The Learned Collector: Mythological Statuettes and Classical Taste in Late Antique Gaul

The Learned Collector

The Learned Collector mythological statuettes and classical taste in late antique gaul

Lea M. Stirling

the university of michigan press ann arbor

Copyright © by the University of Michigan 2005 All rights reserved Published in the United States of America by The University of Michigan Press Manufactured in the United States of America ∞ Printed on acid-free paper 2008

2007

2006

2005

4

3

2

1

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher. A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Stirling, Lea Margaret. The learned collector : mythological statuettes and classical taste in late antique Gaul / Lea M. Stirling. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-472-11433-6 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Mythology, Classical, in art. 2. Marble sculpture, Roman—France, Southwest. 3. Figurines—France, Southwest. 4. France, Southwest—Antiquities, Roman. 5. Sculpture—Collectors and collecting—France, Southwest. I. Title. NB160.S75 2005 730′.9364—dc22 2004019093

ISBN13 978-0-472-11433-7 (cloth) ISBN13 978-0-472-02534-3 (electronic)

To Stella and Ian Stirling

Acknowledgments

T

he present book has been a long time in the making, from nascent ideas in classes with Jeremy Rossiter and Thelma Thomas, through its original recension as my 1994 doctoral dissertation (University of Michigan), to the much-expanded present format. I extend heartfelt thanks to the numerous people in museums, universities, and other institutions who have assisted me in manifold ways over that period. I have been fortunate in holding the Canada Council Chair in Roman Archaeology (Tier II) since 2001. This chair has supported the new sections of this book, chapters 2 and 6, as well as much of the cost of its illustrations. Thanks are due to Elaine Gazda and Thelma Thomas, who sagely supervised my dissertation research. In France and elsewhere, many people assisted my research with invaluable advice and information, and I warmly acknowledge Véronique Blanc-Bijon, M. and Mme André Brachet, M. and Mme Egidio Borini, Jean-Pierre Bost, François Braemer, M. and Mme Cailler, Bruno Del Nero, the late Nicole Deroisy-Delgouffre, Martin Deroisy, Rory Egan, Jane Fejfer, Aurélia Greiveldinger, Niels Hannestad, Jeanne Hanus, Anne Hochuli-Gysel, John Humphrey, Jacques Lapart, Carol Lawton, Anna Leone, Louis Maurin, Richard Posamentir, and David Potter. I have profited from research resources at the Centre Pierre Paris (Bordeaux), the Centre Camille Jullian (Aix-en-Provence), and the American School of Classical Studies (Athens). Elise Friedland, John Gahan, Alison Griffith, Lisa Hughes, and anonymous readers for the University of Michigan Press read the manuscript in full or part and provided valuable criticism and improvements. Naturally, they are not responsible for any infelicities in the text or for the judgments expressed therein. I thank the editorial staff at the University of Michigan Press for their many efforts on my behalf. vii

the learned collector viii

For permission to study artifacts and for their courteous welcome and assistance, I am indebted to the following: Yannick Linz (formerly Musée d’Agen), Christopher Ratté, R. R. R. Smith (Aphrodisias excavations), J.-M. Rouquette (Musées d’Arles), Mrs. Salda (National Archaeological Museum, Athens), Anne Ziéglé and Michel Gourdin (Musée d’Aquitaine, Bordeaux), the Société Archéologique de Bordeaux, Abdelmajid Ennabli (Musée National de Carthage), Maria Aurenhammer (Ephesos excavations), Bernard Ducasse (Musée de Libourne), the Société Archéologique de Libourne, the late Georges Fouet (director of excavations at Montmaurin), T. Miro (Musée de Montmaurin), Magalie Puisségur, Valérie Parickmiler-Duguet (Musée Henri IV, Nérac), Dominique Darde (Musée Archéologique de Nîmes), Jane Shepherd, Anna Galina Zevi (Ostia Museum), Mathilde Avisseau-Broustet (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris), François Baratte (Musée du Louvre, Paris), Jean Gugole (director of excavations at Séviac), Daniel Cazes, Jacques Grange (Musée Saint-Raymond, Toulouse), and Sabine Faust (Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Trier). In Winnipeg, the collegial atmosphere in the Classics Department and in University College at the University of Manitoba augments the pleasure of scholarship. Student assistants Jody Gordon, Jim Hamm, Craig Hardiman, Jane Heinrichs, and Ana Panic´ aided in aspects of the research and editing. Jane Heinrichs deftly created several illustrations. Finally, this work could not have been completed without the steadfast support of my family. My parents have always encouraged my interests, even when times seemed dark for the humanities. My husband, Mark Lawall, has given not just advice but humor, companionship, and love, in Ann Arbor, Winnipeg, Athens, and numerous other places. My daughter, Sophie, brings me joy and laughter. To them all go my deepest thanks.

Contents

List of Figures

xi

chapter one Introduction 1 chapter two Findspots, Functions, and the Burden of Proof: Some Questions of Methodology 15 chapter three Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul and Their Sculptural Collections 29 chapter four Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins

91

chapter five Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux: The Social Environment of Late Mythological Statuary chapter six Learned Collectors across the Empire

165

chapter seven Statuary, Paideia, and Collecting: Conclusions Notes

228

233

Bibliography Index

138

283

307 ix

Figures

Fig. 1. Late antique villas in Aquitania Fig. 2. Statuette of Ganymede found at the House of the Greek Charioteers, Carthage Fig. 3. Shrine with statuary found in a late antique home under the Via Giovanni Lanza, Rome Fig. 4. Statuette of Diana found at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, front Fig. 5. Statuette of Diana found at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, back Fig. 6. Statuette of Diana found at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, side Fig. 7. Statuette of Venus with erotes and triton found at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne Fig. 8. Head of Apollo found at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, side Fig. 9. Head of woman wearing Scheitelzopf hairstyle, found at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne Fig. 10. Head of Mars found at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne Fig. 11. Plan of the later villa at Montmaurin, showing findspots of statuary Fig. 12. Venus-Victory found at Montmaurin, front Fig. 13. Venus-Victory found at Montmaurin, back Fig. 14. Hand with staff and drapery found at Montmaurin Fig. 15. Author’s reconstruction of Venus-Victory of Montmaurin Fig. 16. Statuette of Victory with captives Fig. 17. Statuary fragments showing the myth of Venus and Adonis, found at Montmaurin

5 8 16 31 32 33 34 35 35 35 38 40 41 42 42 42 44 xi

Figures xii

Fig. 18. Diademed head found at Montmaurin, three-quarter view Fig. 19. Diademed head found at Montmaurin, side Fig. 20. Author’s reconstruction of the statuette of the Birth of Adonis Fig. 21. Author’s reconstruction of the statuette of the Death of Adonis Fig. 22. Plan of the villa of Chiragan Fig. 23. Detail of the main living quarters of the villa of Chiragan Fig. 24. Detail of the main living quarters of the villa of Chiragan, showing findspots of statuary Fig. 25. Statuette of sleeping Ariadne found at Chiragan Fig. 26. Head of female statuette found at Chiragan Fig. 27. Statuette of Bacchus found at Chiragan, front Fig. 28. Statuette of Bacchus found at Chiragan, detail of face Fig. 29. Plan of villa at La-Garenne-de-Nérac Fig. 30. Statuette of Victory found at La-Garenne-de-Nérac Fig. 31. Drawing of a diademed female head found at La-Garenne-de-Nérac Fig. 32. Base of statuette with leg of Pan, tree, and feet on it Fig. 33. Statuette of Minerva found at Castelculier Fig. 34. Statuette of running satyr found at Wellen, front Fig. 35. Statuette of running satyr found at Wellen, back Fig. 36. Statuette of running satyr found at Wellen, side Fig. 37. Female head found in Bordeaux Fig. 38. Female head wearing diadem, found in Arles Fig. 39. Dancing maenad found in Arles Fig. 40. Statuette of Mithras slaying the bull, found in Sidon Fig. 41. Statuette of Hekate and the Graces found in Sidon Fig. 42. Statuette of Aion-Kronos found in Sidon Fig. 43. Statuette of youth wearing a Phrygian cap Fig. 44. Theodosian obelisk base, northwest side Fig. 45. Theodosian obelisk base, detail of northwest side Fig. 46. Column of Theodosius, fragment Fig. 47. Statuette of Christ seated Fig. 48. Statuette of Aphrodite loosening her sandal, found in Sidon Fig. 49. Statuette of Aphrodite found in Sidi Bishr Fig. 50. Statuette of Meleager-Helios Fig. 51. Statuette of a maenad

44 44 46 46 50 51 55 56 57 58 59 63 65 66 67 68 72 72 72 74 74 74 93 94 96 97 99 99 99 100 101 101 101 103

Figures xiii

Fig. 52. Head of an emperor found in the Beyazit district of Istanbul Fig. 53. Statuette of an empress, front Fig. 54. Sarcophagus of Christ giving the Law Fig. 55. Male bust holding statuette of the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias, found in the Atrium House, Aphrodisias Fig. 56. Statuettes of Asklepios and Cybele found in the North Byzantine House, Aphrodisias Fig. 57. View of the courtyard of the House of Fortuna Annonaria, Ostia Fig. 58. Plan of the House of Fortuna Annonaria Fig. 59. Statuette of Cupid and Psyche found at Ostia Fig. 60. Plan of villa at Desenzano, showing findspots of sculpture Fig. 61. Head of Apollo found at Desenzano Fig. 62. Octagonal structure excavated at Valdetorres de Jarama, showing findspots of statuary in white and red marble Fig. 63. Statuette of Bacchus found at Walbrook, London Fig. 64. Building Chi, Athens Fig. 65. View of excavations at Building Chi

111 112 116 122 123 170 170 173 176 178 180 194 202 203

chapter one

Introduction

V

i v i d d e s c r i p t i o n s of two diametrically opposed responses to mythological statuary in Gaul from the later decades of the fourth century have come down to us through accounts of Ausonius of Bordeaux and St. Martin of Tours. Though contemporaries, the two men had different educational backgrounds and personify contrasting outlooks to the value of images. Both acknowledged the power of art, but their moral opinion of its value and its power for good and evil differed. The rhetor Ausonius, consul in 379, recorded his deep appreciation of statuary and mythological imagery in poetry. His younger, unlettered contemporary St. Martin of Tours, appointed bishop of Tours in 371, led his followers in attacks on pagan sanctuaries and statues.1 How are we to understand these antithetical, yet contemporary, outlooks? Two observations may be made: statuary served many roles in late antique Gaul, and reactions to it varied considerably. This book explores the role of statuary in the villas of late antique Gaul, the market that supplied it, the intellectual climate that demanded it, and the international environment of similar collections. The image of the fanatical St. Martin and his like elsewhere in the Roman Empire has come to dominate the popular and, in many cases, the scholarly impression of people’s response to mythological statuary in the post-Constantinian “Christianized” empire. So pervasive is this impression that many have found it difficult to imagine that sculpture could have been appreciated, let alone manufactured and transported over great distances. A reluctance to recognize late antique mythological sculpture has remained long after the important role of mythological imagery in other aristocratic arts, such as mosaics and silverware, has been accepted and absorbed into the conventional view of late antique art.2 Individual late 1

the learned collector 2

antique sculptures or even assemblages have been identified, and a few, such as the Ganymede from Carthage and the Diana and Venus of SaintGeorges-de-Montagne (figs. 2, 4, 7), have even become canonical in this ongoing reevaluation.3 However, as yet there has been no comprehensive study of the use of late antique mythological sculpture over a region, nor has there been consideration of the factors in society that made it normal for Ausonius and others of his class, pagan and Christian alike, to admire mythological statuary. It is increasingly clear that the corpus of late antique statuary of mythological figures is large, and it is necessary to examine the genre in its full context. This study investigates mythological statuary in Gaul in the late empire and evaluates the system of classical education that made appreciation of such statuary both normal and expected among the higher classes of society. International currents in society and the fact that the mythological statuettes of late fourth-century Gaul were imported from the eastern Mediterranean mean that Gaul provides a valid case study of trends in taste and decor in the late empire.

definition: late mythological statuettes t is necessary at this juncture to define more closely the specific genre of sculpture under investigation. Mythological sculpture from late antiquity exists in a variety of scales, materials, styles, and dates, as a few examples will illustrate. The balustrade surrounding a pool in the imperial villa at Welschbillig near Trier had busts of gods and mythological figures alongside busts of emperors, philosophers, and barbarians, for a total of some seventy sculptures. The herms were carved in limestone, probably by several teams of local artists.4 Marble statuettes of Athena and Asklepios found at Epidauros were dedicated in A.D. 304 and 308, respectively, to judge from the inscriptions on their bases.5 Life-size marble statues of a Muse in a house at Aphrodisias and another in Florence are dated to the fourth century.6 Some silver statuettes of divinities or heroes are known, such as a Venus with a mirror from Kaiseraugst and a Venus Genetrix from Daphne.7 Mythological figures occasionally appear carved on ivory diptychs.8 The present study, however, focuses specifically on small-scale, classicizing statuary of mythological figures carved from marble during the late fourth or early fifth centuries. In German scholarship, the term Idealplastik denotes sculptures of gods and mythological figures. English scholarship uses the expression ideal sculpture, as an equivalent, but this term is highly

I

Introduction 3

specialized and is at times confusing. I therefore propose the term mythological sculpture instead to describe statuary of divinities and mythological figures. In the present study, I concentrate on a genre of mythological sculptures ca. 50–100 cm tall that have stylistic and compositional similarities to the Carthage Ganymede and the Venus and Diana of Saint-Georges-deMontagne (figs. 2, 4–7) and were manufactured in the same time period.9 For the sake of brevity, I refer to this genre of statuary more concisely as late mythological statuettes. When other types of mythological sculpture from late antiquity, such as Welschbillig herms, are discussed, they will be clearly distinguished from the late mythological statuettes that are the focus of this study. I use the term late antiquity loosely to refer to the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. It includes, but is not limited to, the period of manufacture of late mythological statuettes—the later part of the fourth century and part of the fifth. Unless otherwise designated, all dates in this book are A.D. The late mythological statuettes are classicizing10 in that they emulate the style of statuary of the classical Greek and Hellenistic periods (approximately the fifth through second centuries B.C.) through interest in displaying anatomy through drapery—sculpted in delicately rippling folds—and in the contrast between drapery and flesh. Several pieces, such as the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (fig. 4), have remote, serene facial expressions evocative of the artwork of the fifth century B.C. Many of the late mythological statuettes are inspired from Hellenistic (or, less often, classical) prototypes and echo their poses, hairstyles, or drapery configuration, albeit with deliberate modifications that reflect late antique concerns and tastes. Of course, many different stylistic trends are subsumed under the broad designations of the classical and Hellenistic periods, and the late mythological statuettes show an equivalent diversity within their genre. It is important to remember that the classicism of these statuettes is not an academic revival of an antique style but a natural outgrowth of a continuous tradition. Thus, simultaneously with classicizing aspects, the statuettes exhibit many noticeable contemporary traits, such as stocky proportions and drilled details.11

methods for studying statuary

B

efore examining individual Gallic sites and their associated sculpture, it is necessary to consider some of the methodological issues concerning the identification and interpretation of findspots for statuary. Chapter 2

the learned collector 4

discusses the range of evidence that people have used, with varying degrees of certainty, to attribute statuary to a particular building or to a specific room within that building. Post-antique activity at a site can severely limit the usefulness of information about findspots. Chapter 2 also examines a common tenet in the study of ancient statuary, particularly domestic statuary: that all statues of gods and mythological figures were used in worship. For late antique collections in particular, it is assumed that mythological statuary could not play a merely decorative role; it is usually heralded as evidence of pagan worship. Further interpretations about a site may then be influenced by the presupposition of pagan practices. I propose a list of characteristics that could positively identify pagan worship and a much shorter list that could identify decorative use. Unlike most other scholars researching mythological statuary in late antiquity, I make the assumption that mythological statuary is decorative unless further evidence of pagan worship exists. Decorative use need not exclude allegorical interpretations and uses of statuary. Related to interpretations concerning use of statuary is the question of deliberate damage to sculpture. I discuss possibilities for distinguishing mutilation from mere damage. Broken statuary or statuary discarded in pits or cisterns may have resulted from efforts to create building materials or to tidy a site in later times rather than from ideological actions. Close examination of individual cases and specific features allows us to differentiate desecration or hiding from more innocuous activities of clean up, at least in some cases.

late mythological statuettes in gallic villas

A

fter evaluating the methodological questions, I turn in chapter 3 to a tour of the most important Gallic sites and statuary (fig. 1). The purpose of the tour is twofold. First, it provides an introduction to the late antique mythological statuettes that form the core of discussion of the rest of the book. Second, it provides a window into the physical surroundings of such sculpture in the context of late antique Gaul. Chapter 3 examines other sculptures, such as portraits and heirloom pieces, within particular assemblages; layouts of villas and findspots (where known) of statuary; other forms of villa decoration; and possibilities for display. Understanding the physical setting of artwork is essential when evaluating its impact. Catherine Balmelle’s new and thorough study of aristocratic residences of southwest Gaul provides important global and synthetic information on these sites but does not focus on statuary per se.12

Fig. 1. Late antique villas in Aquitania. (From Maurin, Bost, and Roddaz 1992, by permission.)

5

the learned collector 6

Some of these sites are familiar but will be seen through new eyes. The three sites of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, Montmaurin, and Chiragan form the core of the present study because of the uniquely valuable information each one provides. The site of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne is famous for its well-preserved sculptures of Venus and Diana, which are now widely accepted as late antique mythological statuettes and have become canonical in any attempts to study the genre. Less well known is the fact that heads and other fragments from at least four other late mythological statuettes, admittedly in less pristine condition, were found at the site, along with numerous heirloom sculptures. The additional statues make this site even more important. Archival sources reveal some information about the villa, never mapped and now reburied.13 The villa of Montmaurin is prominent in studies of villas and rural life, but its statuary collection is less noticed. In fact, the statuary remains attest to a comparatively large collection, and valuable information about findspots is recorded in the detailed site publication.14 The enormous assemblage of statuary discovered at Chiragan has intrigued many who are interested in Roman domestic statuary and patterns of collection, but the villa itself is less studied, despite a site report that is remarkably thorough for its day.15 I do not profess to study in detail the whole assemblage of sculpture, which totals well over a hundred pieces; rather, I will closely examine only the late antique statuary, and I will also consider the layout and other decoration of the villa that apparently held this unique collection. Other less familiar sites add valuable information for the study of late antique mythological statuary. As in Gaul, the information at each site is variable, but taken together, the sites provide a composite picture of the late antique Gallic aristocrat’s taste for sculpture, architecture, and other forms of decoration. A late antique villa at La-Garenne-de-Nérac is perhaps best known for its mosaics and an academic scandal of the 1830s, but it housed a considerable sculptural collection, including a female torso and head dating to the late fourth century. Some very fragmentary sculptural finds, one of which may belong to a late mythological statuette, were found at the villa of Séviac, which provides data about villa layouts and other aspects of sculptural collection and display. Castelculier is interesting for both its architecture and its sculpture. Other villa finds come from Til-Châtel near Dijon and Wellen near Trier. Finally, individual finds from Bordeaux, Arles, and Trier allow a glimpse at urban contexts, private and public, for late antique mythological statuary.

Introduction 7

manufacture and chronology of late mythological statuettes

O

nce the pieces and their contexts have been introduced, it is necessary to examine the stylistic traits, origins, and manufacture of the genre of late mythological statuettes (chap. 4). Only relatively recently, since the discovery of a statuette of Ganymede and the eagle in Carthage in 1977 (fig. 2), have scholars begun to recognize the widespread existence of late mythological statuettes. In the 1981 publication of the Ganymede, Elaine Gazda assigned it a date in the late fourth or early fifth century on the basis of stylistic comparisons to securely dated sculptures. She included two Gallic finds, the Venus and Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (figs. 4, 7), as analogous pieces, and she convincingly argued for late fourth century dates for them as well as the Ganymede, based on stylistic analysis.16 The figures from Saint-Georges-de-Montagne were shown to be part of an empire-wide body of sculpture, but many issues concerning manufacture, transport, iconography, and use remained to be further investigated. Subsequent studies added new pieces to the ever growing corpus of recognized late mythological statuettes, citing Gazda’s article and its core pieces—the Ganymede, Diana, and Venus—as their major points of reference.17 Generally these studies do not reevaluate the stylistic parameters of the genre as proposed by Gazda or consider iconography or social context. Another important publication for the understanding of mythological statuary in late antiquity appeared the year after Gazda’s publication. In 1982 Kenan Erim and Charlotte Roueché restudied the signatures on a group of life-size statues found on the Esquiline Hill in Rome and concluded from titulature that they had been made by Aphrodisian sculptors working in Rome in the second quarter of the fourth century.18 As the Esquiline group had previously been dated to the second century, the dating of many stylistically related pieces was open to question. These pieces remain hotly controversial, as another epigraphic opinion argues from brick stamps that a building in which another base signed by one of the Aphrodisian sculptors was found was built in the early fourth century.19 Finally, a series of publications of material from Aphrodisias confirmed fourth-century sculptural activity that included mythological sculpture.20 A fourth-century sculptor’s workshop containing life-size mythological sculpture has aroused much interest. This workshop and its finds are the subject of a 1999 doctoral thesis by Julie Van Voorhis.21

the learned collector 8

Fig. 2. Statuette of Ganymede found at the House of the Greek Charioteers, Carthage. Musée Paléochrétien, Carthage. (Photo F. Anderegg, Kelsey Museum, by permission.)

As a result of these studies of the Carthage Ganymede, the Esquiline group, and the Aphrodisias finds, the manufacture of mythological statuary (particularly life-size mythological statuary) in late antiquity has received much attention in recent research. Many sculptures, such as the statuary from a nymphaeum at Silahtaraga near Constantinople and the panels of Hercules from Chiragan, have been moved to the fourth century from the second. These findings have not been without controversy.22 Two important studies, by Niels Hannestad and Marianne Bergmann, have appeared in the time since my 1994 doctoral dissertation, of which the present book is a revised and expanded version.23 Neither study focuses exclusively, or even principally, on statuettes, as the present volume does. They both analyze material from Gaul, particularly from the villa of Chiragan, but Gaul

Introduction 9

is not the major regional focus for either one. They do not examine the intellectual and physical context of sculptural collections at any length. Niels Hannestad’s 1994 book, Tradition in Late-Antique Sculpture: Conservation, Modernization, Production, investigates several issues concerning mythological statuary, both contemporary and reused, in late antiquity.24 In terms of contemporary statuary, he is more interested in life-size statuary (admittedly a more contentious topic) than in statuettes. Late antique domestic collecting appears as one of several topics in his book. Other sections of the book cover phenomena, such as recarving, that are not addressed here. Finally, he does not focus at length on specific statuary within particular assemblages but, rather, provides a survey of many assemblages. Thus, the present book differs from Hannestad’s study in the concentration on late mythological statuettes, the detailed analysis of domestic assemblages, and investigation of the intellectual environment created by the classical education system. Marianne Bergmann’s book Chiragan, Aphrodisias, Konstantinopel: Zur mythologischen Skulptur der Spätantike appeared in 1999. Her study is devoted to the manufacture of mythological statuary (on any scale) in late antiquity. Focusing in particular on Chiragan, the Esquiline group, Silahtaraga, SaintGeorges-de-Montagne, and the Sidon mithraeum, she identifies a Kunstkreis (artistic circle) of related statuary and argues for its genesis in Theodosian Constantinople. Using overlapping evidence, Bergmann and I reached similar conclusions about workshop formation in late fourth-century Asia Minor.25 Statuettes are included in her study but are by no means the main focus. While she does discuss two of the core Gallic sites of my study (Chiragan and Saint-Georges-de-Montagne), her emphasis is on defining the characteristics and origins of late antique mythological statuary broadly writ; questions of display, collecting, or taste do not fall into her mandate.26 In this climate of controversy and compounding claims, it is highly worthwhile to examine a defined body of material from first principles. The well-preserved examples from Gaul make a good core for a synthetic study focused on the genre of late mythological statuettes. Chapter 4 presents such a study. The first half of chapter 4 seeks out a definition of the genre and argues for its late fourth-century or early fifth-century date. For establishing the chronology and provenance, we must supplement the Gallic finds with comparanda from outside Gaul. The most important of the non-Gallic finds is a group of statuettes found in a mithraeum in Sidon and epigraphically dated to 389 (figs. 40–42). As independently datable objects, they provide a much-needed secure stylistic peg from which to hang the other sculp-

the learned collector 10

tures. Carved on the same scale as the statuettes found in Gaul, the Sidon pieces afford many direct comparisons in stylistic features. Other nonmythological statuary, such as the obelisk base for Theodosius, ecclesiastical reliefs, and certain sarcophagi, also provide important comparanda. The study naturally also draws in important late mythological statuettes found outside Gaul. The other important question related to the stylistic traits of the late mythological statuettes is that of origins. It is generally agreed that the finegrained white marble from which the late antique mythological statuettes found in France are carved is a nonlocal stone. Some have suggested that the stone comes from Carrara, but no marble testing has been carried out on the Gallic statuettes.27 Stylistically as well, late mythological statuettes differ from contemporary local products. The locally made sarcophagi of Arles and Marseilles provide apt comparanda in terms of scale and narrative, but close comparison finds more differences than similarities. Using stylistic traits and marble testing, however, Gazda proposed an origin in Asia Minor for the Carthage Ganymede. The Venus and Diana of SaintGeorges-de-Montagne are stylistically very similar to the Ganymede, and their common traits, including the details of facial physiognomy and a squared band of stone left as a neck support, appear consistently on late mythological statuettes. Further study supports the theory of Eastern origins for the genre. In considering origins, a number of separate factors come into play: the location of the marble quarry, the citizenship or educational tradition of the sculptor, and the locale of manufacture. In most cases, they coincide. There were several active sculptural centers in Asia Minor in late antiquity, and the possibility of branch workshops in other centers also exists. The most important Asian centers to consider are Aphrodisias, Ephesos, and Constantinople.28 Recent epigraphic, sculptural, and archaeological discoveries at Aphrodisias have shown clearly that Aphrodisias was a major center for all types of sculpture in the fourth and fifth centuries. This site is particularly associated with mythological sculpture of late antiquity; a sculptor’s workshop has even been discovered. Despite some commonalties, however, late mythological statuettes do not have enough similarities to Aphrodisian pieces so far known to be securely attributable to this center. Late-antique sculptural activity at the city of Ephesos is attested through a series of portraits. The Eastern capital Constantinople is another obvious center to investigate; there are public monuments, portraits, and reliefs that have stylistic affinities to the late mythological statuettes. The building projects of Theodosius would have made the city a magnet for artisans from other centers,

Introduction 11

and a mixing of artistic traditions in the capital may account for the seeming eclecticism of traits of the late mythological statuettes. Last, there is the possibility of branch workshops; a workshop run by an expatriate Aphrodisian sculptor at Rome is epigraphically attested in the middle of the fourth century. Located at the center of the empire, the city of Rome may have acted as a center of distribution, particularly for the western Mediterranean; this could help account for the wide distribution of the statuettes around the empire. The broad distribution of the late mythological statuettes, from Spain in the West to Syria in the East and from the northern province of Britain to the shores of Africa, is indeed remarkable, and in order to posit Eastern origins, it is necessary to show that long-distance transport and travel was possible and did occur. I address this question principally in terms of the Gallic finds, and two main avenues of investigation come to the fore. First, Gallic aristocrats had personal contacts in the eastern empire through friendship, imperial office, ownership of property, and travel. Such contacts would have given them the opportunity to view and purchase Eastern luxury goods. Second, there is the possibility of trade routes; trade contacts between Gaul and the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean are documented through other goods, such as amphoras or lamps. It is conceivable that small-scale statuary moved alongside these goods as a trade item, to be sold in the great maritime centers of Gaul, such as Marseilles or Arles. Imperial legislation even suggests a mechanism whereby statuary might have been transported.

intellectual context for late mythological statuettes

T

he great distances over which late mythological statuettes moved reveal the tremendous appeal they had for members of the wealthy classes. How did this taste for classicizing sculpture arise? As I already mentioned, there is a pervasive notion in modern classical scholarship that mythological statuary rapidly became offensive to all Christian sensibilities in the post-Constantinian era because of its association with idolatry. The potential religious neutrality and “decorative” function of mythological imagery in such media as mosaics and silverware is now reasonably accepted, but statuary remains a controversial subject. With these issues in mind, chapter 5 discusses the importance of the classical education system (paideia) in the fostering of classicizing taste and a deep interest in mythology for its own sake in the educated classes, irrespective of religious back-

the learned collector 12

ground. Education at all levels focused on the authors of the first centuries B.C. and A.D., such as Virgil and Cicero, and many of the values and outlooks of those authors passed to their late antique readers. Proper study of the classics involved erudite knowledge of mythological details. Late antique letters and other writings contain innumerable references to the reading of these classic works, to their style, and to their value for the present day. This complex knowledge of classical mythology and allusion became a restricted code through which members of the elite could communicate with each other.29 Myths and mythological images were not, of course, the exclusive domain of the privileged, but their classical education created a framework—of complicated allusions, literary references, and artistic commentary—that was difficult for the less educated to penetrate. The Bordelais poet and rhetor Ausonius provides an important window into the mentality of upper-class Gallic society through his poetry, letters, and speeches. Himself a teacher, he discusses aspects of the educational system and provides a sense of its pervasiveness through the cities and towns of southwest Gaul. Moreover, the classics-based education system was international and linked aristocrats across nations, so the testimony of nonGallic writers, such as Symmachus, Augustine, or Libanius, is also highly relevant. Later Gallic writers, such as Sidonius and Ennodius (both bishops), show how classical paideia continued into the fifth and sixth centuries. Interest in classical literature and knowledge of classical artwork were intrinsically linked. A canon of classical artistic masterpieces was taught for use in oratory. Visual impressions and comparisons to artwork were important techniques in the learning and practice of rhetoric. The techniques admired in classical literature were similar to those admired in classical art, and late antique opinions about classical literature can also be applied provocatively to the visual arts.30 The careful curation of actual texts provides further evidence for concern with the physical manifestations of classical culture. Symmachus, Sidonius, and other letter writers comment frequently on texts they are reading, editing, transcribing, or loaning. The lavishly illuminated Vatican Virgil and Virgilius Romanus date to this era. On all sides, then, the student learned the value of classical texts and art and found them fundamentally linked. The importance of paideia cannot be overstated. Education was an important hallmark of status in fourth-century and early fifth-century Gaul. Classical texts formed the core of aristocratic education until the sixth century; Christianity did not influence the educational “curriculum” until after this time.31 Thus, all aristocrats learned an appreciation of mythology,

Introduction 13

literature, and classical style, an appreciation that then extended to classicizing statuary and other visual arts. Nevertheless, the destruction of statuary by Christians—for instance, by Saint Martin in Gaul—is unequivocally attested in ancient sources. Late fourth-century and early fifth-century laws mandated the destruction of statuary and sanctuaries. How do we reconcile such accounts with the humanist tradition of paideia and the idea of decorative statuary? I argue that the concern of patristic sources, of imperial legislation, and even of marauding monks was not statuary per se but the worship of statuary. Abhorrence of sacrifice reverberates through patristic literature. Nearly all the accounts of the destruction of sculpture refer to statues in sanctuaries—statues that are obviously related to worship, either as cult statues or votive offerings. A chronological survey of the antipagan legislation in the Theodosian Code shows that again the focus is on statuary in temples and sanctuaries and on forbidding sacrifice and black magic.

beyond gaul

L

ate antique mythological statuettes were an internationally popular genre of artwork, appearing in villas, houses, and other contexts across the empire. The Gallic collectors were not unusual in their interest in antique statuary as well as contemporary pieces. The final section of this book, chapter 6, surveys domestic statuary outside Gaul. To create as broad a view as possible of the sculptural landscape of late antique homes, chapter 6 does not limit discussion either to collections that possessed contemporary pieces or to rural residences. It surveys domestic assemblages in Rome, Italy, Spain, Britain, Africa, the Danube region, Greece, Asia Minor, and the Levant. While some of these collections are reasonably well known or have been the subject of monographs (these include, e.g., the collections of Antioch, El Ruedo, Desenzano, and certain houses in Athens), other statuary assemblages have been “excavated” from early references or preliminary reports (these include, e.g., the assemblages of the Domus Valerii at Rome, the villas in the National Gardens in Athens, and Nea Paphos). Though a study of this length cannot aim to be exhaustive, chapter 6 is the first extended survey of late antique domestic statuary across the empire. This Mediterranean-wide survey of late antique domestic collections makes it possible to observe some international and regional trends, setting the Gallic collections into a broader context. Thus, we find certain regional tastes for divinities or genres—Asklepios, for instance, being most popular

the learned collector 14

in the East. Other trends, such as interest in certain views of Diana hunting, are international. The evidence surveyed also provides a wider context for evaluating certain broad questions or assumptions about pagan worship and philosophical schools at particular sites. This chapter also looks—admittedly more briefly—at the display of mythological statuary in public places. Much of the statuary used in public displays was “recycled” material rather than newly commissioned work, but it is important to record the continuing role of statuary in public decoration of particular types of buildings. Constantine is well known to have transported mythological statuary from all over the Mediterranean to his new capital. These collections remained on view for a long time. The baths of Caracalla in Rome had an immense statuary collection still on display in the fourth century.32 Fountains were another popular venue for statuary in late antiquity. Clearly, mythological statuary was expected in certain public venues. The prestige of private collections arose in part from the allusion to public collections.

chapter two

Findspots, Functions, and the Burden of Proof: Some Questions of Methodology

B

efore addressing the statuary assemblages of villas in Gaul (chap. 3) and other Roman provinces (chap. 6), it is necessary to consider some basic issues of methodology and interpretation.1 Statuary found in a late antique house under the Via Giovanni Lanza in Rome perhaps epitomizes the most straightforward situation to interpret (fig. 3).2 An outdoor tempietto attached to one wall contained a statue of Isis flanked by shelves carrying a series of statuettes and busts, including Venus, Serapis, and some Ptolemaic reliefs. Stairs nearby led down to a mithraeum, where Mithraic statuary of an earlier era was reused. Elsewhere in the house, a nymphaeum had seven niches containing unspecified statues of “excellent manufacture.” The statuary found here clearly belongs to the house. As the sculptures were found in situ, their precise location of display is instantly established. The religious use of the Mithraic statuary is evident, and the religious use of the statuary in the tempietto is very probable, given its architectural shape and elaboration. By contrast, the statuary in the nymphaeum is presumably decorative in purpose. However, not all villa assemblages are nearly so clear in these respects as is the house under the Via Giovanni Lanza. The three fundamental questions easily answered at this house are more complicated in most other situations. What statuary belongs with the villa? Where within the villa was it displayed? Was its use decorative, religious, or both?

15

the learned collector 16

Fig. 3. Shrine with statuary found in a late antique home under the Via Giovanni Lanza, Rome. (From Visconti 1885, pl. 3.)

what statuary belongs with the villa?

