THE FORMATION OF RISD'S ROMAN SCULPTURE COLLECTION
1 Carla Mathes Woodward, "Acquisition, Preservation, and Education: A History of the Museum," in Franklin W. Robinson and Carla Mathes Woodward, eds., A Handbook of the Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design. Providence: 1985, p. 33.
2 Elsie S. Bronson, "The Rhode Island School of Design: A Half-Century Record (1878-1928)," 1928, n.p. (typescript prepared for the 50th anniversary of RISD; collection RISD Library); see also Woodward, op. cit., p. 29.
4 Warren correspondence files, RISD Archive.
6 This became the Museum Acquisition Fund, which has been added to by anonymous donors over the years.
7Bronson, op. cit., n.p.; see also Woodward, op. cit., p. 24.
8 Mrs. Radeke was instrumental in acquiring this piece for the Museum. She was already arranging with E. P. Warren to bring it to RISD as early as 1915. See letter from Mrs. Radeke to E. P. Warren, December 18, 1915, in the Warren correspondence files, RISD Archive.
A PASSION FOR MARBLE
1 In my original publication of the piece (Catalogue of the Classical Collection, Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design: Sculpture. Providence: 1972, cat. no. 46, p. 113, ill. pp. 227-28), I had suggested that it belonged to either a throne or a table. Robert Cohon, who has written definitively on the subject of decorated table supports (1984), kindly tells me (letter of June 13, 2000) that he believes the slab to be too small for a table and more likely to have once supported a bench. On p. 13 of his work referred to above (R. H. Cohon, "Greek and Roman Stone Table Supports with Decorative Reliefs," PhD Dissertation, New York University, UMI, 1984), he lists the height of bench supports as ranging between 11 3/4 in. (29.5 cm.) and 18 in. (45.8 cm.), reaching a maximum of 18 3/4 in. (47.5 cm.). Any support higher than the maximum should belong to a table, any lower than 14 3/4 in. (37.5 cm.) to a bench. The RISD piece is 14 3/4 in. (37.4 cm.) high. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Cohon for his advice.
2 See, for instance, mentions of the Punic (Carthaginian) columns of the Apollo Palatinus complex, Rome (Propertius 2.31.3; cf. Ovid, Tristia, 3.1.61-62; "foreign" columns). On the various colored marbles used by the Romans, see M. L. Anderson, ed., Radiance in Stone. Sculptures in Colored Marble from the Museo Nazionale Romano. Atlanta and Rome: 1989; these stones, however, would have been enormously expensive for most private individuals.
3 It is now officially acknowledged by scholars that judging the provenience of any given stone purely by visual observation (as was formerly done) is thoroughly inadequate and that only isotopic analysis and other scientific methods can determine the source. ASMOSIA, the society for the study of marble and other stones in antiquity, is making great progress in this direction.
4 See G. Hellenkemper Salies et al., Das Wrack. Der antike Schiffsfund vom Mahdia (Kataloge des Reinischen Landesmuseum, vol. I.1Ð2). Bonn: 1994, two vols.; and "Neue Forschungen zum Schiffsfund von Mahdia," Bonner Jahrbücher, no. 196 (1996), pp. 199-337, esp. "Das Wrack. Eine Bilanz nach zwei Jahren," pp. 199 -219. For a summary account, cf. B. S. Ridgway, "The wreck off Mahdia, Tunisia, and the art-market in early 1st century B.C.," Journal of Roman Archaeology, vol. 8 (1995), pp. 340Ð47.
5 See Ridgway, op. cit., 1972, pp. 78-79, cat. no. 29. For the Salpion Krater (Naples, National Museum, no. 6673), see D. Grassinger, Römische Marmorkratere. Mainz: 1991, pp. 175-77, no. 19, figs. 22-25; cf. Grassinger's p. 186, no. 27, for the RISD fragment, dated to the Claudian period (AD 41-54).
