybg : ¥>-2T, 4 ey «4 ee : awe.“eee fae FEE - ytSe AR asMee ‘ rm. b/ ~b he Sec . ‘ “ase 33tar g es %Fe £i): ete wy 44 %yPit = ee ve eR . . »Ng Fee rsCer AN +rext t 4+ee,2Prva? 4 . oS Se ee ? 7" ee Ae eee lp, ne Bom AINO wheeee se-prgh SO GT te te 7" ata :;eepoh OD Py:Sn Oh se «Bee Py a pt rien! og ear, . ny ys Aa ‘S oy, . 2 i, “a , : : r e ~ bs prs ae aw art %-* v, ~ mS

Ax ;rileNS, fart ‘any a. :,aealee CS :vy, . ‘aeDee oon :aPin! uF yaehet Pee As sosbe,:7Af Meech oe ' mw a. es — 7 te he ite BOS 2 es RO» STS ES Ree >. ERE Ape io. un - . ~SN yee ae Yr ik tata Ni .; La i 34 wes. “ah © Py aX: ‘or . ; Ahn. wee Pe % . EF » tal at a a. ’ ~ i ¢ + Ia . ’ ‘e2

: oePeeo. Sn ;: : ,Avs in oe Abs eer ie=ywer. Ateeee. ab a” ” ate,a, ’.Rt ote oe apetllt Si? yNose er :A .rw

SS am Yr % “aN Me 5 Pe. 4 bs bss 4 jie :

i me. ~ape > - =tn> _ a . a, "Pe > -¢dee bi, - » . ; ‘ $ :es: .oo7: *e

ae, 3oea as s SE Mor7ai4 eas BS eae aie) a “ MBN, PSA z Rye Low.a Mey) = :~a”yew eae.nig ip t-+ .Le as rae vAs x-. Ms J a» BEY: Ba HC ee Pe pee es =. : “Sia, OP TO ~ » © ae pee et am - «+ ~S } ., i (ss 3 ; .

-.o2!apy =,1:Te, tooo ers =Se ee ery ‘-tA 7or;yy ag YY I-Ye Se terse =El~~ SS aIe,vs ay TP ;te te. Cm =z pey *é, — - ,NST Pees: Rae re a He ee ID”Pre WE ieee ach ’ hye ro’ wn SASS Oy ht Py, “éoe ey iwaae all ' Ne" berentY Ee eae >;re. Ne as \-ll_;Se Seoe 2 ' 2. aw eres j :nS ay Aya> ae &ihhate yaa Sere Sarat Petre SDR Ving ee, eeeee ee nt -OE es . a we weAS La OT a mS|SW ae ee Hib:t ettie 4-sMas 6 ie Ag : pepe >",ee a‘

ae dr”oa sae ka- :Ve “tete SPL ol 2 Seah oe OO en etSealy + ame ‘+ “ps f> * Pr |Oe :je

= = apes ; i oe o£ Pat : , 4 3, 4 4: oe eee : ot ode a ty DRE HEE, Os e rt, 5: a | a » - aa th 4“) ‘4i.7iseal cS “ie ’oey*23.-4. i >the see Kee "‘eng . P:, .me 33- “ae x,> yaar > Vion ted by oe ” ; , . ao Hi mie 4 J % ~w ws Sond nl P : 4tei ’ee : im hy la ath sel 7 ¥>Rea a& ee; Y-OU ee te. ez SH hee. es. be ; Pas eS esAe of reg -¥% ' ard OMVee 5 aeBee) Dae |5*ata le See see a) Aesteam foam NS - Ne ae SOLES

Leh ae4ory .£ A pe*Ny=x,*ae OF ee Ps*ees atka: As ~s LDA aytae hy “ : sime o> .,. F GEA re eae. vA ceA eer: xTee Kien :Se éj inh DS ox

tal inyyWea Tha Mee a4 Ba pate, pp ‘3 wth cee Rae 2 OE AEEnf cn Pa Ma MIN oe * es da f+. 2). ee ion hy ark eS 12 ye, | ieek, 44xCD ke Dy har eR ae Re Sav fg ‘eal eS yet pe hae) MLE ‘ar a # * trae, cae bigs 2 a ae XK. oR a ro eee , CR s ed WE = hs f on ae ¢ ary © RES ‘ ‘ . a dy > 4 eS shene, ate . is 7 t vo ee RS ee i ’Ie ei, te ae, a“Tx OPAe ey, ~~ ape. A ;AGREES 5 bay esCheatin *ys'S me :”‘Sean .:AS hk SRY ;‘”»‘ 42SS ye : xf)eke +) Pep Pots ige Py, ;iee rnNr, ae t“isis v1:"ated ao ‘y’4*is a». Laos a bho me I ek? 1 men we ee —_ aye ty, . D> Whee eee uxt patie” » i "ee p : ’ x oy fe we PRI war ON | OTx ee yi .oeSad SNe ys ao. Oe ; kite a 2 ey, -3 pan Ly,. aee5 6eePAd We et, in © ea RA a4 ding Phece. whPs Rae