V

arying degrees of certainty are possible with this question. At rural sites where a villa and its outlying buildings are the only structures of Roman date in the vicinity, one may reasonably associate any statuary found at the site with the villa. Finds made in habitation layers obviously belong, as does statuary found in destruction levels. Statuary found in post-antique layers or structures and even surface finds may reasonably be associated with the villa. In these cases, the degree of explanation necessary to dissociate the sculpture from the villa far outstrips the effort required to explain it as belonging, thereby underscoring the likelihood that it did belong to the villa. Thus, statuary brought up in plowing at Saint-Georges-deMontagne or Castelculier most logically belongs with those villas. The question becomes more complex in cities or other places where buildings and their contents may have been reused and readapted over centuries of continuous habitation and where there are multiple buildings in close proximity. Relatively straightforward in interpretation are finds originating in habitation or destruction levels of the fourth century, the period of interest in this study. Clearly, they must have been available then and

Findspots, Functions, and the Burden of Proof 17

were presumably on display prior to being deposited. After the fourth century, buildings were variously inhabited, renovated, abandoned, occupied by “squatters,” adapted to new uses, destroyed, quarried, or all of the above in varying successions. Thus, the fourth-century plan of a building may have been considerably altered in later years. There may be few or no stratified layers of the fourth century if habitation was continuous. Artifacts in use during the fourth century (including statuary) may have continued in their primary use, may have been thrown away into rubbish tips or abandoned cisterns, or may have been reused in new ways in the vicinity. Statuary, for instance, could be built into new foundations and structures, could find its way into much later fill, or, more drastically, could be burned in lime kilns (sometimes leaving a few scraps). The context of jettisoning or reuse may aid in providing a terminus ante quem for the survival of the sculpture. Thus, the Venus-Victory statuette found under a seventh-century grave at Montmaurin (fig. 12) was possibly used as a grave gift.3 Statuary found in late or post-antique layers may have originated in another building and been moved about during later projects of destruction, landscaping, or urban renewal. In Athens, for instance, joining fragments of the same inscription were found half a kilometer apart in the Kerameikos and in the agora.4 At Troy, a broken inscription from one site joined with a fragment found in a town some 2 km away.5 In the latter instance, the town where the fragment was found is the nearest postantique settlement, whose inhabitants must have quarried the ancient site at Troy for building materials. Thus, on an urban site, statuary found near a villa or house may conceivably be unrelated to it. Even sculptural fragments built into levels above the villa may have been brought from elsewhere. Nevertheless, in order not to overlook possible evidence, it is necessary to consider all statuary found in the vicinity of a building, albeit with more caution. Interpretations of the location and use of statuary must always be circumspect and take the quality of evidence into account. Statuary found in late antique fills or destruction debris is obviously more reliable than statuary found in nonattached structures or fills that significantly postdate the fourth century. However, as a cautionary tale, before deciding to disregard all statuary from post-antique layers, let us note three joining pieces of a statuette of Herakles found at Corinth: the support built into a nineteenthcentury wall, the torso in a thirteenth-century pit, and the adjoining shoulders and base in a stratified destruction level in a suburban villa of the later fourth century A.D.6 A later robber pit had cut into a pile of stratified statuary debris on the floor of a villa.

the learned collector 18

In the city of Rome, there is a particular manifestation of the problem of provenance and reuse, worth discussing here because assemblages from Rome provide important comparative evidence in this study. Archaeologists of the later nineteenth century frequently reported finding “late” walls built from statuary, inscriptions, architectural decoration, and other reused construction materials. Some foundation walls were built entirely from statuary, usually smashed. The presence of such “statue walls” near a late antique structure naturally raises the possibility that at least some of the statuary had been displayed in that structure. Such assumptions must be used with the utmost caution, however. Robert Coates-Stephens has shown persuasively that spolia became widely available in Rome after the Aurelianic Wall (constructed in the 270s) cut a swathe 19.5 km long through the suburbs of the city.7 The need for a security zone outside the walls, an ongoing concern traceable in references in the Theodosian Code and elsewhere, would have necessitated the leveling of further buildings. Only some of this massive quantity of debris could be incorporated into Aurelian’s wall. The rest remained as at least a century’s worth of building material; an inscription concerning repairs to the wall by Arcadius and Honorius mentions clearing ruins outside it. Coates-Stephens goes on to demonstrate that the construction of statue walls began within the fourth century or even in the late third.8 Thus, aristocratic homes of the fourth century may have contained walls built from statuary debris, as he argues is possible for villas associated with the leading pagan aristocrats Symmachus and Vettius Agorius Praetextatus.9 Clearly, sculpture built into the foundations of a building could not simultaneously adorn that building. Most statue walls were poorly recorded and are now undatable. For these reasons, statues found in these walls must be treated with even more than the usual caution when considering their possible attribution to an adjacent dwelling. Furthermore, the widespread availability of high-quality statuary of earlier eras goes a long way in explaining why collections in the city of Rome are principally made up of antiques and why few late antique mythological statuettes appear there.10 A second complicating factor in attributing finds to buildings (or rooms within buildings) is that early excavation records are often sweeping, unspecific, or even contradictory. By and large, publications dedicated to archaeology appeared for the first time in the second half of the nineteenth century. Thus, for instance, the Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres commenced in 1863 and the Bulletino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma in 1873. For earlier periods, notices of archaeological discoveries appear more haphazardly in letters, antiquarian histo-

Findspots, Functions, and the Burden of Proof 19

ries, and the like. In the case of Rome, these tantalizing references go right back to the Renaissance and earlier, a daunting depth of recording. Written to the standards and concerns of their own day, archaeological notices, publications, and even notebooks omit information that the modern archaeologist seeks, such as precise or even generalized findspots. Modern questions often cannot be answered through fresh investigation, because the buildings may well be destroyed or built over and the finds lost. Rather than making anachronistic critiques, however, it is more useful to follow sources back to the earliest possible publication and make the most of the available evidence.11 Often, overlooked details or illustrations appear—as did, for instance, a sketch of a small-scale female head found at Nérac (fig. 31). Although it is difficult to judge conclusively from a sketch, this piece appears to have all the traits of statuettes manufactured in the later fourth century. For the Gallic villas, I have taken this approach of meticulously sifting the earliest records, but for the survey of villa decoration across the Roman Empire, I have sometimes had to rely more on synthetic studies, without being able to follow every antiquarian reference. In a general sense, it has been important to this study to experiment with methods for eliciting information from imperfectly documented or conserved sites, since such sites comprise much of the relevant data not only from Gaul but from most regions of the Roman Empire.

where within the villa was the statuary displayed? here are three approaches to this question, the first based on findspots of the statuary itself, the second based on features of the architecture, and the third based on analogy with instances mentioned in literary sources. As with the question of attributing statuary to a particular villa, assigning statuary to a particular room within a villa requires close examination of findspots, insofar as they are known. The ideal circumstance of finding statuary still in its place of display is exceptional, though a few examples do exist. They merit listing with a brief description because of their very rarity. I have already mentioned the shrine, mithraeum, and nymphaeum of the house under the Via Giovanni Lanza (fig. 3). Also in Rome, herms remained in the intercolumniations of the portico of the House of the Valerii.12 In the House of Fortuna Annonaria in Ostia, a statuette of Hera or Demeter and a life-size statue of Fortuna Annonaria were found in the garden (figs. 57, 58).13 The Hera/Demeter stood in a niche facing the main entrance to the house. The Fortuna Annonaria rested on a squared base

T

the learned collector 20

against the same wall. The dating for the house is difficult, but it may belong to the early fourth century. The so-called House of Proclus in Athens had a shrine and altar displaying reused reliefs of the fourth century B.C. (figs. 64–65).14 A reused funerary relief showing two men, a woman, and Telesphoros was mounted in the wall behind a fountain at the House of Peristerias at Stobi.15 In an underground shrine at the villa of Lullingstone in Britain, two portraits rested on a small bench with remains of offerings in front of them.16 At Djemila, a house with a terraced design had the socle for a statuette of Venus in a stairway.17 In other cases, statue bases or inscriptions in situ attest the onetime presence of statuary. A statue base in the House of Vulcaeus Rufinus at Rome carried an inscription saying that the citizens of Ravenna had erected an honorific statue for him in the vestibule of his house.18 Honorific statues from client cities also appeared in the House of the Valerii.19 The next most telling circumstance is statuary that has fallen from place, as is apparently the case for a group of bronze statuettes from a lararium in Clermont-Ferrand.20 A statue of Apollo from a late house at Cherchel was found facedown in front of a statue base, with two further bases flanking it (other statues were not found, although metal dowels protruded from the flanking bases).21 However, even when statues are found lying directly on a floor, it is not always clear whether they fell from a niche or other location immediately above their findspot or arrived there during renovation, robbing, or looting. Walls may not be preserved to a sufficient height to reveal niches. Most often, suggestions about the display of a statue are derived from its findspot in a particular room. While this type of evidence is enticing and is used in the present study, one must carefully consider the stratigraphic context. At numerous sites—Valdetorres de Jarama, Piazza Armerina, or Woodchester, to name a few—broken statuary was found in layers of later occupation or even in or above destruction levels, rather than in handily sealed contexts of the fourth or early fifth century. Montmaurin provides cautionary evidence (fig. 11). Here the excavator Georges Fouet emphasizes that the fragments were found on top of (sur) and therefore postdating the final destruction layer (his italics).22 Furthermore, in some cases, joining fragments of individual statues at Montmaurin were found widely separated (e.g., the Trajanic portrait head and the Venus groups). A trail of pieces of a Venus carved in calcite meandered through the villa’s central axis. Clearly, the statuary had been greatly disturbed after its time of use. What, if any, conclusions may be drawn from such a situation? One important inference that may be deduced from the presence of sculptural frag-

Findspots, Functions, and the Burden of Proof 21

ments in postdestruction layers is that the sculptures remained accessible and visible throughout the lifetime of this villa until its final destruction, which predated the seventh-century inhumations in the inmost courtyard. In a more general sense, it is reasonable enough to imagine that heavy stone sculptures did not travel far from the rooms where they were displayed; this is likely, for instance, in the case of an oversize fifth-century portrait built into a later structure near the Palace of the Giants in Athens.23 In the absence of other data, findspots offer possibilities for reconstructing display, especially if there seem to be recurring patterns across several sites. As we have seen, in cases where statuary is found on the surface, in very late fills, or built into later structures, the findspot cannot contribute to interpreting the display. The same is true of statuary that was deliberately hidden or otherwise jettisoned irretrievably on the site. Statues placed carefully behind a wall and covered over with mosaic at the Maison de la Cachette in Carthage appear to have been intentionally hidden.24 Statuary thrown down wells in House C on the Areopagus in Athens could have originated anywhere within the house.25 There is also an architectural approach to interpreting display. When walls are preserved to a sufficient height, niches may be preserved, and it is reasonable to imagine that they once held statuary. Thus, one may speculate that particular statues of an appropriate size may have adorned these niches. For instance, at Piazza Armerina, a colossal statue resembling Hercules (only the head remains) is a fitting size to adorn the apse of the basilical room. Niches and statue bases attest statuary in the grand dining room.26 Floors may preserve pedestals or the cuttings for them, again testifying to the onetime presence of statuary in the room. Specific statuary associated with the villa may be hypothetically associated with these bases. More circumstantially, one may also make arguments based on the level of decoration generally in a room and its accessibility to public view. Statues were expensive luxury goods; therefore, it does not make sense to attribute them to rooms that are dark, inaccessible, or utilitarian in their other decoration. Rather, there is every reason to believe that statuary would be displayed in rooms where other signs of status and luxury were present, such as mosaics, marble revetment, or wall paintings. The few instances where statuary survives in situ support these suppositions.27 The third approach to interpreting possibilities for display is effectively literary and iconographic. Contemporary literary sources occasionally mention statuary and other decoration or discuss the importance of luxurious decoration in particular types of rooms, such as triclinia, vestibules, or baths.28 Again, the archaeological presence of other types of expensive dec-

the learned collector 22

oration (mosaics, opus sectile, etc.) in these rooms confirms their importance for display. Mosaics and wall paintings give us an idea of themes that were popular in different types of rooms.29 One may argue by analogy that statuary of the same themes or subjects would also be appropriate in these rooms. The mythology of certain figures correlates well with particular rooms—for example, Dionysos with triclinia or Venus with baths. Contemporary literary sources provide disappointingly few references to specific statues in specific rooms, however.

what was the significance of the statuary? his final question is the most vexed of all and the most difficult to answer unequivocally for any individual domestic assemblage. Were all statues idols, or could some play a “decorative” role? A decorative use need not exclude an allegorical or thematic significance. One functional way to approach this question is to consider whether there is evidence that the statuary was actually worshiped or used somehow in worship. Moreover, this behavioral distinction has parallels in ancient writing about statuary as well. I argue in chapter 5 that Christian legislators and thinkers campaigned against worship and sacrifice to statues rather than against the statues themselves. Discussing rabbinic responses to the Greco-Roman use of statuary, Yaron Eliav similarly contends that rabbis used evidence of worship as the major factor in distinguishing forbidden and permitted aspects of statuary. He goes on to argue that this distinction was “deeply rooted in the common worldview of the time and was widespread throughout the Graeco-Roman world.”30 This functional distinction is maintained and explored in the present study. While it is evident that statuary in sanctuaries must have been connected to worship, one may envisage decorative, allegorical, or religious uses for domestic statuary. Rather than starting from specific assemblages, however, let us instead consider broader categories of evidence, argument, and proof. What features could prove that statuary had religious significance and was used in worship or evoked participation in worship? Ways a statue could be used in worship include receiving sacrifice or prayer or acting as a votive offering itself. What characteristics or contexts, if any, could prove that a statue’s significance was “decorative” and religiously neutral? Linked to the last question is the issue of whether the particular statue could be viewed as neutral or decorative by Christians. Several features can unmistakably show that statuary was used in worship. The first and clearest is a votive inscription, such as the inscriptions

T

Findspots, Functions, and the Burden of Proof 23

on statuettes of Asklepios and Hygieia from a wealthy villa (possibly a parttime imperial residence) at Mediana, a suburb of Naissus, and on a statuette of Dionysos from a house at Stobi.31 Even in a reuse context, a votive inscription would provide a clear reminder of worship and, therefore, would probably make the artwork unacceptable for Christian sensibilities. Reference to priesthoods, cults, or sanctuaries is also unmistakable. Inscriptions naming the holders of priesthoods of Saturn were found with the hidden statuary at the Maison de la Cachette in Carthage.32 The Atrium House at Aphrodisias had a late antique bust of a priest holding an icon of the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias (fig. 55).33 Statuary found in a recognizable shrine or place of worship must be related to worship. However, identifying shrines or places of worship is not so straightforward as one might imagine. Mithrea, such as the one of the house under Via Giovanni Lanza, are diagnostic architecturally as well iconographically. Statuary found within them, even sculptures of “guest” divinities not in the Mithraic pantheon, arguably contribute a religious significance. Other shrines are more debatable, as a niche or alcove may simply be a decorative shelf. At the house under the Via Giovanni Lanza, the tempietto full of statuary appears to have been a shrine because of its shape, but this religious interpretation can be further supported through observations such as its inclusion of Eastern mystery gods in the statuary and the existence of a mithraeum in the same house (fig. 3). Presence of sacrifice clearly indicates worship. The Roman villa at Lullingstone, England, provides a clear example of offerings made to statues—in this case, portrait busts.34 Two portrait busts were found propped on a platform in an underground room. Vessels—one of which contained part of a sheep’s rib, another a coin—were placed into the floor in front of them. Ceramic and numismatic dates combine to suggest that these portraits were worshiped throughout the fourth century. In the North Byzantine House in Aphrodisias, abundant miniature vessels unearthed in front of a large aedicula are interpreted as offerings to statuettes of Asklepios and Cybele found broken in the same area (fig. 56).35 A sacrificed piglet was found in one room of the so-called House of Proclus in Athens (fig. 64).36 The sacrifice was not associated with any statuary, but there were statues and reliefs found elsewhere in the house. The presence of pagan sacrifice makes it probable that at least some of the statuary within the house played a religious role. Even imagery of sacrifice or worship would surely mean that a sculpture could not be religiously neutral. Abhorrence of sacrifice was a key tenet of Christian doctrine and was one of the defining distinctions in practice

the learned collector 24

between pagans and Christians. Legislation in the fourth century outlawed sacrifice and used it as a way to define allowable and unallowable practices. Thus, artwork showing scenes of sacrifice could not have been neutral and presumably had some relationship to the pagan worship they depicted. An example of such artwork is the reused votive stelae of the classical period that were popular in late antique homes in Athens.37 Some show worshipers approaching a god depicted like a cult statue; sometimes, the lead worshiper offers a sacrifice. When a house possesses one of these artifacts, a religious significance for other parts of the statuary assemblage is possible or even probable. Interestingly, in one late antique house in Athens, the reliefs were singled out for mutilation while the other ideal sculpture was simply thrown down wells, along with portraits and other debris.38 Statuary of enthroned divinities imitates cult statues and would probably have a sacral flavor. Cybele, who appears frequently in the late antique collections of Athens, is usually depicted enthroned. Statuary of Eastern divinities, such as Isis or Mithras, would usually be religious in function. These divinities were worshiped through mystery cults, which demanded secrecy and initiation. Their typical statuary often contained direct references to worship: Mithras slaying the bull; Isis carrying the sistrum or other items used in ceremony. A crescent or disc on the headdress of the latter would also remind the viewer of her stature as a goddess. Furthermore, the mythology of these divinities stands largely outside the works of classical literature, which made Greco-Roman myths and divinities so well known and contributed to a symbolic or decorative use for them. For all these reasons, then, statuary of these gods must have always carried a religious meaning. The presence of some religious statuary (identified by the criteria presented here) in an assemblage need not show that all the statuary at that house was used in worship. The assemblage at the Maison de la Cachette in Carthage contains statuettes of enthroned divinities, images of worshipers, and votive reliefs alongside subjects—such as Venus and Amor— that are part of a traditional decorative repertoire. The phenomenon of damaged, discarded, or hidden statuary in domestic contexts is also brought into discussions of religious use. The motivations for hiding statuary can be variously interpreted. Pagan owners may have hidden it from Christian zealots in hopes that they could retrieve it later, or Christians may have jettisoned it in disgust and fear. In cases where statuary is placed out of sight and carefully conserved, we may judge that someone valued it. At the Maison de la Cachette, three well-preserved stat-

Findspots, Functions, and the Burden of Proof 25

uettes were placed with care behind a wall and under a mosaic.39 Fragmentary pieces with votive inscriptions accompanied them. The care taken demonstrates that this group was hidden, not thrown away; the votive inscriptions show that pagan religion was practiced in the house. Here an interpretation of hiding by pagans is attractive. Note, though, that a religious context for at least some of the statuary is indicated not solely by the fact that the sculptures were hidden but by the fact that votive inscriptions were found with them. In other cases, it is more difficult to judge whether the discarding of statuary represents an ideological stance or a pragmatic use of building materials that came to hand.40 We have seen that the statue walls of Rome started in the fourth century as a way to reuse debris of abandoned buildings rather than as a way to desecrate statuary. Thus, statuary thrown down wells at House C on the Areopagus could be interpreted as cleanup, using unwanted bulky objects to fill in wells that were no longer in use.41 Scholars have interpreted the throwing of this statuary into the wells as desecration and disempowering of statuary by Christians, but it includes portraiture (private and imperial)—an inoffensive genre—along with the ideal statuary.42 The mutilation on this statuary is selective, directed only to reused votive reliefs. When sites were converted to new uses, they were often cleared of unwanted debris, including statuary, from the previous occupants. Thus, cisterns at Carthage containing sculpture and other debris are interpreted by Simon Ellis as evidence of Byzantine reorganization and cleanup of Vandal material after the Byzantine reconquest.43 Even where statuary is broken up, it is possible that this breakage only facilitated its use as building material, as in the statue walls at Rome. Thus, the fact that statuary is reused as building materials does not unquestionably prove that its previous use was related to worship. At Fianello Sabino, statuary was broken up and sealed under the floor of a church built over the villa sometime after 400.44 The incorporation of the broken statuary into a Christian building may lend credence to an interpretation of desecration. In this case, however, the findspot of the statuary would only illustrate that the Christians who built the church disapproved of the statuary, not necessarily that the villa owners worshiped it. Cases where statues from houses and villas have unmistakably been desecrated are thus very few. More cases exist of clearly documented desecration or destruction of statuary associated with sanctuaries, but it is indisputable that statuary was involved in sacrifice and other forms of worship at such sites. Most literary sources about the destruction of stat-

the learned collector 26

uary pertain to sanctuaries rather than homes. The relative lack of desecrated statuary from domestic sites as opposed to sanctuaries lends some support to the interpretation that domestic statuary played a principally decorative role. We have seen, then, that there are several categories of evidence that may prove, with varying degrees of certitude, that domestic statuary was related to worship. It is much harder to find categories of evidence that demonstrate that statuary was decorative in function, did not play a role in worship of some sort, and was religiously neutral. Statuary in a reasonably secular location, such as a bath, nymphaeum, or triclinium could well evoke the power of the divinity and, at the same time, carry a symbolic meaning. In the rare situations where mythological imagery is found with overtly Christian symbols, such as a Chi-Rho, one may assume that it carries a symbolic significance.45 At the House of the Valerii in Rome, a statuette of Cupid and Psyche was found in the atrium. Also found in the house were silver liturgical vessels bearing Christian inscriptions and symbols.46 Evidently these items were all available and in use in the house at the time of its sacking by Alaric in 410, by which time literary and epigraphic sources confirm that the Valerii had become Christian (one member of the family was Pinian, the husband of Saint Melania, whose ascetic achievements are recorded in the Life of Saint Melania). In this scenario, the ideal statuary is best interpreted in a decorative sense. There is a possible second example of statuary serving a demonstrably decorative role. The House of Parthenius in Stobi had crosses decorating the impost blocks of the peristyle.47 As structural elements in the building, the impost blocks must have been included from the beginning. Two bases and a wreathed head were found inside the peristyle. Unfortunately, we do not know the subjects of the statues, though the wreathed head could be a figure such as Dionysos or Apollo. I argue in chapter 6 that the classics-based education (paideia) for aristocrats created an intellectual context where decorative uses for household statuary were not just possible but probable. As this education was the same and equally important for pagan and Christian elites, either group would have seen a value in mythological statuary as a marker of status and education. The fourth century, even the later fourth century, was a time of flux and experiment for artistic conventions and ways of viewing.48 The force of tradition and the conditioning from a classical education enabled most aristocrats, be they Christian or pagan, to appreciate mythological artwork in a classical style. Allegorical interpretations of mythological art may have

Findspots, Functions, and the Burden of Proof 27

contributed to their popularity, but allegorical interpretation was not exclusive to Christians. A number of ramifications arise from these issues of methodology. Given that decorative statuary could and did exist, the simple presence of mythological statuary cannot prove that a household was pagan and that the statuary was used in worship. We cannot distinguish a household as Christian or pagan based on finds of statuary.49 One or more of the indicators of worship just established must also be present to show that pagan worship took place in a household. Moreover, because of the high cost of statuary and because it was displayed in the rooms that reflected the power and selfimage of the master of the house, we may assume that pagan religious statuary reflects the practices of the patron, even if the household was not religiously homogenous. Certain Christian symbols, such as a Chi-Rho, were unequivocal, and their presence does provide a concrete indicator of Christian worship within the household. The silver vessels found at the House of the Valerii are a luxury item, and we know from literary sources that this family was Christian by the time of Alaric’s sacking of Rome. That our positive example of decorative statuary comes from a prominent family such as the Valerii, not some anonymous, provincial—or perhaps unorthodox— household, supports the interpretation that displaying decorative statuary remained a status symbol among the wealthy elite and was more likely than not to have occurred elsewhere. For more than half of the assemblages of domestic statuary, there is not firm evidence—according to the indicators established here—to indicate one way or another the religion of a household. Thus, in majority of cases, the common assumption that mythological statuary belongs to household shrines or otherwise reflects religious practice in fact has no provable basis. If the burden of proof is placed on one who would argue that statuary was decorative, we have seen that there are few forms of evidence that will unequivocally support that argument. This does not necessarily mean by default that the common assumption that mythological statuary reflects paganism is correct. If the burden of proof is conversely placed on those who would argue that all mythological statuary is religious, fewer than half the domestic assemblages examined in this study meet the standards of proof used here. What, then, do we make of the vast majority of domestic assemblages where there is no clear proof of religious usage? In contrast to most previous research, the present study takes the latter approach, shifting the burden of proof to demonstrating the religious use of a statuary assemblage by showing that it was used somehow in worship.

the learned collector 28

Where that cannot be proven using the criteria outlined here, it is assumed that statuary was decorative or religiously neutral, perhaps interpreted in an allegorical fashion. As will be shown in chapter 5, appreciation of classical literature and its accompanying mythology created an environment where classicizing mythological statuary conveyed status, wealth, and education, not necessarily religious preferences.

chapter three

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul and Their Sculptural Collections

T

he three most famous sculptural collections of late antique Gaul come from the villas of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, Chiragan, and Montmaurin. Though each of these sites had multiple mythological statuettes of late antique date, none of the assemblages is without some difficulties for the reconstruction of an ancient context. The architecture at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne is scarcely recorded; there is significant debate over the formation, use, and dating of the enormous Chiragan assemblage; and at Montmaurin there is dispute over the chronology of the villa, whose sculpture is also highly fragmentary. Nevertheless, these three sites, taken together, contain significant finds of late mythological statuettes and invaluable information about statuary collection and display. Villas whose statuary is less plentiful or less known, such as Nérac, Castelculier, Séviac, and Wellen, also offer important statuary finds or assemblages. Finds from Narbonne, Bordeaux, Arles, and Trier demonstrate urban uses for mythological statuary. Close investigation of these sites provides an introduction to the statuary at the core of this book, sheds light on the material world of the late antique Gallic aristocrat, and establishes the physical and visual context of late mythological statuettes. Literary references to statuary or domestic design provide additional corroborative information. Although some of these statuettes or villas have been examined in the past, it is necessary to view them as a group and in their full context. Late mythological statuettes are identified as such in the present chapter, but dating arguments for individual statuettes are reserved for the following chapter. 29

the learned collector 30

saint-georges-de-montagne

T

wo of the most renowned late antique mythological sculptures from the Roman Empire, let alone from Roman Gaul, are statuettes of Venus and Diana discovered in 1843 in a villa at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne outside Bordeaux.1 Very little is known of the actual villa, since the digging during which the statues were discovered was agricultural, rather than archaeological, in nature. Visible walls spread over an area estimated at about ten hectares, a figure that may be compared to the thirteen hectares enclosed by the outer walls of the villa at Chiragan.2 If this estimate is correct, the establishment at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne could be the second largest villa in southwest Gaul. A bathing quarter was recognized among the ruins. Some fragments of architectural sculpture ranging in date from the fourth through the sixth centuries were discovered, along with column shafts of pink stone and (unrecorded) mosaics.3 Although a full architectural setting for the statuettes is lacking, the recorded architectural remains demonstrate the presence of a well-appointed villa in the late fourth century and beyond. Because the evidence is so fragmentary, it is impossible to judge when the villa was first built. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to confirm a prosperous late antique phase that would have been a suitable locale for the display of luxury goods such as the Venus, Diana, and other late mythological statuettes. Outstanding in their preservation and exquisite craftsmanship, they illustrate well the aesthetic of the genre of late mythological statuettes. The Diana, now in the Musée d’Aquitaine in Bordeaux, is shown hunting, with a hind at her feet and a tree spreading behind her (figs. 4–6).4 Her windswept drapery flares in stylized curves around her body, echoed by her bow and the branches of the tree. Arched struts linking her right arm and drapery round out a composition of radiating circular patterns. The goddess wears her hair in a topknot. She has delicate classicizing facial features and a physiognomy constructed from rounded, arched shapes. The statue is highly polished and has a carefully carved, grooved base. Seen from the side, the composition is very flat, and the workmanship on the back is only cursory (figs. 5–6). The narrowness and frontal emphasis suggest that the statuette was meant to be displayed against a flat surface, perhaps in a niche. The companion statuette depicts two amores and a triton attending a Venus Anadyomene (fig. 7).5 The goddess gazes serenely into a mirror at the center of the composition, while her companions cavort at her sides in a rather stilted fashion. All the figures have stocky proportions and rubbery anatomy, and there are slight distortions in the faces of the subsidiary

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 31

Fig. 4. Statuette of Diana found at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, front. Musée d’Aquitaine, Bordeaux, inv. 71.16.1. (Photo J. M. Arnaud. Copyright DEC, Bordeaux.)

figures, presumably due to the difficulties of carving in close proximity to the larger statuette. Like the Diana, the Venus has a physiognomy structured from rounded shapes and focused on ridged, arched eyebrows, although the overall effect is less delicate and modeled on the Venus than on the Diana. On both statuettes, drilling is used to emphasize details such as the irises of the eyes, parted lips, and locks of hair. Metal attachments once provided a mirror and earrings for the Venus. Struts interconnect the Venus and her attendants. The statuette is highly polished, and the base molding matches that of the Diana.6 Again, the statuette is strikingly narrow in profile and the features of the back are only roughly carved. Both the Diana and the Venus are 75 cm tall. The Venus and Diana were not the only late mythological statuettes at the villa at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne; in fact, the assemblage found at

the learned collector 32

Fig. 5. Statuette of Diana found at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, back. Musée d’Aquitaine, inv. 71.16.1. (Photo J. M. Arnaud. Copyright DEC, Bordeaux.)

this site is among the largest assemblages of such sculpture known in the Mediterranean. Four additional miniature heads have been preserved, along with myriad intriguing fragments of other body parts and attributes. A brief introduction to these reveals the richness of the site.7 A head wreathed in ivy belongs to an Apollo Musagetes (fig. 8).8 The rounded forms of the face match the Venus and Diana, and the lacy strutwork of the wreath is in keeping with the virtuoso strutwork of the more complete statuettes. A female head wearing a Scheitelzopf (braid-parting) hairstyle is more enigmatic in identity, but the soft ideal features suggest that the head belonged to a mythological figure rendered with a contemporary hairstyle (fig. 9). The Scheitelzopf hairstyle was popular at intervals throughout the fourth century, appearing on coins of the empress Helena and on women of the Theodosian era.9 Hairstyles copied from portraiture sometimes entered

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 33

Fig. 6. Statuette of Diana found at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, side. Musée d’Aquitaine, inv. 71.16.1. (Photo J. M Arnaud. Copyright DEC, Bordeaux.)

into the world of myth in late antiquity and seem particularly frequent for maenads, as seen on the Mildenhall plate and other silverware.10 Despite abrasion, it is clear that the face has puffy eyes, arched eyebrows, and drilled details akin to those on the Venus. Small curls in front of the ears parallel a curl on the forehead of the Venus. The face of a helmeted male figure is preserved, and the configuration of the helmet matches that of the Ares Borghese in that it shows a triangular peak over the forehead and triangular flaps over the ears (fig. 10). The facial features have a rounded geometry like the other statuettes just mentioned. The earliest publication on Saint-Georges-de-Montagne additionally reports a female head wearing a chignon and ribbon, a hairstyle associated with mythological figures.11 The piece is now lost. All four of these heads are the right dimensions to have been central figures in statuettes similar in scale to the Venus and Diana.12

the learned collector 34

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 7. Statuette of Venus with erotes and triton found at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne. Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. MA 3537. (Photo H. Lewandowski. Copyright Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource, NY.)

To judge from the heads alone, there were at least six late mythological statuettes at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne. Also on the same scale as the Venus and Diana are a fragmentary male torso and a set of draped legs. The torso is preserved from waist to neck, and there is a chlamys looped around it. The motion of the drapery at the figure’s back suggests that the cloak was draped nonchalantly over the left arm, as seen on a common statuary type of Meleager.13 This torso does not match the iconography of any of the heads, and it may represent a seventh statuette whose head is now lost. Preserved from midthigh down, the draped legs show a person standing with weight on the right leg. Such drapery could be suitable with one of the female heads or with the Apollo

Fig. 8. Head of Apollo found at Saint-Georgesde-Montagne, side. Private collection. (Photo author, by permission.)

Fig. 9. Head of woman wearing Scheitelzopf hairstyle, found at Saint-Georges-deMontagne. Collection of Martin Deroisy, Brussels. (Photo author, by permission.)

Fig. 10. Head of Mars found at Saint-Georgesde-Montagne. Private collection. (Photo author, by permission.)

the learned collector 36

head, since the Apollo Musagetes is sometimes shown in a long, highbelted chiton. There are numerous other fragments on a similar scale.14 A lopsided head of an amor on a smaller scale than the Venus and Diana must have acted as a subsidiary figure in a multifigure composition. Traces of a strut are visible on the back of the head, and there is a strong facial resemblance to the amors and triton on the Venus statuette. A boy’s torso on the same small scale may have belonged to this head.15 A leg in a hunting boot was the same scale as the Diana and Venus.16 A bovine head, a torso of a horse or cow, part of the body or wing of a bird, a feline muzzle, and more tree branches must belong to other subsidiary figures and landscape elements.17 At least one other base with the same molding as that of the Venus and Diana was discovered.18 This large assemblage of fragments from small-scale statuary carved from a fine-grained marble raises many possibilities for interpretation. Beyond the Venus and Diana, there were at least four statuettes: the Apollo, the Ares, the Scheitelzopf woman, and the unidentified female figure. One figure (perhaps the Apollo) was draped down to its feet. Another wore sandals, as evidenced by the extant sandal; this may have been the Ares or the figure with a Meleager-like torso. The Meleager-like torso does not match either male head iconographically, but it may have belonged to a figure with a creative late antique iconography.19 At least one of the figures at SaintGeorges-de-Montagne besides the Venus had a putto as a companion. The feline muzzle could represent a panther, the familiar of Dionysos, although Dionysos is not otherwise recognizable among the fragments. The sculptural assemblage at this site is not restricted to late mythological statuettes. Another late antique find is a relief plaque showing a seated Minerva, now missing.20 It may have belonged to a sarcophagus. Initial records report an oversize nude male torso, now lost. A life-size child’s foot carved in marble represents another marble statue.21 Early visitors also recorded a limestone eagle’s head, part of a limestone statue of Jupiter triumphing over a giant (“Jupiter à l’anguipède”22), and fragments of a large limestone base showing reliefs of nude male figures in niches. These three finds belong together as a Jupiter-giant statue similar to those seen elsewhere in Gaul and in Germany.23 The limestone base would have supported a column, atop which stood the statue of Jupiter, with the eagle at his left and the defeated giant crouched at his right. A limestone head of Minerva may have belonged to a funerary or votive sculpture.24 It is tantalizing to speculate about possibilities for display. Iconography and accidents of preservation make the Venus and Diana seem a natural

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 37

pair, but the Venus could complement equally well the Mars, while the Diana would be a suitable companion for the Apollo. The statuettes may have been exhibited together either in niches around a room or in a garden setting. Despite the lack of architectural context, the statuary from SaintGeorges-de-Montagne remains a unique and invaluable assemblage for the study of late mythological statuettes, collecting, and taste. Well preserved and retaining their sculptural context if not their architectural setting, these statuettes form an important primary basis for evaluation of the genre of late antique mythological statuettes.

montmaurin

N

estled into the foothills of the Pyrenees, the villa of Montmaurin exploited its mountain location with a series of courtyards and open vistas facing southwest (fig. 11).25 With an area of 5800 m2, this villa is among the largest in southwest Gaul.26 The villa was occupied from the first century on and had two lavish phases in the fourth century (or later). Several sculptures dating to the fourth century and earlier have been discovered at this site, and for many of them, their specific findspots within the villa are recorded. The architectural decoration at Montmaurin merits brief description, as that villa is the best preserved and recorded of those to be examined here. The villa is oriented around a series of axial courts. The visitor would first enter a hemicyclical “court of honor,” surrounded by colonnades. A small hexagonal temple sits in the north half of the court. The hemicyclical court leads axially into a large peristyle court, which is surrounded by rooms, including two rooms with mosaic floors, one room containing a garden, and a room with a central pool, referred to as an “atrium” by excavator Georges Fouet. The atrium had wall paintings alternating panels of Pompeian red with vegetal designs, and the floor, of pink mortar, had some fragments of colored stone embedded in it. A portrait of a youth with a Trajanic hairstyle was found in two pieces, the head in the atrium and the shoulders in the colonnade of the hemicyclical court.27 Fragments of a calcite statuette of a clothed woman were scattered between the large peristyle court and the hemicyclical court. Parts of two late mythological statuettes of Venus and Adonis were also found in the large peristyle court (fig. 17). Directly behind the large peristyle court is a smaller peristyle court that is flanked by raised walkways and colonnaded hemicycles containing gardens. Around the sides of the court are six square tubs in which oyster shells

Fig. 11. Plan of the later villa at Montmaurin, showing findspots of statuary. (Plan by J. Heinrichs, adapted from Fouet 1969, fig. 23, by permission.)

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 39

were found. A headless marble statuette of a Venus-Victory was found beneath one of several seventh-century tombs in this garden (fig. 12).28 Two staircases lead up to a fourth and final court, paved in marble. Behind this, at the very end of the axis that began with the entrance to the court of honor, is a walled apsidal garden. Rooms lined with niches flank the final court and lead into four small chambers decorated with mosaics, blue-gray marble wainscoting, architectural moldings, and wall painting resembling pink- and green-veined marble.29 One of these rooms contains the stylistically latest mosaic in the villa (fig. 11). Clearly, the fourth court housed an opulent and intimate reception suite. To the west of the large peristyle court is a complex of rooms including an apsidal garden, a nymphaeum, and a bathing wing. In the nymphaeum, fragments of several more figures from the myth of Venus and Adonis were found; related pieces were found in the rooms of the villa’s main axis.30 North of the thermal wing are more gardens, and to the southwest lies the large “cour de communs,” which housed a forge and other workspaces. There were three late mythological statuettes at Montmaurin: a headless Venus-Victory and a group of fragments that are best reconstructed as two statuettes showing events from the myth of Venus and Adonis. The Venus-Victory stands with her left foot on a tree stump (figs. 12–14).31 A chiton is belted just below the breasts and has slipped off the right shoulder. Abstractly and schematically treated, the folds of the upper drapery focus on a group of concentric U-shaped pleats over the goddess’s abdomen, where the deeply cut folds with a squared or “crenellated” profile create a bold surface pattern of light and dark contrasts instead of revealing the body beneath them. Encircling the neck, arms, and feet are doughy ridges of cloth, perhaps meant to represent hems. The lower body is encircled by a mantle, which is twisted into a thick roll of cloth around the goddess’s hips. Crenellated folds spiral around the roll at the waist. They also appear between the legs and on the mass of cloth pushed aside by the raised left leg. The cloth is pulled tight against the goddess’s knee and calf, but the anatomy appears rubbery and is poorly articulated. As on the chiton, heavy drilling on the mantle creates a surface pattern but provides little modeling to indicate the anatomy beneath. Another fragment carved from the same type of marble showed a hand holding a staff with a piece of drapery rendered with crenellated folds running over the wrist (fig. 14). Evidently the figure held a staff, perhaps a tropaion or spear fig. 15). One face of the base is molded with a shallow horizontal incision line; the other three sides are only roughly worked. The placement of the molded face indicates that the statuette was meant to be seen in three-quarter right view. The back of the

the learned collector 40

Fig. 12. Venus-Victory found at Montmaurin, front. Musée de Montmaurin, no inventory number. (Photo author, by permission of G. Fouet.)

statuette is rough and unfinished, worked only with a chisel. The composition is clearly related to the “Venus of Capua” type, one often adapted to military themes.32 A similar stance is seen on a statuette of Victory accompanied by two prisoners that is now in the Ashmolean Museum (fig. 16).33 A series of fragments in a fine-grained white marble include figures on different scales and landscape elements (figs. 17–19).34 Three fragments show features of Venus in the Anadyomene pose. In one, a muscular torso of Venus Anadyomene has the left arm fully preserved, with a lock of hair in the hand; a strut off the left forearm presumably attached to the hair. In a second fragment, a bent right arm holds a lock of hair and has dainty microstruts between the fingers and the hair. In a third fragment, a diademed head has a broken lock of hair emerging at either side of a large neck strut or chignon. Also in this series of fragments, a forking tree trunk has small feet in it; a strut emerging from the front of the tree trunk attaches

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 41

Fig. 13. Venus-Victory found at Montmaurin, back. Musée de Montmaurin, no inventory number. (Photo author, by permission of G. Fouet.)

to a thick lock of hair. There is a torso of a child on a scale matching that of the feet in the tree. A torso of a running youth is about half the scale of the Venus pieces. A boar turning at bay has delicate undercutting and microstruts to depict the ears and mouth. A dog is reported but is no longer extant.35 These disparate elements can plausibly be associated with the myth of Adonis.36 Adonis’s mother, Myrrha, when pregnant, was transformed into a tree while fleeing her father. Adonis was born from the tree, became the lover of Venus, and died young in a hunting accident with a boar.37 Fouet proposed a reconstruction of these fragments (without the Venus head, which had not yet been discovered) into a single statuary group depicting simultaneously the birth and death of Adonis. However, the torso and the head do not join directly and are difficult to reconcile even if allowing for a missing piece of marble in between. A thick, squared mass at the

Fig. 14. Hand with staff and drapery found at Montmaurin. Musée de Montmaurin, no inventory number. (Photo author, by permission of G. Fouet.)

Fig. 15. Author’s reconstruction of VenusVictory of Montmaurin. (Drawn by J. Heinrichs.)

Fig. 16. Statuette of Victory with captives. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Michaelis 156. (Copyright Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. All rights reserved.)