6 For two such objects in The RISD Museum collection, see acc. nos. 26.156 and 50.263; Ridgway, op. cit., 1972, pp. 114-15, cat. nos. 47, 48. Dr. Cohon has suggested to me (see n. 1) that cat. no. 48 is a table leg. For an idea of how much marble decoration might appear in a villa context, consider the peristyle of the Casa degli Amorini Dorati (House of the Golden Erotes) in Pompeii: F. Seiler, Casa degli Amorini Dorati VI 16,7.38 (Häuser in Pompeji, vol. 5). Munich: 1992.
7 In Roman art, some satyrs have horns, perhaps in a conflation with the goat-god Pan; see, e.g., several bronzes from Pompeii, including the famous Dancing Satyr that gives the name to the House of the Faun (Naples, National Museum, 5002): Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (hereafter, LIMC), vol. 8, s.v. silenoi, 1131, no. 233, pl. 783, and cf. no. 232 for a horned example from Pergamon.
8 In Greek art, rivers were often represented with bovine traits, since the sound of their rushing waters when in flood was compared to the bellowing of a bull. For Acheloos, see LIMC, vol. 1, s.v. Acheloos, esp. no. 162, pl. 34, for a bronze appliqué of Augustan date somewhat comparable to the head on the RISD bench leg.
9 The author's forthcoming book deals with much of this "Neo-Attic" material, especially chapters 8 and 9: B. S. Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture III: The Styles of ca. 100-31 B.C. Madison: 2002.
REASSESSING ROMAN REPLICATION
1 Recent works on Winckelmann include A. Potts, Flesh and the Ideal. London: 1994; and A. A. Donohue, "Winckelmann's History of Art and Polyclitus," in W. G. Moon, ed., Polykleitos, the Doryphoros and Tradition. Madison: 1995, pp. 327-53.
2 G.M.A. Richter, Catalogue of the Greek Sculptures, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Cambridge (MA): 1954, no. 37, pp. 29-30, pls. 34-36.
3 R. Bol, Amazones Volneratae. Untersuchungen zu den Ephesischen Amazonenstatuen. Mainz: 1998, pp. 35Ð49, 171, 184, pls. 28-29; and B. S. Ridgway, "A Story of Five Amazons," American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 78 (1974), pp. 1-17.
4 Pliny, Natural History, 33:53: "After thus defining the periods of the most famous artists, I will hastily run through those of outstanding distinction.The most celebrated have also come into competition with each other, although born at different periods, because they had made statues of Amazons; when these were dedicated in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, it was agreed that the best one should be selected by the vote of the artists themselves who were present; and it then became evident that the best was the one which all the artists judged to be the next best after their own: this is the Amazon by Polycleitus, while next to it came that of Pheidias, third Cresilas's, fourth Cydon's, and fifth Phradmon's" (trans. by H. Rackham, Pliny. Natural History, Books XXXII-XXXV. Cambridge [MA]: 1952, reprinted 1995).
5 J. J. Pollitt, The Art of Ancient Greece, Sources and Documents. Cambridge (England): 1990, 2nd ed., pp. 2Ð3.
6 E. K. Gazda, "Roman Sculpture and the Ethos of Emulation: Reconsidering Repetition," in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. 97 (1995), pp. 121-56, esp. pp. 139Ð44 on the linkage between portraiture and repetition.
7 E. Bartman, "Sculptural Collecting and Display in the Private Realm," in E. K. Gazda, ed., Roman Art in the Private Sphere. Ann Arbor: 1991, pp. 71-88; also E. Bartman, "Décor et Duplicatio: Pendants in Roman Sculptural Display," American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 92 (1988), pp. 211-25; and M. Marvin, "Copying in Roman Sculpture: The Replica Series," in K. Preciado, ed., Retaining the Original: Multiple Originals, Copies and Reproductions (Studies in the History of Art, vol. 20). Washington, DC: 1989, pp. 29-45.