. , s ee Ay 4 i “ _ 7 wet, og oh

Me OR! ON TS Gams a a aig BeeeaePO fs aeeesoe feletaise tl Bice SP Rc AR Pa: an te es See D> te, cl tePay “FyAStates. Sa nar al dik 5 aie zioe 2 oe (ne ae nae? oS er aC) Neue Pi!” go ae ihe i Se }..i 3 ane eea=~ Pay

Shy. oe xOS oP -a7, y Bra. Pe y > DiaiBES aieTe 2 : pre ¢* J od s cls 3 FeNe iris . .gs ~4 at Y sete the PES a)NE a Le eesRyag EO .at> >Tbaw ee ee .eles ea oR ae 2>sees ye Ser ert * es -+o~~. “= ieee, ay~ spe, _ROCA 3atid yoTUE at aia aaey+ yil.BP wtf - a.‘> atroll BSae etSes er "“ww OS RR EG Petey Be ia te Ee gS * i 2 rie ? ¢ sae “i sas aa pe ~ “as OME Set Pe © rye ET Gey — “ner ~ - yt ae weet, MS A> es oat ¢ a.a SsPh +.ie.aSS OS ee RS “\97 “te rn, fn ~9)BARS CR *Eeeelos, ole AS y;typ er . aX ten Bess elise I Aoi LR, ate ig oa oeee Ree eelene Oeare4 a tes OE ne te ARS ‘Lire te PGR ae: Se hb:62 I. Ie DEE Oe*IG ee Re Cris Ot on: APS ie29 ; peg :; Fr eySs / Ty *ae laa a ot 8 ala7. i ‘Be “I. faSai se,>.oJ teeae “.¢¥ease Ks bg oSfaDS00 4tae «fae th

: trade” & oybg 1) anaes S% Sat a./ 7= ‘ LS |aa) ete Fie SSBY!

@ =a & opi . ealy - Cage te it ‘v4 pee ~ . Belk 5 BY tian Va4Fai ."ahi? \4 ee . ae Ans Wiel me “* . Risen :BC ere oe Se Ney | .aos: :a; {cy; ke SPN. 8 pe ka fa ea 2f AAR PY) ¥ my! By C> i12Pag Y ;=; nee ‘ heate F ¥. P4‘*4 sc ‘et x‘

. ¥ . ~reytwa ta ee ee oe |“' | > rt -_ : ~ we PON ome, nee Oe re g) ».

A. Fragmentary B Richt Panel C. Left Panel

Column from the Ilall of lentrance Wall of the

Aphrodite Cubiculum.

yr

PLATE X

4 * = . \ om 4 < Vs ’ -SS a +ee qaS— * _—* + , 1 — ‘ -

E. y) . RNS |.a — >: ‘at ~ ~| abe OR aoe =aR~. We par) 2 -ee a.Se : aa, sn .—: ar — . bo bad IP CE iP"_.

(eet ee ee wy ogee at :

ss _* > >—_ POCo7 -a tote: oe Pt “2a. = 7~ Mee st : Ht | - -43 y oy 4 NS ’ee’ .—_, .X2 »:— = Sang + . oy nee g P) we ae \\ Saggy ee ee el ae pe SSS ie, Cae. here = fares eS a : ie ~ -4 wwe AK e \\) ~~ ——_ > ad . , ” ane ancy bs é “ BS \\ ean . m me sams” we; ¢ ; Ei; an ° . ~ AY oo Ve LY ys , : Se Sa ate, le ee _ ‘4 é ~ 7 Fn * ~» —s >= +) its . a 1 : a | or ~ . « —“s f eas Ah, OV. a Ss +S & = q ~~. us ~ ay " >. . At he wi“ 2- a: Nera ER oeer eee al~~ eRSU Se BRS saath Mls. sa rt oe 4a: “4 oe Mes NeRS aeA?