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 43

back of the head must belong either to a neck strut or to a chignon. There is no trace of a chignon or strut on the nape of the Venus torso, and the upper back of the Venus torso is cleanly worked right up to the break at the neck, something that would be more difficult in the presence of a strut or chignon. Furthermore, the right arm of the torso clearly reaches up at a nearly vertical angle. On the preserved right arm, the elbow bends at nearly ninety degrees. Attaching these two limbs creates a very awkward position for the arm and would put the right hand practically into the head. One would expect to see effects of this proximity on the right side of the head, either through breaks or areas worked with difficulty. In fact, on the right side of the head, bridged drill channels appear in the hair, indicating that the sculptor’s access to this area was not blocked by an arm and lock of hair, whereas the left side of the head is less worked.38 For these reasons, it is very difficult to reconcile the head, torso, and right arm into a single figure. Therefore, despite the fact that there are no duplicates of any body part, I propose that these fragments belonged to two statuettes, one that used the Anadyomene torso and another using the head and the right arm. Since the remaining fragments show the beginning and end of Adonis’s life, one may suggest that each statuette showed one of these events. I propose the following reconstructions.39 One statuette showed Venus attending the birth of Adonis (fig. 20). A Venus Anadyomene stood beside and just in front of a spreading tree from whose fork an infant emerged, straddling the sides of the fork. This statuette used the tree trunk, the Anadyomene torso, and the infant torso. In the other statuette, Venus Anadyomene stood statuesquely over the death of her mortal lover, who is depicted on a much smaller scale (fig. 21). Again, a tree provided the landscape and a lattice to hold together all the figures. This statuette used the Venus head and arm, the youthful torso, the dog, and the boar turning at bay. The boar and youth lunge in opposite directions; the youth runs away from the turning boar, but they gaze back at one another, enlivening the composition with the tension between outbound motion and inbound gazes. Although the birth of Adonis was not a common subject in art of any period, the proposed reconstruction does find some confirmation in coinage of the cities of Myra and Aphrodisias in Asia Minor.40 Coins minted at Aphrodisias in the reign of Valerian (253–68) showed a figure in a Phrygian cap pursuing a fallen figure, also in a Phrygian cap, below a tree with three spreading branches.41 This coin is taken to represent some aspect of Myrrha’s pursuit by her father. With multiple figures and the emphasis on the tree’s lattice, it resembles the reconstruction of the Montmaurin Venus and Adonis. Another coin, from the city of Myra, showed Myrrha’s metamorpho-

Fig. 17. Statuary fragments showing the myth of Venus and Adonis, found at Montmaurin; note that the joining fragments of tree trunk are not properly aligned. Musée de Montmaurin, no inventory number. (Photo author, by permission of G. Fouet.)

Fig. 18. Diademed head found at Montmaurin, three-quarter view. Musée de Montmaurin, no inventory number. (Photo author, by permission of G. Fouet.)

Fig. 19. Diademed head found at Montmaurin, side. Musée de Montmaurin, no inventory number. (Photo author, by permission of G. Fouet.)

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 45

sis with an elaborate blend of tree and woman.42 It is significant that these general parallels should be found in western Asia Minor; as I argue in chapter 4, late mythological statuettes, including those found at Montmaurin, were made in Constantinople, Aphrodisias, and other centers in Asia Minor. As reconstructed, both statuettes resemble the Venus and Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne in their use of the tree as a landscape element, the lacy strutwork of the branches, and the subsidiary figures on a smaller scale. Moreover, the muscular torso of Venus Anadyomene at Montmaurin resembles the schematic, long-waisted torso of the Venus of Saint-Georgesde-Montagne; and the diademed head, though abraded, exhibits similar rounded facial features and drilled details. The tree trunk found at Montmaurin resembles that of the Diana in both its trapezoidal profile and its gentle forward curvature when viewed from the side. The Montmaurin pieces have delicate drilled details, such as tiny struts connecting the fingers and hair on the arm holding out a lock of hair. Intricate strutwork is characteristic of late mythological statuettes. The villa possessed a number of other statues in addition to the three late mythological statuettes. The bust found in two pieces in the atrium and in the hemicyclical court shows a youth wearing a hairstyle of the Trajanic period. Also extant is a calcite statuette of a draped woman, now headless. Now lost are portrait busts of an older, bearded man and a younger, beardless man, as well as a female head, possibly a portrait.43 Nonmarble statuary included a small bronze bust of Helios-Serapis and a bronze statuette of a nude youth.44 In considering possible locations for display of this statuary, one must remember that all the fragments were found on top of the destruction level, as Fouet emphasizes. Some of the fragments of Venus and Adonis were found in the nymphaeum and garden, locations that seem eminently suitable to a Venus Anadyomene. Each of the two joining fragments of the extant bust was found in plausible venues for display. The atrium, where the head was found, would have rather distant precedents in republican and early imperial tradition. The colonnade of the court of honor, where the shoulders were found, is also a highly visible location.45 There was niche large enough for life-size statuary in the connecting room between the hemicycle court and the first peristyle.46 The Venus-Victory was found in the third courtyard. Placed in a niche in the center of the north wall of this courtyard, the statuette would lie right on the central axis of the villa, possibly even visible from as far away as the court of honor.47 Natural light in the courtyard would maximize the contrasts of light and shadow in the deeply cut folds of her drapery.

the learned collector 46

Fig. 20. Author’s reconstruction of the statuette of the Birth of Adonis. (Drawn by J. Heinrichs.)

Fig. 21. Author’s reconstruction of the statuette of the Death of Adonis. (Drawn by J. Heinrichs.)

The chronology proposed for the villa by its excavator Georges Fouet would seem to rule out the presence of statuary dating to the later fourth century (as is argued here for the Venus-Victory and the Venus and Adonis groups), since he dates the villa’s final destruction layer to the mid-fourth century. However, reinterpretation of the numismatic evidence and more recent study of the mosaics require the destruction level to be moved into the late fourth or, more probably, the fifth century. Under the latter scenario, there was an environment conducive to the display of prestige goods such as statuary. The villa was first built in the first century a.d., with a gallery in front and the main complex centered on a peristyle. A destruction at the end of the third century is attested by a heavy ash layer with coins of the Gallic emperors. Fouet then argues that the site was abandoned until the Constantinian period, when major renovations were undertaken.48 In general, little is known about the pre-Constantinian villa, since its traces were removed by the later renovations. Fouet sees two phases of architectural activity at the villa in the fourth century: a massive rebuilding in the Constantinian period, then further extensive renovations ca. 350. The splendor of the mid-fourth-century

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 47

structure was short-lived, he argues, since a fire substantially damaged the villa not long afterward. Using numismatic evidence, Fouet places this fire in the third quarter of the fourth century. After the fire, he maintains, habitation continued in the villa, but on a much reduced scale. Finally, a thick burnt layer overlain by tiles covered up the entire villa. This layer is evidence of a conflagration, which Fouet places in the late fourth century, probably before the Vandalic invasion of 406. According to Fouet, there are absolutely no finds from the fifth century.49 Fouet’s chronology is based exclusively on a terminus post quem provided by coins from different contexts on the site, evidence that he uses with great confidence despite its limitations. A close examination of his arguments in light of more recent work on coinage, ceramics, and mosaics shows that while his assessment of the Constantinian renovations is sound, the subsequent set of renovations must have occurred later than his proposed date of the mid-fourth century, and the final destruction of the villa was probably considerably later than the end of the fourth century. The main evidence for dating the post-Constantinian renovations to ca. 350 consists of coins found beneath various architectural features that were added as part of the renovation. Thirteen coins ranging in date from the mid-third century to Constantius II (337–61) were found under one portico of the hemicyclical court.50 A new doorway was built for the hemicyclical court, and in one of the rooms flanking it, twenty-three coins ranging from Gallienus (253–68) to Constantius II (337–61) were found.51 More generally, Fouet reports that material of the second half of the fourth century was found under the floors of the second, final phase.52 Scattered over the hemicyclical court were 140 coins ranging from Gallienus to Gratian (367–83). Nevertheless, it is important to note that coins often remained in circulation for a long time after their minting. Thus, Fouet’s mid-fourth-century numismatic date for the renovations is not secure, as it only provides a terminus post quem. On the coin evidence alone, the renovations fall in the third quarter of the fourth century or later. An examination of the mosaics and pottery will show that the renovations fall later. More important for this study, however, is an accurate sense of the longevity of the villa in this final state, for if the site fell into ruin as early as Fouet argues, it would not have been an appropriate setting for newly purchased marble sculptures of the late fourth century. Fouet argues that a fire in the third quarter of the fourth century irreparably damaged the final renovations of the villa, resulting in a much reduced standard of living for the occupants. However, the only actual burnt debris from this fire was

the learned collector 48

found in the hexagonal temple in the hemicyclical court. Two coins of Constantius II, minted in 348–61, were found on top of the burnt walls; these do not give firm evidence concerning the date of the fire. Moreover, the temple is a self-contained building and could have burned without setting the rest of the villa alight. Fouet links the fire in the temple to a villa-wide series of repairs using spolia, repairs that he argues were occasioned by the same fire that destroyed the temple. In particular, he holds that repairs to the marble paving around the garden of the nymphaeum would only have been necessary if a fire had cracked all the flags.53 However, there is no ineluctable evidence to link the repairs to the temple fire, as there are no reported traces of burning in conjunction with the use of spolia. It is more likely that the spolia simply attest repairs made over time. Last, there is the question of the date of the ultimate destruction of the villa. A thick layer of ashes and carbon topped by tiles buried the villa. Mixed into the debris were coins of Valens (364–78), Gratian (367–83), and Valentinian II (375–92).54 The coin of Valentinian thus provides a terminus post quem of 375 for the fire. Fouet reports that there was evidence of a fourthcentury “campement” on top of the burning,55 but he does not provide the reasoning behind his assigned date for this postdestruction event. If coins had been found, he would surely have specified them. Probably, the date is based on ceramics. The dating of some pottery has changed since the era of Montmaurin’s excavation; thus, a ceramic date may not be wholly reliable either. A hearth dug into the atrium floor contained a coin of 337–40 and one from post-348.56 This evidence is not conclusive either, since the coins may have originated in the subfloor fill disturbed when the hearth was dug. Advances in the study of coinage, mosaics, and ceramics since the publication of Montmaurin necessitate a reevaluation of Fouet’s numismatically derived chronology. Montmaurin is absolutely characteristic of villas of southwest Gaul in producing a majority of coins that were minted around the middle of the fourth century.57 However, Marc Gauthier and others have shown convincingly that bronze coins of the fourth century stayed in circulation for at least two more centuries, because the only minting continued in Gaul in the fifth century was in gold.58 In light of this fact, the bronze coins can only provide a loose terminus post quem. J.-P. Bost lays a similar stress on the limitations of the terminus post quem provided by coins in his coin report for the baths at Séviac, also citing the halt in bronze minting.59 Coins at the bath cluster in the mid-fourth century, but archaeologically it is clear that there was a prosperous fifth-century phase. At another Gallo-Roman villa, Lalonquette, no coins at all were found in the final phase of the villa, which the excavators see as commencing in the late fourth century and running through the fifth.60 Lalonquette demonstrates

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 49

that the late fourth and fifth centuries can be numismatically silent and that absence of coins does not necessarily reflect absence of occupation. The rarity of late fourth-century coins and the absence of later ones at Montmaurin need not indicate a decline or lack of occupation. More compelling positive evidence for the fifth-century existence of the villa comes from Catherine Balmelle’s mosaic studies, which show that the stylistic comparanda for most of the mosaics at Montmaurin date to the fifth century.61 In particular, a mosaic in a room near the inmost court is closely comparable to examples datable to the fifth and sixth centuries (fig. 11).62 It has a pattern of touching squares and circles bordered by scales. A final potential weakness in Fouet’s chronology is his conviction that the late stamped wares found in the final phases of the villa date to the fourth century.63 The dating of late stamped wares has changed a great deal since the time of Fouet’s publication. Study of the extensive ceramics recovered during important salvage excavations in Bordeaux has shown that these wares began there in the early fifth century and remained in use until the end of the sixth century.64 Because late stamped wares were so plentiful in the last phase of occupation and some were even found under the villa’s final floors, the construction and use of the floors and, hence, the building probably extends well beyond the late fourth century.65 Thus, a closer examination of numismatic, ceramic, and mosaic evidence shows that Fouet’s posited dates of ca. 350 for the final renovations and ca. 400 for the villa’s destruction are too early. Although the coin finds from Montmaurin cluster in the mid-fourth century, the prosperity and development of the villa appear to have continued past this date.66 The stylistic evidence of the mosaics provides a positive indication of fifth-century occupation in a luxurious style and indicates that a date in the late fourth or early fifth century would be more appropriate for the final renovations.67 There is basically no evidence from which to date the final destruction, apart from the fact that it postdates the fifth-century mosaics. Thus, a context exists for the display of late antique classicizing sculpture not only at Montmaurin but potentially at other villas with similar numismatic profiles.

chiragan

A

n extraordinary collection of sculpture found at the villa of Chiragan near Toulouse has been the subject of marvel, puzzlement, and debate since its discovery. The existence of the extensive, sumptuous villa on the bank of the Garonne River has been known since at least the seventeenth century, when the walls still stood 3–4 m tall (figs. 22–23). Finds continued through the eighteenth century. There were a series of excavations through

the learned collector 50

Fig. 22. Plan of the villa of Chiragan. (Plan by J. Heinrichs, after Joulin 1901, pl. 1.)

the nineteenth century, in 1826–30 under Alexandre Dumège, in 1840 by the Société Archéologique du Midi de la France, in 1890–91 by A. Lebègue, and in 1897–99 by Léon Joulin. The majority of sculptures now extant came from Dumège’s work, but the best stratigraphic information about them comes from the final project under Joulin, in which he reexcavated much of the area already exposed by Dumège. Joulin’s 1901 publication, very thorough for its day, is the main publication for the site and contains charts and photos of most of the finds—including many of the “objets usuels”—and a detailed account of the architecture.68 The villa itself is extraordinary, by any standards, in its size and decoration. Including all its components, it has an area of some 18,000 m2, more than double the area of the next largest villa in southwest Gaul (Valentine, with an area of circa 8400 m2).69 To put this figure in a more global perspective, the famous villa at Piazza Armerina has an area around 8500 m2, although the outbuildings have not been excavated.70 The villa at Chiragan has a monumental basilical hall with an area of ca. 260 m2, comparable to those at Mediana

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 51

Fig. 23. Detail of the main living quarters of the villa of Chiragan. (Plan by J. Heinrichs, after Joulin 1901, fig. 1.)

or Gamzigrad.71 One room has flooring in opus sectile, evidently the most luxurious of possible floor coverings. It may also have architectural decoration in imported marble, a very rare feature in southwest Gaul.72 With more than a hundred pieces of sculpture comprising imperial and private portraits, mythological sculpture on different scales, life-size relief plaques, and medallion busts of gods, the discoveries at Chiragan constitute one of the largest sculptural assemblages in the entire Roman world.73 There is extraordinary variety within the overall assemblage, although there are some clearly cohesive subsets within the group. Ignored through most of the twentieth century, perhaps because of its daunting range and

the learned collector 52

complexity, the statuary assemblage at Chiragan has received recent attention because of growing interest in late mythological statuary and in domestic decoration. Niels Hannestad and Marianne Bergmann have both discussed certain groups of life-size statuary from the villa as Aphrodisian products of the late fourth or early fifth century.74 Jean-Charles Balty has comprehensively restudied the imperial portraits and identifies four of them as a tetrarchic group comprising Maximian, Maxentius, and their wives.75 Chiragan thus looms large in the current controversies over the production of large-scale mythological statuary in late antiquity. The smallscale statuary of late antique date, questions of display, and the Gallic context of the statuary is my main focus here. Before addressing the sculptural assemblage, let us examine the villa itself. Evaluation of the architecture and chronology shows that there existed at Chiragan in the late fourth and early fifth century a prosperous villa that could have fittingly housed a lavish display of statuary. The villa consists of several large peristyles and complexes of rooms agglomerated together (fig. 22).76 In the north is a “court of honor,” with a monumental basilical room to the north of it. A dozen medallion busts of divinities and sculptures of a lion and a horse were found in the rooms of the court of honor.77 Another peristyle court in the northwest was surrounded by rooms with floors paved in mosaic or marble. A larger court in the southwest of the complex opens onto the Garonne River. In the northwest corner of this court was a large pit containing nearly all of the sculptures found in the three archeological campaigns.78 Various groups of rooms spread east of the riverside court and south of the court of honor. Joulin interprets an apsidal room looking onto an “atrium” with a pool as a summer dining room with a nymphaeum.79 The pool of the small atrium contained some three hundred fragments of sculpture and other material, including two late mythological statuettes (fig. 26). Some sculptural debris lay against the north wall of the central, squared room.80 The bath wing lies south of the court of honor, focuses around a hemicyclical swimming pool and contains many apsidal rooms.81 This pool, too, contained statuary. Another suite of rooms had a well-appointed atrium at the west end and a long apsidal structure spreading east of this.82 Joulin speculates that this area may have been unroofed and so may have been an interior garden. Further luxuriously decorated rooms, including an apsed room with a mosaic floor over a hypocaust, clustered at the southeast of the court of honor.83 There is an extensive complex of outbuildings to the north and east of the villa. Joulin reconstructs four phases for the villa: modest beginnings in the Augustan period, a more grandiose rebuilding approximately under Trajan,

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 53

a still more lavish rebuilding in the Antonine period, and Constantinian renovations on a more modest scale.84 By the second half of the fourth century, he argues, the living quarters of the villa consisted mainly of the area renovated in the Constantinian period, the rooms facing the southwest corner of the court of honor. Balmelle points out that Joulin dated his third phase to the Antonine period on the basis of the sculpture rather than stratigraphy or architectural styles. She argues that these renovations actually took place in late antiquity, perhaps somewhere in the first half of the fourth century, because the kinds of structures associated with this phase (including the court of honor, the basilical room, and the lavish renovations to the baths) accord well with renovations of this period at villas where chronology is better defined.85 The numismatic evidence from the villa does not contradict Balmelle’s interpretation. There is a concentration of late third-century coins and another peak in the period of Constantine and his successors, but there is a coin from the reign of Theodosius and Arcadius.86 As has already been discussed for Montmaurin, such a numismatic profile is consistent with occupation in the late fourth century or later, and J.-P. Bost specifically stresses the similar profiles of Montmaurin, Chiragan, and Séviac.87 Joulin’s fourth phase, the one he considered Constantinian, would then follow sometime after the middle of the fourth century. For the villas of southwest Gaul generally, Balmelle documents two further waves of expansion and renovation: one in the decades ca. 400, the next in the second half of the fifth century or in the sixth.88 Thus, Joulin’s fourth phase could belong to one of these periods. Despite the apparently reduced scale of occupation at the villa in phase four, Joulin emphasizes that this new area had rich decoration, including gilded glass mosaics and colonnades.89 No sculptural fragments were found in these rooms, but this absence is not significant given the clear evidence that the sculptures were gathered together for mass burial in the huge pits of debris. There were also some late repairs and construction in the rooms around the summer dining room and the baths.90 In one hemicycle of the baths, there were pilasters made of bricks with large joints, a building technique Joulin describes as “byzantine.”91 Repairs to the most grandiose sections of the villa, those built in phase three, are not reported, and it is unclear whether they were still in use in the final phase. Joulin assumed that they were not, because the complex of rooms south of the court of honor, along with the summer dining room and nymphaeum, constitutes complete, fully equipped living arrangements. However, apart from an apparent absence of repairs, there is no evidence to show that these other rooms had gone out of use. As we shall see, late mythological stat-

the learned collector 54

uettes and other finds, such as an early fifth-century female portrait, give positive evidence for the longevity of prosperous occupation at the site.92 A heavy ash layer attests destruction by fire.93 Joulin argues that the sculptures were deliberately damaged at this point. Some cleanup was then done, creating three large pits of debris that included sculpture along with architectural fragments, coins, “objets divers,” and burnt debris (figs. 22, 24).94 Two of the pits lay over the bath complex, and the largest and richest pit in terms of sculpture lay in the northwest corner of the southwest court. The fact that burnt material is mixed in with the statuary in the pits suggests that both came from the same original context, that is, the damaged villa. A large number of sculptures was found in the impluvium associated with the summer dining room and nymphaeum; this findspot is less stratigraphically dubious and may indicate that these sculptures came from somewhere near the impluvium.95 It must be said, though, that the finds from this pool do not have a coherence of subject matter, size, or preservation.96 A statue of a sleeping naiad was found in the large hemicyclical pool of the baths, along with other pieces.97 This deposition history does suggest that all the statuary was available at the time of the villa’s destruction. The pits of debris must have been formed as part of a later effort to tidy away debris at the site, perhaps to make plowing easier (agriculture is the only postvilla activity that Joulin could identify at the site).98 The principal late mythological statuettes are a sleeping Ariadne, a diademed female head, and a pair of larger statuettes of Dionysos and Ariadne or a maenad. The statuette of Ariadne is complete and shows a sleeping woman reclining on the left with her right arm flung back above her head (fig. 25).99 She wears a chiton that leaves her right breast bare. The woman’s upper torso emerges stiffly from her waist, creating a straight, frontal axis, which continues in her neck and head and contrasts with the languid arms and legs. The woman’s head is large in proportion to her body, and her closed eyes are large and prominent in her face. Drilling enhances details of the face and hair. The long-waisted proportions, stiff upper body, and hazy anatomy are all characteristic of a late antique aesthetic. The second piece is a female head wearing a chignon and a ribbon around her forehead (fig. 26).100 An S-curl on the forehead is similar to ear curls on the Saint-Georges-de-Montagne sculpture wearing a Scheitelzopf (fig. 9), and bridged drilling appears in the waves of hair at the side of the head. The physiognomy of the face strongly resembles the Venus of SaintGeorges-de-Montagne (fig. 7) and is very characteristic of the genre of late mythological statuettes.

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 55

Fig. 24. Detail of the main living quarters of the villa of Chiragan, showing findspots of statuary. (Plan by J. Heinrichs, after Joulin 1901, 1.)

Larger in scale is a statuette of Bacchus leaning against a tree in a languid pose (figs. 27–28).101 He has soft youthful features and wears a leafy garland in his elaborately curled hair. Microstruts abound on the statuette, and breaks from larger struts appear on the shoulders and back and relate to the tree and possibly other subsidiary figures. A female head wearing a wreath of vine leaves and grapes has the same strikingly ethereal features, softly parted lips and arched brows.102 Delicate undercutting makes the leaves, grapes, and certain locks of hair stand out. The facial features and Dionysiac headdress link this statuette to the Dionysos. She may be Ariadne or a nymph. Though larger than some of the other late mythological statuettes and even more virtuoso in workmanship than most, these stat-

the learned collector 56

Fig. 25. Statuette of sleeping Ariadne found at Chiragan. Musée Saint-Raymond, Toulouse, inv. 30350. (Copyright Foto Marburg/Art Resource, NY.)

uettes have the same soft expression and arching features seen on other late statuettes. The soft fillet on the woman is the same as on the small head previously discussed. Niels Hannestad and Marianne Bergmann have identified numerous larger statues at this villa as late antique imports from Aphrodisias, most particularly a dozen oversize reliefs of the Labors of Hercules, thirteen tondi of gods, and a torso of an “old fisherman” carved from dark marble.103 Bergmann further identifies several theater masks, a relief showing theater masks, a plaque showing Socrates with a herm, a relief of Serapis, and several portraits as Aphrodisian products. Hannestad argues that the imperial portraits have signs of reworking. How do these controversial claims stand up? The links to Aphrodisias are certainly persuasive, particularly for the tondi, the “old fisherman,” and the Hercules reliefs. The “old fisherman” is a type known to be popular at Aphrodisias, and the Chiragan example is carved from a black marble similar to one used at Aphrodisias.104 The fisherman’s bumpy musculature also accords with Aphrodisian practice.105 The thirteen tondi show a dozen divinities and a thirteenth figure that may be a philosopher.106 With deeply sunk eyes, heavily drilled hair, and stylized facial creases, they all correspond to the

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 57

Fig. 26. Head of female statuette found at Chiragan. Musée Saint-Raymond, Toulouse, inv. 30354. (Photo author, by permission.)

baroque aesthetic in Roman sculpture from Asia Minor. Some have argued that Aphrodisian sculptors specialized in the tondo format, and a series of fifth-century tondi of philosophers does exist there.107 That said, the Aphrodisian philosophers, with their stringy hair and bridged drilling arranged in linear patterns, are not themselves a close stylistic match for the Chiragan tondi. The Hercules reliefs exhibit a flamboyant styling and musculature highly reminiscent of Aphrodisian work.108 The similarities appear especially in the shape of Hercules’ legs, which have rhomboid bundles of muscles and sharp incision lines above the knee. Both the tondi and the reliefs of Hercules are problematic, however, in that many scholars have identified their coarse-grained marble as that of Saint-Béat, a quarry in the Pyrenees.109 Could an Aphrodisian crew of sculptors have traveled to Gaul to carve these reliefs? There is epigraphic record of an Aphrodisian crew in Rome who worked in Carrara marble.110 However, in light of both the known preference of sculptors for familiar marble and the considerably lower quality of the marble from Saint-Béat when compared with that of Aphrodisias, it remains a difficult proposition.111

the learned collector 58

Fig. 27. Statuette of Bacchus found at Chiragan, front. Musée Saint-Raymond, Toulouse, inv. 30348. (Photo Jean-François Peizé, by permission of the Musée SaintRaymond.)

Notwithstanding the local marble in some instances, these three elements of the collection (the tondi, the reliefs, and the “old fisherman”) all have links to the voluptuous element in sculpture from Asia Minor and correspond to formats, styles, and/or types popular at Aphrodisias. It is not so much the Eastern connections as the proposed late antique date that many have found problematic.112 The late date for these pieces is based in large part on stylistic comparison to the apparently independently datable Esquiline group of Aphrodisian sculptures found in Rome. However, the strength of the Esquiline group as a “fixed point” in fourth-century sculpture is very much in question.113 While terminology used in the dedicatory inscriptions of the Esquiline statues dates them to the reign of Constantine or later, one of the signed plinths was found built into a bath building dated

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 59

Fig. 28. Statuette of Bacchus found at Chiragan, detail of face. Musée Saint-Raymond, Toulouse, inv. 30348. (Photo Jean-François Peizé, by permission of the Musée SaintRaymond.)

to the early fourth century (the reign of Maxentius) on the evidence of hundreds of brick stamps.114 If the Esquiline group does not provide secure late antique comparisons, the foundation for a late date for the Chiragan pieces and others is considerably weakened. These problems will be discussed further in chapter 4. The very size of the sculptural assemblage at Chiragan creates difficulty in discussing a sculptural program. Other ideal sculptures representing a wide range of divinities, heroes, scales, genres, and materials comprise many of the finds. Dionysos and his circle constitute the largest single group, accounting for about half of the freestanding statuary.115 Hercules and Venus provide the next largest groups. Some of the statues are recognizable versions of well-known pieces—the Athena of Myron (from the

the learned collector 60

group showing the flaying of Marsyas, though no other figures from the group appear at Chiragan), a head matching the Knidia of Praxiteles, and a statuette of the Hercules Farnese, to name a few.116 Relief plaques and panels appear; a plaque of the rape of Proserpine is particularly well preserved.117 The late mythological statuettes do not stand out iconographically from the earlier mythological statuary. Some further subgroups are noticeable. The tondi of divinities and the reliefs of Hercules are distinctive by their format and must have decorated large rooms or spaces. Three statues of Egyptian divinities stand out as a possible group: an oversize Isis wearing the characteristic Isis knot, a sculpture of Serapis-Pluto accompanied by Cerberus in high relief, and a Harpocrates.118 The large Isis statue is carved from a black marble. Its head and arms, not preserved, may have been added in a different color. These statues form a coherent nucleus of Egyptian divinities and must reflect worship of these divinities during some or all of the villa’s existence. Other Eastern divinities appear as well: Cybele and Attis are represented in the tondi.119 The villa also yielded an extraordinary number of portraits, mostly dating between Augustus and the tetrarchy, with the latest portrait at the site being a female head of the early fifth century. There are some twenty-five private portraits of men, women, and children.120 Imperial portraiture is well represented, with twenty-six entries listed in Emile Espérandieu’s catalogue, to which Balty has now added the tetrarchic foursome.121 Several emperors appear in multiple examples: there are four busts of Trajan, three of Marcus Aurelius, four of Septimius Severus, and four of Caracalla.122 A few philosophers appear. There is one relief plaque of Socrates next to a herm, and there is a fragmentary head of the orator and politician Demosthenes.123 Most of the portraits are linked to workshops in Rome and Italy, in contrast to the Asian parallels for portions of the ideal sculpture.124 For the interpretation of the villa in its later phases, the most important portrait bust is a female head dated to the early fifth century. Now in the Musée Saint-Raymond in Toulouse, this sculpture was long considered to be unprovenanced. However, Daniel Cazes draws our attention to a museum catalogue of 1835 where it is attributed to Chiragan. The catalogue was written by Alexandre Dumège, who excavated at Chiragan in 1826–30. The woman wears a scarf over her head similar to one on a diptych of Stilicho’s wife Serena, and the face and eyes have an abstracted roundness characteristic of the period.125 With this portrait, Chiragan is one of only two late antique villas in southwest Gaul to possess contemporary portraiture. Bergmann has recently identified a second portrait. A fragment

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 61

of relief illustrated by Joulin and now lost shows an arm holding up a mappa (the cloth used by magistrates to open games).126 The arm wears a tight, creased sleeve like those seen on two late fourth-century magistrates in the Capitoline Museum or on consular diptychs of the same period. Thus, it would appear that this fragment belongs to a life-size relief of a magistrate about to drop the mappa.127 The gesture, the sleeve, and the style set this fragment in the late fourth century at the earliest. This relief, showing an activity performed only by very high magistrates or the emperor, underscores the high standing of the owner of the villa. Two further important finds illustrate that the villa was occupied in style ca. a.d. 400. First, a fragment of relief from a fluted marble cantharus has a decoration in flat, smooth acanthus leaves matching that of a cantharus in the Palazzo Massimo Museum in Rome.128 The cantharus in Rome is carved from a dark marble and has a scene of the gifts of the Magi on it.129 Second, an acanthus-leaf pilaster capital dates more generally to the fourth century and has parallels in Asia Minor.130 Within the villa, some appropriate places for display include the baths, triclinia, and reception rooms. The so-called atrium seems appropriate, especially since so much statuary was found in its impluvium. The large, apsidal garden would make an attractive venue. Cazes suggests that the reliefs with the labors of Hercules adorned a long portico in the court of honor.131 Certainly, a large outdoor space such as this would be suitable for displaying these oversize, deeply cut reliefs. The presence of late mythological statuettes and the early fifth-century portrait alongside the dozens of heirlooms shows that the patrons remained interested in sculptural decoration. Who owned this extraordinarily rich and diverse collection of statuary? Certain aspects of the collection itself reveal a little about the owner. During the early and high empire, all of the portraiture, both private and imperial, can be linked to Italian sources.132 Moreover, three private portraits of Severan date found at Chiragan show the same individuals as portraits found in Italy and Rome. This seems a strong indication that the owner at this time had ties to Italy. Epigraphy provides further provocative—if inconclusive—evidence. A statue base carried an incomplete inscription dedicated to the genius of Gaius Aconius Taurus. The bust originally set on this base was not found during the excavations. The reference to the genius in the inscription and the later assignment of the name Angonia to this property suggest that this individual was the owner of the villa. The inscription is written in letterforms of the second century or later.133 Two different families of Aconii are known in the later third century in Italy. Interestingly, one of these fami-

the learned collector 62

lies was located in Perugia, where one of the private portraits matching one at Chiragan was found. A senator named Aco Catullinus is attested in Rome in the early fourth century. The name Aconius reappears in Rome in the late fourth and early fifth century; one of the better-known members of the family is Aconia, wife of Vettius Agorius Praetexatus. Both husband and wife were known for flamboyant paganism and devotion to numerous mystery cults. Although Werner Eck argues that there is not enough evidence to link a dedicatory statue possibly dating as early as the second century in Gaul to nonidentical names of other time periods in Rome and Italy, a possible association between the late fourth-century Aconii of Rome and the luxurious villa at Chiragan is enticing, especially given the cluster of Egyptian divinities in the villa.134 For the present purpose, then, the villa at Chiragan is important as a setting for late antique mythological statuettes. That a well-appointed villa existed to house these statuettes is evident from coins, portraits, and other decoration, such as mosaics with gilded glass tesserae and the marble cantharus. Many questions about the rest of the extraordinary sculptural collection at Chiragan remain unanswered but merit continued investigation on a case-by-case basis.

la-garenne-de-nérac

A

nother Gallic site with a sculptural assemblage including late antique mythological statuary is the villa of La-Garenne-de-Nérac (fig. 29).135 Excavated in the 1830s, this villa is interesting for the wide variety of sculpture found there (though most of the pieces are now lost) and for the luxurious layout and elaborate geometric and vegetal mosaics, which allow speculation about the physical context of late antique statuary. An academic scandal of the 1830s and the fact that the site is now largely covered over again have resulted in near obscurity for this important villa. The villa was discovered in excavations in 1832–33 directed by a local teacher and artist, Théodore Crétin. Many geometric and vegetal mosaics, along with sculpture and architectural decorations, were uncovered within an expansive villa. Excitement about the finds ran so high that experts from Bordeaux (François Jouannet) and Toulouse (Alexandre Dumège) soon became involved. At that time, interpretation of the site was based on an extraordinary series of inscriptions and medallions naming the Gallic emperor Tetricus (270–73). All three scholars assumed that the villa was Tetricus’s palace and therefore dated it during his reign. The site was highly

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 63

Fig. 29. Plan of villa at La-Garenne-de-Nérac. (Plan by J. Heinrichs, after Dumège 1832–33, fig. 2.)

celebrated in its day, and Dumège and Crétin received many awards and honors for their involvement. However, within a few years, the inscriptions were exposed as frauds, and Crétin confessed to having fabricated them.136 Although Dumège denied all knowledge of and participation in the fraud, his credibility and career were ruined, and he died in poverty. Fraudulent inscriptions aside, Nérac is an important site for the study of villas in late antique Gaul. Although only part of the villa has been excavated, the likely reconstructions for it suggest that its overall area would have been between 5000 and 7000 m2, among the largest in the region. Two perpendicular wings partially survive, one with a monumental entryway. A U-shaped design unfolding symmetrically with the monumental entrance at its center is a plausible reconstruction.137 The monumental entryway leads into a circular vestibule flanked by a pair of large basilical rooms. The vestibules and apsidal rooms had mosaics with vegetal decoration, including fruit trees, baskets of fruit, rinceaux, cornucopias, and birds.138 One room also had a design showing colonnaded arches with alternating fruit baskets and fruit trees. Balmelle shows that vegetal and architectural

the learned collector 64

designs are rare in Aquitaine and appear only in the largest rooms of the largest villas. She argues that these designs reflect the abundance and productivity of the lands that the villa owner controls. She gives a date between the late fourth century and the middle of the fifth for the mosaics.139 There was a separate building complex with a bath and nymphaeum by the River Baïse. Architecturally, this villa stands out among Aquitanian villas for its size, the large apsidal rooms, the figural mosaics, the opus sectile flooring (in the nymphaeum), and the use of imported marble.140 Moreover, substantial numbers of sculptures are recorded as finds at the site. Though several of the finds were fragmentary and not all are preserved today, the archival information available allows the reconstruction of a rich collection of statuary.141 Occasional data about findspots inform hypotheses about display. Two pieces of late mythological statuettes are recorded from the site (a female torso and head), and the base of a third probably originated there. Dumège reports finding the torso of a small Diana in the baths and adds that some have mistaken it for a Victory.142 Dumège’s scant description corresponds with a headless statuette of a lightly dressed woman currently on display at the Musée du Château Henri IV in Nérac (fig. 30). The figure wears a high-belted peplos with a long overfall that swirls around her as she strides forward. Struts and breaks indicate that arcs of drapery once billowed behind her, giving the statuette a lacy, perforated appearance similar to the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (fig. 4). The windswept contours of the torso are reminiscent of alighting Victory types; a very similar figure from Tarraco is described as a Victory.143 Alternatively, swirling, revealing drapery and mantles billowing in ropy arcs are also seen on maenads. The second sculpture of interest is a small-scale diademed female head (fig. 31).144 Though the sculpture is now lost, Dumège provides a line drawing of it, and the facial profile, lacy diadem, and apparent neck strut combine to give the sculpture a strongly late antique appearance. The head appears to have the ridged, arched brows and sloping chin characteristic of late mythological statuettes. Dumège does not record a join between this head and the torso previously described, so it may be surmised that they belonged to separate sculptures. A statuette base currently in the Musée du Château Henri IV in Nérac probably originated in the villa as well.145 The base preserves a goat leg on the viewer’s left, a tree trunk and a kneeling animal with cloven feet in the center, and human feet at the left (fig. 32).146 The goat leg is much larger in scale than the kneeling animal at the center. The human feet are oriented to the viewer’s right and were evidently in motion, as the right heel

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 65

Fig. 30. Statuette of Victory found at La-Garenne-de-Nérac. Musée du Château Henri IV, Nérac, inv. 47.1.418. (Photo author, by permission.)

is raised off the ground. Two further fragments of the tree branches exist, but there are no direct joins.147 The decorative molding at the front of the base is a central scotia with upper and lower moldings of double fillets. It scarcely wraps around the sides before ending; the sides of the base are otherwise unfinished. The back of the base is left very rough and bears deep marks from a wide chisel or point. The back of the Pan leg has planar, undetailed modeling. Hindquarters of a leaping animal (possibly a dog) have closely similar workmanship to figures on this base and other related ones, but there are no further feet on the base.148 This piece possibly appeared somewhere higher in the scene, or it may have belonged to a different statuette. The large scale of the goat leg suggests that it belonged to Pan, in which case the scene probably represents Pan pursuing a woman or youth.149 Branches from the tree in the center would have supported the figures in a

the learned collector 66

Fig. 31. Drawing of a diademed female head found at La-Garenne-de-Nérac. (From Dumège 1832–33, 405.)

lacy trellis. The kneeling animal could be a goat, embodying the bestial, lustful side of Pan’s nature.150 It is possible that the diademed head from Nérac (fig. 31) could have belonged to this statuette, reducing the total number of late mythological statuettes at this villa to two, not three. This sculpture is of great interest because it closely resembles the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne and the Carthage Ganymede, particularly in the profile of the molding, the kneeling animal, and the shape of the base. The workmanship of the tree is also very similar to the tree trunk in the Venus and Adonis group at Montmaurin. Additional statues that would have been heirlooms by the fourth century round out the collection at La-Garenne-de-Nérac. A head of Marcus Aurelius, now in the museum in Nérac, was discovered in a field near the monumental entrance. An oversize head was also discovered there but is now lost. Also reported from the site are two other oversize heads, a second small-scale head, and a bronze statuette of Minerva.151 An oversize hand with a cup was found in the baths. Not one of the latter pieces is extant. Several further statuary fragments in the collections of the Musée du Château Henri IV may also have come from the villa at Nérac. These include an oversize hand with a rod, fragments of a nude life-size figure, and knees of at least two male statuettes.152 To recapitulate the reported