MESSAGES IN MARBLE
1 For the most recent study of Augustan portraiture, see D. Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Augustus. Das Römische Herrscherbild, part 1, vol. 2. Berlin: 1993. Boschung renamed this type, formerly known as the Octavian or Actium type, as the Alcudia type; see cat. no. 22, pl. 17, for the RISD Augustus. See also the review of Boschung by J. Pollini, Art Bulletin, vol. 81, no. 4 (December 1999), pp. 723-35.
2 B. S. Ridgway, Catalogue of the Classical Collection, Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design: Sculpture. Providence: 1972, cat. no. 31, pp. 82-83.
3 K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves. Sociological Studies in Roman History, vol. 1. New York: 1978, p. 221. J. P. Rollin, Untersuchungen zu Rechtsfragen römischer Bildnisse. Bonn: 1979, pp. 117-23, 148-49.
4 Hopkins, op. cit., p. 224. On petitions to statues, see S. Walker, Roman Art. Cambridge (England): 1991, p. 30. On the payment of fines, see S.R.F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. New York: 1984, p. 193. On asylum, see T. Pekáry, "Ad statuas confugere," in Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft: dargestellt Anhand der Schriftquellen. Berlin: 1985, pp. 130-31; Price, op. cit., pp. 192-93; Hopkins, op. cit., pp. 222-23.
5 On the similarity of the RISD portrait to portraits of Drusus the Younger, see Ridgway, op. cit., cat. no. 31, pp. 82-83.
7 Ovid, Epistulae Ex Ponto (to Graecinus), 4.9.105Ð112. See Ovid, Tristia; Ex Ponto with an English translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler (rev. G. P. Goold). Cambridge (MA): 1988, 2nd ed.
8 See G. E. Borromeo, "Roman Small-Scale Portrait Busts," PhD dissertation, Brown University, Providence, 1993, pp. 128-31, for a brief discussion of imperial portraits in domestic contexts as they relate to the imperial cult.
9 See B. S. Ridgway, Roman Copies of Greek Sculpture: The Problem of the Originals. Ann Arbor: 1984, for the earliest reassessment of Roman ideal sculpture; and E. K. Gazda, "Roman Sculpture and the Ethos of Emulation: Reconsidering Repetition," in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. 97 (1995), pp. 121-56, for a summary of the issues and recent scholarship.
10 M. Marvin, "Copying in Roman Sculpture: The Replica Series," in K. Preciado, ed., Retaining the Original: Multiple Originals, Copies, and Reproduction (Studies in the History of Art, vol. 20). Washington, DC: 1989, p. 34.
11 B. S. Ridgway, "Roman Bronze Statuary-- Beyond Technology," in C. C. Mattusch, ed., The Fire of Hephaistos: Large Classical Bronzes from North American Collections. Cambridge (MA): 1996, p. 130.
12 The RISD figure is reminiscent of the Aphrodite Frejus (late 5th century BC) type, although the left breast is modestly covered. A replica of the Aphrodite Frejus type in Naples, also with left breast covered, has the idealized head of the prototype. See Ridgway, op. cit., cat. no. 14, pp. 41-42, n. 8.
14 S. B. Matheson, "The Divine Claudia: Women as Goddesses in Roman Art," in D.E.E Kleiner and S. B. Matheson, eds. I, Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome. New Haven: 1996, pp. 140, 186, 189. Venus was particularly important to the Julio-Claudian family, who traced their roots back to her and adopted her as their patron deity. In ad 14, shortly after the death of Augustus, Livia was adopted into the Julian family through a stipulation in Augustus's will. She appears in the guise of Venus Genetrix in a cameo in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, acc. no. 99.109; see R. Winkes, "Der Kameo Marlborough. Ein Urbild der Livia," Archäologischer Anzeiger (1982), pp. 131Ð38.