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 67

Fig. 32. Base of statuette with leg of Pan, tree, and feet on it. Musée du Château Henri IV, Nérac, inv. 47.1.418/47.1.439. (Photo museum, by permission.)

findspots, the late antique torso of Victory and the hand with a cup were found in the baths, and the bust of Marcus Aurelius and an oversize head were found near the monumental entryways. In these locations, the sculptures would have complemented other luxurious decoration: the vegetal mosaics in the entrance suite and the opus sectile floors in the nymphaeum area of the bath.

castelculier

S

everal sculptures, including one late mythological statuette, have been discovered at a villa site at Castelculier, near Agen (ancient Aginnum).153 Occupied from the first through fifth centuries, the villa was centered on two adjacent, square courtyards and had its own bath complex (renovated several times in late antiquity). Architectural decoration at the site comprised colonnades, mosaic floors, wall paintings, and even mosaic vaulting with vine patterns in the bath. Green porphyry found at this villa is a rare example of imported marble in late antique Aquitaine. A fourth-century crossbow fibula at the site further indicates the presence of a high-ranking individual.154 The sculptures from the site are all nineteenth-century discoveries or surface finds, and findspots within the villa are not known. At least five sculptures are reported from the villa. The most interesting is a headless torso of a late antique statuette of Minerva (fig. 33).155 The goddess is recognizable through the snaky aegis, under which she wears an unbelted peplos and a mantle. There is no gorgoneion, although this detail

the learned collector 68

Fig. 33. Statuette of Minerva found at Castelculier. Private collection. (Photo author, by permission.)

could have been added in paint. Remains of a helmet or neck strut (or both) appear at the back of the neck. The Minerva stands frontally, with her left arm at her side and her right arm extended out and frontally. Struts on either hip would have supported the arms, which probably carried attributes. The drapery is doughy, emphasizes decorative visual effects over revelation of the underlying anatomy, and is unclear at the sides, where some folds of the cloak are confused with those of the peplos. The front of the statuette is well polished, while the back is more roughly finished. Tiny struts supporting the snakes of the aegis attest to virtuosity and interest in detail on the part of the sculptor. Several other sculptures are reported. Still extant are a headless draped bust dating to the third or fourth century and a slightly oversize male head dating to the late first century. The upper portion of a head of Marcus Aurelius was found fairly recently.156 An oversize male head and a damaged female head are now lost.157 Since the sculptures range in date over four

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 69

centuries, it would seem that the collection grew over time, along with the villa.158 The presence of oversize sculpture alongside the lavish architecture indicates the sizable resources of the patrons of this villa. Without findspots, consideration of display remains speculative.

séviac hough highly fragmentary, a varied assemblage of sculptural finds at the villa of Séviac attests to a diverse range of sculptural display.159 There is only one potential late antique mythological statuette, a smallscale torso of a cupid seated on a horizontal bar, possibly a tree branch.160 The cupid is an appropriate size to have acted as a subsidiary figure in a multifigured late mythological statuette, perhaps in a composition similar to the pendant of the birth of Adonis found at Montmaurin (figs. 17, 20).161 A child also appears in the tree supporting a composition of Dionysos and his entourage found at Walbrook in London (fig. 63).162 Several other statuary fragments survive at Séviac. There was a small statuette of Hygieia. A wing and a portion of a torch carved from the same marble may belong to a statue of Eros holding a downturned torch, an image that would be used in a funerary context. A limestone hand belonged to a life-size statue. An oversize bronze toe is reported from excavations in 1911 but is now missing.163 There were at least four portraits at the villa. Two more highly fragmentary busts were sculpted from yellow and pink Chemtou marble imported from North Africa. A fragment of a bust carved from white marble appears to be a philosopher portrait. The best-preserved and most interesting portrait is a male head dating to the late fourth or early fifth century.164 Only one other villa in southwest Gaul, Chiragan, had a late antique portrait (only heirloom portraits appear in the other villas). Thus, the person represented and the owner of the villa must have been particularly distinguished. The Séviac head was found underneath a mosaic showing a pattern of trees and baskets dated roughly to the early fifth century.165 It is therefore possible that this late antique portrait was only on display for a short time before being deliberately discarded, an intriguing situation. The villa itself is well preserved and illustrates a prosperous lifestyle. It is centered around a courtyard and had an independent set of baths. Mosaics, principally geometric and vegetal, decorated most of the rooms around the courtyard and in the bath sector. The villa’s size (5700 m2) places it in the ranks of the largest villas in Aquitaine, and it boasts other of the most elite features found in the region, including imported marble, mosaics of fruit trees, and a monumental audience room in the shape of a

T

the learned collector 70

basilica.166 Findspots are only recorded for some of the statuary; most of the portrait fragments were found in the central court.167 Two masonry blocks in a room facing the central court may have served as statue supports for small-scale pieces, such as the Hygieia or the composition that included the seated cupid.

sculpture as an indicator of status in southwest gaul

I

n the preceding survey, I have examined in some detail six villas whose sculptural assemblages included late mythological statuettes. There are also a number of other villas where other kinds of sculpture have been found or where sculptural finds are known only through archival sources but are not extant. Statuary evidently adorned the baths of the very large late antique villa of Valentine near Montmaurin. A nineteenth-century excavator reports that there were marble plinths in each corner of one room of the bath, whose floor was decorated with a mosaic showing vine scrolls emerging from vases.168 The reception suite had four niches large enough for lifesize statuary. No sculpture has been recovered at the site, however. The villas at Bapteste and Montcaret, better known for their mosaics, also boast a marble head of a child and a heavily damaged bust, respectively.169 A lifesize bronze arm is reported from early excavations at Taron but is now lost.170 From these examples and others,171 we see that statuary decoration existed at Gallic villas in greater quantities than the extant remains can show. But it is also fairly evident that statuary did not exist at all villas. In fact, the villas with late mythological statuettes often possessed other features that Catherine Balmelle identifies as the rarest and most elite in her recent synthetic study of the villas of southwest Gaul. Thus, a collection of statuary was one of the most prestigious markers of status even within the aristocracy. Using criteria of size and expense, Balmelle identifies sixty-four villas that she considers the largest and wealthiest in the region. There are gradations within this large group, however, and the villas with late mythological statuary (or statuary generally) consistently appear in her groupings of the most luxurious examples of particular features. Size is the first obvious indicator. Chiragan, at 18,000 m2, stands alone as the largest villa by far in the region. Séviac (5700 m2), Montmaurin (5800 m2), and Nérac (5000–8000 m2) are in the next tier.172 Plans of Castelculier based on aerial photography suggest that the pars urbana, including the baths, would have an area greater than 5000 m2. Anecdotal reports estimate a very large size for the villa at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne. Very large basilical halls,

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 71

comparable in size to those of the most glamorous villas across the empire, appear at Chiragan, Nérac, and Séviac.173 Decoration also makes these villas stand out. Castelculier, Séviac, and Nérac are three of only six villas that had imported marble (green or purple porphyry) in their architectural decorations.174 Opus sectile flooring, which was even more prestigious than mosaic flooring, appears at only a few villas, among them Nérac and Chiragan.175 The most exceptional and prestigious designs for mosaics were figural ones showing fruit trees, baskets, cornucopias, and other symbols of earthly abundance, often set within a framework of arcades or porticos. These appear only in a few villas and adorn the largest rooms, including basilical halls. The entrance suite at Nérac, with its two vestibules and large apsidal rooms, had these mosaics, as did several rooms at Séviac. Only three villas of the sixty-four in Balmelle’s study—Chiragan, Nérac, and Castelculier—had imperial portraits. Only two—Séviac and Chiragan—had late antique portraits.

late mythological statuettes from villas elsewhere in gaul

T

he site of Wellen near Trier provides an example of late mythological statuary from a villa in northern Gaul. A headless statuette of a running satyr was found in 1875 in a Roman villa partially exposed during the construction of a railway station (figs. 34–36).176 The satyr is seen in profile and is supported from behind by a tree. An animal skin is knotted over his left shoulder and runs under his right arm. Where it swings out, the animal skin is fully cut away from his body; it is attached only to his right forearm by a single strut. He holds a baton (probably a thyrsus) in his elongated, rubbery right hand, which is connected to his right buttock by a prismshaped strut. Delicate struts interconnect the features of the sculpture. The long, narrow base has a thin vertical face with an incised groove along the bottom. The surface of the base is highly polished, as is the satyr himself. The back is only roughed out (fig. 35). In front of the satyr, to the viewer’s right, is a lump of stone containing two toes of a right foot. They sit just ahead of the satyr’s right foot and point in the same direction. The lack of a break on the base behind the toes indicates that the heel to this second right foot must be raised in the air. The second foot indicates the presence of a second figure, presumably a maenad fleeing from the satyr’s amorous advances. Now lost is a piece of the statuette with the same base molding showing a cista mystica.177 It had a finished corner and must have sat in front of the maenad.

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 34. Statuette of running satyr found at Wellen, front. Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Trier, inv. G.48. (Photo H. Thörnig, RLMT, by permission.)

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 35. Statuette of running satyr found at Wellen, back. Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Trier, inv. G.48. (Photo author, by permission.)

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 36. Statuette of running satyr found at Wellen, side. Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Trier, inv. G.48. (Photo author, by permission.)

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 73

The villa does not appear to have been very large or architecturally elaborate, but it was rich in small finds, including pieces of marble vessels.178 An early scholar, A. Flasch, dates the satyr to the second half of the second century, but he notes with some surprise the presence of later coins found along with it.179 Although specific numismatic information is not provided, Flasch’s puzzlement over the “later” coins suggests that they were significantly later than the second century. Stylistic qualities of the satyr—such as the thinness of the piece, the lacy strutwork, and the disproportioned limbs—indicate a later fourth-century date for it. A female head with soft rounded features and a classicizing hairstyle found at Til-Châtel near Dijon appears to be a divinity or mythological figure.180 The facial features, S-curl at the parting of the hair, and drilled details on the Til-Châtel head are very similar to those of the Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne or the Chiragan head. The site of Til-Châtel has also produced funerary monuments and may have been a rural estate.

sculpture from urban contexts

F

inally, there are a few late mythological statuettes found in urban contexts. That there are fewer urban than rural finds need not reflect a greater ancient preference for sculptural decoration in rural establishments but more probably results from the difficulties of preservation and access inherent in urban archaeology. A late fourth-century female head resembling the Til-Châtel and Chiragan heads was found just outside the fourthcentury walls of Bordeaux and probably adorned a suburban villa (fig. 37).181 The face is very similar to the Venus and Scheitelzopf woman of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne in such features as its ridged arched brows and a tiny curl at the parting of the hair. An atrium house of the fourth century excavated within Bordeaux possessed an heirloom bust of Bacchus, though no late mythological statuettes were found there.182 Mosaic floors and architectural sculpture also adorned the house. A head of a diademed woman was discovered in the theater of Arles (fig. 38).183 Carved from a fine-grained, almost translucent marble, the head has delicate, rounded facial features, drilled details in the hair, and a sloping chin. The irises and pupils are marked with thin incision lines. The back of the head is little worked, and broken small struts indicate that it was originally attached to other elements in the background.184 Though the theater was originally built in the Augustan period, the sculpture must have been added to the theater decoration at a later date. The theater was still

Fig. 37. Female head found in Bordeaux. Musée d’Aquitaine, Bordeaux, inv. X177. (Photo museum. Copyright DEC, Bordeaux.)

Fig. 38. Female head wearing diadem, found in Arles. Musée de l’Arles Antique, inv. FAN 9200 1191. (Photo museum, by permission.)

Fig. 39. Dancing maenad found in Arles. Musée Archéologique de Nîmes, inv. 891.25.2. (Photo museum, by permission.)

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 75

in use in the mid-fourth century, but during the fifth century it was being dismantled.185 Small-scale statuary is known at other theaters.186 No specific provenance within the city of Arles is recorded for a headless statuette of a dancing maenad (fig. 39).187 The figure dances vigorously (if a shade awkwardly), with lively swirls of drapery to indicate energy and movement. She steps onto her right foot, which is raised on tiptoe, and kicks back her left leg. The legs are somewhat inconsistent in their movement, with the left leg sideways to the viewer while the right leg remains frontal. The maenad raises her right arm out to the right. Her left upper arm slants downward across her breasts. The statuette stands on a molded base matching that of the Diana of Saint Georges-de-Montagne (fig. 4). Largely complete below the neck, the maenad is one of the better preserved late mythological statuettes found in Gaul. A house of the second and third century in Narbonne gives an idea of the variety of statuary that could exist in the townhouses of Gallic cities.188 House III at the Clos de Narbonne yielded an idealized head of a child; life-size fragments of a shoulder, an arm, and a plinth with a foot, all of which may have belonged to the same statue; a base with a decoration of knucklebones; and an intriguing small-scale hand with an instrument. The instrument shown in the latter fragment is not clearly identifiable but may represent some sort of measuring device, in which case it may belong to a statue of a sage or philosopher. In rubble just outside the building, a lion’s paw carved in Chemtou marble and a fragment of a portrait head of JulioClaudian times were found. These, too, may have belonged in the house. This house had other prestigious forms of decoration: opus sectile floors and figural wall paintings. Though dating from an earlier period than the fourthcentury sites that are the primary focus of this study, the house at the Clos de Narbonne helps us envisage the sculptural landscape of the cities.

display of statuary: evidence from literary sources

T

he social information provided by domestic statuary does not end with its date or identity. Statues and other decoration in Roman homes were selectively arranged to demarcate a hierarchy of rooms and guests and the importance of the patron of the house. Thus, a combined study of architectural data and sculptural finds allows interpretation of social issues. Recent research has focused in particular on the rich material from such cities as Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Ostia, but the same approaches have much to offer for the study of assemblages from late antique villas, even

the learned collector 76

ones that are not as well preserved.189 Layout, painted decoration, and mosaics all contributed to the hierarchy of space within the house, including the late antique house, and sculptural display enhanced the messages sent by the other decorative media. Overall, the magnificence of the home was expected to enhance and announce the magnificence of its owner. Literary testimonia and findspots within the villas provide grounds for hypothesizing about the display of statuary within the homes of Gallic aristocrats. I will examine the literary accounts before building on this evidence to interpret the Gallic villas and assemblages. Gallic writers, particularly Ausonius, Sidonius, and Ennodius, are important for this discussion, but the international elements of late antique aristocratic culture (as will be discussed in chap. 5) mean that references from non-Gallic authors can provide significant supplemental information. The correspondence between these literary assertions and the placement of sculpture is demonstrated at numerous sites around the empire (chap. 6). Ausonius provides literary confirmation that statuary adorned villas. A well-known poem describes the many regional names for a statue of Liber Pater and alludes to the attributes that reflect each name. The superscription to this poem tells us it is dedicated to a “semi-barbarous poem for a marble statue of Liber Pater with attributes of all the gods, located on our villa.”190 Although Ausonius himself did not write the superscriptions, N. M. Kay argues that a family member must have added them.191 He stresses the reference to “villa nostra” in this superscription. The title does not specify the location of the statue, but the patron of winemaking would have been suitable decoration for a dining room or garden. A short epigram addressing the goddess Venus may refer to a statue.192 Without actually describing Venus’s appearance, the poem does lead off with the goddess’s birth from the sea, perhaps reflecting the contemporary popularity of marine themes for Venus, as seen, for instance, in the Venus of SaintGeorges-de-Montagne (fig. 7). In a more general sense, late antique literature contains many references to the ongoing importance of opulent surroundings as a mirror or advertisement of the status of the owner. Apparently describing the house of the bishop of Milan, the early sixth-century Italian bishop Ennodius tells us that a house may “gleam with veneers or the worth of its owner.”193 Recording verses placed over the colonnade of a triclinium, he emphasizes how the decoration reinforces the virtues of the owner. These decorations ensured that “the house should not be silent about the character of its owner.”194 More specific discussions in many sources point to reception areas, triclinia, and baths as particularly significant venues for decoration.

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 77

The vestibule or entryway was expected to provide a foretaste of the luxury within and also acted as a funnel to control access to inner rooms of the house. Although visitors of many ranks had access to the vestibule, access to inner rooms of the house was more strictly controlled. Both functions are described by the fourth-century Gallic panegyricist Nazarius as he discusses Constantine’s virtues using the metaphor of a house. After first reminding us that unwelcome visitors to a house (or in this case, to the emperor) are rebuffed at the vestibule, he then explains that “for great homes, the vestibule itself reveals the decoration inside.”195 Writing in an earlier age, Vitruvius describes similar functions for the vestibule and atrium: a visitor does not need an invitation to enter a vestibule or atrium, and an ornate vestibule is necessary as a mark of status.196 In describing what seems to be a vestibule in a wealthy home in Elusa (modern Eauze, near the villa of Séviac), the poet Claudian envisioned gleaming white marble columns.197 By the fourth century, lavish reception suites at the entrance replaced the functions once filled by the atrium. These reception suites reflected the growing autocracy of the day and the increasing rigidity of the gap between rich and poor.198 Further confirmation of the importance of reception suites comes from Sidonius, who describes in detail how the crescent-shaped peristyle of the villa of Pontius Leontius was adorned with marble revetment, wall paintings showing scenes of Roman victories over Mithridates, and a gilded ceiling.199 The scenes of the Mithridatic Wars reflected Pontius Leontius’s pretensions that his ancestry dated back to this time.200 An epigram by Ausonius confirms the importance of entryways and reception areas. Mocking a pretentious aristocrat claiming to be descended from Remus and Romulus, Ausonius tells us, “He orders the names to be woven into his silken gowns, he engraves them on his weighty silver, he burns them with wax into the portals of his doors and the display cases of his halls.”201 This poem confirms the importance of the entryway and the “atrium” for display—in particular, display of ancestry. It is difficult to judge the extent to which these place references are simply a topos, extending as far back as Polybius. The reference to the atrium follows a welldocumented tradition in republican and earlier imperial times. While atria were no longer as important in the design of houses or villas in the fourth century, Ausonius may be envisaging small interior courtyards or reception rooms when using this more archaizing term. The mention of silverware certainly accords with our knowledge of its importance in display of status in late antiquity. The ancestral images here are painted portraits rather than statues.

the learned collector 78

The social importance of banqueting is well attested, and it is logical that the triclinium, the location for this important function, should be well decorated.202 Sidonius refers to statues of the muses in the triclinium of a house in Narbonne, comparing them favorably to works by Praxiteles, Skopas, or Pheidias.203 Ausonius describes at length a painting of “Cupid crucified” in the triclinium of one Zoilos, a member of the court at Trier.204 To judge from the poetic description, the painting was highly elaborate and comprised scenes and references to many myths. The painting served the double function of highlighting Zoilus’s cultured interests and providing a ready conversation piece; Ausonius’s imaginative poem may reflect diners’ discussions. Sidonius describes wall hangings showing hunting scenes as decoration at a dinner party.205 The emperor Julian castigated those who stole the decoration from tombs as “ornaments for their dining rooms and porticoes.”206 While this passage probably refers to architectural decoration as well as sculpted features, it makes a clear assumption that triclinia and peristyles are major locales of ostentation. The same conclusion emerges clearly from a poem of Ennodius describing decorated doors to a triclinium. On these can be seen the patron’s “art, virtue, name, and background.”207 The heading for this poem describes it as located on the colonnade of a triclinium, so these decorated doors would be part of the scenery of a courtyard. A bronze statue of Silenus described by the late fourth-century Roman poet Naucellius would have been a fitting decoration for a triclinium.208 Looking at the plans of villas, Simon Ellis proposes that the layout of triclinia emphasized and controlled the theatricality of the patron’s selfpresentation.209 Private baths were a major architectural status symbol. Sidonius is careful to describe the baths at his own villa (and thereby to demonstrate that he has them), and he is attentive to the baths owned by others.210 According to him, baths received painted decoration: he points out how his own baths do not have lewd paintings in them as some others do.211 Naucellius similarly devotes three poems to his private baths, mainly to remind the reader that he owns such a high-status item.212 The importance of private baths is also reflected in the Theodosian Code, where a law of 382 categorizes houses in Constantinople according to whether or not they possess baths.213 Archaeological evidence confirms that baths received decorative emphasis. At the villa of Saint-Cricq-Villeneuve, the bathing complex was decorated with mosaic scenes of fish and other marine life; these adornments are a rare example of figural mosaics in Aquitaine.214 The baths at Castelculier had mosaic decoration in the vaults.

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 79

Gardens were another appropriate venue for statuary. A garden denoted affluence, and statuary enhanced that status. Naucellius refers to “charming marbles of the matchless Muses” in conjunction with his garden, and it seems that they were located there. In his poem, he makes a general association between country living and literary culture, and this association is in general extended to gardens.215 Ennodius describes a marble fountain in the shape of a lion that must have been a garden ornament.216 Libraries were used as reception rooms for guests and friends, as Sidonius records, and would therefore have warranted elaborate decoration.217 Writing in the mid-fifth century, a Gallic priest named Rusticus recollected a childhood visit to a library where mosaic and encaustic portraits of the great classical poets and orators were displayed.218 Epigrams beneath them described their greatness. Rusticus’s visit to the library must have taken place sometime in the early fifth century, during the heyday of the villas discussed here. Perhaps some of the philosopher portraits identified at Chiragan or Séviac adorned libraries in a similar fashion. The Minerva of Castelculier could also have been an appropriate ornament in a library, since this goddess continued to be the patron of learning and intellectual endeavor (fig. 33).219 Unfortunately, private libraries are not easily recognized in the plan of a villa.

display of statuary in gallic villas

I

t now remains to consider the possibilities for sculptural display in the specific Gallic villas discussed here. Like earlier buildings in Pompeii and Ostia and contemporary buildings elsewhere in the empire, the villas have layouts that create a hierarchy of rooms and allow for stratification of guests. The long axial plan of the villa at Montmaurin, for instance, shows a vivid progression of steadily increasing luxury and intimacy as the visitor passed through court after court to reach the inmost enclosure, where the VenusVictory statuette presided (figs. 11–12). The cellular layout at Chiragan allowed for suites of varying levels of ostentation; it would have been possible to rank visitors by the rooms to which they were allowed entry (fig. 22). Knowledge of findspots has been a crucial factor in most studies of domestic sculptural collecting and display.220 Evidence for findspots is partially available for the villas of Montmaurin, Nérac, Séviac, and Chiragan, but it is somewhat problematic for questions of display, because all the sculptures came from postoccupation layers or pits of debris; no statuary has been found in situ. Methodological difficulties arising from this situation

the learned collector 80

have been discussed in chapter 2, and I shall proceed to use this evidence with due caution. A number of findspots within the villa of Montmaurin are known and can be briefly reprised (fig. 11). The fragments of the Venus and Adonis statuettes were found in the nymphaeum, with its associated garden, and in the peristyle court (fig. 17). The two halves of the youthful bust were discovered in the portico of the hemicyclical court and in a so-called atrium off the large peristyle court. Fragments of a calcite statuette of Venus were spread through the hemicyclical court and large peristyle. The headless statuette of a Venus-Victory was found in a seventh-century grave in the small peristyle (fig. 12). The findspots of the portrait busts that are no longer extant are not known. Montmaurin thus offers some tantalizing suggestions about statuary display. The statuary fragments seem to cluster in the more public rooms of the villa, rooms where visitors and clients would have had the opportunity to see them. The dual findspots for the Trajanic bust raise the possibility of display either in the monumental entry created by the hemicyclical court or in the less visible “atrium.” Though placement in the atrium would be customary in a sense, because it would evoke the traditional practices of the aristocracy of Rome and Pompeii, the atrium at Montmaurin lacks the accessibility of traditional atria as described by Vitruvius or seen in Pompeii. A setting in the hemicyclical court would render the accessibility and high profile that the Pompeian atrium had provided. By contrast with the court of honor, the “atrium” at Montmaurin was located in an area of much less visibility or traffic. Moreover, there are parallels within Gaul for the display of ancestry in a peristyle or court; paintings of scenes from the Mithridatic Wars in the peristyle of Pontius Leontius were intended to trace his ancestry back to this era. Julian’s law against tomb robbing specified peristyles as a place of display, and ornaments robbed from tombs could well include portraits meant to enhance a family’s apparent antiquity.221 The Venus-Victory was found in the garden in front of the luxuriously appointed suite of rooms that comprise the innermost sector of the villa. Fouet proposes that the figure stood in a niche centered between two stairways, facing toward the court and directly down the villa’s axis, to the gate of the hemicyclical court (fig. 11). The statuette is well suited to such a focal, outdoor location, as direct sunlight would accentuate the deep, crenellated folds of the drapery. The more secluded nymphaeum, with its garden, is a fitting background for the myth of Venus and Adonis, with its emphasis on rebirth and regen-

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 81

eration. The nymphaeum and garden are located near the villa’s private baths, which would have been a venue for aristocratic visiting. A certain degree of luxury was expected in private baths, and the statuettes of Venus and Adonis in the garden would have contributed to the prestige of the baths (fig. 17). The villa at Nérac also offers tantalizing information about findspots (fig. 29). The head of Marcus Aurelius and an oversize head were found in fields near the monumental entrance.222 As seen at Montmaurin, portraiture displayed at the entry would serve to remind all comers of the distinguished heritage or connections of the patron of the house. The imperial bust may be a reference to imperial service or simply to loyalty to the state. A bronze statuette of Minerva found in the circular vestibule of the monumental entry also decorated this complex of rooms.223 The oversize statue to which belonged a marble hand holding a cup, found in the baths, may have stood on a masonry base in a niche at the end of one large room.224 The figure with the cup may have been the drunken Hercules, a fitting patron for baths, or a Dionysiac character evoking another facet of physical pleasure. With its riverside location, the bath perhaps evoked a grottolike setting suitable for a scene of Odysseus holding out a cup to Polyphemos, as in the statuary group at the imperial villa at Sperlonga. The Victory-like figure was found in the baths (fig. 30). The diademed head may have acted as a pendant or companion to the draped woman, perhaps displayed in one of seven niches within the larger, more elaborate room of the nymphaeum (fig. 31). The nymphaeum could have doubled as a summer dining room, in which case the fountains and summer evening light would have made it an attractive setting for statuary display. Most sculpture from Chiragan was discovered in deep pits dug into the ruins of the villa; these findspots are not helpful in reconstructing display. Some pieces found in an impluvium associated with the summer dining room and nymphaeum may more plausibly have decorated the environs of their findspot, especially since this suite was renovated in late antiquity. There is no clear thematic unity to the pieces found in the impluvium, though they do include the female head wearing a chignon, one of the late mythological statuettes. As already mentioned, the large scale of the Hercules reliefs necessitates a spacious setting. The high relief on the Hercules panels could indicate that they were placed at a height. The open spaces of the peristyle in the court of honor are likewise suitable, as Daniel Cazes has suggested.225 All the divinities in the tondi lean well out of the medallions, which shows that they were meant to be viewed from below. The

the learned collector 82

tondi were found in the area of the court of honor and could have decorated its columnar facade. Two findspots for sculptures are recorded from Séviac. Part of the bust of a youth came from the court, and another portrait head lay under the floor of a heated room.226 No sculptures were found in the bath sector, though the subject matter of the Hygieia would be appropriate here. One may then speculate that portraits were displayed in the gallery of the courtyard, perhaps in the intercolumniations.227 The statues may have been arranged within the peristyle or gallery so as to be visible to people just outside the main entrance to the court and to guests inside the well-appointed triclinia or reception rooms that looked onto the peristyle.228 Two masonry pedestals in a room looking onto the courtyard could have carried statuettes.229 The discarded portrait head raises interesting questions. It dates stylistically to the late fourth or early fifth century and underlies a mosaic dating to the first half of the fifth century.230 Potentially, then, this portrait was only displayed for a very brief time. Such brevity of display stands out when compared to the apparent longevity of display of various heirloom pieces. Perhaps the subject of the portrait incurred imperial disfavor. A law of 399, for instance, dramatically demands the destruction of all images of the fallen court potentate Eutropius.231 If the mosaic could date as early as the last decade of the fourth century, the chronology of the Séviac portrait and its disposal could be suitable for the fall of Rufinus, a prominent courtier who came from the nearby city of Elusa (Eauze). Rufinus held a series of powerful positions at the court of Theodosius and then was praetorian prefect of the East (392–95), managing the court of Arcadius. Just after Theodosius’s death, he dramatically fell from power, an event celebrated by Claudian’s In Rufinum. The troubled years of the early fifth century—during the establishment of the Visigothic kingdom, with its capital in Toulouse— could also have created appropriate situations. Alternatively, the villa may have changed hands, and the new owner may have preferred not to remember his or her predecessor. The limestone hand pierced for an attribute raises some interesting possibilities. At 15.3 cm, it is life-size. Its workmanship, the material, and the piercing closely match the hands of a 1.86 m limestone Jupiter found in a small sanctuary of earlier date at Mézin, very close by.232 The Séviac hand probably belonged to a similar sculpture, possibly with a similar religious function. Finally, the now missing 5 cm bronze toe deserves comment.233 Somewhere in this villa complex stood a moderately oversize barefoot statue, perhaps similar to the bronze Hercules found near the port of Bordeaux.234 It may have been displayed in one of the apsidal rooms.

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 83

other forms of decoration in late antique gallic villas

T

he statuary adorning Gallic villas was enhanced by architectural decoration and furnishings, including mosaics, wall painting, and architectural decoration. Mosaics appear in all the villas discussed here. The mosaics of southwest Gaul were primarily geometric or vegetal, with occasional hunting, aquatic, or mythological scenes. The only figural mosaics found at the villas discussed here were elaborate mosaics showing fruit trees, baskets, and colonnades, found at Nérac and Séviac. Such surroundings could create a gardenlike environment for statuary. A very few mythological mosaics are known from southwest Gaul, and nearly all of them are found in baths.235 These bath mosaics characteristically show some combination of Oceanus, Neptune, aquatic creatures, and, occasionally, Nereids, all suitable subjects in a bath building. Dionysiac scenes appear in a single example, in a reception room at the villa of SaintCricq-Villeneuve.236 Balmelle stresses the uniqueness of the iconography, which is reminiscent of late mythological statuettes in the lacy background, landscape elements, and subsidiary figures.237 She further notes that some provenanced mythological sculptures come from baths. Thus, these mosaics and findspots (where known) underscore the appropriateness of mythological statuary in baths. Even though most of the mythological statuary does not show subjects directly related to marine themes, it would enhance the leisured, cultured atmosphere of the baths. Wall paintings survive at Montmaurin and Séviac. At Montmaurin, painted decoration imitated patterns in colored marble, creating an illusion of marble revetment. Such architectural designs were generally common in wall painting of this period—for instance, in Rome and Athens.238 Wall paintings in the baths at Séviac evoked the lattice of a garden wall.239 Figural painting did exist occasionally in Gallic villas, such as Loupiac, where a togate figure surrounded by octagons and crosses adorned a ceiling.240 The Bordelais aristocrat Pontius Leontius decorated his vestibule with biblical scenes, according to Sidonius, who refers elsewhere to suggestive paintings decorating baths.241 Numerous column pilaster capitals, shafts, and other architectural decoration are preserved at the villa of Chiragan. Architectural decoration of the fourth and fifth centuries in southwest Gaul is usually carved from marble from the Pyrenees. Designers liked to create contrasts between different colors of marble, and drill work emphasized chiaroscuro. In such a

the learned collector 84

decor, sculpture would have stood out clearly against the essentially unpatterned walls and the carpetlike mosaics. Textiles, such as curtains and hangings, are another form of large-scale decoration that is now difficult to reconstruct.242 High-quality or imported textiles were signs of status. Artworks of the period show how textile frameworks both glorified and set apart a figure.243 Many decorated textiles preserved in Egypt provide an idea of the liveliness and intricacy afforded by this form of decoration.244 While actual textiles do not survive in southwest Gaul, artistic and literary sources suggest that they did play a role here. Swags of drapery frame and accentuate a head of Oceanus on a mosaic at the Gallic villa of Saint-Rustice and may reflect contemporary practice.245 As already mentioned, Sidonius reports a textile showing hunting scenes as part of the furnishings of a dinner party.246 Interestingly, he comments that it was imported, a remark that underscores the potential internationality of trade and contacts even in the early fifth century. Increasing restrictions on the use of purple cloth demonstrate the powerful messages that textiles could send. In the mid-fourth century, a Bordelais aristocrat was suspected of treasonable designs because the purple borders on his tablecloth were too wide; it was supposed that he was saving purple cloth to make an imperial cloak for himself.247 Bronze statuary was present in villas: a Helios-Serapis and an ephebe were found at Montmaurin, a Minerva at Nérac, and an Apollo at Séviac.248 A bronze head of a satyr at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne was probably an attachment for a decorative item—such as a candelabrum or vessel—or for furniture.249 The intrinsic value of such ornaments probably accounts for the low recovery rate. Bronze statuettes of the high Roman period were still being repaired and sold in Aquitanian centers at least as late as the early fourth century. A group of bronze statuettes and other objects in bronze and iron found inside the ancient city of Aquae Tarbellicae (modern Dax, in southwest Aquitaine) appear to have been heirlooms undergoing repair.250 They include a statuette of Mercury accompanied by a cock and goat, an Asklepios, and a boar, along with metal lamps and weights. The consistent presence of late repairs on the statuettes indicates that this group was not assembled simply for meltdown but, rather, as antiques to be restored and sold. The figures were associated with a building of uncertain function, and coin and other stratigraphic evidence indicates that they were deposited late in the third century or sometime in the fourth. The excavators argue that the statuettes maintained their cultic function; it seems equally possible that their pur-

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 85

chasers planned for them either a decorative use or a combination of religious and ornamental functions. An assemblage of bronze statuettes at a townhouse of the third to fourth centuries in Clermont-Ferrand comprised heirloom and contemporary pieces and illustrates the consumption of works like the ones repaired at Dax.251 They were found in a cluster on the floor of the vestibule, in a single deposit, with traces of carbon running in a curve around it. The carbon may be remnants of some niched wooden structure for displaying the statuary. No other furnishings were found in the house; evidently it was deliberately cleared of everything but the statuettes before abandonment. The house was built no earlier than the third century, and a coin of Magnus Maximus (383–88) in the thick level of ash and debris covering the building provides a terminus post quem for its destruction. The statuettes evidently remained in use and on display until that destruction. The assemblage contains imported heirloom pieces; a statuette of a genius and a Fortuna whose head was made separately in silver are identified as Italian works of the first century a.d., whereas most of the other statues appear to be Gallic in workmanship. The collection could have been formed any time in the third or fourth centuries or may have grown incrementally. Thus, the assemblage mirrors the decorative assemblages just discussed in its diversity of date, origin, and subject matter. The inclusion of the genius (a veiled togate man in a gesture of libation) indicates that the group belonged to a domestic sanctuary rather than having a decorative role as has been argued for much of the statuary at villas. The other bronze statuettes represented another Fortuna, Abundance (twice), Mars, Mercury, Diana, Cernunnos, a deer, and a boar. A limestone statuette showed Sucellus holding a hammer. The combination of Greco-Roman divinities with Gallic divinities in this ensemble is striking and is a further argument for the religious use of the statuary. This house did not possess any late mythological statuettes. Mythological decoration also appears on smaller luxury objects, such as ivory containers and silverware. At Séviac, fragments of an ivory pyxis with scenes of an Amazonomachy were found. A late antique cache of ivory statuettes and plaques at the villa of Saint-Loup-de-Comminges near Montmaurin included representations of Jupiter-Serapis, satyrs and Bacchic scenes, and a youth in a Phrygian cap.252 Finds of silverware are not common in southwest Gaul, but two may be mentioned. At Thil (HauteGaronne), several vessels showing Dionysos, Venus, and hunting scenes were buried together, probably in the second half of the third century.253 Plates showing a seated goddess with a snake, Dionysiac scenes, and pas-

the learned collector 86

toral and hunting scenes were found at a villa near Béziers and may date to the fourth century.254 Paulinus of Pella mentions silver plate as a measure of his youthful affluence.255 Ennodius wrote a brief epigram on seven silver platters showing Diana and different animals.256 A shard of glass from a cage-cup (diatrete glass) found at Séviac had floral and possibly figural decoration.257

themes and patterns within sculptural collections in gaul

A

fter considering evidence for the contents, setting, and arrangement of statuary in individual Gallic villas, some observations about Gallic collections more generally may be made. The patrons of the late antique collections examined here have in common an appreciation of mythological statuary, both contemporary pieces and heirloom ones, in diverse media and a range of scales. The appeal of mythological statuary stemmed from many factors. Classical education inculcated an interest in mythology and an appreciation for traditional art forms, as will be discussed in chapter 5. Statues may have been selected for their appropriateness for a particular location—as with the Venus and Adonis in the garden (fig. 17)—or for appreciation of their stylistic traits or delicacy of carving. Statuary of mythological heroes—particularly large-scale statuary, such as the torso at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne or the figure holding a cup at Nérac—would have enhanced the status of the patron through an implied comparison.258 Patrons favored mythological figures who divinized their own pastimes of hunting or banqueting. Diana, Meleager, and Adonis, for instance, embodied the mythological side of hunting imagery in late antiquity. The hunting Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (fig. 4) was inspired by the Artemis of Versailles. Other statuettes inspired by this type and related ones are found in the late fourth century across the empire.259 A masculine torso found at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne wearing a chlamys pinned at his right shoulder is most likely Meleager, given its similarity to a popular statuary type of this hero.260 Other similarly configured sculptural Meleagers are known from late antiquity.261 Meleager also appears on textiles, mosaics, and silverware of the period.262 As a heroized hunter, Meleager fits in well with a broader contemporary taste for hunting scenes, which provide a mythological parallel for the enhancement of status that a male patron hoped to gain by showing his own involvement in the aristocratic pursuit of hunting.263