15 For a full discussion and analysis of these letters, see Marvin, op. cit., pp. 29-45.
WHY ANCIENT ROMAN SCULPTURES LOOK THE WAY THEY DO
1 The brass dowels formerly holding the sculpture to its wooden base had been modified several times, making the mounting system unstable. During conservation, all old mounting hardware was removed, including the lead and plaster of Paris holding the dowels in place. Removal of plaster from the left leg revealed a previously unknown cutting, probably for an ancient repair. The sculpture was remounted on a specially designed base with new brass dowels. Years of accumulated dust and soot obscured the warm color of the marble surface. The sculpture was cleaned with a mild detergent solution and water.
2 Numerous previous campaigns of mounting the Torso of a Fighting Giant had resulted in four modern drill holes in the figure's legs and groin. The new remounting of this dynamic figure utilizes one of these holes in a simplified system on a newly designed base. Gentle cleaning removed darkening from airborne soil and hand contact, bringing out the warm color of the stone and subtle rendering of musculature in the sculpture.
THE FASCINATION WITH FRAGMENTS
1 S. Howard, Antiquity Restored: Essays on the Afterlife of the Antique. Vienna: 1990, p. 16.
2 D. Walker, "Sculpture," in E. P. Bowron and J. J. Rishel, eds., Art in Rome in the Eighteenth Century. London and New York: 2000, pp. 211-23, especially p. 216. See also Howard, op. cit., pp. 98-116; C. A. Picon, Bartolomeo Cavaceppi: Eighteenth-Century Restorations of Ancient Marble Sculpture from English Private Collections. London: 1983; N. Ramage, "Restorer and Collector: Notes on Eighteenth-Century Recreations of Roman Statues," in E. K. Gazda, ed., The Ancient Art of Emulation: Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor: 2001.
3 I. Jenkins, Archaeologists and Aesthetes. London: 1992, pp. 26-27. See also O. Rossi Pinelli, "The Surgery of Memory: Ancient Sculpture and Historical Restoration," in N. S. Price, M. K. Talley, Jr., and A. M. Vaccaro, eds., Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Los Angeles: 1996, p. 295.
4 Rossi Pinelli, op. cit., pp. 297-98, who adds: "The suspicion that a restoration could constitute forgery was thus considered, for the first time, within an institutional context." See also Howard, op. cit., p. 24.
5 M. Roth with C. Lyons and C. Merewether, Irresistible Decay: Ruins Reclaimed. Los Angeles: 1997, p. 3.
6 S. Marchand, Down From Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750Ð1970. Princeton: 1996, pp. 75-115. See also Rossi Pinelli, op. cit., p. 299.
7 G. Daniel, A Short History of Archaeology. London and New York: 1981, pp. 59-60.
8 W. Ernst, "Frames at Work: Museological Imagination and Historical Discourse in Neoclassical Britain," Art Bulletin, vol. 75, no. 3 (September 1993), pp. 481-98, especially p. 484.
9 M. Bergstein, "Lonely Aphrodites: On the Documentary Photography of Sculpture," Art Bulletin, vol. 74, no. 3 (September 1992), pp. 475-98.
10 B. S. Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture II: The Styles of ca. 200-100 B.C. Madison: 2000, p. 288 and p. 301, n. 56, with bibliography, classifies this group and other similar nymph-and-satyr groups as "eclectic, popular subjects much appreciated by the Romans and therefore incapable of precise dating" (p. 288).
11 C. Brand, "Theory of Restoration I" and "Theory of Restoration II," in Price, Talley, and Vaccaro, op. cit., pp. 230-35 and 339-42; cf. "Theory of Restoration III-VI," which in total address the issue of restoration. For an egregious example of dismantling an historic nineteenth-century restoration, see W. Diebold, "The Politics of Derestoration," Art Journal, vol. 54, no. 2 (Summer 1995), pp. 60-66.
PORTRAIT OF AUGUSTUS
1 For the most recent study of Augustan portraiture, see D. Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Augustus. Das Römische Herrscherbild, part 1, vol. 2. Berlin: 1993. See his cat. no. 22, p. 118, pl. 17, for the RISD Augustus. See also the review of Boschung by J. Pollini, Art Bulletin, vol. 81, no. 4 (December 1999), pp. 723-35. There are five types and two additional subtypes of Augustus portraits.