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 87

Hunting was an important element of heroic upbringing, and in the fourth and fifth centuries, interest in the youth and education (or paideia) of various heroes ran high. Charles Delvoye has argued that these cycles reflected the interests of the self-made men of the imperial service, who, like heroes, had risen to prominence and influence through merit and often physical valor.264 The Bordelais rhetor Ausonius was one such man, who preened himself on his arrival through merit—albeit rhetorical, not military.265 Evidently, hunting could also heroize mortals who shared in paideia and in this aristocratic pastime.266 This, too, may have accounted for its popularity. Interest in the birth of the unlucky hunter Adonis, as seen at Montmaurin, may stem in part from the general fascination with the birth, youth, and upbringing of heroes. Three Dionysiac sculptures from Chiragan (the sleeping Ariadne, the Dionysos, and another Ariadne), along with satyrs from Trier and Wellen and a maenad from Arles, reflect the popularity of Dionysiac imagery. The continuing popularity of the Dionysiac theme in many media and contexts into late antiquity derives from its role as an allegory for salvation and from its more general role as imagery of good luck. The single statuette of Ariadne asleep encapsulates all these promises in a single, simple composition. Certain cults of Dionysus in some areas continued well past the end of the fourth century, but Dionysiac imagery could also be neutral and decorative.267 The late mythological statuettes from Gaul accord well with the repertoire of Dionysiac imagery elsewhere. Dionysiac imagery was extremely popular in all late antique media, including mosaics, silverware, and textiles. Often, the media can be linked to dining, as in the case of triclinium mosaics and platters and flagons of silver table services; a plate with Dionysiac imagery found near a villa at Béziers is heavily worn and appears to have been used at the table.268 It is quite possible that some of the Dionysiac late mythological statuettes found in Gaul were displayed in dining rooms.269 The poet Ausonius reports a statue of Liber Pater displayed in one of his villas but does not mention the locale within the villa.270 An epigram by his Italian contemporary Naucellius describes a bronze Silenus who oversees the mixing of wine, which may have been part of the decor of a triclinium.271 In earlier times, domestic decoration often elevated the patron’s status through references to public monuments.272 The increasingly autocratic nature of late antique society and politics lessened the relevance of such public references, but the choice of quasi-imperial subjects—such as a Venus-Victory at Montmaurin or the draped figure at Nérac (fig. 30), possibly an alighting Victory—may have been inspired by public monuments.

the learned collector 88

The Montmaurin piece (fig. 12) may have been selected as a reference to the Augustan Victory monument in nearby Lugdunum Convenarum (Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges), although the configurations of the statues differ.273 The Victories in the civic monument are winged and are shown alighting on the scene in a swirl of drapery. There is another late mythological statuette of Venus-Victory in the Ashmolean Museum (fig. 16); this subject evidently held an appeal for late Roman aristocrats. The debate over the removal of the Altar of Victory from the Senate house at Rome may have contributed to the popularity of this type, although, again, the actual statue of Victory was configured differently. It is clear that awareness of the debate continued in Gaul into the later fifth century, when Ennodius wrote an epigram about it.274 Although there is no concrete evidence that the late mythological statuettes of Gallic villas were used in religious contexts, other sculptures from the same assemblages undoubtedly had a votive or religious significance. The Jupiter-giant column from Saint-Georges-de-Montagne would have been set up initially as a votive monument, although it is possible that the interpretation of the monument changed over time. The iconography of the piece, with Jupiter battling a snaky-legged creature, must have brought to mind the classical gigantomachy, a motif that was popular among late antique aristocrats. The limestone hand found at Séviac finds its best parallels in sculptures—such as the Jupiter of Mézin—whose use was religious or votive. The statues of Sarapis, Isis, and Harpocrates at Chiragan were probably used in worship. The temple in the courtyard at Montmaurin shows the existence of pagan worship at the site in at least some periods. Most Gallic collectors owned private portraits, the vast majority of them being heirlooms by the late fourth century. Chiragan and Séviac stand out as the only sites with contemporary portraits—female and male, respectively. In republican and earlier imperial times, ancestor busts in wax (or more solid materials) were displayed in the atrium for clients to admire as they waited to see their patron in the tablinum.275 Portraits displayed in Gallic villas must have played a similar role, as findspots from Montmaurin and Séviac suggest that portraits were placed in highly visible, accessible locations where nearly all visitors would have been able to see them. Heirloom portraits, presumably of ancestors, would have emphasized the established and distinguished lineage of the patron. In a laudatory epigram written to accompany a portrait of his father, Ausonius describes how the portrait inspired in viewers pietas and admiration for father and son.276 The father of Symmachus describes a gallery of portraits for which he was writ-

Late Antique Villas in Southwest Gaul 89

ing epigrams after the style of Varro.277 Writing in the fifth century, Sidonius refers to “robed imagines of his ancestors” in a friend’s house.278 Three collections in late antique Gaul stand out for having imperial portraits. The villas of Nérac and Castelculier each had one portrait of Marcus Aurelius. The assemblage at Chiragan, with some thirty imperial busts, is unparalleled in Gaul and difficult to interpret, not only because of its size, but also because it included rulers whose memory was condemned, such as Geta. Several emperors appear more than once; perhaps the collector enjoyed comparing nuances of different styles and representations. Balmelle stresses the evident predominance of Marcus Aurelius in these assemblages (one bust each at Nérac and Castelculier and three at Chiragan). Pointing to recent research showing how Theodosius attempted to link himself to this emperor, she suggests that aristocrats of the day emulated him and used statues of Marcus Aurelius to show their links to the reigning emperor.279 Philosopher portraits were not commonplace within Gallic assemblages. Although Tacitus reports that in an earlier age, Agricola had developed an excessive interest in philosophy while studying in Marseilles,280 by the later fourth century, passion for philosophy—or, at any rate, for portraits of philosophers—seems to have diminished. Again Chiragan provides an exception to general trends, in the form of a plaque showing Socrates and a head of Demosthenes. A bust of Socrates now in Toulouse was probably found locally.281 The possible philosopher portrait at Séviac shows a forehead with a fillet and scraggly hair and may represent Homer or Sophocles.282 The most important Gallic assemblage with philosopher portraits is the herm gallery at Welschbillig near Trier, where philosophers and orators rubbed shoulders on an equal basis with gods, heroes, emperors, and barbarians.283 Portraits of philosophers seem to have enjoyed a comparatively greater popularity among collectors outside Gaul.284

late mythological statuettes in their gallic milieu

T

he preceding tour of Gallic villas and other sites demonstrates the richness of evidence for late mythological statuettes in Gaul. Using different kinds of evidence from the three famous villas of Montmaurin, Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, and Chiragan, enriched by data from lesser known or preserved sites, we have arrived at a multifaceted reconstruction of the setting and use of statuary in late antique Gaul. Late mythological statuettes, along with other forms of ornament, decorated the key public

the learned collector 90

spaces of Roman villas: reception areas, triclinia, gardens, and baths. Through different kinds of imagery, a wealthy patron could express gradations of prestige among visitors and control their movement through his or her domestic space. Architecture and decoration combined to exalt the prestige of the villa’s owner before his peers and inferiors. Literary sources confirm these roles of advertisement, control, and self-promotion. The late mythological statuettes continued a long tradition of collection, display, and appreciation of mythological sculpture.

chapter four

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins

“

t

he execution of this statuette is quite faulty,” wrote Theodore Amtmann of the Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (fig. 7). He explained, “the neck is overly long, the head out of proportion, the arms stiff, the legs swollen: in a word, all the characteristics of the late empire.”1 While Amtmann clearly viewed these characteristics as defects, it is more constructive to observe and evaluate them as part of a widely applied period style. Henning Wrede expanded the description in more neutral language: “The fluid polish of the marble-working, the elongated proportions of the other side figures, and the round drilling of the pupil . . . date the statuette in the last quarter of the fourth century.”2 These descriptions sum up several, but by no means all, of the important stylistic characteristics of late mythological statuettes. The ridged arched eyebrows and puffy eyelids of the figures, the molding of the socle of the statuette (central scotia with upper and lower moldings of double fillets), the heavy neck strut, and the complex composition involving subsidiary figures attached together by lacy strutwork are also significant characteristics.3 This package of traits is what is meant here by the designation late antique mythological statuettes.4 Similar traits appear in monuments of the late fourth or early fifth century, and analysis of these features secures the date for the late mythological statuettes found in Gaul. The most important comparanda are a group of statuettes found in a mithraeum in Sidon and epigraphically dated to 389 (figs. 40–42). The characteristics observed on the Sidon mythological statuettes find many parallels with the Venus and Diana of Saint-Georges-deMontagne, demonstrating their contemporaneity. Comparison with other sculptures of the late fourth or fifth century provides additional confirma91

the learned collector 92

tion of date. In the first half of this chapter, I will use the securely dated Sidon statuettes to define and date the characteristics of the genre and to recognize and evaluate important examples of late mythological statuettes both in Gaul and elsewhere. It is also important to view the statuettes within their empire-wide context and investigate their origins. Several separate factors contribute to the origin of a sculpture: the location of the quarry where the marble was extracted, the origin or training of the sculptor, and the place of carving. In most cases, the three are the same, but branch workshops and mobility of artists can complicate the picture. Neither the carving technique nor the marble used in the late mythological statuettes found in Gaul accords with known Gallic sculptures, such as the sarcophagi of Arles and Marseilles. Thus, we must look further afield. The neck strut found on many of the statuettes points to a connection with ateliers of Asia Minor, but associating all the features of the late mythological statuettes with a single city such as Aphrodisias or Ephesos is difficult. Instead, I argue that the building programs of Theodosius I in Constantinople brought together sculptors from many centers in Asia Minor and provided a catalyst for a syncretistic new style drawing elements from many regional traditions. The late mythological statuettes, with their mixture of traits from different regions of Asia Minor, are an offshoot of this event.5 Given that the late mythological statuettes found in Gaul were imported, it is necessary to consider how the statuary was transported over long distances. Thus, the final section of this chapter will address literary and archaeological evidence for contact between Gaul and Asia Minor. It might seem implausible at first glance that the wealthy landowners of southwest Gaul, who patronized flourishing local ateliers for other luxury items (e.g., figural sarcophagi and polychrome mosaics), should take the trouble and expense to import delicate statuary from a distant province. However, we shall see that not only did trade connections exist but imperial service and the scattered landholdings of the elite classes made travel both possible and necessary.

fixed chronological points: statuettes from a mithraeum in sidon

M

any stylistic parallels can be observed between the late mythological statuettes found in Gaul and a trio of statuettes from a mithraeum in Sidon (figs. 40–42).6 The Sidon statuettes, a Mithras Tauroktonos (bullslayer), an Aion-Kronos, and a herm of Hekate Triformis, have a unique

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 93

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 40. Statuette of Mithras slaying the bull, found in Sidon. Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. AO 22256. (Photo H. Lewandowski. Copyright Réunion des Musées Nationaux/ Art Resource, NY.)

importance within the genre of late mythological statuettes, as they are the only pieces whose dates are firmly established through nonstylistic evidence: the inscriptions on their bases reveal that a Flavius Gerontius dedicated them in 389.7 Let us first examine the features of the Sidon finds. The Mithras has fleshy features and stocky proportions (fig. 40).8 Within the pudgy, oval face, ridged arched brows emerge prominently, and his fleshy nose, chin, and lips are carefully modeled. The puffy-lidded eyes are deep-set, with pupils marked by a single drill hole. A row of stylized, decorative curls, each with a round drill mark at the center, encircles his face. The nostrils are drilled, as are the deeply undercut folds of the cloak. Also of note is the figure’s rubbery, apparently boneless anatomy. The animals in the composition, particularly the dog, provide useful comparanda for animals in other small-scale compositions. The dog has a long body and large paws; there is a ring of fur and a collar around his neck.9 The snout is square, and his mouth is excavated with a drill so that the teeth form tiny struts.

the learned collector 94

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 41. Statuette of Hekate and the Graces found in Sidon. Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. AO 22263. (Photo H. Lewandowski. Copyright Réunion des Musées Nationaux/ Art Resource, NY.)

The front of the statuette is polished to a high gloss, in contrast to the much rougher back. The statuette of Hekate Triformis shows a three-headed herm of Hekate encircled by three Graces clasping hands (fig. 41). The Hekates and the Graces have more stylized faces than the Mithras, with large eyes, flat planes, and little modeling. On the Hekate heads, the ridged eyebrows are set starkly into the face, creating a squared panel running down the bridge of the large, straight nose. As on the Mithras, the pupils are rendered with a single drill hole, and incised lines mark out the puffy eyelids. Fully cut away from the shoulders, a thick lock of hair comes forward on each side of the face and rests on the arm pegs that show that the figures constitute a

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 95

triple herm. On the neck and shoulder hem of the chiton of each Hekate is a slim ridge of drapery. The Graces have similarly abstract, large features. The heavy profile, with large noses and strong jaws, resembles that of the Hekates. The Graces have soft-looking, rubbery bodies and proportionally large hands and heads. Each wears a chiton and mantle that flow in elegant, calligraphic curves. The skirt flares out at the ankles, and the two ends of the scarf fly out in stylized undulations that are undercut at the ends into omega-shaped folds. They wear pointed boots or shoes with a slender raised band down the front. These shoes have parallels in fourth-century art.10 The clasped hands of the Graces are cut away from the drapery underlying them. Likewise, their heads are fully cut away from the drapery and arm pegs of the Hekates. There is a high polish on all surfaces of the statuette, which does not have a distinguishable back or front. The Aion-Kronos, while undersized, is larger in scale than the other two statuettes (fig. 42). He stands stiffly upright, his head facing forward and his arms flat at his sides. His irises are marked with an incised line, and within them are lunate drilled pupils. A round hole in the back of the head leads to the mouth; the statue may have been used as a fountain, or perhaps the perforation served a ritual purpose. The Aion-Kronos’s body is more visibly muscular than that of the Mithras. Like the other statuettes, the figure has a stocky build, which is especially noticeable in his heavy knees, thick calves, and swollen ankles. Entirely invisible from the front is an upright, knotty club providing unobtrusive support to the vulnerable region of the statuette’s legs. Narrow double wings at the back barely show over the shoulders. A snake twists around the body three times, then coils its head on the figure’s chest. In the rendering of the snout and eyes, the lion head is very like the dog on the Mithras statuette. The teeth are fully cut away from the inside of the mouth, and the tongue lolls between them. The statue’s front surface and base are highly polished, while the back surface is somewhat less worked. A single incised line runs around the top of the base, above the inscription.

comparison with late mythological statuettes in gaul Anatomy The Sidon statuettes thus provide a set of characteristics with a fixed date to which we can compare the late mythological statuettes found in Gaul. The Venus and Diana, as the best-preserved examples, form the core of the

the learned collector 96

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 42. Statuette of Aion-Kronos found in Sidon. Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. AO 22258. (Copyright Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource, NY.)

following comparative discussion (figs. 4, 7). The details of their faces, anatomy, drapery, and composition have strong parallels in the other, less well-preserved statuettes from Gaul; thus, the chronological parameters of the Venus and Diana should apply to the rest of the Gallic finds. Other statuettes are brought into the discussion to illustrate particular points. The stocky, large-headed proportions and rubbery anatomy of the Diana and Venus parallel those of the Mithras, Hekates, and Graces. The Aion-Kronos has proportionally longer legs and a smaller head, but his thick thighs and calves match those of the Venus, as does the rather stiff modeling of his torso. The modeling of his navel closely resembles that of the triton and mirror-bearing putto accompanying the Venus. In general, longwaisted, large-headed proportions and flaccid anatomy appear frequently on figures on sarcophagi, diptychs, mosaics, and silverware of the fourth and

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 97

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 43. Statuette of youth wearing a Phrygian cap. Princes Czartoryski Foundation at the National Museum in Krakow, inv. XI-771. (Photo museum, by permission.)

fifth centuries, as pointed out in the opening quotes from Amtmann and Wrede.11 Taken to extremes, this rubbery anatomy can cause confusion. For instance, on the reclining Tellus in the exergue of the Missorium of Theodosius, it is unclear whether it is the left or right knee that is raised.12 On the sleeping Ariadne from Chiragan and the dancing maenad from Arles (figs. 25, 39), stiff limbs and awkward transitions create a stilted pose. The undulating, bumpy musculature shown on the chest of the AionKronos is not echoed on the Venus and Diana but appears on some other late mythological statuettes. The Wellen satyr (fig. 34) has exaggerated musculature, as does a vigorously dancing satyr now in Boston.13 The Anadyomene torso found at Montmaurin has a singularly muscular appearance (fig. 17). The large and small satyrs of Aphrodisias have bumpy, vigorous musculature at the ribs, a feature that seems to be a trademark of Aphro-

the learned collector 98

disian sculptors.14 Other nude male statuettes—such as the Ganymede from Carthage and a Phrygian-capped youth, possibly a Ganymede, now in Krakow—exhibit a more flaccid torso akin to that of the Venus of SaintGeorges-de-Montagne (figs. 2, 43, 7).15 Facial Features of Late Mythological Statuettes The distinctive facial features of the Venus and Diana compare reasonably well to the Sidon statuettes. Although the face and nose of the Mithras are fleshier, he has ridged, arched brows framing puffy-lidded eyes in which the pupil is marked with a drill dot, just like those of the Diana and Venus. The Hekates offer better parallels for the Venus’s oval face and heavy jaw. They also resemble the Venus in the treatment of the eyes and mouth and in the blunt transition from the eyebrows to the nose. Overall, the Sidon figures are closer in style to the Venus than to the Diana, whose execution is more delicate and refined. Two more monuments of relatively fixed date can be adduced as comparanda. The Theodosian obelisk base, erected sometime between 388 and 392, shows courtly scenes in which the courtiers have very similar facial features and proportions (figs. 44–45).16 Soldiers on fragments of the column of Theodosius, which celebrated a victory of 386, likewise have a facial structure similar to that seen on the obelisk base and on late mythological statuettes (fig. 46).17 Though more abstract in their rendering, figures on the Missorium of Theodosius, conventionally dated to 388, have a rounded physiognomy with facial features constructed from repeating arcs.18 Their rubbery and occasionally unclear anatomy resembles the statuettes as well. A survey of additional comparisons for the facial traits of Diana and Venus confirms that their features accord with the styles of the late fourth and early fifth centuries. The Venus’s oval face, ridged brows, and puffy eyes resemble those of a late fourth-century “priestess” (dated to ca. 400) in the Capitoline Museum.19 The Capitoline head also resembles the female heads from Chiragan and Bordeaux, particularly in the detail of the forehead curl. Another extremely convincing parallel for the Venus and also for the Apollo from Saint-Georges-de-Montagne is an angel on a relief found in Sultanahmet in Constantinople.20 The angel has an oval face and puffy chin, and the treatment of his swollen eyelids is identical. Other useful facial comparisons for the Venus are a statuette of a seated Christ, dated to the late fourth century, and a head of an emperor found in the Beyazit district of Constantinople and dated to the early fifth century (figs. 47, 52).21 A series of small-scale heads found in the sixth-century church of Julia Aniciana in Istanbul have puffy eyebrows and a single, large drill dot for the

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 44. Theodosian obelisk base, northwest side. Istanbul. (Photo D. Johannes. DAI Istanbul Neg. R28.157, by permission.)

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 45. Theodosian obelisk base, detail of northwest side. Istanbul. (DAI Istanbul Neg. KB 25.788 Repro, by permission.)

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 46. Column of Theodosius, fragment. Istanbul. (Photo W. Schiele. DAI Istanbul Neg. R1186, by permission.)

the learned collector 100

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 47. Statuette of Christ seated. Museo Nazionale Romano (Palazzo Massimo). (Copyright Scala/Art Resource, NY.)

pupil and are dated to the fourth or fifth century.22 These may come from a sarcophagus or relief panel, perhaps showing the apostles. A Nike on a pilaster, also from Constantinople, has the puffy, stylized eyes of the Venus and the topknot of the Diana.23 The more delicate facial features of the Diana resemble those of angels on a sarcophagus found at Sarigüzel.24 The facial features of the Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne are absolutely characteristic of the genre of late mythological statuettes. Among the Gallic pieces, the Apollo and the Scheitelzopf woman from Saint-Georges-de-Montagne and the diademed heads from Chiragan, Bordeaux, and Til-Châtel25 are especially close comparisons (figs. 8–9, 26, 37). The Bacchus found at Chiragan has similar ridged arched brows and puffy eyes, but there is more modeling around the lips and nose (fig. 28). His torso also has a graceful modeling rather different from the rubbery anatomy exhibited by many other late mythological statuettes. Outside Gaul, a statuette of Aphrodite loosening her sandal found in Sidon and an Aphrodite gazing into a mirror found at Sidi Bishr near Alexandria are particularly close to the Venus (figs. 48–49).26 A maenad in Boston, an Apollo from Antioch,

Fig. 48. Statuette of Aphrodite loosening her sandal, found in Sidon. Istanbul Archaeological Museum, inv. Mendel 313. (Photo author, by permission.)

Fig. 49. Statuette of Aphrodite found in Sidi Bishr. Greek and Roman Museum of Alexandria, inv. 24956. (Photo N. Hannestad, by permission.)

Fig. 50. Statuette of Meleager-Helios. Museo Archeologico, Milan, inv. A 0.9.4068. (DAI Rome Neg. 75-801, by permission.)

the learned collector 102

a Hygieia found on Rhodes, and a female head on display in the Mactar Museum (Tunisia) are reasonably similar.27 A Meleager-Helios from Milan has similar eyes but a rounder face; his face brings to mind the Sidon Mithras (figs. 50, 40).28 A head of Minerva built into an eighth-century wall at Khirbat-al-Mafjar in Israel has softer modeling but the same facial traits.29 The Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne has crisper, more delicate facial modeling that finds parallels in the Nérac head, the Arles head, the Carthage Ganymede, and the Krakow youth (figs. 4, 31, 38, 2, 43). The facial features discussed here are one of the most important identifying traits for late mythological statuettes.30 Rendering of Drapery The calligraphic curves, deep undercutting, and fluttering hems seen on the Sidon statuettes compare well to other late fourth-century works and to the Diana. The skirts of the Graces flow in elegantly curving, drilled folds, the ends of which are undercut in stylized omegas (fig. 41). Such folds are also seen on the dancing maenad from Arles (fig. 39). On the Minerva of Castelculier, there is a similar profile on the more archaizing, straight folds, which also end in omegas (fig. 33). Narrow ridges at the hems of the neck and sleeves of the chitons of the herm of Hekate resemble those on the Diana, the draped Victory from Nérac, the maenad from Arles, and a plaque with a seated Minerva from Saint-Georges-de-Montagne31 (figs. 41, 4, 30, 39). The drapery of the Diana and the Arles maenad is carved in much more detail, lending it a lighter, thinner appearance than that of the Sidon Graces, but the underlying techniques of rendering the folds and movement of the garments are the same. The creased folds of the Mithras’s flaring cloak (fig. 40) resemble those of the flutter of mantle on the Diana’s right, although the Diana is more carefully carved. Further fourth-century comparanda for calligraphic folds exist. The fluttering gowns of the angels on the Sarigüzel sarcophagus have creased, curving folds ending in omegas.32 As on the Diana, this treatment creates an impression of airy, weightless garments. Flaring drapery also appears on silverware of the period, as seen on a plate from the Mildenhall treasure and on several plates in the Sevso treasure.33 A statuette of a maenad in the Vatican provides another excellent example of fluttering drapery (fig. 51).34 Now headless and armless, the maenad pulls sharply to one side, causing her drapery to swirl vigorously around her feet. A ridge appears at the hemline, and the knot at the waist is similar to that of the Diana. A broken-off hand on one breast indicates that an amorous satyr was originally part of the

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 103

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 51. Statuette of a maenad. Vatican Museums. (Photo Vatican Museums, by permission.)

composition, which was wide and shallow. The grooved molding on the base matches the Carthage Ganymede and the Diana (figs. 2, 4).35 G. Kaschnitz-Weinberg dates this sculpture to the second century, but the sinuous drapery folds with squared profiles, the undercut omega folds at the bottom of the skirt, the overlong proportions of the satyr’s hand, and the maenad’s rather stiff pose suggest a late fourth-century date. The maenad from Arles (fig. 39) and a pair of draped legs from SaintGeorges-de-Montagne36 both have straplike bunches of folds over their feet. A diptych of Serena dating to ca. 400 shows similar ropy folds over her right foot, and a late fourth-century casket from the Sevso treasure displays several figures, both seated and walking, with straplike folds over their feet.37 The drapery of the Venus-Victory of Montmaurin is more stylized than that of many of the other statuettes (fig. 12). It flows in deeply cut loops, and squared profiles on the folds create a crenellated look. Stylized, crenel-

the learned collector 104

lated folds appear on other late antique statuary, most notably in the lower skirt of a statuette of an empress now in Paris (fig. 53). Another example of rather stiff crenellated drapery occurs on a statuette of Aphrodite of Aphrodisias found in a late antique villa in Athens.38 Crenellated folds create strong accentuation of light and shadow, an effect that is also emphasized in the dense undercutting of many late antique sarcophagi. Complex Compositions and Landscape Motifs The complex, multifigured compositions seen on the statuettes from Sidon and Saint-Georges-de-Montagne are a hallmark of the wider genre of late mythological statuettes and reflect contemporary interest in narrative vignettes, as seen in other media. Columnar sarcophagi, for instance, similarly display discrete events within an architectural setting or landscape.39 The Junius Bassus sarcophagus is a well-known example from the first half of the fourth century.40 Stone tables with decorated borders display mythological, biblical, or hunting scenes punctuated by trees, some with leaves and branches similar to those of the late mythological statuettes.41 Some statuettes echo the Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne by focusing on a single larger-scale figure around which subsidiary figures are grouped (fig. 7). The Aphrodite of Sidi Bishr balances against a cupid poised atop a water jug and drapery (fig. 49). On a base of a statuette of Herakles and the Hesperids now in New York, a small-scale Hesperid huddles against a snake-entwined apple tree. A larger-scale Herakles would have been the central figure in the group.42 A less well-carved statuette of Dionysos and his entourage found in the Walbrook Mithraeum in London is another example of this type of group (fig. 63).43 The small, lively figures on the dress of the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias found in Athens are iconographically necessary but also fit in with this taste for subsidiary figures. Other statuettes depict the interaction of multiple figures on the same scale. These include the Achilles and Penthesilea from Byblos and the Vatican maenad (fig. 51), whose onetime partner is now attested only by the broken-off hand on her right breast. On the Nérac base, Pan pursued a fleeing figure (fig. 32). The Wellen satyr once chased a second figure along the narrow base of the statuette (fig. 34). In a few cases, individual statuettes are grouped to tell a story: the dancing satyr and maenad now in Boston were apparently accompanied by a freestanding putto.44 In several compositions, a spreading tree provides landscape for the scene; supports the figures with elaborate, unobtrusive scaffolding; and helps frame and unite them compositionally. On the Diana, for instance,

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 105

the tree creates a pleasing aesthetic effect by completing the circle formed by the bow and the tenons under the right arm (fig. 4). The tree trunk and the huntress’s body create strong vertical axes intersecting the circle.45 In the Carthage Ganymede, a tree trunk offers support and interconnection to the main figure, the eagle, and the subsidiary figures in the composition (fig. 2). The now missing upper branches probably arched over the figures’ heads, complementing the many curved forms in the composition and creating an underlying structure similar to that of the Diana.46 A tree trunk with a trapezoidal cross-section supports the torso of the Wellen satyr, and many spreading branches once supported his limbs (figs 34, 36). A second figure, of which only the right toes are now preserved, ran in front of the satyr on the narrow base and may well have been supported by a second tree. In this case, crossing tree branches could have mirrored the diagonals created by the running figures. In the statuette of the birth of Adonis from Montmaurin, the tree carrying the newborn Adonis formed an essential part of the narrative as well as providing decorative support to the figures (figs. 17, 20). Several other late mythological statuettes with traces of tree trunks or branches exist, including the Nérac base, the Krakow youth, and a statuette of Venus-Victory in the Ashmolean Museum (figs. 32, 43, 16).47 The presence of tree trunks or branches on a fragmentary statuette can be used as evidence (along with other characteristics) to support a late date, as, for instance, with a statue base found at a late Roman sanctuary at Maiden Castle, England.48 The molded base shows a tree trunk, a human foot, and the haunches of an animal. The type of molding, the modeling of the animal, and the use of the tree trunk as a support and narrative element combine to indicate that the base derives from a late mythological statuette. The subject appears to be Dionysos accompanied by a panther. Dogs and Other Animals The dogs and other animals that appear in the statuettes have several distinctive traits. The hounds accompanying the Mithras of Sidon and the Carthage Ganymede are characterized by their lean builds, large paws, and boxy snouts and by the ruff of fur around their necks (figs. 40, 2). The eyes, ears, teeth, and tongue are all rendered with a drill. The hind at the feet of the Diana of Saint-George-de-Montagne and the goat watching the Ganymede likewise have an angular build, large paws, and meticulously drilled details (figs. 4, 2).49 The boar from Montmaurin has a rounder nose, but the mouth has been carefully excavated to display his tusks, and tiny struts attach the tips of his ears to his head (fig. 17). The eagle on the stat-

the learned collector 106

uette of Ganymede from Carthage has similar treatment in the deeply excavated cavity of its beak (fig. 2). The eyes are puffy and have drilled pupils; in this, they resemble late antique renderings of humans. The stylized, ferocious curve of the beak is in keeping with late antique geometricization of form. So distinctive are the animals, particularly the dogs, that the presence of an animal rendered thus is a secure indicator of a late fourth-century or early fifth-century date.50 Molded Bases and Dating Another important dating criterion is a base molding shared by many late mythological statuettes. Because some scholars have used it as evidence to support a mistaken second-century date for certain late mythological statuettes, it is now necessary to evaluate its validity as a chronological indicator. As seen on the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, it consists of a scotia flanked by two pairs of fillets (fig. 4).51 The carving is not regular; the incised lines between the pairs of fillets waver up and down. The molding characteristically wraps about 2 cm around each end of the base.52 The quality of carving and finish deteriorate rapidly after the molding goes around the corner. Several late mythological statuettes carry this molding— the Ashmolean Victory, the base from Nérac, the Arles maenad, and the maenad in the Vatican, among others (figs. 16, 32, 39, 51). It appears strikingly on a statuette held in the arms of a stone bust found in Aphrodisias (fig. 55). The Wellen satyr (fig. 34) has a narrow molded base that resembles the upper half of the Diana’s molding. Because of the frequency of use, the question arises whether the common molding can be taken as a late fourth-century characteristic. In his study of struts and bases, Franz Muthmann concluded that the technique of carving a statue and a profiled base all from the same block of stone dates to the second century.53 His study did include bases resembling the Diana’s, although most of the examples come from larger-scale sculptures.54 His dating methods were all stylistic, and he did not discuss fixed points.55 Muthmann accepted the Venus and Diana of Saint-Georges-deMontagne as late fourth-century pieces, simply listing them as unusually late examples of various features.56 He never specifically addressed their base molding. Muthmann argued convincingly that production of statuary with profiled bases began in the second century, more specifically under Hadrian, and was very widespread in that century. However, he did not adequately demonstrate that molded bases ceased after the second century. Indeed, his apparent acceptance of the late antique date of the Venus and

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 107

Diana implicitly undermines his own rigid argument. Like so many techniques in Roman sculpture, the profiled base was introduced in the second century and enjoyed intermittent popularity into the fifth. A similar base molding is shown on a pair of fourth-century diptychs from Brescia depicting pairs of statues.57 Muthmann’s views have been well received, and scholars frequently cite a profiled base as supporting evidence for a second-century date.58 Indeed, a second-century date (as derived from other characteristics) is appropriate for many sculptures with a fairly similar socle. Nevertheless, the moldings on the earlier statues are not always identical to those on late mythological statuettes. The latter have a greater tendency to have fillets of uneven width. The actual bases have irregular shapes, neither round nor rectangular. Many of them are shallowly convex at the front. Given the existence of quite similar socle moldings on statues of the second century and of the late fourth and early fifth centuries, it is clear that the socle molding alone cannot determine a date. At the same time, enough late fourthcentury examples exist to show that a base with this profile can help identify a late sculpture, but only when it appears in conjunction with other late antique characteristics. Even when little is preserved above the base, other diagnostic characteristics, such as extreme narrowness of the piece, the style of carving of animals, or curved omega folds at the hem of the drapery, can allow the proposal of a late fourth-century date. On account of the socle molding and other features, the Maiden Castle base and a Hesperid base in New York can be considered late mythological statuettes.59 Possibly of this date is a very weathered statuette base set into the “sculpture wall” outside the Carthage Museum.60 On it is a pair of feet crossed in the same fashion as the Ganymede’s. To their left, a bovine head with its tongue lolling out lies on its side. Because of the bovine head, the figure is probably Hercules, who is sometimes shown with a defeated bull. A statuette of a genius found in the Walbrook Mithraeum has a similar base molding, although the overall execution of the statuette is not so delicate and defined as that of most of the late mythological statuettes.61 Technical Flourishes and Features On the multifigured statuettes, intricate strutwork links all the figures. Sometimes the struts are cleverly hidden behind the figures, as on the Wellen satyr (figs. 34–36), while in other cases they are incorporated into the composition, as on the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (figs. 4–5), where the curved tenons attaching the goddess’s right arm, flare of drapery,

the learned collector 108

and skirt echo the curvature of her bow and the tree branch above. The lacy network adds to the decorative effect. Sometimes the struts are even decorated themselves: on the Aphrodite of Sidi Bishr, a structural strut linking Aphrodite to her cupid companion is decorated with spiral grooves (fig. 49). Sculptors displayed their capacity for virtuoso drill work with tiny struts— bridges in the drilling of hair, struts between fingers (as on an Anadyomene from Montmaurin and the Carthage Ganymede; figs. 17, 2), undercutting behind the ears of animals, and so on. The meticulousness of the carving varies from sculpture to sculpture, but interest in strutwork always appears on some scale and can be used, in conjunction with other traits, as a diagnostic feature. On many, though not all, of the statuettes, a heavy, squared block of stone remains behind the neck, as seen on the Venus of Saint-Georges-deMontagne and the diademed head from Arles (figs. 7, 38). This feature is not a chronological indicator but will be important in the consideration of the origins of the statuettes, as it appears frequently on statuary carved in Asia Minor.62 Viewed from the side, late mythological statuettes are strikingly narrow, and some lean gently forward (figs. 6, 36). Active though the figures seem, their movement is confined within a two-dimensional plane. Such thinness suggests links to workshops carving sarcophagi or other relief sculpture, such as figured pilaster capitals. In some cases, some distortion is necessary to keep the figures within their narrow parameters. Finally, most of the late mythological statuettes exhibit a high polish at the front, seen most vividly on the Carthage Ganymede and the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (figs. 2, 4).63 The glossy polish on the finegrained marble accentuates its whiteness and creates a translucent effect on thin elements of the statuettes. A glossy polish characterized much statuary of the late fourth century.64 The backs of the statuettes are usually much less finished than the fronts, with features only roughed out with a point or chisel (figs. 5, 13, 35). Both the awkwardness of the side view and the differential finish indicate that most of the statuettes were only meant to be viewed from the front. They would have fit well in niches or alcoves— or perhaps against shrubbery if displayed in a garden. Painted Decoration Only two of the statuettes discussed here in identifying the genre of late mythological statuettes preserve traces of colored decoration. Numerous traces of polychromy remain on the statuette of Dionysos found at Wal-

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 109

brook in London. There was red paint in the hair, green paint in the grapes and tree, and blue paint behind the head of Silenus.65 Remnants of gilding remained on the veil and diadem of a statuette of a draped woman (possibly Cybele) from the North Byzantine House in Aphrodisias (fig. 56).66 The high polish on the statuettes must itself have been decorative; perhaps hair, small portions of drapery, attributes, and scenery were more commonly painted, leaving skin surfaces and much of the drapery to gleam in whiteness. A statuette from an earlier era, the famed copy of the Athena Parthenos known as the Varvakeion Athena, preserves a great deal of paint and provides a model of how polychromy and high polish might have worked together.67 This statuette has a glassy polish on the skin and is highly polished over the drapery as well. Details of the face—eyelashes, pupils, eyebrows—are colored in red, while traces of yellow paint and gilding remain in many locks of hair. Red paint further enhances facial features of the figures in the helmet decoration, the Erichthonius snake, the snakes on the aegis and belt, and the gorgoneion. Yellow stripes decorate the drapery of the Athena and the Nike, demarcate the armbands, and further decorate the helmet figures and shield.

the genre of late mythological statuettes here is thus a very specific set of characteristics that can be used to recognize late mythological statuettes. To summarize, the facial physiognomy is constructed from curving volumes, such as ridged, arched brows and puffy, well-defined eyes. Details of the face and hair are marked with drilling. The statuettes have short proportions and rubbery anatomy. Drapery makes use of crenellated folds, low ridges at sleeves, straplike folds over the feet, and decorative omega folds at the hemline. The statuettes have complex compositions involving landscape elements and subsidiary figures, such as smaller-scale humans or animals. Lacy, intricate strutwork provides a lattice of support behind the figures. The statuettes are usually unfinished at the back and are very thin when viewed in profile. A grooved base molding characterizes many of the statuettes. Gaul provides several of the best-preserved examples of this international genre: the Venus and Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, the Wellen satyr, and the Arles maenad (figs. 4, 7, 34, 39). Outside Gaul, the Ganymede of Carthage, the Boston satyr and maenad,68 the statuettes of the Sidon mithraeum, and the Aphrodite of Sidi Bishr are complete or nearly complete in their preservation (figs. 2, 40–42, 49). Nearly as well preserved are the Aphrodite of Sidon, the Vatican maenad, and the Ashmolean

T

the learned collector 110

Victory (figs. 48, 51, 16). Other individual heads or bodies and other portions of sculptures supplement these examples with important information to round out our knowledge of the genre.

time span of production of late mythological statuettes

E

stablishing a chronological span for the genre of late mythological statuettes remains an important issue. The best comparanda for the statuettes, such as the Theodosian obelisk base or the Mithraic statuettes from Sidon (figs. 44–45, 40–42), date in the last decades of the fourth century, but there are a few indications that the genre continued at least into the early fifth century. A group of portraits attributed by H. P. L’Orange to the “subtle style” date to the years ca. 400 and provide a parallel for the careful workmanship, classicism, and high polish of the late mythological statuettes, even though they differ from the statuettes in their facial features.69 The portraits have more modeling of facial details, offsetting the dominance of rounded forms. The Beyazit emperor and a statuette of an empress now in Paris are usually dated very early in the fifth century, and they have some facial similarities to late mythological statuettes (figs. 52–53).70 Like the mythological statuettes, each has sharply ridged eyebrows in a face composed of rounded forms. There is selective drilling to emphasize certain details, such as the pupils of the eyes or the jewels of the diadems. On the empress, a small strut runs from the right thigh to a diptych held in the right hand. Like the Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, she has a heavy neck support. The crenellated folds at the bottom of her garment resemble those of the Venus-Victory from Montmaurin and the Ashmolean Victory (figs. 12, 16). Despite some important similarities in details, the overall effect of the Paris empress (fig. 53) is rather different from that of the late mythological statuettes. Unlike the latter genre, the empress has a tall, closed, columnar form, and her head is too small for her height. Her face is more abstractly geometric than any of the mythological statuettes and looks ahead to the greater abstraction of much fifth-century sculpture. The Paris empress appears to mark a transitional point between the classicizing trends of the last quarter of the fourth century and the more geometric styles of the fifth. This statuette suggests that the early decades of the fifth century saw the later stages of evolution of the trend in taste and style that favored the facial features of the mythological statuettes. No statuary securely postdating the Paris empress and the Beyazit emperor has facial features closely comparable to the late mythological statuettes.