2 In various parts of the empire, however, his image was sometimes altered in the process of translating the Roman concept of the princeps (first citizen) into local notions of leadership. See Pollini, op. cit., p. 729.
3 Vatican Museums, Braccio Nuovo, inv. 2290; see Boschung, op. cit., cat. no. 171, pp. 179-81, pls. 69-70, 82.
4 K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves. New York: 1978, pp. 221-24.
5 S.R.F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. New York: 1984, pp. 192-94; Hopkins, op. cit., pp. 221-24.
7 Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome, inv. 56230; Boschung, op. cit., cat. no. 165, pp. 17677, pls. 80, 148, 214; B. S. Ridgway, Catalogue of the Classical Collection, Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design: Sculpture. Providence: 1972, cat. no. 32, p. 85, ill. pp. 199-200.
8 Galleria degli Uffizi, no. 1914.76. See Boschung, op. cit., cat. no. 10, p. 112, pl. 9.
9 Tripoli, Archaeological Museum, inv. 477. See ibid., cat. no. 31, pl. 10.
10 Ridgway, op. cit., pp. 84-85.
11 Boschung, op. cit., p. 118. Created over a long time span, Augustan portraits range in date from about 43 BC to after his death in AD 14. They were also found throughout the empire. It is difficult to date portraits of Augustus accurately on stylistic grounds alone, due to the differences among regional styles and the variability in workshop practices.
12 Boschung renamed this type, formerly known as the Octavian or Actium type, as the Alcudia type, after a portrait in a private collection in Alcudia, Mallorca; see Boschung, op. cit., cat. no. 6, p. 110, pls. 7-8.
HEAD OF AN AMAZON
1 The type was named after the statue from the Palazzo Sciarra, Rome, which is today in the Ny Carlsberg Gylptotek in Copenhagen; see R. Bol, Amazones Volneratae: Untersuchungen zu den Ephesischen Amazonenstatuen. Mainz: 1998, p. 35. The Sciarra type was previously known as the Berlin/Lansdowne type, after the replicas in Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Antikensammlung, and in New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art (no. 32.11.4), formerly of the Lansdowne Collection.
2 A. Furtwängler (Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture. Chicago: 1964, 1st American ed., pp. 128-32, 247) spoke out in favor of the validity of Pliny's account, and in fact attempted to assign each of the five Amazon types to a famous fifth-century BC sculptor. He attributed the Sciarra type to Polykleitos. Furtwängler's attribution of the Sciarra type is shared by scholars such as G.M.A. Richter (Catalogue of Greek Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Cambridge [MA]: 1954, pp. 29-30), and, most recently, R. Bol ("Die Amazone des Polyklet," in H. Beck, P. C. Bol, M. Buckling, eds., Polyklet: Der Bildhauer der griechischen Klassik. Mainz am Rhein: 1990, p. 228). B. S. Ridgway has questioned Pliny's account and thus Furtwängler's assignment, arguing that only two of the five types originated in the fifth century BC, and that it may have been Augustus who added the Sciarra type; see B. S. Ridgway, "The Five Ephesian Amazons," in Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, vol. II. Ankara: 1978, p. 769.
3 "The specific message that even Greek works conveyed in a Roman context [was often] quite different from that of their original setting"; B. S. Ridgway, "Roman Bronze Statuary - Beyond Technology," in C. C. Mattusch, ed., The Fire of Hephaistos: Large Classical Bronzes from North American Collections. Cambridge (MA): 1996, pp. 122-23.
4 "We should recognize that the repeated image played a vital role in Roman visual communication as something familiar, emblematic, and visually compelling"; E. K. Gazda, "Roman Sculpture and the Ethos of Emulation: Reconsidering Repetition," in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. 97 (1995), p. 146.