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 111

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 52. Head of an emperor found in the Beyazit district of Istanbul. National Archaeological Museum, inv. 5028. (Photo P. Steyer. DAI Istanbul Neg. KB 3694, by permission.)

Sculpture of the fifth century became increasingly stylized and, consequently, less like the classicism of the late mythological statuettes. The “narrow, creased ridges”71 of the chlamys of the Carthage Ganymede (fig. 2) have been compared to those seen on Aphrodisian and Ephesian portraits of magistrates dating to the first four decades of the fifth century and to a fifth-century relief of Christ and the apostles. However, such “bladelike ridges”72 had already come into use in the later fourth century, as seen on a statue of an emperor from Aphrodisias (dated by inscription to 390) and on other sculptures.73 Also, while the sculptures of magistrates do have the bladelike folds resembling those of the Ganymede’s chlamys, other features of their treatment, such as the vertical folds over the navel and feet of the Ephesos magistrate, are considerably more schematized than any aspect of the late mythological statuettes.74 By far the majority of comparisons for stylistic features of the late mythological statuettes date to the later fourth century or the years on either side of 400. Some features on the late mythological statuettes, such as bladelike folds, continue into the fifth century, but there are no stylistic

the learned collector 112

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 53. Statuette of an empress, front. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, inv. 13. (Photo Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris, by permission.)

features of the statuettes that do not appear before the turn of the century. It is impossible to gauge how late into the fifth century production of the statuettes continued, but the combination of abstract with classicizing features in the Paris empress suggests that styles were already changing quite early in the fifth century.

stylistic subgroups: the sidon mithraeum, the carthage ganymede, and the diana and venus from saint-georges-de-montagne

W

ithin the stylistic parameters now established for late mythological statuary, there is variation in the style and quality of workmanship. The Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (fig. 4) has more refined, delicate facial features than the Venus from the same site (fig. 7) or the Hekates and Graces from Sidon (fig. 41). The Carthage Ganymede’s face (fig. 2) is

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 113

as delicate in features and carving as the Diana’s, but the overall effect is more abstract. The stylistic variation may be due to temporal differences, or it may reflect variations among different workshops or hands. The level of artistry also varies. The Ganymede is the most carefully worked of the group, as his many delicate struts and high degree of openwork show. By contrast, the Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne is less carefully worked, with heavier struts and less modeling. Three stylistic subgroups can be recognized within the larger genre, centering around the statuettes from the Sidon mithraeum, the Ganymede from Carthage, and the figures from Saint-Georges-de-Montagne. The late mythological statuettes found in Gaul do not fall exclusively into a single group. The heavy features of the Mithras Tauroktonos, Aion-Kronos, and Hekate Triformis set them apart from other late mythological statuettes (figs. 40–42). Especially distinctive are their fleshy nostrils and chins. The Achilles and Penthesilea found in a nymphaeum at Byblos have pudgy facial features that link them to this group.75 The Milan Meleager-Helios may also belong to this subgroup, although his face is not quite so fleshy and modeled (fig. 50).76 His coiffure is very like that of the Mithras, as it clusters in stylized, nodular curls, the centers of which are excavated with a drill. The Carthage Ganymede, the Phrygian-capped youth in Krakow, and the diademed female head from Arles (figs. 2, 43, 38) have more abstract, delicate facial features than most of the late mythological statuettes.77 All three have scarcely modeled oval faces surrounded by decoratively drilled hair. The Arles head and the Ganymede have sloping chins, while the Ganymede and the Krakow youth display extraordinarily similar treatment in their hair, hats, and sharp noses. The youth’s chlamys is fastened at the shoulder with a three-tiered conical pin like the Ganymede’s,78 and his left boot, insofar as it is preserved, is the same. Broken struts on his right thigh, left shoulder, side, hip, and calf attest to complex strutwork.79 The diademed head found at Nérac, with its sloping chin and sharp nose, probably also belongs with this subgroup, although it is difficult to make stylistic judgments solely on the basis of a drawing (fig. 31). These three statuettes form a distinctive subgroup and may represent the latest figures in the genre, as they display greater abstraction in their facial features than do any of the other sculptures. Tantalizing workshop evidence comes from the site of Saint-Georgesde-Montagne. Despite their striking kinship in facial features, the five heads found at this site can be divided into two groups. The Diana and the female head wearing a Scheitelzopf coiffure (figs. 4, 9) have more careful

the learned collector 114

facial modeling (particularly noticeable at the tear ducts) than do the Venus and Mars (figs. 7, 10). The Apollo straddles this classification (fig. 8); his face resembles the Venus, but his hair is as finely detailed as the Diana’s. Even so, the likenesses among the five are so strong that it seems likely that they came from a single workshop, even a single commission. Different hands at the atelier would explain the more subtle differences. Other statuettes can be closely associated with the Saint-Georges-deMontagne group. The Sidon Aphrodite strikingly resembles the Venus, not only in her face, but also in her stocky, pear-shaped body (fig. 48). Female heads from Chiragan, Bordeaux, and Til-Châtel (figs. 26, 37) are very comparable to the Venus and the Sidon piece in their facial features and the curl of hair on the forehead, a curl that is echoed in the curls in front of the ears of the female head wearing a Scheitelzopf coiffure. The seated Christ now in the Palazzo Massimo Museum in Rome, though not mythological, has a remarkably similar face (fig. 47). The subgroups just delineated are not impermeable and absolute. Several significant features reach across their boundaries. Closely related animals appear on statuettes from all three subgroups. The Ganymede’s dog is very like that of the Mithras Tauroktonos, as already discussed, and both dogs resemble in musculature and carved detail the hind at the feet of the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (figs. 2, 40, 4). The distinctive molded base on the Ganymede corresponds closely to that on the Venus and Diana. Thus, while it is possible to distinguish certain groups of characteristics among the late mythological statuettes, these groups are not mutually exclusive, since they have important links in other respects.80

late fourth century sculpture in gaul and rome

T

o attribute the late mythological sculptures found in Gaul and elsewhere to specific cities or regions, it is necessary to examine both individual sculptures and the sculptural tradition of various regions, to determine points of similarity and difference with the late mythological sculptures. Sculptural tradition refers to generalizations about the techniques, stylistic features, or types of marble that are distinctive in the products of a city or region. Assessment of the sculptural tradition is a method for verifying more specific comparisons. If particular features similar to late mythological statuettes appear on a few isolated sculptures from an area but are absent on the majority of sculptures, attribution to that region is less secure. Only sculptures found at the particular site under investigation will

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 115

be considered in these discussions. In weighing stylistic factors, it is most important to establish comparanda that share multiple features with late mythological statuettes. Although stylistic analysis is a subjective tool, it can yield persuasive results when used appropriately, and it is the only tool available at present for studying most of the sculptures. The late mythological statuettes found in Gaul must first be examined in the context of contemporary sculpture made in Gaul. Ateliers in the city of Arles produced figural sarcophagi throughout the fourth century, with their greatest period of production falling in the last quarter of the century, the period to which most of the late mythological statuettes date. Workshops in Marseille produced sarcophagi throughout the fifth century.81 The ateliers of Arles used marble from the Pyrenees quarry of Saint-Béat as well as imported marbles thought to be from Carrara and Proconnesus. There are some broad stylistic similarities between the Gallic sarcophagi and late mythological statuettes—for instance, the use of crenellated folds, the large-headed proportions of the figures, and the use of drill work to enhance details. Vignettes of the miracles of Christ framed by columns or trees show an interest in narrative moments that is reminiscent of the late mythological statuettes (fig. 54).82 The sarcophagi are very dissimilar in details of style, however. While the faces of the late mythological statuettes are characteristically oval, with rounded forms, most heads on the sarcophagi are angular and sharp, with large eyes and low foreheads, and have details incised with a chisel.83 Drill work at the pupils, ears, and eyes on the sarcophagi is not nearly so careful as on the statuettes. The hands of figures on the sarcophagi are much cruder than those of the mythological figures: parallel, unmodeled chisel lines separate the fingers, and a drilled dot marks the base of each finger.84 Some of the sarcophagus figures have struts attached to their fingers, but the struts are not nearly so carefully carved as ones seen on late mythological statuettes, such as the Anadyomene arm from Montmaurin.85 Most of the Gallic sarcophagi do not exhibit a glossy polish like that of the statuettes. On balance, while the sarcophagi of Arles and Marseille share some broad stylistic features with late mythological statuettes, examination of specific details shows that the two groups of finds are not closely related. Several of the shared features, such as enlarged heads, are part of a broadly applied period style and appear in many genres of art. Many features on the late mythological statuettes are noticeably different from those on the Gallic sarcophagi, even the ones, such as that of Hydria Tertulla, whose polished finish and attention to detail make them most comparable to the mythological statuettes.86 Furthermore, the Gallic sarcophagi are made in

the learned collector 116

Fig. 54. Sarcophagus of Christ giving the Law. Musée de l’Arles Antique, inv. MA 17. (Photo A. Chéné–G. Réveillac, CNRS Centre Camille Jullian, MMSH-Aix-enProvence, by permission.)

at least three different, distinguishable marbles, one of which is local. If the statuettes had been made in the same ateliers, we could expect a similar range in materials, but they all are carved from a white, very fine-grained marble. None appears to be made in Pyrenees marble.87 Examination of contemporary Gallic sculptural traditions shows that the origins of the late mythological statuettes found in Gaul must be sought outside the province. The city of Rome is the logical next point of inquiry, as it continued to be a major cultural center of the western Mediterranean even after the imperial court ceased to reside there. The senatorial aristocracy still commanded great wealth and invested in artistic and architectural projects, thus supporting lively artistic production. Only one late mythological statuette, a maenad in the Vatican (fig. 51), is firmly attributed to Rome, though the Ashmolean Victory and the Krakow youth may also have originated there (figs. 16, 43). A statuette of a seated Christ has remarkable similarities to the Gallic statuettes in facial features, particularly to the Venus and Mars of SaintGeorges-de-Montagne (figs. 47, 7, 10).88 The figure is closely related to Asian works, such as the relief of an angel found in Sultanahmet, and J. Kollwitz considers it the work of an Eastern sculptor.89 Another work in Rome that has a strong resemblance to late mythological statuettes is the portrait head of a so-called priestess in the Capitoline Museum (already discussed). The oval face, puffy eyes, and facial modeling are very like the Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne.90 Furthermore, both have a heavy, squared neck support, a feature that appears on many late mythological

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 117

statuettes.91 Such a neck support is otherwise extremely unusual on finds from the city of Rome but is a common feature of sculpture in Asia Minor.92 Certain sarcophagi of the last quarter of the fourth century show some affinities with late mythological statuettes found in Gaul and elsewhere. The sarcophagus with the strongest resemblance is Lateran 174, which shows a conventional scene of Christ handing the law to Saint Peter. Recarving in modern times notwithstanding, the heads of the various Christ figures on the sarcophagus strongly resemble both the Christ in the Palazzo Massimo and the Sidon Graces. The togate figures are similar to apostles on the ends of the Sarigüzel sarcophagus. While the scene of traditio legis on the sarcophagus is one especially pertinent to and popular in the city of Rome, the style of the sarcophagus appears to show Eastern influences. Kollwitz argues that the master of this sarcophagus had spent much time in non-Roman workshops; perhaps it reflects the hand of itinerant craftsmen working in Rome.93 The sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, epigraphically dated to 359, shows a series of narrative vignettes, some involving trees; all of the vignettes are separated by columns.94 Intricate carving, strutwork, and large-headed proportions are additional similarities to late mythological statuettes. The renderings of facial features and details of drapery differ, however. In particular, the figures on the sarcophagus do not have the rounded facial physiognomy seen on the late mythological statuettes. Despite the common taste for encapsulated narrative, the similarities with the Junius Bassus sarcophagus are not strong enough evidence to suggest that it had a common origin with the late mythological statuettes. Of sculptures from the city of Rome, the Vatican maenad, the Christ in the Palazzo Massimo, and the female portrait in the Capitoline offer the strongest stylistic parallels for late mythological statuettes found in Gaul. As the latter two sculptures have strong links to the eastern Mediterranean, the search for origins must continue to move east.

evidence for an eastern origin

T

he most important evidence for an attribution to Eastern workshops is the thick, squared, rough neck support that appears on many of the sculptures. In some cases, aspects of the sculpture render a neck strut redundant or impossible to supply, as in the case of the Diana of SaintGeorges-de-Montagne and the Wellen satyr, on which sculptures tree branches fill up the space where a neck support would go (figs. 5, 34). An arching, perforated strut linking a bun to the figure’s back replaces the more

the learned collector 118

solid neck strut on the Aphrodite of Sidon (fig. 48). The Apollo of SaintGeorges-de-Montagne and the Bordeaux head have squared breaks on the bottom surfaces of their chignons, breaks that strongly suggest that a similar cutaway strut has broken off. In other cases, such as the Venus torso from Montmaurin (fig. 17), it appears that there never was a neck support of any kind. This technical feature, the neck strut, is linked to Asia Minor. In their study of portraiture, Jale Inan and Elisabeth Rosenbaum have observed that a heavy, squared neck support occurs frequently in Asia Minor, particularly in certain regions. It is extremely rare elsewhere except possibly for North Africa, and even there the neck support was not as pronounced as on the Asian sculptures.95 Many stylistic similarities exist between late mythological statuettes and sculptures originating in Asia Minor. To reprise, there are strong facial similarities between the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (fig. 4) and the angels of the Sarigüzel sarcophagus.96 Additionally, the calligraphic curves of drapery around the angel’s legs resemble the rippling drapery of the skirt of the Diana and of a dancing maenad from Arles (figs. 4, 39). The facial proportions of the Ganymede from Carthage and the diademed female head from Arles match those of faces on the obelisk base of Theodosius, erected sometime after 390 (figs. 2, 38, 45).97 The face of an angel on a relief found at Sultanahmet is very like the heads from Saint-Georgesde-Montagne and others.98 A head of Helios from Aphrodisias has a fleshy face and elaborate curls resembling the Sidon Mithras and the Milan Meleager-Helios; Kenan Erim dates this piece to the fifth century.99 Scientific testing has not been carried out on the marble of any of the late mythological sculptures found in France.100 Scholars identifying the marble of the sculptures by eye tend to identify it as Carrara in all cases, although fine-grained white marbles are found at a wide range of quarries, and it is difficult to distinguish them by the eye alone.101 Scientific marble testing has been carried out on only one late mythological statuette; neutron activation analysis of the Ganymede from Carthage points to the quarries of Ephesos (fig. 2).102 The best comparanda for the distinctive facial features of the late mythological statuettes, including those found in Gaul, are found in Asia Minor or come from such statuary as the Christ in the Palazzo Massimo (fig. 47), whose sculptor is thought to have originated in Asia Minor. The oval faces, smooth cheeks, puffy eyes, and, particularly, the drill patterns of the late mythological statuettes do not appear on sculpture from local Gallic workshops or on pieces thought to be made in Rome. Along with the neck

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 119

support, stylistic comparanda for facial features provide strong evidence for origins at the hands of Asian sculptors. Many scholars stress the importance of regional styles within the koine of broader Asian characteristics, and four specific centers merit investigation in a study of late mythological statuettes. Aphrodisias was a major sculptural center in late antiquity, producing many genres of statuary. Ephesos had a strong sculptural tradition in portraiture. Workshops in Dokimeion and Side produced statuettes with molded bases, lacy compositions, and subsidiary figures. Finally, the imperial capital, Constantinople, was an important hub of sculptural activity in the last two decades of the fourth century.103

aphrodisias

A

phrodisias is of utmost importance for any study of late antique mythological sculpture, for several reasons. A lively sculptural tradition flourished there from the first to the sixth centuries, and production of mythological statuary continued into the late fourth or early fifth century.104 Moreover, a fourth-century sculptor’s workshop containing unfinished mythological sculptures has been excavated in Aphrodisias and is the subject of a 1999 doctoral dissertation by Julie Van Voorhis.105 A group of life-size statues found on the Esquiline Hill in Rome have signatures from Aphrodisian artists on their plinths.106 For these reasons, most scholarly discussion of late antique mythological sculpture has focused on Aphrodisias.107 The sculptor’s workshop excavated at Aphrodisias is located in a stoa running behind the Bouleuterion.108 It is identified as a workshop because of the discovery of stone working tools, unfinished statuary, and marbles that had been used to test or demonstrate tools. The stoa was probably built to house civic functions, but its function changed in the mid-second century, when the enlargement of the Bouleuterion reduced the space in front of the stoa and its accessibility. The sculptor’s workshop was installed at this time or later, comprising two rooms in the stoa and an open-air space in front of them.109 Unfinished portrait sculptures found in the sculptor’s workshop show that it was still operating in the late fourth century.110 The sculptor’s workshop and yard also yielded numerous large- and small-scale mythological statues and fragments. Most of the small-scale statuary found in the workshop is unfinished. A bichrome statuette of Europa and the bull resembles late mythological statuettes in the proportions of the body and head.111 The figure has stocky proportions, and a mass of stone at the back of her neck may be a neck sup-

the learned collector 120

port. Like the Diana and others, the Europa is very flat when viewed from the side. The facial features are difficult to judge because of the incomplete state of the piece but are broadly similar to late mythological statuettes, such as the diademed head from Montmaurin. A statuette of the Artemis of Versailles is similar in pose and size to the Diana of Saint-Georges-deMontagne but is quite different in bodily proportions.112 In contrast to the slender build and small head of the Aphrodisian piece, the Gallic Diana has stockier proportions and a larger head. Details of pose and drapery differ, and the Aphrodisias sculpture has no subsidiary figures or landscape motifs. This individual sculpture does not resemble the Diana of Saint-Georgesde-Montagne very closely. It is interesting to note that the workshop produced both unusual subjects (the Europa) and close versions of popular types (the Artemis of Versailles). Other unfinished statuettes in the workshop represent Hekate, Asklepios, and the circle of Dionysos.113 Van Voorhis notes that all the small-scale sculptures from the workshop are carved from a fine-grained marble quite distinct from the large-grained marble usually used in full-scale statuary at Aphrodisias. Two completed late antique statuettes found elsewhere in the city (a priestess and a head of Helios) are likewise carved from fine-grained marble.114 A finished, full-scale statue of a satyr holding the infant Dionysos was also found in the sculptor’s workshop, along with a smaller-scale version of the same subject (about two-thirds life-size).115 It appears as though the large satyr was a model for smaller-scale copies. Dating for the satyrs remains hotly controversial.116 Be that as it may, the lithe muscular bodies and tall, slender proportions of the satyrs do not correspond well with late mythological statuettes. Several other large-scale mythological statues were found in the workshop, both finished and unfinished. All the unfinished ones had secondary carving or reworking on them.117 Thus, the sculptor’s workshop at Aphrodisias provides useful corroborative evidence for fourth-century interest in mythological sculpture but does not appear to be the specific origin of the mythological statuettes found in Gaul. A number of individual sculptures from Aphrodisias have traits related to the Gallic statuettes. Perhaps the most interesting example is a headless statuette of the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias cradled in the arms of a headless portrait of a priest (fig. 55).118 Carved separately from the portrait, the statuette has a molded socle just like that of the Diana and Venus of SaintGeorges-de-Montagne. The treatment of the statuette is also compatible with a late fourth-century date. The flaring, crenellated folds around her feet bring to mind the skirt of the Paris empress, and the long folds from

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 121

her mantle fall in rivulets like those of the Carthage Ganymede’s chlamys.119 Even the bands of relief sculpture on her skirt, albeit iconographically necessary, demonstrate an interest in subsidiary figures. A small-scale head of Helios with smooth facial features framed by heavily drilled curls resembles both the Mithras from Sidon and the Meleager in Milan. The skin has a high, glassy polish. Excavators date it to the fifth century. A late fourth-century group of a dancing satyr and maenad with faces and drapery similar to those of Gallic finds may have come from Aphrodisias.120 Also important are a pair of statuettes of an Asklepios and a diademed female figure found in the North Byzantine House (fig. 56).121 The female statuette, possibly Cybele, resembles the Venus of SaintGeorges-de-Montagne in her oval face and ridged arched brows and in the drilled details at the eyes, nose, and mouth. The Asklepios is more attenuated and less crisply carved. These two statuettes were found with a base incised with astral symbols. A statuette of a veiled woman found in the Portico of Tiberius has soft oval facial features similar to the Cybele and softly draped, doughy clothing.122 The figure may be a priestess. Two struts on the right side probably supported an outstretched attribute. Neither the Cybele nor the priestess is as carefully or delicately worked as the late mythological statuettes, such as the Diana or Venus of Saint-Georges-deMontagne. All these examples illustrate clearly that there was an important and lively production of small-scale mythological sculpture in Aphrodisias in the later fourth and fifth centuries. Two sets of pilaster capitals provide further important evidence.123 Four pilaster capitals showing miniature adaptations of famous statues, such as the Knidian Aphrodite, are dated to the third or early fourth century. They were found in the North Temenos House, where they probably adorned an apsidal room. Eighteen pilaster capitals decorated with putti were found in a late antique colonnade of the Tetrapylon street and appear to have adorned the back wall of the colonnade. They are dated to the late fourth or early fifth century based on stylistic criteria. The putti are shown in playful vignettes of hunting and harvesting or in poses that quote well-known statuary. The pear-shaped heads, drilled facial details, and stumpy, fleshy proportions of the cupids are similar to the attendants surrounding the Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (fig. 7). The putti do not have quite the same oval faces and ridged, arched brows as the statuettes. Though less carefully rendered, a panther on one pilaster has a boxy muzzle, undercut teeth, and rounded paws akin to the dog with the Sidon Mithras.124 Carved in high relief within a leafy frame of acanthus or oak, the capitals have compositional affinities to the scaffolding of branches around the mythological

the learned collector 122

Fig. 55. Male bust holding statuette of the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias, found in the Atrium House, Aphrodisias. Aphrodisias Museum. (Photo courtesy of New York University Excavations at Aphrodisias.)

statuettes. The surface is not so highly polished as on the statuettes, nor are the details quite so careful. Carved in deep relief on flat plaques of marble, the pilaster capitals required the same technical skills that were necessary to carve the very flat compositions of the late mythological statuettes. Another interesting architectural sculpture is a semicircular pediment showing Aphrodite Anadyomene on a half shell accompanied by tritons.125 It belonged to the Atrium House, where a series of late antique tondi of philosophers and the portrait bust holding the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias (fig. 55) were also found. R. R. R. Smith characterizes this pediment as late antique.126 Certainly, the long waist and stiff body of the Aphrodite match the Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montage, as do her ridged, arched brows. But the face and overall proportions are slimmer. Signed Aphrodisian statuary found in Rome also plays an important role in the consideration of Aphrodisias’s role as a late antique sculptural center.

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 123

Fig. 56. Statuettes of Asklepios and Cybele found in the North Byzantine House, Aphrodisias. Aphrodisias Museum. (Photo courtesy of New York University Excavations at Aphrodisias.)

A group of statues found built into later structures on the Esquiline Hill depict Hercules, a satyr with the infant Dionysos, Helios, Poseidon, and another mature male god.127 The satyr is the same type as the one found in the sculptor’s workshop just discussed. Known as the “Esquiline group,” these sculptures are now preserved in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen. The bases of four of the statues have signatures variously naming the sculptors Flavius Zeno, Flavius Chryseros, and Flavius Andronicus, the first two of whom are specifically denoted as Aphrodisians. Interestingly, stable isotope analysis has shown that the statues were carved from Carrara marble.128 Clearly, they are the products of a branch workshop in Rome. In 1982, Kenan Erim and Charlotte Roueché republished and reanalyzed these inscriptions, linking them to three inscriptions from Aphrodisias that also name one Flavius Zeno, high priest and diashmovtato~. Erim and Roueché argue that use of the latter title (the Greek rendering of the

the learned collector 124

rank perfectissimus) for a provincial or municipal office began in the reign of Constantine (305–37). Other inscriptions advertise that he had the rank of comes, and Erim and Roueché argue that the use of this title without explanatory information indicates a date in the 320s.129 A terminus ante quem was provided by the fact that one of the inscriptions from Rome had been built into a wall whose brick stamps date somewhere in the first half of the fourth century.130 Apparently, the statues were not in use for very long. Thus, argued Erim and Roueché, Flavius Zeno and his Aphrodisian compatriots operated a branch workshop in Rome sometime after 320 and before the middle of the century. The inscriptions would seem to provide an independent date for the statues, making them one of the rare fixed points in sculptural chronologies and establishing the continued manufacture of mythological statuary at full scale in the first half of the fourth century.131 Another base inscribed with the signature of Flavius Zeno, the Aphrodisian, raises difficulties for this chronology, however.132 It was found elsewhere on the Esquiline Hill, built into the foundations of a small bath on the Via Ariosto. The letterforms and formulas of this base (including the title diashmovtato~) match those on the base for the Esquiline satyr. It seems most reasonable to assume that the same Flavius Zeno is meant. This building was originally considered to date to the reign of Diocletian or Constantine; the latter half of this date range is compatible with the titulature on the bases. More recently, however, Margareta Steinby has dated the brick stamps from this building specifically to the reign of Maxentius (305–10).133 If this new date is correct, this statue by Flavius Zeno had to be made (and destroyed) prior to the reign of Maxentius.134 The status of the Esquiline group as an independently datable assemblage is thus very much in question, hanging between the verdicts of two eminent epigraphers. With this stylistic fixed point undermined, the major set of comparanda to support fourth-century dates for other life-size mythological statuary is also undermined. Mette Moltesen reminds us that remaining stylistic or technical features attested both on large-scale mythological statuary and on works dated uncontroversially to the fourth century may “rather be characteristics of Aphrodisian workshops than chronological indicators.”135 Stylistically, the sculptures of the Esquiline group are not very close to the late mythological statuettes found in Gaul and elsewhere; thus, their vicissitudes as a fixed chronological point do not affect the present study. Apart from the significant difference in scale, the Esquiline sculptures have

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 125

longer, slenderer proportions, lack neck struts, and have an exaggerated musculature that is quite different from the rubbery anatomy of most of the late mythological statuettes.136 To return to Aphrodisias, while it is certain that sculptors in Aphrodisias produced mythological sculpture during the fourth century, it is not clear whether the group of statuettes currently under investigation originated there. General Aphrodisian stylistic traits, such as smaller heads and long proportions, argue against complete stylistic influence. Aphrodisian statuettes that display stockier proportions or more rounded facial features, such as the Cybele or the priestess, lack the fine workmanship and detail of the late mythological statuettes. Nonetheless, numerous individual pieces from the city show particular stylistic affinities with the late mythological sculptures from Gaul, a situation that is difficult to interpret. It may indicate that certain stylistic traits extended beyond individual regions or that Aphrodisian sculptors were involved, though not exclusively, with the creation of the style of late mythological statuettes.

ephesos

E

phesos comes to our attention for several reasons. It had a strong sculptural tradition through much of late antiquity, as attested by a series of portrait sculptures, some of which share certain stylistic features with late mythological statuettes. Gazda compared the profile of the chlamys of the Carthage Ganymede (fig. 2) to that of folds on the hip of a fifth-century magistrate from Ephesos.137 Portrait sculptures from Ephesos have tiny finger struts similar to those on the Carthage Ganymede and the Venus arm from Montmaurin (figs. 2, 17).138 Furthermore, neutron activation analysis of the Carthage Ganymede’s marble tentatively indicates the quarries of Ephesos as its origin. Jale Inan and Elisabeth Rosenbaum emphasize the wealth of portrait sculpture from Ephesos. There is indeed evidence of a strong late antique sculptural tradition, but there are only three portraits from the period ca. 350–400.139 A headless honorary statue dedicated to Scholastikia in the late fourth century and long considered to be a relatively fixed point in fourthcentury art has been shown to be a reused earlier statue.140 Quantities of portraits increase again in the first half of the fifth century, and the portraiture tradition then continues strongly into the reign of Justinian.141 Most comparanda for the late mythological statuettes date to the last quarter of the fourth century, but at Ephesos there appears to have been little sculp-

the learned collector 126

tural production at this period. Rather, it is the portraits from the first half of the fifth century and later that are comparable in the treatment of drapery and finger struts. The evidence for Ephesos as a source for the Gallic statuettes is not strong: the tradition of portraiture seems to falter during the period to which the late mythological statuettes date, and late mythological statuettes have not been found there.142 Because of the stylistic and scientific evidence, Ephesian sculptors may well have contributed to the development of late mythological statuettes, but other origins must be considered as well.

statuette workshops in dokimeion and side

A

series of statuettes somewhat similar in composition to the late mythological statuettes have recently been associated with workshops in Dokimeion and Side by Axel Filges.143 Aphrodite is the most popular figure in the series, followed by Asklepios and Hygieia. Though these sculptures are for the most part cruder in workmanship than the late mythological statuettes, they do share some features, including a high molded base with a central groove, subsidiary figures, and a somewhat lacy composition involving strutwork. The Aphrodites often have tall diadems reminiscent of that on the Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne. Expanding on Muthmann’s study, Filges groups the statuettes by the profiles of their bases and proposes a period of manufacture from the mid-second century to the late third century.144 He also shows that the tall diadem was popular in western Asia Minor in the second century.145 Looking at the findspots (where known) of these statuettes and their stylistic features, he argues that these statuettes were originally made in Dokimeion and that ca. 170, “second-rate stonemasons” migrated to cities of the south coast of Turkey, particularly Side, where they continued to make statuettes in this tradition.146 Thus, Filges documents a statuette tradition in Asia Minor that has some aesthetic features in common with late mythological statuettes. The highquality craftsmanship, greater delicacy, and late fourth-century facial features of the latter group are not shared by the Dokimeion-Side statuettes, however. One cannot attribute the late mythological statuettes to this workshop, as Filges also points out.147 Nevertheless, because of the aesthetic overlaps, the question arises as to whether the Dokimeion-Side miniature tradition could have influenced late mythological statuettes. Filges is firm in dating the end of the Dokimeion-Side statuettes ca. 300. If this is correct, this sculptural tradition would have fallen into abeyance too early to have influenced statuettes

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 127

of the later fourth century. If, however, Filges’s end date is permeable (an early fourth-century date has been proposed for an Aphrodite from Side),148 some influence may have existed. Part of Filges’s argument against the statuettes continuing past ca. 300 is that it conflicts with a “more or less orderly stylistic development” from more naturalistic, plastic forms to flat, abstract forms.149 While one can indeed, in very general terms, characterize artistic developments of the fourth century as increasing in abstraction, it seems overly optimistic to expect such development to be “more or less orderly.” For other periods of Roman art, scholars accept a diversity of contemporary styles varying by patron or genre as well as region.150 Portraiture did not develop in a linear fashion from the Republic to the high empire but, rather, reacted ever differently to foreign, indigenous, personal, or dynastic stimuli and concerns. As we have already seen, Muthmann’s study of base moldings established when this usage began but did not provide a firm end date. Thus, on current evidence, it remains possible that the Dokimeion-Side statuettes were produced for a long enough time to influence the genre of late mythological statuettes.

constantinople

S

ome of the closest comparanda for the Gallic statuettes come from the imperial capital, Constantinople. The facial proportions of the statuettes compare well to friezes on public edifices, such as the obelisk base or column of Theodosius (figs. 44–46).151 Several relief sculptures found in or near Constantinople display facial features and drapery treatment akin to late mythological statuettes. The Sarigüzel sarcophagus, in particular, has close affinities to the delicate faces and calligraphic drapery of the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne or the Carthage Ganymede (figs. 4, 2). Other sarcophagi of triumphant angels show similar, if less finely finished, treatment.152 The Sultanahmet angel is one of the closest parallels for the facial features of the Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne or the Sidon Aphrodite (figs. 7, 48). In a more general sense, headless draped figures on reliefs found at Bakiröy and Yedikule display rubbery anatomy and peaked, bladelike folds on their tunics and pallia.153 The series of small-scale heads found in the Church of Julia Aniciana appear to have belonged to a sculpture carved in high relief, and they have drilled eyes and ridged brows.154 In terms of portraiture, a bust of an emperor found in the Beyazit neighborhood of Istanbul has a smooth oval face and stylized ridged, arched brows very like those of the late mythological statuettes (fig. 52). It is stylistically dated to ca. 400.

the learned collector 128

Some statuary of mythological subjects has been found in Constantinople. A fragmentary relief found in the Baths of Zeuxippos shows a Nereid. The doughy anatomy, bridged drilling in the hair, and awkward pose of the right hand indicate late antique manufacture; the piece is dated to the fifth or sixth century.155 A relief of a Victory with one breast bare has drilled, rounded facial details and is dated to the fourth century.156 A statuette of a Victory from the hippodrome157 is dated to the fourth to early fifth century and has a configuration similar to the possible Victory found at Nérac (fig. 30). The build is thinner, but the doughy, semistylized drapery matches the Nérac figure. Refounded in 324, Constantinople had flourished artistically under Constantine, but there is little evidence of local sculptural activity through the middle years of the fourth century, until the reign of Theodosius I (379–95), who commissioned several simultaneous projects involving large numbers of sculptors, architects, and artisans.158 From a sculptural point of view, the two most important monuments were the obelisk base and the column in the Forum Tauri. From inscribed bases, literary sources, and extant evidence, it is clear that imperial portraits were widely distributed.159 Out of this whirlwind of activity ca. 386–95 grew what is known as the court, or Constantinopolitan, style—perhaps best exemplified by the obelisk base (figs. 44–45). Not restricted to imperial monuments, this style also influenced private and ecclesiastical art. From the reign of Theodosius onward, there was always an imperial court in Constantinople, which became an important and influential artistic center. Bente Kiilerich hypothesizes that because of the lack of building projects in Constantinople in the decades before Theodosius, there were insufficient trained artisans in the capital to carry out the new emperor’s ambitious projects.160 For this reason, it was necessary to bring in artisans from all over Asia Minor to participate in the Theodosian building program. Kiilerich proposes that the court style of Contantinople evolved out of the multiplicity of hands and traditions involved in the two extensive sculptural projects of the column and obelisk base. Affinities with the work of other centers can sometimes be discerned within the style of monuments in the capital. In particular, it appears that Aphrodisian sculptors were influential in creating the court style.161 For instance, a statue of an emperor found at Aphrodisias (usually identified as Valentinian II) has many affinities with the obelisk base.162 Itinerant artists would have followed the court; the travels of court and artists would account for the wider dissemination of the court style around the empire.