6 M. Marvin, "Copying in Roman Sculpture: The Replica Series," in K. Preciado, ed., Retaining the Original: Multiple Originals, Copies and Reproductions (Studies in the History of Art, vol. 20). Washington, DC: 1989, p. 33.
7 Ridgway, op. cit., 1996, p. 134.
8 The personification of virtue. Marvin, op. cit., p. 37.
9 Bol, op. cit., 1998, table 28.
MALE FIGURE
1 M. Marvin, "Roman Sculptural Reproductions, or Polykleitos: The Sequel," in A. Hughes and E. Ranfft, eds., Sculpture and Its Reproductions. London: 1997, p. 23.
2 O. Palagia, "Imitation of Herakles in Ruler Portraiture: A Survey, from Alexander to Maximinus Daza," Boreas, vol. 9 (1986), pp. 145, 148.
PORTRAIT OF A BOY IN THE GUISE OF A DEITY
1 Cf. B. S. Ridgway, Catalogue of the Classical Collection, Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design: Sculpture. Providence: 1972, cat. no. 20, p. 57, ill. pp. 171-73.
2 Cf. A. K. Massner, Bildnisangleichung. Berlin: 1982, figs. 27 b-c and 29 a-c; and F. S. Johansen, "The Sculpted Portraits of Caligula," in Ancient Portraits in the J. P. Getty Museum, vol. I. Malibu: 1987, pp. 87-106, figs. 20, 22-24.
3 Evidence against such Julio-Claudian identification lies in the fact that sculptural examples of Julio-Claudian imperial youths do not exhibit such long and seemingly free or unkempt hair, which was more common in the Antonine period, as youthful likenesses of Marcus Aurelius attest; cf. K. Fittschen, Prinzenbildnisse Antoninischer Zeit. Mainz: 1999, pl. 5, a bust now in Modena.
5 The braid appears, for example, on a sleeping Eros dated to the second half of the first century AD in the J. Paul Getty Museum (no. 73.aa.95); cf. G. Koch and K. Wright, eds., Roman Funerary Sculpture: Catalogue of the Collections in the J. Paul Getty Museum. Malibu: 1988, cat. no. 43. For an example dated to the second century AD, see S. B. Matheson, "The Divine Claudia: Women as Goddesses in Roman Art," in D.E.E. Kleiner and S. B. Matheson, eds., I, Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome. New Haven: 1996, p. 183 and fig. 1.
6 E.g. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum (no. 25784), cf. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (hereafter, LIMC) IV.1 (1988), s.v. Harpokrates 5, p. 418.
7 E.g. Tarragona Archaeological Museum, cf. LIMC IV.1, s.v. Herakles 1246, p. 787; dated to the second century AD.
8 This includes Palaimon also, e.g. Walters Art Gallery, no. 54.724; cf. A. P. Kozloff and D. G. Mitten, The Gods Delight: The Human Figure in Classical Bronze. Cleveland: 1988, p. 359, and cat. no. 72, a bronze figurine of Julio-Claudian date, probably AD 20-60; as well as Triptolemos.
9 There is known conflation in imagery of these deities. Eros, for instance, could acquire attributes of such deities as the Seasons, Attis, Harpokrates, Apollo, Mercury, Herakles, Dionysos, and Tritons, among others. Such practice was particularly widespread in arts of the first and second centuries of our era. Eros, for example, shared imagery with Harpokrates from the Hellenistic period on; cf. a second- or first-century BC figurine now in Detroit (no. 24.139), as seen in E. K. Gazda, ed., The Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii: Ancient Ritual, Modern Muse. Ann Arbor: 2000, p. 209 and cat. no. 75.
10 As stated, no prototype has been found for this piece, nor other replicas.
11 J. Allen, in Kleiner and Matheson,op. cit., p. 198; S. B. Matheson, "The Divine Claudia: Women as Goddesses in Roman Art," in Kleiner and Matheson, op. cit., p. 190.
12 Cf. G.M.A. Richter, Catalogue of Greek Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Cambridge (MA): 1954, figs. 176 a-b, pl. cxxiii.
13 Of a work depicting an infant Caracalla in the guise of the Greek hero Herakles strangling snakes (ca. AD 190, now in the Museo Capitolino, Rome), Kleiner states: "Such mythological conceits were popular in Antonine court circles. The taste for such artificial but symbolically charged portraiture continued to be the vogue under the Severans"; D.E.E. Kleiner, Roman Sculpture. New Haven: 1992, p. 322 and fig. 285.
15 Kleiner and Matheson, op. cit., p. 173 and cat. no. 127.
16 A. Herrmann, "The Boy with the Jumping Weights," The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, vol. 80, no. 7 (1993), p. 298 and fig. 1.
17 Allen, op. cit., p. 143 and cat. no. 76.
18 C. B. Rose, Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period. Cambridge (England): 1997, pp. 82-3, cat. no. 4 and pls. 62-63.
19 Allen, op. cit., p. 143; and Rose, op. cit., p. 83.
YOUTHFUL FIGURE WEARING A TORQUE
1 A. Herrmann, "The Boy with the Jumping Weights," The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, vol. 80, no. 7 (1993), p. 314.
2 G. Koch and K. Wright, eds., Roman Funerary Sculpture: Catalogue of the Collections in the J. Paul Getty Museum. Malibu: 1988, p. 102 and cat. no. 37.Art, vol. 80, no. 7 (1993), p. 314.
3 Eros has long been associated with untimely death, so his presence is appropriate in funerary statuary. See in addition to the mourning Eros mentioned by A. Herrmann (who stated that the piece could easily have been adapted to carry a portrait head, op. cit., p. 317), a representation in Leptis Magna (no. 9), as seen in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (hereafter, LIMC) III.1 (1986), s.v. Eros/Amor, Cupido 555, p. 1019: a marble piece dating to the second or third century or our era, now missing its head, a figure holding a goose.
4 E.g. Tarragona Archaeological Museum (no. 12258) and Palazzo dei Conservatori in Rome (no. 1103), cf. LIMC IV.1, s.v. Herakles 1246 and 1226, pp. 786-87, among others. Although of differing sizes and media, these four figures all share the youthful body, swayed hips, and portrait head.
5 B. S. Ridgway, Catalogue of the Classical Collection, Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design: Sculpture. Providence: 1972, pp. 92-94. The torque was the "Celtic national symbol"; cf. G. Becatti, Oreficerie Antiche. Rome: 1955, p. 104. Cf. also R. R. Holloway, "Who's Who on the Ara Pacis," Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. Rome: 1984, pp. 625-28.
6 These examples date to the end of the second century of our era; cf. S. Walker, ed., Ancient Faces: Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt. New York: 2000, cat. nos. 45-46, among others.
7 Herakles may be an exception, as a lion skin is usually tied around his neck.
8 LIMC III.1, s.v. "Attis" 345, p. 38.
9 Ibid., s.v. Eros/Amor, Cupido 476, p. 1011.
10 The torque was a constant attribute of the Celtic gods of the Gauls, cf. an Augustan-age statuette of a divinity in Dijon (no. 355) in Vercingétorix et Alésia. Paris: 1994, cat. no. 306; a funerary relief featuring Cernunnus/Mercury from Reims (P. MacKendrick, Roman France. New York: 1972, p. 164); and statuettes of gods such as Bouray, Orsennes, and Euffigneix, as seen in J. L. Brunaux, The Celtic Gauls: Gods, Rites and Sanctuaries. London: 1988, pp. 67Ð68. Further, Brunaux states on p. 74 that "It is not unlikely that huge torques specially manufactured for the cult were attached to these sculptures [of the Celtic gods]; and attributes of a god seem to have served better than an image, in the earliest times and before the process of figuration."
11 Herrmann, op. cit., p. 306. The figures in this series appear along with attributes of jumping weights.
12 For all of these examples, Hellenistic originals are suggested.
13 Leptis Magna figure, see n. 3; for the other, see G. Ferrari, C. M. Nielsen, and K Olson, eds., The Classical Collection: The David and Alfred Smart Museum of Art, The University of Chicago. Chicago: 1998, p. 151.
14 Herrmann, op. cit., 1993, p. 300; and D.E.E. Kleiner, Roman Sculpture. New Haven: 1992, p. 322.
FEMALE FIGURE
1 Cf. H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol. III: Nerva to Hadrian. London: 1936, pp. cl and 541, pl. 99:4; e.g. a coin of Sabina as Sabina Augusta with reverse legend "Veneri Genetrici."
2 A. Claridge, Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide. Oxford: 1998, p. 150.
3 A. M. Knoblauch in B. S. Ridgway, Greek Sculpture in the Art Museum, Princeton University: Greek Originals, Roman Copies and Variants. Princeton: 1994, pp. 50Ð53. The type is named for the best replica, now in the Louvre, originally from Naples; the type was previously known as the Aphrodite Frejus (cf. B. S. Ridgway, Catalogue of the Classical Collection, Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design: Sculpture. Providence: 1972, p. 40). Because the Providence piece is a late Roman work, it will be referred to in this essay as Venus, even if the Hadrianic Venus Genetrix was derived from an earlier statue of Aphrodite.
4 M. Brinke, "Die Aphrodite Louvre-Neapel," Antike Plastik, vol. 25 (1996), p. 7 ff. These examples exhibit much variation.
6 S. B. Matheson, "The Divine Claudia: Women as Goddesses in Roman Art" in D.E.E. Kleiner and S. B. Matheson, eds., I, Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome. New Haven: 1996, p. 184.
7 Appian, Civil Wars II, 102; as did Hadrian, the Temple of Roma and Venus.
9 D.E.E. Kleiner, Roman Sculpture. New Haven: 1992, p. 281.
10 On Livia portraits, see R. Winkes, Livia, Octavia, Iulia. Louvain: 1996.
11 Matheson, op. cit., pp. 185, 189.
12 M. Marvin, "Copying in Roman Sculpture: The Replica Series," in K. Preciado, ed., Retaining the Original: Multiple Originals, Copies and Reproductions (Studies in the History of Art, vol. 20). Washington, DC: 1989, p. 36.
13 A. Oliver, "Honors to Romans: Bronze Portraits," in C. C. Mattusch, ed., The Fire of Hephaistos: Large Classical Bronzes from North American Collections. Cambridge (MA): 1996, p. 138 ff.
14 Kleiner, op. cit., p. 281. Venus was in fact the most popular female deity represented in this realm, as attested by the number of extant examples of the type, followed by others such as Alcestis, Juno, Ceres and Cybele and Fortuna.
15 E. K. Gazda, "Roman Sculpture and the Ethos of Emulation: Reconsidering Repetition" in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. 97 (1995), p. 138. Like representations of the wounded Amazon in Rethinking the Romans, this piece illustrates well the way in which sculptures based on earlier Greek works assumed new meanings once adopted into Roman contexts.
16 The piece differs in dress from the Louvre-Naples type, as discussed by M. Bieber in a letter of June 12, 1968, in the RISD Museum curatorial files.
17 Cf. Brinke, op. cit., p. 19 and cat. no. 3.
18 Kleiner, op. cit., p. 281. These women "may not have shared the desire of their aristocratic counterparts to be depicted without their clothes."
19 Cf. Brinke, op. cit., all with covered breast: cat. no. 24 and p. 35, a Trajanic/Hadrianic example; cat. no. 32 and p. 41, Trajanic; cat. no. 39 and p. 46, Antonine; and cat. no. 43 and p. 49, Antonine.
20 Indeed B. S. Ridgway noted the similarity in the rendering of folds in the Providence piece's garments to that on a statue from Ostia of Trajanic date; Ridgway, op. cit., p. 41.