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 129

This hypothesized situation of a synthetic style created in the capital by an influx of artists from many different centers may help explain the fact that late mythological statuettes find parallels with more than one sculptural center, including Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Constantinople, and, to a certain extent, Dokimeion and Side. Large ateliers made up of sculptors from many different regions could have produced private commissions as well as imperial ones. While a workshop would develop a distinctive overall style, individual sculptors might continue to use regional techniques in places. The taste for lacy statuettes with subsidiary figures on tall bases could reflect the influence of sculptors from Dokimeion and Side in the imperial mixture. Specific features, such as the dogs or the molded bases, could result from division of labor within the workshop, if different specialists worked on separate parts of a sculpture. The existence of such workshops in Constantinople would also account for the close similarity of facial features between sculptures found in Constantinople and many of the late mythological statuettes. Subgroups delineated on the basis of facial features and centered on the Saint-Georges-de-Montagne finds, the Sidon mithraeum, and the Carthage Ganymede cannot be correlated consistently with any of the sculptural centers of Asia Minor. The model just proposed accounts for this simultaneous similarity and divergence. Moreover, the overlap of certain features among the subgroups argues against production in widely separated workshops. Drawing more heavily on the assemblages of life-size sculpture from Silahtaraga, Valdetorres de Jarama, and the Esquiline, Marianne Bergmann reaches similar conclusions about the formation of synthetic styles in Constantinople in the late fourth century.163 She refers to these blended workshops as an artistic circle (Kunstkreis) and provides a persuasive example of stylistic syncretism with a relief of Christ and the apostles from Psamatia, now in Berlin.164 The aedicular architectural framework behind the figures draws clearly on the tradition of sarcophagi from Dokimeion. The meanderlike, drilled curls on the Christ, however, do not appear on earlier works from Dokimeion; rather, they are connected with Aphrodisias and, later, Constantinople. Branch Workshops Abroad While the stylistic characteristics of the Gallic statuettes appear to originate ultimately in Asia Minor, it remains possible that Asian sculptors working abroad carved some of the statuettes. The Esquiline group shows that an

the learned collector 130

Aphrodisian workshop operated in Rome at some point. Portraits, such as the Capitoline priestess, and sarcophagi also attest continuing influence or activity of Eastern sculptors in Rome. L’Orange links portrait heads in Rome to busts found in Thessaloniki and, ultimately, to the Paris empress (fig. 53) and the Beyazit emperor (fig. 52), describing their common treatment as the “subtle style.”165 The geographical range of findspots for these portraits indicates that styles or products of a single origin can travel widely. A head of a child found in Rome but now in Oslo has the oval face, arched brows, and small mouth of the figures on the obelisk relief.166 A colossal male head from Ostia also has Eastern affinities.167 All these heads illustrate either a continuance of imports from the East or Asian sculptural activity in Rome in the last quarter of the fourth century. Some sarcophagi, such as Lateran 174, show stylistic affinities with sculpture from the eastern Mediterranean. Individually, they have been variously argued to be imports, monuments made in Italy by foreign craftsmen, or Italian-made pieces influenced by Eastern imports.168 Other sarcophagi combine Roman and Eastern traits. Kollwitz argues that city-gate sarcophagi, such as a well-preserved example now in Milan, combine Eastern and Western features.169 This may result from Eastern influence conveyed by imports on Roman sculptors or from local Roman influence on visiting Eastern sculptors. Even if Asian sculptors did not actually work in Rome in the later fourth century, the city may have acted as a center of redistribution for products transported from the East. Stylistic Interaction with Sculpture of Christian Subjects As we have seen, many of the comparanda for late mythological statuettes are sarcophagi and other reliefs showing Christian subjects. The close correspondences among these genres of sculpture raise the possibility—even the likelihood—that they were manufactured in the same workshops. To an extent, the likenesses can be attributed to a common period style that is widely seen in public, ecclesiastical, and private art of the late fourth century. Yet some resemblances seem too close for this generic explanation. Both the Palazzo Massimo Christ (fig. 47) and the Sultanahmet angel have rounded facial features, ridged arched brows, and drilled hair that very closely match those of the Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, the Aphrodite from Sidon, and the heads from Bordeaux, Til-Châtel, and Chiragan (figs. 7, 48, 37, 26). The sweet facial features and delicate calligraphic drapery of the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (fig. 4) and the Sarigüzel sarcophagus are another conspicuous parallel. The extreme flat-

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 131

ness of the late mythological statuettes suggests a relationship with sarcophagi, another genre where sculptors were required to work with narrow slabs of stone. It seems highly probable that the workshops that produced late mythological statuettes also manufactured sarcophagi and other sculpture of Christian subjects. Patrons commissioning sarcophagi with angels or reliefs with ecclesiastical subjects for church decoration must have encountered those selecting mythological figures, and all the clientele surely were aware of the full repertoire of the workshop. Modern preconceptions notwithstanding, it seems that this did not create difficulties. As will be discussed in chapter 5, the aristocratic patrons of mythological statuettes (and of many Christian artifacts) did not find a conflict between traditional decorative art and religious practices. Workshops producing art in other media likewise show a wide range of subjects, combining biblical and mythological themes. One stylistic grouping of stone tables, Jutta Dresken-Weiland’s Cyprus group,170 comprises mythological, Christian, and hunting scenes. Interestingly, this set of tables is characterized by high polish, intricate settings using landscape elements, and softly rounded figures; Dresken-Weiland links them to the portraits in the subtle style. Some have argued that the Symmachus and Nicomachus diptychs are products of the same workshops as a classicizing diptych of the ascension of Christ now in Munich and the Trivulzio diptych, which shows the holy women at the tomb.171 Other Late Antique Mythological Statuary One characteristic of the late mythological statuettes is their exquisite craftsmanship, exemplified by the complex strutwork, delicate drilling, and high polish. There is a group of statuettes of lesser quality that nevertheless have proportions and formal traits similar to the late mythological statuettes. The Walbrook Dionysos (fig. 63) and the Dionysos from the Byzantine Fountain in Ephesos, for instance, have lacy struts and ample subsidiary figures but lack a high polish and careful details. An Aphrodite in Side and the Asklepios from the North Byzantine House in Aphrodisias (fig. 56) have attenuated builds and shallow carving for details.172 The Cybele found with the Asklepios has a broad oval face and ridged, arched brows like the late mythological statuettes, but it has more shallow, schematized carving for details. A broken statuette base found in a fourth-century house in Lepcis Magna is dated by the excavators to the late fourth or fifth century. A sleeping lion on the base has some affinities with late mythological statuettes, but the craftsmanship is cruder.173

the learned collector 132

mechanisms of transport: traders and travelers

G

iven the wide dispersal of statuettes across the empire, including its western reaches, the issue of distribution arises immediately. The city of Bordeaux represents one of the furthest distances traveled by the statuettes, as it is on not the Mediterranean coast but the Atlantic. Goods from the Mediterranean had to travel over two river systems (the Tarn and the Garonne) to reach Bordeaux. Two statuettes even traveled as far as Britain.174 Putting aside, for the moment, putative Roman branch workshops, to concentrate instead on the evidence for origins in Asia Minor, it is necessary to examine various kinds of commercial and noncommercial contact between Asia Minor and Gaul. The object of the following sections is not to prove that a specific method of transport was used but, rather, to show that many links of commerce and travel connected Gaul with the eastern reaches of the empire and that physical methods of transport were available as well. The cities on the Mediterranean shore of Gaul provide substantial evidence for contact with the eastern Mediterranean. Amphorae from Egypt and Syria-Palestine are common at sites along the Mediterranean coast and are especially well-documented in Narbonne, Arles, and Marseille.175 Some penetrated inland along the Rhône river to Lyons or up the RhôneSâone-Moselle network to Trier. In the latter city, lead seals related to import taxes name the cities of Ephesos and Tavium in Galatia.176 Western trade in Eastern amphorae seems to have started in the very late fourth century, increased over the fifth century, then ceased around the end of the seventh century.177 In the fifth century, Salvian of Marseille equated Syrians with businessmen.178 Some transport of marble to the southern shores of Gaul occurred. The sarcophagus workshops of Arles and Marseille worked in Proconnesian and Carrara marble. A ram’s-head capital in Proconnesian marble dating to the late fifth or sixth century and found in Arles attests some movement of finished marble items.179 It is also possible that Gallic quarries exported marble to Constantinople in somewhat later periods.180 François Braemer suggests, based on literary sources, that the sarcophagus of Anastasius I (491–518) was made of marble from the Pyrenees and that Aquitanian marble was also used in parts of the decoration of Hagia Sophia.181 Literary sources confirm the importance of Arles as a commercial center that collected goods from abroad, including the eastern half of the empire. In his catalogue of noble cities, Ausonius describes the “little Rome” receiving the goods of the Roman world and passing them on to

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 133

Gaul and, significantly, to Aquitania. By the second half of the fourth century, Aquitania was the name of a diocese comprising not only southwest Gaul but also the Mediterranean shore, including Provence and Languedoc; thus, Ausonius may not be referring to southwest Gaul in particular.182 Narbonne, says Ausonius, was enriched by the profits of the Eastern seas and a host of other regions.183 The Expositio totius mundi, the original draft of which dates to the mid-fourth century, refers to Arles in similar terms.184 A letter of the emperor Honorius describes Arles as abounding in the finest goods from the “wealthy orient, spicy Arabia, luxurious Assyria, fertile Africa, splendid Spain, and powerful Gaul.”185 Both archaeological and literary evidence show that the cities of the Mediterranean coast, particularly Arles, were important entrepôts for goods from abroad, including goods from the eastern Mediterranean. In southwest Gaul, by contrast, there is less contemporary archaeological evidence of contact or trade with the eastern Mediterranean. Marble revetments and mosaics from the second half of the fourth century and from the fifth century are made almost exclusively from local marbles, although a very few late villas, such as Chiragan and Nérac, had foreign marbles used in opus sectile flooring.186 Thus, the late mythological statuettes appear to have been essentially the only imported marble objects in the late fourthcentury and early fifth-century villas. A few other Eastern objects are known. A third- or fourth-century frog lamp from Alexandria was found in Bordeaux.187 A Menas ampulla, also of Egyptian origin, came from SaintMédard-d’Eyrans near Bordeaux, but it is from the fifth or sixth century and thus pertains to the Merovingian period.188 A Gazan amphora was found in the cemetery of Saint Seurin in Bordeaux, a cemetery that runs from the fifth through seventh centuries.189 This amphora, too, is perhaps slightly later than the period in question. Although Michel Bonifay and Françoise Villedieu cite Aquitaine as a likely area where future research should discover more amphorae, they acknowledge that the higher concentration of finds along the Mediterranean shore is probably an accurate finding.190 Goods may have been transported inland from Arles or other Mediterranean ports in perishable containers (barrels or skins), which do not remain in the archaeological record. As luxury items, marble statuettes could well have traveled both farther than and through different networks from other trade goods.191 Another possibility is that the statuettes traveled indirectly from Asia Minor to Gaul, through an emporium such as Rome or Carthage. Contact with both centers is well attested in Gaul, including southwest Gaul. Finewares from Italy and Africa appear at urban and rural sites, and African

the learned collector 134

amphorae appear in large quantities in Bordeaux.192 Shipwreck evidence indicates that in all periods, individual cargoes contained many different sorts of goods, and statuary was transported along with ceramics and many other kinds of goods.193 A wreck at Mateille in France, for instance, dating to 400–425, carried amphorae, iron bars, a large bronze female statue, and other bronze objects.194 The reign of the Spaniard Theodosius (379–95) occasioned movement for many people, among them Gauls. The most notable example of an internationally successful Gaul is Rufinus from Elusa, a city near the villa of Séviac. He held a series of high offices at the Eastern and Western capitals under Theodosius, shared a consulship with Arcadius in 392, and was Arcadius’s guardian and the de facto ruler of the eastern half of the empire for a short time in 395.195 During the years 388–91, when Theodosius centered his court in Milan and Rufinus was the Master of Offices, other Gauls rose to prominent positions in the East and West.196 Through the accident of a Western-born emperor with an influential Gaul at his court, Gallic aristocrats had the opportunity to hold high office and travel extensively in the empire. Other circumstances brought the opportunity of travel. It is well known that Ausonius’s successes as a rhetor brought him to a consulship and position of influence at court—albeit at Trier in northern Gaul rather than in Rome or Constantinople. Rhetoric brought opportunities for travel to others as well. In a catalogue of famous Gallic rhetors, Ausonius mostly describes their successes within Gaul, but he also names two who taught in Rome and Constantinople and one who studied in Athens.197 An Icarius, the son of a Gaul, attained the post of comes orientalis in 384–85 through his poetic talents, according to Libanius.198 Some Gallic aristocrats owned properties outside of Gaul. Paulinus of Pella inherited estates in Greece and Epirus, and the historian Eutropius had estates in Asia.199 Aristocrats from elsewhere in the empire also owned estates in Gaul, thereby increasing chances of contact. Ecclesiastical sources also document ample contact between Gaul and the East. While living in Bethlehem, Jerome corresponded with two women of Bordeaux, Hedibia and Algasia; another letter is addressed to an anonymous mother and daughter of Bordeaux.200 Bishops corresponded with one another and attended councils throughout the empire, and a fourth-century bishop of Bordeaux, Severinus, is said by Gregory of Tours to have come from the East.201 Pilgrimages became increasingly popular, and the Bordeaux Itinerary of 333 describes in detail the route from Bordeaux to the holy land, passing through Constantinople. Egeria is a wellknown pilgrim who traveled from the West (possibly from Spain) to Egypt,

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 135

Palestine, Syria, and Constantinople.202 The Menas ampulla from SaintMédard-d’Eyrans attests the continuation of pilgrimages to the East in the Merovingian period. While these ecclesiastical travelers presumably did not bring home mythological statuettes as souvenirs, their activities illustrate the ready availability of travel and Eastern contacts to the aristocracy of Gaul. Other travelers from Gaul and the West could have selected souvenirs from workshops such as that excavated in Aphrodisias, a workshop whose doors stood open onto a public square so that passersby could see its finished pieces.203 Epitaphs in Trier demonstrate the presence of Eastern Christians in that city. A group of epitaphs written in Greek specify Asian cities of origin. One provides a consular date of 409; the other inscriptions are broadly datable to the period 350–450. These tombstones stem from a group of traders; Salvian’s reference to Eastern businessmen comes to mind.204 In the midfourth century, there was frequent personal ecclesiastical contact between this court city and the East. The former bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, was exiled to Trier in 335. A bishop of Trier, Paulinus, was exiled to the East in 354 and died in Phrygia in 358.205 The Theodosian Code provides some provocative circumstantial evidence that aristocrats used the public post to transport marbles for private use. Although the public post was intended to be limited to imperial officials and possessions, private people could acquire special warrants (evectiones) to use the post, through personal connections to highly placed officials.206 A rescript of 363 from the emperor Julian to the vicar of Africa orders that “marbles [marmora] of private people should not be carried by the vehicles of the provincial administration, in order that the inheritance and wealth of the province should not be squandered on the worthless decoration of houses.”207 It is not clear whether worked or unworked marble is meant, but in either case, the rescript shows that aristocrats had a means to transport unwieldy goods over long distances. It is also significant that Julian specifies that the marbles were intended for decorating homes. The small scale of the statuettes does render them transportable, even though transportation would have been difficult due to their delicate carving and undercutting. The Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne weighs 45 kg (fig. 4).208 Literary evidence thus reveals a wide variety of noncommercial contact between Asia Minor and Gaul. It was possible for Gauls traveling in the East for personal or political reasons to purchase mythological sculptures and bring them home. The mechanism of individual travel would explain why late mythological statuettes appear in only a relatively small proportion of Gallic villas; this pattern of scattered, thin dispersion matches

the learned collector 136

J.-P. Morel’s projections for the diffusion of objects transported through individual purchase and travel “transferts d’objets.”209 The prosperity of Aquitaine was frequently stressed in contemporary writing, and references to it appear in such authors as Ammianus Marcellinus or Salvian, who criticized the luxurious, half-pagan lifestyle of the Aquitanians.210

origins and circulation of late mythological statuettes: summary

S

tylistic analysis of late mythological statuettes gives strong evidence for a date in the late fourth or early fifth century. The epigraphically dated mithraeum group from Sidon provides a valuable point of departure for comparison, and other important comparanda include such well-known monuments as the obelisk base of Theodosius and the Sarigüzel sarcophagus, as well as other relief sculptures from ecclesiastical contexts. Late mythological statuettes are characterized by oval faces with a physiognomy constructed from rounded forms, such as ridged, arched brows. Bridged drilling accentuates the hair, and drapery falls in light, calligraphic folds. Elaborate strutwork laces together complex compositions involving subsidiary figures, animals, and landscape elements. Most of the late mythological statuettes are very thin in profile and have high polish and careful workmanship only at the front. A grooved base molding appears on many statuettes. The predominance of comparanda in Asia Minor for the late mythological statuettes found in Gaul and elsewhere indicates that they must have been carved at the hands of Asian sculptors. The neck strut, generous drilling, and sensuous facial features, in particular, bespeak Asian manufacture. On current evidence, it is not possible to pinpoint a specific city of origin. Though Ephesian workshops were active in portraiture and there are some stylistic crossovers, there is little evidence to suggest that this city had a large production of mythological statuettes. In Aphrodisias, sculptors’ workshops are known not only to have flourished in late antiquity but also to have created mythological statuary such as the unfinished Europa and the bull. A head of Helios and a headless statuette featuring the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias cradled in the arms of a portrait (fig. 55) are closely comparable to late mythological statuettes. On the whole, however, Aphrodisian works have longer, leaner proportions and somewhat flatter facial features that are not seen commonly in the genre of statuettes surrounding the Venus and Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne or the Carthage Ganymede. Though few mythological statuettes have been found in the

Issues of Style, Chronology, and Origins 137

city of Constantinople, numerous relief sculptures from a variety of contexts (public, religious, and funerary) display facial features and drapery parallel to the late mythological statuettes. The statuettes fit in well with the court style of Constantinople. Parallels of varying quality for particular aspects of the late mythological statuettes thus exist at three cities in Asia Minor: Aphrodisias, Constantinople, and Ephesos. Perhaps the synthetically Asian style of the figures is the result of a migration of artisans to the capital during the massive building program of Theodosius I. Working together, undoubtedly heavily influenced by the preeminent skills of Aphrodisian masters, these hypothetical mixed crews of sculptors produced monuments such as the column and obelisk base of Theodosius in a new, synthetic style, one by-product of which was the late mythological statuettes. This scenario of a melting pot of sculptural traditions would account both for the blended style of the statuettes and for their striking similarity to certain Constantinopolitan monuments. Future marble studies may shed further illumination on the origins of the marble of particular statuettes, but the question of where they were carved and by whom is more difficult to solve, and stylistic analysis will continue to be important in this discussion. Finally, it is neither impossible nor improbable that Gallic aristocrats of the late fourth century could have imported a luxury item such as the late mythological statuettes from as far away as Asia Minor. Traders or travelers or both could account for the wide dissemination of late mythological statuettes around the Mediterranean, including to Gaul. There were a variety of motivations and opportunities for travel and a number of different mechanisms for transport. There is ample evidence both for a wealthy Aquitanian aristocracy with the means and motives for travel abroad and for the possible purchase of sculpted souvenirs showing mythological figures.

chapter five

Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux: The Social Environment of Late Mythological Statuary

T

he issues of iconography, display, style, and transport previously examined lead to the crucial question of taste: why did late mythological statuettes carry such appeal for Aquitanian landowners? The classical education system, known as paideia in the eastern empire, is the key to understanding this taste. We are fortunate to have preserved the writings of a municipal aristocrat and teacher from this very region, Ausonius of Bordeaux. Ausonius has in fact been touted as the possible owner of the renowned villa at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, with its extensive collection of late mythological statuettes. Although the question of this particular villa cannot be definitively answered at the moment, Ausonius nonetheless provides a valuable window on the pursuits and interests of his society.1 Ausonius’s letters, poetry, and speeches furnish one man’s insight into the society of late antique Aquitaine and allow us to envisage an educated class of pagans and Christians whose classical literary education had trained them to appreciate mythology in literature and art as a vital and expressive measure of their standing in society. In the first portion of this chapter, I will examine the curriculum and values of the classical education system, focusing on Ausonius in particular, as he comes from southwest Gaul, but also drawing in discussion from other sources. The steady influence of classical literary styles on literature of the fourth century supports the hypothesis of a concomitant appreciation for classicizing styles in art. The treatment of physical texts provides further circumstantial evidence for the valuing of classicizing artwork.

138

Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux 139

This chapter will then evaluate selected late antique texts discussing artwork. Because the Gallic collections contain portraits as well as mythological statues (both contemporary and heirloom), evidence for the reception of portraits will be considered as well. While this chapter will concentrate on the writings of Ausonius and other Gallic writers, the universality of the education system and the Mediterranean-wide popularity of late mythological statuettes mean that the writings of educated people from outside Gaul are relevant as well and will be drawn into the discussion. The final section of this chapter will discuss more briefly the destruction of statuary by Christians, a phenomenon that has had great resonance in popular and scholarly visions of the early Christian or late antique age. I will consider the types and locations of statuary destroyed. The Theodosian laws against worship in pagan sanctuaries will also be briefly considered.

ausonius of bordeaux, art, and education in fourth-century gaul

T

he rhetor and poet Ausonius, consul in 379, provides an important mirror of the sector within late antique Gallic society that imported and valued mythological statuary. A rhetor practicing in Bordeaux, he was summoned to court as the tutor to the young emperor Gratian. He spent the years 364–79 at the imperial court at Trier in this post. Ausonius reached the pinnacle of his career when he became consul in 379. Examination of the literature, the lifestyle, and particularly the education of this famous rhetor and poet offers revealing insight into a known contemporary of the anonymous Gallic landowners who collected and displayed late mythological statuettes. Ausonius is of particular interest because, while several of his poems have Christian content, his poetry and writings are rich in mythological allusion and anecdote.2 Ausonius recorded his appreciation of statuary and mythological iconography in his letters and poetry. He collected sculpture of different sorts in his home and wrote ecphrastic epigrams of famous statuary of the Hellenic canon, visual arts at the imperial court at Trier, and statuary in his own home. In a series of conventional epigrams on monuments of the Hellenic canon, Ausonius depicts the lifelike qualities of various famous statues, such as the Knidia of Praxiteles and the heifer of Myron. He took an interest in style, expressed mainly through an attention to verisimilitude, and in iconography, as when he carefully explains the complex imagery of Occasio (Opportunity). Ausonius had many sources from which to learn about the famous masterpieces of the past. Rhetorical handbooks used artistic

the learned collector 140

parallels to illustrate concepts and methods. His particular choice of epigrams suggests that he was reading an anthology of Greek epigrams that was evidently circulating in Gaul and Italy at the time.3 He borrowed a copy of Pliny’s Natural History from Symmachus and therefore presumably read the art historical sections of this volume.4 Other poems describe artwork that adorned the imperial residence at Trier, such as a statue of Valentinian and a painting of Gratian at a lion hunt. A painting of the torment of Cupid by women disappointed in love seems to have caught his eye precisely for its complex and scholarly iconography.5 Describing this painting, Ausonius identifies all the participants, showing off his detailed knowledge of the mythological events of classical literature. His descriptions and analysis of the gestures and expressions of anger or grief demonstrate an interest in both the technique and the erudition of the painting.6 Finally, Ausonius explicitly recounts statuary in his own home with a poem about the many regional names for a statue of Liber Pater and alludes to the attributes that reflect each name.7 The interest in attributes again reveals a keen interest in iconographic detail. Another short epigram addressing the goddess Venus may also refer to a statue.8 In addition to direct reactions to artworks, Ausonius provides a good description of the educational curriculum. Laying out a syllabus for his infant grandson, Paulinus of Pella, he recommends Homer, Menander, Valerius Flaccus, Virgil, Terence, Cicero, and Sallust, among others.9 A child first encountered these authors when learning to read, and their works would continue to be important at all phases of a child’s education. As a grown man, Paulinus recalled his study of Homer, Virgil, and Socrates.10 Learning by rote was stressed, with the result that educated persons were extremely familiar with long passages drawn from classical authors.11 The Saturnalia, Macrobius’s rather rambling compendium of Virgilian criticism, analysis of mythology, and natural science, is dedicated to his son, so that it would be useful in his education.12 An integral part of the study of the classics was an understanding of the mythological references, and a well-educated person was expected to embellish his writing with mythological allusions of his own.13 A visual example of such expertise appears in a fourth-century mosaic at a villa at Vinon in the Narbonnaise, where the owner displayed superb command of iconographic subtlety and a noncanonical author. A panel of the three Graces and a Dionysiac scene provide a context for an epigram from Martial that greeted the visitor.14 Patrons who knew so well the mythological subtleties of classical and contemporary literature would presumably have understood and appreciated the icono-

Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux 141

graphic detail of such late mythological statuettes as the Venus and Adonis from Montmaurin or the sleeping Ariadne of Chiragan. This is not to say that only an educated individual would have recognized mythological scenes or taken an interest in them. The Greco-Roman pantheon and its mythology provided a language that crossed classes and regions. However, an elite education further encircled this core bank of imagery with a complex network of allusions, literary references, and artistic commentary inaccessible to the less educated. Individuals who did not really share this education or had not mastered it well evidently felt, nevertheless, that the pretension of a literate education was a valuable indicator of status, as we may interpret from misinterpreted mythological scenes and literary quotes.15 Visitors to a house would doubtless have interpreted mythological statuary in varying ways depending on their background.16 They would have recognized that marble statuary in itself was expensive (the more so if they realized it was imported). Most would recognize the divinities or scenes. These might be seen as a religious reference; as an allegorical symbol for such pleasures as hunting or feasting; or, less intellectually, as a symbol of refined taste, without further meaning. Those with more exposure to classical literature, who may well have also received more intimate access to the patron’s artwork, might muse about allegorical interpretations or iconographic subtleties and subversions. Familiarity with art historical criticism and the canon of famous artists derived through rhetorical training or from reading Pliny the Elder could provoke reflection on style or antecedents.

the study of rhetoric, east and west

H

igher education consisted of the study of rhetoric, that is, public speaking and argumentation. Virgil continued to be important, as students first learned to paraphrase speeches from the Aeneid; this phase of rhetorical education was even called the locus Virgilianus (Virgilian phase). The next phase involved writing speeches appropriate for selected figures in historical and mythological narratives. The writings of Ennodius, an early sixth-century writer who originated in Gaul and later became bishop of Pavia, contain a number of examples of these set pieces, or dictiones. His dictiones indeed concern mythological scenarios and implausible historical dilemmas. While the classical roots of these speeches are utterly evident, Ennodius brings some contemporary interests to bear, such as anxiety about sworn virginity.17 These speeches provide a good example of tradi-

the learned collector 142

tional subjects turned to contemporary concerns, much the way new iconographic emphases appear in some of the late mythological statuettes. The textbooks for rhetoric in late antiquity continued to be Quintilian and Cicero, who stressed the use of mythological exempla.18 These same writers also evoked a system of using the layout of a house as a memory aid when memorizing a long series of arguments, forming another mental link between home decor and education.19 Ausonius praised a fellow rhetor as “another Quintilian,” and Jerome observed that the Gaul Hilary of Poitiers imitated Quintilian’s style and arrangement of books.20 The Gallic panegyricist Pacatus, addressing the devoutly Christian Theodosius in 388, used mythological comparisons to heighten the drama of crucial moments. These comparisons do not reflect the religious outlooks of speaker or listener so much as the demands of the genre.21 At all levels of education, then, the student learned to respect and value mythology. Education was a mark not just of high social status but also of Romanitas; in a letter of recommendation, Symmachus writes, “My comrade Hyperechius has been Roman for a long time on account of his education.”22 Elsewhere, he praised a protégé as being versed in “all the good arts.”23 The handbooks by Cicero and Quintilian explained many rhetorical concepts—particularly concerning the imitation of earlier writers—by using the visual arts as a metaphor, an approach that reinforces the validity of surmising attitudes toward art by analogy to literature. These parallels between art and literature expressed by Quintilian and Cicero must have influenced their late antique readers and made them view classical art and literature as somehow similar and both worthy of appreciation.24 Moreover, because fourth-century orators were still reading these rhetorical handbooks, they must have absorbed admiration for certain artistic techniques along with rhetorical precepts. If nothing else, sources such as these would have made students aware of many past masterpieces. Indeed, rhetoricians continued to make use of very visual tableaux and comparisons or allusions to famous works of art. In a speech delivered at Trier, Symmachus said of Gratian’s ceremonial reception of the title Augustus that if some Zeuxis or imitator of Apelles were to paint the scene in encaustic, it would be a source of marvel for generations to come.25 Rhetoric prepared a student for the law courts or imperial service, offering the potential for great social and physical mobility, of which Ausonius himself, consul in 379, is the most outstanding example.26 In his speech of thanksgiving to Gratian for the consulship, Ausonius makes a few Homeric references, but most of his allusions and comparisons are to historical, rather than mythological, figures.27

Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux 143

The cities of Gaul, including Bordeaux, Autun, and others, were renowned through the fourth century for their schools of rhetoric, which produced most of the authors in the extant Latin Panegyrics, including Pacatus.28 Ausonius’s series of poems commemorating famous teachers from Bordeaux and other cities of Aquitania and Narbonensis demonstrates that traditional education was thriving and important in all the urban centers of southwest Gaul. It is likely, therefore, that many of the landowners of the region had had at least a grammatical education, if not a rhetorical education as well, in one of the many available schools. Whatever their religion, they would thus have absorbed the literary knowledge and respect for traditional classics that was the underpinning of a Roman education. Respect for the texts and literature of antiquity would have led naturally to a parallel interest in mythological imagery in visual arts.29 We may imagine, for instance, that such educated patrons would have enjoyed enhancing the status of their favorite pastime, hunting, through the prominent display of statuettes of divine or heroic hunters, such as the Diana of Saint-Georgesde-Montagne or the Meleager-Helios in Milan (figs. 4, 50). The same classicizing educational system prevailed outside Gaul in the rest of the Latin West and in the Greek East, where it was known as paideia. Peter Brown describes a rhetorical education as “the patient re-creation . . . of the ‘collective memory’ of the urban upper-class.”30 He has analyzed how an expensive rhetorical education both justified and perpetuated the high status of aristocrats by maintaining social distance between different classes. It provided a set of consistent behaviors, common readings, and shared allusions that acted as a means of communication and source of unity for aristocrats of different regions. The elite used self-consciously archaizing language in writings, inscriptions, and even speeches to be delivered before peers. Again, this taste for archaizing (often, more specifically, classicizing) literary style would arguably foster a similar classicizing taste in artwork.31 Indeed, we have seen already in chapter 4 that Asia Minor in the Greek East was a major locus of manufacture for classicizing mythological statuary. Parts of two treatises in Greek on rhetorical method dating to the late third or early fourth century have survived to the present day. Later authors ascribed the treatises to a sophist named Menander from Laodicea-on-theLycus. D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson argue that the two extant sections of text must have belonged to different treatises and were probably written by two different authors.32 However, the ascription to Menander Rhetor is conventional and will be used here for convenience. The two surviving treatises give detailed outlines and instructions for speeches at a wide vari-

the learned collector 144

ety of occasions, both public and private. The first treatise focuses on encomiums of cities and landscapes, while the second one covers praise for emperors and speeches for more commonplace events, such as weddings, birthdays, and departures. Mythological and literary references are important in all the categories of speech. Extant oratory of the fourth century often (but not always) follows the guidelines for structure and content laid out by Menander, though the treatises are not mentioned by name in any fourth-century source.33 By the sixth century A.D., they were recognized as an indispensable guide to speech writing, and they remained so throughout Byzantine times.34 Overall, in the treatises of Menander Rhetor, we see the same intertwining of paideia, rhetoric, status, and classical mythology in the Greek East as we have seen in the Latin West. A closer examination of Menander Rhetor’s advice for one category of speech, the epithalamium (wedding speech), illustrates the interdependence of rhetoric, art, and mythology.35 For the introduction (proemia), Menander recommends “pleasing thoughts appropriate to the subject; if not, at least pretty and charming words—alcoves, hymen, marriage, Aphrodite, cupids—so that they may be both suitable to the subject and highly pleasing to the audience.”36 He then advocates a (highly mythological) discussion of the origins of marriage, followed by an encomium of the bridal pair and an invocation of the bridal chamber. Here he instructs, “You must mention the Graces, Aphrodite, and shortly after, Artemis the goddess of childbirth . . .”37 Aphrodite, cupids, and alcoves are indeed a commonplace in surviving late antique epithalamia, including ones dedicated to Christian recipients. Ausonius, for instance, describes a bride as “Venus’s most lawful charge.”38 Claudian’s epithalamium for Honorius and Maria has an extended conceit of Venus beautifying herself and the bride, accompanied by cupids and a host of marine creatures.39 Evidently, the Christian recipients, Honorius and Maria (not to mention Stilicho and Serena) found this imagery appropriate for a wedding. The imagery in this poem, of Venus accompanied and adorned by sea creatures and erotes, corresponds not only with the popular mosaic theme of the marine Venus but also with the Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (fig. 7). Sidonius likewise describes a marine procession for Venus in an epithalamium.40 A sixth-century epithalamium preserved on a papyrus from Egypt used mythological allusions liberally, comparing the bride to Helen and referring to Menelaus, Tyndareus, and Bellerophon.41 Other epithalamia employing mythological imagery, including several from Gaul, extend right through the sixth century A.D., and most are dedicated to Christian recipients. Paulinus of Nola provides a marked exception in stating explicitly that he will not use Venus imagery

Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux 145

in his Christian epithalamium.42 His need to specify this absence only illustrates how traditional and accepted imagery of Venus really was.

christianity and education

T

he universality of the traditional Roman education system cannot be overstressed; it served pagans and Christians alike.43 All the Gallic Christian writers of the fourth and fifth centuries were educated thus, including Ausonius’s Gallic-born student Paulinus of Nola, who later became an ascetic, and the fifth-century bishop Sidonius Apollinaris. Examples of note elsewhere in the empire include the empress Eudocia, who wrote the life of Saint Cyprian in hexameters; Prudentius, who exploited his classical education in writing lives of the martyrs and a tract against Symmachus; and Augustine himself.44 It was only much later that a biblical curriculum replaced the classical one.45 While lay Christians do not seem to have found a conflict between the “pagan” content of classical literature and their Christian faith, some professional Christians, ascetics or bishops, did. Paulinus of Nola, for instance, insisted to Ausonius, “A heart dedicated to Christ denies the Camenae [Muses] and does not lie open to Apollo.” Later, he criticized Ausonius’s efforts to rekindle his former interest in literature: “Shall I believe that I ought to be recalled by you, when you pour out empty prayers, not to things divine, but as a suppliant to the Castalian Muses who turn their faces away. You will not lead me back to yourself and my homeland through these spirits.”46 The dichotomy that so vexed Paulinus was one that Ausonius could never grasp. Sidonius decided that he must lay aside writing secular literature when he became bishop of Clermont: “But in the first place, I especially renounced this exercise of verse-writing from the very beginning of my religious profession because undoubtedly it might be a concession to weakness if I occupied my self with the levity of versewriting when seriousness of action had become my duty.”47 Jerome, too, found a conflict between his love for classical literature and his devotion to God. In a famous dream, he imagined God condemning him as a Ciceronian, not a Christian, for classical literature was the treasure (thesauron) in his heart. Eventually his response to this dilemma was an acknowledgment of the value of a traditional education, so long as one did not retain or revel in the pagan aspects of the literature.48 In the Confessions, Augustine reflects on how he succumbed to and later repudiated the false allure of classical literature, but, in fact, his intellectual (and stylistic) engagement with Virgil was lifelong.49

the learned collector 146

Once again, it is important to remember that Paulinus, Sidonius, and Jerome were all “professional” Christians, in the sense that they had chosen careers within the church as ascetics or bishops. They were thus a select class in the highest echelons of the Christian hierarchy, and their opinions on ancient literature and art reflect their professional bias.50 There is much less indication that lay Christians found such great difficulty in accommodating their traditional Roman heritage, and Ausonius, in fact, provides solid evidence to the contrary.51 Others tried deliberately, if rather self-consciously, to apply classical styles and forms to scriptural material. Perhaps the best example of this trend is the cento of Faltonia Betitia Proba, a poem about biblical events and constructed from lines of Virgil.52 Significantly, she dedicated this poem to an unnamed emperor for use in the education of his children. The early fifth-century empress Eudocia drew from Homeric lines to write a cento of the Passion of Christ. Again, we see the solidly classical basis for education and the importance for the upper classes of understanding classical texts.

classical texts in late antiquity

L

ike statuary and other visual media, texts were a physical manifestation of classical literature and culture. It is therefore instructive to consider the treatment of physical texts in the later fourth century as a possible corollary to the treatment and appreciation of statuary. Aristocrats continued to copy and circulate texts. Ausonius, for instance, had copies made of Aesop’s fables and Nepos’s Chronicles for a friend to use in his son’s education, and Sidonius copied the Life of Apollonius of Tyana for a correspondent.53 The earliest preserved manuscripts of Virgil, the lavishly illustrated Virgilius Vaticanus and the Virgilius Romanus, date to the late fourth or early fifth century.54 Aristocrats and scholars edited classical texts as well, as subscriptions by the Nicomachi on the manuscripts of Livy show.55 Some editors compiled collections of earlier literature; Alan Cameron argues for the compilation of an anthology of Greek epigrams ca. A.D. 400. He further argues that this anthology must have been circulating in both Gaul and Italy, where it inspired Ausonius and the authors of the Epigrammata Bobiensia to translate Greek epigrams and compose their own.56 Last, scholars of the late fourth and early fifth centuries produced several learned commentaries on ancient works, most notably Servius’s commentary on Virgil and Aelius Donatus’s commentaries on Virgil and Terence.57

Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux 147

The copying, editing, illuminating, and learned study of classical texts in late antiquity provide ample evidence of interest in the physical preservation of traditional Roman culture. This is circumstantial evidence that other physical aspects of Roman culture, such as the statuary heirlooms in the Gallic assemblage under study here, were similarly respected and cared for. Moreover, they may have inspired new creations, just as works of classical literature influenced and inspired late antique writings.

classicizing styles in literature

C

lassicizing styles were much admired and widely practiced in both pagan and Christian literary circles.58 Esteem for retrospective styles in literature suggests that a classicizing style in art, including statuary, could have received similar approbation. Late antique writers intentionally used elements of classical style to create quite different effects from those sought by earlier writers, as Michael Roberts makes clear.59 Such manipulation and reworking of classical styles, types, and formats also aptly describes the late mythological statuettes. Ausonius was strongly influenced by the style and content of earlier writers, including Horace and Virgil.60 He translated Greek epigrams and composed his own under their inspiration. That Ausonius was not unique in Aquitaine in his retrospective style and interests is illustrated by two inscriptions, one associated with the well-appointed villa of Valentine (close to Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges and Montmaurin), the other from Saint-Sever (Landes). The inscription from Valentine was an epitaph written and dedicated to Nymfius by his wife, Serena. The poem is couched in hexameters and contains various Virgilian reminiscences. The classical style and ambiguous language of the poem have led to a continuing debate over Nymfius’s religion; whatever it was, the poem is another reminder of the classical education of rural Gallic aristocrats.61 A verse inscription found in Saint-Sever describes a fountain and praises the euergetism of the benefactor (a Rutilius or Rutilus) who built it. This poem, too, takes Virgil and Ovid as general models, but it is even more closely linked to certain poems in the Latin Anthology.62 Still another example of retrospective literature composed in late antique Gaul is the Querolus, an early fifth-century drama written in the manner of Plautus.63 The people who emulated classical turns of phrase in their own writing probably also esteemed a classicizing style in sculpture. Christian writers likewise often wrote in a classicizing, literary style, as seen in two Gallic writers, Paulinus of Nola and the priest Eutropius of

the learned collector 148

Aquitaine.64 Sidonius describes Christian and pagan literature shelved together in the library at a friend’s villa and notes that some of the authors had a similar style, even though their doctrine and subjects differ. He especially links Augustine with Varro, Horace with Prudentius.65 The classicizing styles of Augustine and Prudentius themselves, along with numerous other patristic writers of the time, have been well documented.66 Clearly, then, a classicizing style remained important as a reflection of a proper education and as a vehicle for expression in writing. I submit that such appreciation for and selective emulation of classicizing literary styles may well have fostered a concomitant appreciation for classicizing contemporary artwork, such as late mythological statuettes. Thus, in looking at the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, patrons may have appreciated the delicately rippling folds of her tunic, the careful modeling over her abdomen, and her remote, serene facial expression as aspects of her classicizing style (fig. 4). This statuette also evoked earlier prototypes, another aspect of its classicism.

mythological statuary in literature: the late antique setting

S

tatuary is the subject of several of Ausonius’s epigrams, most of which are translations or adaptations of Greek epigrams about famous pieces, such as the heifer of Myron or the Knidia of Praxiteles.67 In these poems, the primary theme is the verisimilitude of the statuary—a traditional topos—or occasionally an explanation of the iconography, as with a statue of Kairos by Pheidias. Ausonius, then, shows an intellectual interest in the expressive power of art as well as in the subtle details that convey the nature of a divinity or hero. Only one seven-line poem plainly deals with a real mythological statue, an epigram dedicated to “a marble statue, located in my villa, of Liber Pater with attributes of all the gods.”68 The poem lists different regional names for Liber Pater, ending with the statement that at Lucaniacus (his villa), they call the god Pantheus. In addition to simply corroborating the existence of decorative sculpture in Gallic villas, this poem also documents interest in iconography through the mention of attributes (argumenta) in the heading and through the list of different manifestations of Liber Pater.69 Ausonius had a portrait of his father in his home and placed a verse epitaph underneath it to acquaint the viewer with his father’s upstanding character and worldly achievements, displaying once again a belief that statuary could represent specific meanings.70 Like other aristocrats of his day, Ausonius collected diverse types of sculpture to express

Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux 149

different meanings. He shows interest in artistic narrative in his enthusiastic description of a painting at Trier of Cupid tortured by crowds of women unlucky in love.71 With his taste for symbolism, subtle but meaningful details, and narrative scenes, Ausonius would have appreciated the detailed iconography and narrative vignettes of the late mythological statuettes. The short fifth-century play Querolus may provide circumstantial evidence for interest in mythological statuary. One of the characters in the play is the household Lar (tutelary divinity), who seems to be envisioned as an animated statue; Querolus describes him as “half-naked and white . . . gleaming all over his body.”72 The evocation of a highly polished white statue is a suggestively appropriate description for the late mythological statuettes, one of which perhaps inspired the anonymous dramatist’s description.73 The dedication of the play tells the patron that it is for conversation at the table, a description that suggests that the short play may have been performed as entertainment at a banquet.74 As discussed in chapter 3, triclinia would have been appropriate places for statuary decoration, and the animate Lar of the Querolus would have fit well into an environment already populated by inanimate statuary. There is some other evidence that educated persons were still expected to and did appreciate statuary. Symmachus recommended his protégé Barachus to Ausonius with the assurance that he was genuinely well educated because he knew how and why to admire such masterpieces as the Olympian Zeus of Pheidias or the heifer of Myron.75 The late fifth-century historian Zosimus linked education and art appreciation, reporting that after a fire in Constantinople in 404, the survival of certain statues “gave solace to the ‘more cultivated.’ “76 In Rome, inscriptions record that certain city magistrates restored ancient statuary and moved it to more prominent public locales.77 When the wealthy Roman aristocrats Melania and Pinian turned to a life of asceticism and shed their worldly goods in the early fifth century, they gave valuable statues to the emperor’s mother-in-law, Serena.78 The wording for the statuary is vague in the Greek (poluvtimoi mavrmaroi), but it seems likely that it refers to the mythological statuary that traditionally graced the homes of Rome’s wealthiest citizens. If this is so, it is worth noting that Melania and Pinian evidently got rid of the statuary not because they found the subject matter offensive but as part of a program of asceticism. It is also important to note that the devoutly Christian Serena was willing to accept this statuary as a gift. As we shall see, Lausos, the grand chamberlain of Theodosius II, commissioned both a religious history (the Lausiac history) and a glamorous assemblage of famous Greek statuary.79

the learned collector 150

The account of the gift of statuary from Melania to Serena leads us to ask to what extent women may have been the patrons or audience of statuary decoration in late antiquity. A granddaughter of Theodosius I named Marina apparently decorated her private baths in Constantinople with statuary as well as mosaics of mythological scenes.80 As part of the audience for statuary, some elite women would have had the lens provided by literary education.81 Examples of women with a literary education include Proba and Eudocia, who respectively wrote Vergilian and Homeric centos, and the Gallic aristocrat Serena, who wrote a verse epitaph with Virgilian references, dedicated to her husband, Nymfius.

other statuary in a late antique setting: portraits

A

s we have seen in Gaul and elsewhere in the empire, late mythological statuettes were displayed in conjunction with other kinds of statuary, including portraits. Some portraits were contemporary; many were antiques. In classical Roman times, portraits played different roles in different contexts: they commemorated benefactors in public places, marked tombs, and, in a domestic setting, reminded visitors and family members alike of the achievements of ancestors. All these functions continued— albeit sometimes modified—in late antiquity. Although the emperor had long monopolized certain kinds of public benefactions, consuls could celebrate their sanctioned giving of games with statues, such as the portraits of an older and younger man holding a mappa that are found in or near the socalled Minerva Medica.82 Portraits of civic magistrates appeared in public places, as, for instance, in Corinth, Aphrodisias, and Ostia. Benefactors of buildings, such as Scholastikia in Ephesos, reminded viewers of their generosity through statuary. Portraiture continued in use in domestic settings as well, as we have already seen in the Gallic villas, most spectacularly at Chiragan. Villas elsewhere in the empire usually possessed portraits. Domestic contexts could also be the venue for representations of famous historical figures or philosophers, as, most famously, in the tondi in the Atrium House at Aphrodisias. A number of written sources use the term imago in referring to portraits in homes, but it is not always clear what medium is meant.83 In the time of Pliny, imago, with different qualifiers or in different contexts, could refer to wax masks of ancestors, painted portraits, or portraits in plastic media.84 Certain passages clearly refer to painted portraits. Symmachus junior and senior use the terms pictura (painting) and imago interchangeably to

Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux 151

describe ancestor portraits belonging to a friend, Septimius Acindynus.85 Naucellius designates a portrait of himself as an imago, then describes it in such a way that it is clearly painted. Sidonius refers to togate imagines of ancestors to stress a friend’s senatorial roots.86 In this case, the reference to togas seems to imply actual statuary in the friend’s home. Such portraits retained their significance as markers of status and signifiers of ancestral accomplishment. The Gallic writer Rusticus refers to portraits (effigies) of orators and poets that he saw as a boy in a private library.87 Each portrait had a descriptive epigram mounted underneath it. These portraits were polychrome and probably two-dimensional, but Rusticus seems unsure of the medium, describing them as “likenesses expressed and fashioned in little stones or in wax of different colours.”88 Rusticus does not use the word imago. In a few instances, it is clear that wax masks evoking the republican tradition are meant. Thus, Prudentius refers to ancestor portraits in bronze and wax as part of a characterization of senators.89 An epigram of Ausonius refers to family trees with wax portraits placed by a pretentious aristocrat in the entryway and atrium of his house.90 Writing in the early fifth century, Boethius evokes the discolored hue of smoke-stained imagines.91 What responses did portraiture arouse in the late antique viewer? Ausonius’s Epicedion in patrem—inscribed under an image (imago) of his father, Iulius Ausonius—provides insight into this question. The poem, which does not reveal the medium of the portrait, combines reverence, biography, and morals as elements of its meaning. Ausonius claims somewhat disingenuously that the poem does not praise his father but, rather, describes him and expresses a son’s devotion in a fashion that ought to move and inspire both fathers and sons among his audience. Ausonius displays an almost religious reverence for his father: “I always revered my father next to God.”92 The father-son relationship is particularly stressed as the vehicle for reverence in this poem, but reverence is not depicted as an unusual response to portraiture. Ausonius’s fervency and quasi-religious language heighten this element. The first section of the poem provides the biographical element, emphasizing Iulius Ausonius’s virtus and achievements, while also working in ample reference to Ausonius’s own accomplishments. This part of the poem then corresponds to the biographical role played by republican imagines. Later in the poem, Ausonius goes on to describe his father’s moral standards, recounting details of his moderate lifestyle, including a traditional reference to the long concors of his marriage. Ausonius’s emphasis on such nebulous, nonpublic virtues as temperance and moderation may in fact be intended to draw attention away from the

the learned collector 152

paucity of public achievements to laud; this was a well established rhetorical technique.93 A portrait thus evoked reverence, biography, and morals— probably differently for different audiences. Every viewer is supposed to be inspired by the public achievements and high moral standards of Iulius Ausonius, while reverence is a sentiment most appropriate for family members. Presumably, heirloom portraits, many of which decorated Gallic villas in late antiquity, would have been viewed through a similar lens. Other writers record similar responses to portraits and allow us to further articulate these responses.94 All viewers were expected to recognize a portrait’s biographical and moral elements. Along with the admiration Ausonius expresses, portraits were supposed to inspire a competitive spirit in doing public works. Thus, in an official letter requesting a statue (statua) for Praetextatus, Symmachus talks about the importance of public statuary in inspiring viewers to rivalry in great deeds.95 Visiting a friend at Baulae, Symmachus composed a short poem inspired by three painted portraits (picturae) on display, including one of his host.96 This poem emphasizes biographical elements and notes that the portrait of the host shows him in the garb not of his highest public office but of the previous one. Symmachus and his father embarked on a project of writing epigrams modeled on Varro’s Hebdomades to go with portraits of famous men of their own age, again stressing the biographical and moral elements.97 While it is not clear that the Symmachi intended to display these epigrams with actual artworks, their recurring themes of public accomplishments, moral rectitude, and respect mirror Ausonius’s Epicedion. The prominent position of the father-son correspondence on the topic of portraits—at the very beginning of Symmachus’s published letters—reflects the writer’s reverence toward his father. Their leading position underscores the filial duty and family ties that such a topic evoked. A generation later, Rutilius Namatianus reported seeing a statue of his father in the forum of Pisa.98 His description of the statue focuses on his father’s achievements, that is, on the biographical element of the statue. No doubt, these aspects of the portrait were evident to all viewers. Rutilius’s own reaction to the “portrait of his hallowed ancestor” [sancti genitoris imago] (de reditu suo 1.575) expresses the same filial reverence as Ausonius’s invocation. He tells us that the statue moved him to tears. The Roman aristocrat Naucellius, a contemporary of Symmachus, wrote several short poems about portraits (imagines) of himself, mostly expressing conventional sentiments about verisimilitude and aging.99 These poems do not make biographical associations for the portraits; in fact, one poem tells us that we must read Naucellius’s poetry to learn his charac-

Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux 153

ter.100 In another, he describes an unassuming lifestyle not unlike what Ausonius ascribes to his father.101

education, taste, and the creation of statuary assemblages

T

he traditional classical education system created an intellectual background and set of values that made it natural to appreciate mythological statuary. It also provided all the necessary tools for its students to understand and admire the style, iconography, and display of late mythological statuettes. We have already seen how Ausonius used some of these tools in looking at attributes, iconography, and narrative scenes. The education system can also assist us in understanding the catholic taste of the late antique aristocrat, as seen not only in the six southwestern Gallic villas analyzed in chapter 3 but also in an imperial villa in northern Gaul, at Welschbillig near Trier. The decorative scheme at Welschbillig is perhaps the most concrete physical evidence for the influence of the educational system on the artistic taste of pagan and Christian aristocrats. The decorative highlight of the villa is a balustrade of one hundred herms encircling a pool that is 58 m long. Henning Wrede has concluded from stylistic analysis that while the villa is a Valentinianic establishment, the herm balustrade dates late in the reign of Gratian (367–83).102 The herms include divinities, mythological figures, heroes, emperors, historical figures, thinkers, writers, barbarians, and many unknown portraits, thus covering an expansive spectrum similar to that of the Gallic ensembles and other contemporary collections. Although the subjects are drawn from a variety of sculptural genres and prototypes and carry individual, separate meanings, all these diverse figures are equalized by their identical presentation in the format of herms. Such equality suggests that in late antiquity, different sculptural genres could combine to express a single meaning. Wrede argues convincingly that all the herms together represented Gratian’s cultural heritage from the “ancient world” and so expressed his educational ideal (Bildungsideal).103 Significantly, Gratian’s tutor and early advisor was none other than the Bordelais rhetor Ausonius, who must have been influential in forming the young emperor’s educational ideal. A classical education thus enabled a patron to appreciate the merits and meanings of individual statuettes, while at the same time viewing mythological statuettes, on the one hand, and sculptures representing such themes as imperial glory, individual achievement, or literary culture, on the other, as a har-

the learned collector 154

monious whole representing the foundations of the living Roman tradition and the many virtues that had combined to create it.104 Half a century earlier, the emperor Constantine decorated the lavish Baths of Zeuxippos (dedicated in 330) with statuary of gods and demigods, mythological figures, and historical personages. The portraits included poets, philosophers, statesmen, and generals, mostly dating from the era of classical Greece (the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.)—although some Roman figures, such as Virgil and Julius Caesar, also appeared. Sarah Guberti Bassett argues that this varied collection represented the legacy of Greece and Rome as the foundations of Constantinople and the embodiment of paideia.105 Paideia, she argues, established the authority for Constantinople and Constantine to rule the empire. In Greece, enigmatic stained-glass panels found at Kenchreai near Corinth combine genres of imagery in a similar fashion.106 Difficult circumstances of excavation and conservation mean that only a small portion of the original series survives. Four preserved panels have human figures on them, two men in consular regalia and four sages (three with labels— Homer, Plato, and Theophrastos). Six show divinities (only the feet or lower drapery is preserved of these figures). All the divine figures are shown flanked by columns. Two that hover over a pedestal with fluttering drapery may be Nikes. It is possible that some landscape is shown around these figures; if so, it parallels the late antique taste for landscape elements that we have already seen in late mythological statuettes. The sages and the divinities are shown as statues standing on bases, reflecting continuing interest in that medium. While the consulars are not shown explicitly as statues, the specificity of their office suggests that they were viewed in some way as portraits. Thus, this fourth-century program of decorations combines divinities, philosophers/sages, and possible portraits of contemporary figures. As at Welschbillig, the patron evidently found that these subjects went together well to illustrate a life of contemplation, good taste, and high status. A statuary collection created in Constantinople in the early fifth century and known to us only through later Byzantine chroniclers may show a shifting interpretation of ancient art.107 A high court official named Lausos, who is also known as the patron of a religious history of Egyptian desert saints, assembled a dozen celebrated Greek masterpieces by famous artists, along with various statues of exotic, mythical, or hybrid animals. Most of the Greek masterpieces were cult and votive statues from famous Greek sanctuaries, such as the Zeus of Olympia (apparently the original, as it is described as being in ivory) and the Knidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles (specified as being

Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux 155

carved from marble). A personification of Kairos also appeared. These statues were evidently displayed in public, quite possibly in porticoes along a major road through the city.108 Guberti Bassett argues that this display of sculpture emphasized the high aesthetic merits of these statues, while at the same time exposing their lack of credibility as religious items. After all, a viewer admiring the artist’s skill in making these works would surely be reminded of their status as human-made, not divine, objects. Bassett also situates this display in the long tradition of displaying captured artwork as booty—this time, booty from a war between Christianity and paganism. With religious claims for the statuary discredited, the aesthetic value could be appreciated all the more purely. Prudentius makes a similar call for appreciating statuary as art once it is cleansed of sacrifice and worship.109 Although this interpretation attributes some Christian interpretations to the statuary collection, it allows for a nonreligious appreciation of artistic merit.

negative responses to statuary in late antique gaul: saint martin of tours

T

hus far, I have focused on the writings of Ausonius and others of similar education and social standing. It is important to recognize, however, that other literary sources within Gaul itself and elsewhere in the empire preserve evidence of vastly different responses to mythological statuary, responses that reflect ongoing social changes and tensions. Saint Martin of Tours, Ausonius’s younger, unlettered contemporary, had a very different reaction to statuary, recorded vividly in the Life of Saint Martin by Sulpicius Severus. Conscripted into the army as a teenager, Martin converted to Christianity and became an ascetic, eventually leaving the army. After years of ascetic life at Tours, Poitiers, and Milan, he became bishop of Tours in 371. Sulpicius Severus approvingly records his frequent attacks on pagan sanctuaries and relates three attacks specifically on statuary. In one case, a landowner named Refrigerius was finding it impossible to destroy a “column of enormous size, on which stood an idol,” but Martin’s prayers brought down a thunderbolt from the sky and reduced the statue to dust.110 The monument was undoubtedly a Jupiter-giant column like the one that existed at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne. In this view of statuary, there is little concern for iconography and none for artistic merit, and it was the religious function of the sculptures that so offended Saint Martin. The statues destroyed by Martin are described simply as idols, often without reference to their specific identity. Elsewhere, Sulpicius Severus does specify Mer-

the learned collector 156

cury, Jupiter, Venus, and Minerva as the demons who taunted Martin. These names may reflect common statuary.111 The destroyed statuary recorded by Sulpicius was located in rural sanctuaries, some of which were located on estates. Viewing the situation only through the lens of ecclesiastical writers, such as Sulpicius, and ignoring the sanctuary setting of destroyed sculpture, one would indeed be tempted to interpret the possession of late mythological statuettes as irreconcilable with Christian faith and even as part of a deliberate reaction against Christianity. Though contemporaries, Ausonius and Martin personify contrasting outlooks to the value of art. Both acknowledged the power of art, but their moral opinion of its value and its power for good and evil differed. Their educational backgrounds varied as widely as their outlook toward artwork, not coincidentally.112 Ausonius provides an appropriate and accurate mirror of the sector within late antique Gallic society that imported and appreciated mythological statuary. Nevertheless, the actions of Saint Martin and others like him remind us that another element of late antique society was hostile to statuary. The remainder of this chapter will briefly consider aspects of the destruction of statuary recorded in ancient sources and the antipagan legislation of Theodosius. These events also provide an important context for late mythological statuary.

destruction of statuary

M

odern perceptions of early Christian times (including the fourth century) are of orgies of destruction of artwork. Indeed, ecclesiastical and hagiographic sources of the fourth century and later revel in reporting the obliteration of statuary.113 Non-Christian sources, such as Libanius, likewise ruefully confirm the demolition of statuary. However, these accounts nearly all focus on statuary in sanctuaries or statuary that was otherwise receiving worship.114 This is the case for the episodes from the life of Martin, for instance. We hear about the destruction of temples, sanctuaries, shrines, and cult statues. Some instances, such as the destruction in 391 of the Serapeum in Alexandria, were carried out by mobs of citizens and monks. Other destructions were encouraged by high officials, evidently with tacit imperial sanction. Maternus Cynegius, praetorian prefect of the East in 384–88, zealously destroyed numerous temples in Syria and Egypt, aided by groups of fanatical monks.115 Only rarely are houses drawn into the discussion, as when statuary from the sanctuary of Isis in Memphis was hidden behind a false wall in a house;116 monks searched out the statuary and destroyed it. This episode, too, concerns statuary for worship rather

Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux 157

than domestic decoration. Archaeological evidence certainly reflects the destruction or condemnation of statuary, but again the clearest examples all pertain to statuary from sanctuaries or otherwise used in worship. It is clear, then, that the late fourth century saw religiously motivated destruction of statuary, but these destructions were aimed primarily at statuary used in sanctuaries and in worship. Prudentius asserts that a distinction could be made between statues that were part of worship and those that were not. In the Contra Symmachum, he urges his listeners to cleanse statues: “Let the statues, the work of great artists, stand clean: let them be our country’s loveliest ornament, and let no tainted usage steep the monuments of converted art in sin.”117 Elsewhere he implies that statues now used as idols (quae nunc habentur idola) could be purified and rendered harmless.118 Apparently, for Prudentius, sacrifice created the distinction between an idol and a statue. The Mishnah, a codification of Jewish oral law compiled in the later second century and read continuously thereafter, provides further evidence for distinguishing types of statuary based on function. In a general sense, sections dealing with problems arising from contact with idolatry consider use and intent when defining permissible and impermissible behaviors or items. More specific is an account of a rabbi challenged by a Greek about using a “bathhouse of Aphrodite,” which evidently contained a statue of the goddess.119 The rabbi replied: “I never came into her domain. She came into mine. They don’t say, ‘Let’s make a bathhouse as an ornament for Aphrodite.’ But they say, ‘Let’s make Aphrodite as an ornament for the bathhouse.’ “ He contrasts the different behavior accorded to a statue in a temple as opposed to one in a bathhouse and concludes, “It is said only, ‘. . . their gods’ (Dt. 12:3)—that which one treats as a god is prohibited, but that which one treats not as a god is permitted.” This anecdote and its conclusion evidently acknowledge the prospect of mythological statuary that was not worshiped and therefore not inimical to Jewish strictures against idolatry. One could judge the statue’s role by its location and by the behavior accorded to it. Yaron Eliav argues that “the sages differentiated between statues on the basis of those that were the objects of pagan worship and those that were not.” He provides further examples to show that this distinction also existed in contemporary Greco-Roman thought.120 One passage in a commentary on the Mishnah, the Tosefta, composed ca. 300, distinguishes between idols that have been venerated and those that have not, saying of an idol made by a non-Jew that “it is permitted until it has been worshipped.”121 Other contributors to the Mishnah and the Tosefta do not seem to favor nuances in the definition of an idol, however.122

the learned collector 158

Some sources of this era depict statues as possessed by demons. Saints and holy men were able to drive out these demons, normally breaking the statue along the way.123 Again, the statuary in question is usually either located in a sanctuary or receiving worship, though this is not universally true. In 434, a North African bishop named Quodvultdeus reports exorcising a demon from a girl who had been possessed by it after looking at a statue of Venus in a bath.124 A statue in the baths is seen as more threatening here than in the passage from the Mishnah.

mythological statuary and the antipagan legislation of theodosius n the last decades of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth century, Theodosius and his successors issued a series of laws concerning the suppression of pagan sanctuaries and sacrifice, especially sacrifice associated with divination or black magic.125 These laws are preserved for us in the Theodosian Code, compiled in 429–38. Many scholars have assumed that the hostility toward paganism in these laws created an atmosphere in which it would be impossible to own domestic statuary.126 These laws are often treated as a definitive moment for the closing of pagan sanctuaries and, by extension, as the definitive moment for jettisoning whatever mythological statuary (domestic or otherwise) might have survived this long past the climate change inherent in Constantine’s conversion to Christianity. However, examination of these laws in their context shows that they did not preclude the ownership of domestic statuary. As we shall see, they stress not statuary but worship (defined in particular by sacrifice, divination, and black magic), and in all cases but one, they pertain to sanctuaries rather than to domestic areas (or other public situations).127 First let us consider some aspects of the nature of these laws and their preservation.128 Some twenty-five rulings against pagan practice—spanning the reigns of Constantine through Theodosius II—were grouped in the Theodosian Code under the heading “On Pagans, Sacrifices, and Temples” [de paganis, sacrificiis et templis]. The rulings of the late fourth and early fifth centuries are included among these. As Jill Harries explains, emperors created law in a number of ways: “In late antiquity, imperial constitutions took three main forms, edicts, issued to the People or Provincials or some other generalised recipients, along with orationes to the Senate, official letters, epistulae, sent to heads of bureaux or provincial administrators, and rescripts, sent to private individuals.”129

I

Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux 159

The antipagan rulings, all addressed to praetorian prefects, city prefects, and provincial governors, fall into the category of epistulae. The compilers of the code were instructed to include edicts and general laws (leges generales) that had general applicability or that contained some universal principle. John Matthews writes: In the second place, generalitas was also possessed by imperial constitutions sent to provincial governors or other officials and published by them under the authority of a governor’s edict. This category, defined by the additional point raised in the law of 435, covers the vast bulk of the texts assembled in the Theodosian Code, which take the form of letters addressed to governors and other officials.130 The antipagan epistulae embodied generalitas, in principle from the original date of issue. However, there was not a regular mechanism for publicizing enactments sent to one city in other regions of the empire.131 Thus, particularly in the case of the laws addressed to provincial governors, we may legitimately wonder to what degree they were known outside that province at the time of their enactment. The frequent reenactment of very similar provisions to different groups or by different emperors has also raised questions about compliance and/or enforcement. Epigraphic and archaeological evidence as well as other written texts certainly show that pagan worship did not abruptly end in any region in response to any single law. However, Harries argues that in a legal system without codified laws and with varied mechanisms for creating laws, repetition may simply have acted to remind people of a law’s continuing validity.132 Let us briefly examine the antipagan laws of the later fourth century in sequence. As background for these laws, it seems that Valentinian II (375–92) had banned blood sacrifice but condoned the offering of incense to pagan divinities. Though this policy is not preserved in the Theodosian Code, both Libanius and Ambrose allude to it.133 The state cults at Rome continued to operate and receive imperial funding. Examination will show that the laws in the code are most concerned with sacrifice, specifically types of sacrifice linked to divination and black magic. They concern sanctuaries rather than homes. Some of the laws specifically attempt to protect temples and their contents as imperial property. In an intriguing ruling of 382, evidently responding to a particular query or situation, Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius informed the duke of Osrhoene that a particular temple should be open to the public provided

the learned collector 160

that no forbidden sacrifices went on (prohibitorum usus sacrificia).134 Modern scholars take the “forbidden sacrifices” to be ones associated with divination and black magic.135 Furthermore, in this temple, “images [simulacra] are reported to have been placed which must be measured by the value of their art rather than by their divinity [artis pretio quam divinitatis].”136 This law clearly differentiates between decorative and religious functions, with sacrifice being a way to identify a religious function. A respect for the “value of their art” presumably reflects the tenets of paideia. Ironically, this temple was probably among those destroyed by the governor Maternus Cynegius in 382.137 A law of 381 against sacrifice and divination in temples and one of 385 against divination more generally fall into the broad pattern of imperial concern with divination and black magic.138 Neither of these laws mentions statuary. The level of imperial hostility increased in 391–92. In 391, addressing the praetorian prefect, the three Augusti banned sacrifice, visits to temples and shrines, and worship of “images [simulacra] formed by mortal labour.”139 The schedule of fines stipulated in the law is directed at the ruling class.140 Another law enacting very similar measures followed shortly, this time addressed specifically to the governors of Egypt.141 A law of 392, addressed to the praetorian prefect Rufinus, forbade not just sacrifice but also a long list of other forms of reverence toward gods or their images. This law is the first of this group of laws to refer to private homes or domestic statuary, but they are mentioned quite specifically in the context of acts of worship, such as sacrifice or burning incense.142 The law stresses that pagan worship cannot be carried out in private any more than it can in public. Two passages lay out some specifics (C.Th. 16.10.12). He shall not, by more secret wickedness, venerate his lar with fire, his genius with wine, his penates with fragrant odors; he shall not burn lights to them, place incense before them, or suspend wreaths for them. . . . But if any person should venerate, by placing incense before them, images [simulacra] made by the work of mortals and destined to suffer the ravages of time, and if, in a ridiculous manner, he should suddenly fear the effigies which he himself has formed, or should bind a tree with fillets, or should erect an altar of turf that he has dug up, or should attempt to honor vain images [imagines] with the offering of a gift . . .

Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux 161

Though domestic statuary is mentioned, it comes up strictly in the context of acts constituting worship. Statuary itself is not forbidden, just the worship of statuary. Certainly, such a law could create difficulties for owners of mythological statuary. The law confirms the ban on divination and specifically forbids worship on private or public property. A law of 395 addressed to Rufinus as praetorian prefect, this time by Arcadius and Honorius, confirmed the enactments of Theodosius I and again forbade “abominable sacrifices at any time or place whatever” and the approach of any temple or shrine.143 The lawmakers emphasized that governors must enforce these laws. In 396, they revoked any privileges accorded to pagan priests.144 A series of laws in 399 reflect regional events. One letter addressed to the vicars of Spain and Gaul stressed that the “ornaments of public works,” a vague description presumably encompassing temples and their contents, belonged to the emperor and should not be destroyed.145 Another law asked the praetorian prefect to destroy rural temples, “for when they are torn down and removed, the material basis for all superstition will be destroyed.”146 The Theodosian Code preserves two sections of a ruling issued to the proconsul of Africa.147 The first section decreed that public entertainments and banquets should continue, but without sacrifices or other pagan rites. The second excerpt is interesting in that it mentions idols specifically. It starts by reiterating that temples belong to emperors and should not be destroyed once they are “empty of illicit things” [inlicitis rebus vacuas]. Sacrifice is, of course, forbidden in them. The law goes on, “Idols [idola] shall be taken down under the direction of the office staff after an investigation has been held, since it is evident that even now the worship of a vain superstition is being paid to idols.” Again it should be stressed that this discussion of statuary applies to images in temples and does not address houses. A law of 407 or 408 was concerned with the disposition of imperial property in the form of temples.148 Among its stipulations was a discussion of images (simulacra) in temples, which were to be torn down. A law of 415 discussing temples as imperial property adds, “Of course, if anything has ever been consecrated to sacrifices and thus served as a means of deception for men, it shall be removed from use in the baths and from the favorite haunts of the public, in order that it may not furnish allurement to the erring.”149 The vagary of “anything” [quondam consacrata] in this proscription could refer to statuary as well as altars or shrines. It is interesting that this is the first time that baths, an important venue for statuary, both deco-

the learned collector 162

rative and religious, are in this section of the Theodosian Code. The emphasis in the law is still clearly on worship and sacrifice, but the comment about “allurement to the erring” opens wider avenues of interpretation. As we have seen earlier in this chapter, a statue of Aphrodite in a bathhouse, interpreted as decorative and unthreatening in a rabbinical source of the second century, had become dangerous to some who merely looked at it in a hagiographic source of the early fifth century. A law of 414 or 415 prohibited pagans from the imperial service.150 This overview of legislation between 381 and 415 shows an overwhelming emphasis on public sanctuaries and the outward vehicles of pagan worship, specifically sacrifice and divination. It is well worth noting that the heading for this section of the Theodosian Code does not mention statuary or idols. The laws consistently emphasize that the temples and their contents are imperial possessions. They are objectionable as the locale for sacrifice but are valued imperial property once they are “empty of illicit things.” The attitude to sacrifice hardened over this period. In 391–92, the focus shifted from sacrifice associated with divination to all forms of reverence for pagan worship. A law of 392 mentioned statuary located in homes, but only in the context of worship. In general, statuary is rarely mentioned. Only in 399 did a law sent to Africa request the destruction of temple contents, undoubtedly including statuary. The law of 407 or 408 mandated the destruction of cult statues, and the one of 415 ordered the removal of objects that might incite pagan devotions. All the statuary discussed in these latter laws was located in temples, not homes. Overall, hostility toward acts of worship, places that hosted them, and objects that received them is unmistakable. Statuary that was worshiped was to be destroyed, but the laws were silent on statuary that was not worshiped. That a distinction could be made, at least in the earlier part of the period under discussion here, is indicated by the law of 381 that requested the preservation of a temple’s statuary by virtue of its artistic merit “rather than by its divinity,” echoed by Prudentius in the Contra Symmachum.151 The statuary collection of Lausos, a high official in the devout court of Theodosius II, confirms that this distinction could still be made in the early fifth century. Somewhat later in the fifth century, the private baths of Marina, granddaughter of Theodosius I, were decorated with statues of river gods and mosaics of gigantomachies and other mythological scenes.152 Absence of worship evidently allowed statuary to be valued for its artistic merit. This interpretation is implied in an epigram of Palladas, a fifth-century poet in Alexandria. Titled On the House

Paideia and the World of Ausonius of Bordeaux 163

of Marina, it reads, “The inhabitants of Olympus, having become Christians, live here undisturbed; for here they shall not be put on the fire in the melting pot that produces necessary small change.”153 Palladas seems to imply that the statues are out of danger of being melted down now that they no longer function in pagan religion (“having become Christians”). The law of 392 is the only one that might have affected domestic collections of statuary, not because it outlawed them, but because it left room for misinterpretation.154 To summarize, the antipagan legislation of Theodosius did not preclude or criminalize the appreciation and collection of works of art in a home. It was worship, most particularly sacrifice and black magic, that made statuary dangerous. The emphasis on sacrifice and sanctuaries corresponds with the literary sources concerning the destruction of statuary. These laws—enforced unevenly and sent in some cases to only one province—have played a much greater role in art historical accounts of late antiquity than they actually merit.

back to gaul: late mythological statuettes in the world of ausonius of bordeaux

F

rom this examination of education and literature in late antique Gaul and elsewhere emerges a description of a society that would have been receptive to late mythological statuettes. The letters, poetry, and advice of Ausonius provide a particularly detailed window into late antique Gaul, the region that is the main focus of this book. He shows us that local landowners—patrons of the villas where statuary has been found—would have had ready access to a traditional literary education in all of the urban centers of Aquitaine, most of which are mentioned in Ausonius’s list of famous teachers and rhetors. This education was not merely a luxury but was required to maintain the status of local aristocrats, regardless of their religion. At the core of this education were the classical, “pagan” texts replete with mythology, a close knowledge of which was emphasized at all levels of study. Pagan and Christian students alike emerged with a good understanding of mythology and the style of the ancient masters and presumably also with an appreciation for the literature itself. Mythological training would have enabled students to appreciate iconographic subtleties in such statuary creations as the Venus and Adonis pendants from Montmaurin or the young Minerva without a gorgoneion from Castelculier. Similarly, esteem for the style of the literary classics probably fueled a correspondingly high regard for the classicizing style of late mytho-

the learned collector 164

logical statuettes. As the statuettes were another manifestation of mythological detail and narrative, expressed in a classicizing style, it is reasonable to imagine that the educated classes viewed them, too, with interest and respect—as a living element of traditional Roman culture. There were multiple worlds of late antique Gaul, and Ausonius’s world is most compatible with the late mythological statuettes under study here.

chapter six

Learned Collectors across the Empire

L

ate antique interest in domestic statuary was by no means limited to Gaul, as the international distribution of late mythological statuettes already suggests. Surveying statuary assemblages from villas and houses across the empire provides important evidence for identifying regional characteristics in Gallic collections and assessing international features. Examples of late antique domestic sculpture are too numerous for all sites to be discussed in this chapter, but a broad sampling is presented. In order to represent the full sculptural scenery of late antique homes, I have not restricted this survey to assemblages possessing late mythological statuettes. Likewise, this chapter embraces a wide chronological span that is not restricted solely to the late fourth century. First, I will examine the western empire—starting with its capital, Rome. Then, I will move to Constantinople and the East. This large body of evidence enables us to distinguish regional and international patterns in taste concerning iconography or particular types of statuary.1 It also allows a critical look at particular sites and scholarly interpretations.

rome et us commence with Rome, officially the Western capital of the empire, but in fact visited less and less frequently by emperors over the course of the fourth and fifth centuries, as the northern cities of Milan and Ravenna usurped its strategic importance. Nevertheless, the city retained a symbolic importance and a wealthy senatorial class, comprising

L

165

the learned collector 166

not only the loquacious Symmachus and his circle of learned friends but also such Christian ascetics as Melania the Younger and her husband, Pinian, who gave up fabulous fortunes to lead lives of pious austerity. Contemporary historians expressed shock at the decadence and wealth of the senatorial class. Thus, Ammianus devotes two satirical digressions to senatorial excess, mentioning in passing the houses with “columns hanging in the air with lofty façade, and the walls gleaming with the remarkable colours of precious stones.”2 In a famous passage, the fifth-century historian Olympiodorus of Thebes (preserved by the later compiler Photius) compared the aristocratic homes of Rome to small cities: “Each of the great palaces in Rome, he reports, had within it all the facilities of a small town, race course, forum, chapel, fountains, and a variety of baths; which led our author to exclaim, ‘One house is a city, the city hides within it ten thousand towns.’”3 Centuries’ worth of accumulated statuary remained on view in public and private contexts. Thus, the Baths of Caracalla, for instance, retained voluptuous and often colossal statuary in the fourth century.4 Inscriptions document how magistrates moved public statuary around to make it more visible or moved it out of “sordid locations,” evidently a reference to pagan places of worship.5 The much discussed debate over the removal of the Altar of Victory and its accompanying statue from the Senate house reflects the presence of statuary—albeit controversial and ultimately eliminated— in a public place. In his letter about the debate, Bishop Ambrose of Milan referred to statuary in baths, porticoes, and public squares.6 Statuary—honorific, religious, and decorative—also appeared in private homes, as attested by finds of actual statuary, statue bases, or inscriptions. Numerous wealthy houses have been identified on the hills of Rome. A few of these residences will suffice as a sample of collecting habits in Rome.7 The House of the Valerii on the Caelian Hill had several phases and was still occupied in the later fourth century.8 Bronze tablets found in the atrium refer to members of the Valerian family, including Valerius Severus, who was urban prefect in 386.9 He was the father of Pinian and father-in-law of Melania. It is therefore possible—even probable—that this is one of the luxurious properties that the famous ascetic couple were unable to sell until Alaric’s sack of Rome in 410 reduced the properties’ values to a pittance. Literary and epigraphic sources aside, the house had expensive furnishings, with marble revetment, mosaics, and statuary. Three herms were found in situ in the intercolumniations of one portico.10 This brings to mind the portraiture possibly displayed in the colonnades at Séviac and Montmaurin in Gaul. Early digging in an “atrium” that seems to have belonged to this house recovered two busts of Lucius Verus and a

Learned Collectors across the Empire 167

statue of Cupid and Psyche.11 Inscribed bases for honorary statues are reported from the atrium, which also displayed on its columns bronze plaques honoring various Valerii as patrons to particular cities.12 A large, niched fountain in one room would have been a suitable venue for statuary. Other finds of interest from this house include a bronze lamp shaped like Saint Peter’s boat and a series of silver vessels with Christian symbols on them.13 These vessels accord with the image of Pinian’s wealthy Christian family provided by hagiographic sources. Given that some statuary was found in situ and that evidently all of it was there at the time of the sack by Alaric, it would appear that decorative mythological statuary did not disturb this Christian family whose members included the ostentatiously devout Pinian and Melania. Interestingly, during the disbursement of their wealth, the couple gave statues (mavrmaroi poluvtimoi) to the equally devout empress Serena.14 A floor mosaic identifies another fourth-century home on the Caelian Hill as the House of Gaudentius, whom the excavator Giandomenico Spinola identifies with a friend and protégé of Symmachus. Working with historical records, Spinola argues that a well-preserved statue of Antinoös now in Copenhagen came from this house. Spinola proposes that it was displayed in an apse custom-built for it in the triclinium. A third-century portrait and heads of a young Dionysos and an Athena were found in a small court. While Spinola proposes that this statuary assemblage was a pagan response to the removal of the Altar of Victory, it is equally possible that these statues evoked a cultured life of leisure in a more general way.15 Symmachus himself is proposed as the owner of a very large house near the House of Gaudentius, because of its location, its opulence, and the recent discovery there of a brick stamp and gold glass cup with the name Symmachus on them.16 In the later fourth century, certain rooms of this house were paved with exquisite opus sectile, and an apsidal room was renovated so that a single large apse replaced seven niches in the curve of the wall.17 It is enticing to associate the repaved floors of this house with Symmachus’s references to renovations in his home.18 Statues found in earlier excavations in this general area and possibly associated with this house include a statue of Bacchus and Pan; a trapezophoros of a Chimera; private portraits; and busts of Hadrian, Titus, and Julia Maesa. It is unclear whether these statues were found built into walls, in which case they may have been spolia from the construction of the Aurelianic Wall.19 Some statuary from the fabled garden villas, or horti, remained on view in the hands of the fourth-century owners. The mid-third-century Horti Liciniani of the emperor Gallienus, located on the Esquiline, have yielded

the learned collector 168

a good deal of sculpture, much of it already antique by the time of Gallienus. The so-called Minerva Medica, built on this property ca. A.D. 300, is a vaulted, ten-sided structure probably used as a nymphaeum, perhaps as part of a villa.20 Statuary built into a nearby wall may have adorned this building. The statues include two late antique portraits of magistrates holding a mappa, alongside older statues of Dionysos with a panther, a dancing satyr, and a seated girl. The portraits have a high quality of manufacture, featuring a successful blend of more stylized drapery and a solidity of pose, with fluid gestures and a piercing gaze. The faces are highly polished. They are dated to the late fourth or early fifth century, and some scholars have tried to recognize them as Symmachus and his son, an identification based more on historical possibility than on art historical or epigraphic evidence.21 The solemnity of these portraits lends credence to Guidobaldi’s suggestion that this structure was an elaborate showroom in a villa. The other statuary has a more decorative air reminiscent of the traditional themes of otium. That the ideal statuary was found built into the same walls as the portraits dated to the later fourth or early fifth century may indicate that all the sculpture comes from the same source. Most of the houses examined thus far from the city of Rome preserve statuary that is arguably decorative in function. Statuary of unmistakably religious purpose has also been found in houses, however. The most outstanding example was sculpture preserved in situ at a house found under the Via Giovanni Lanza near the Church of San Martino ai Monti in 1884–86.22 A well-known sketch shows a tempietto full of statuary in front of a doorway leading down to a mithraeum built into a hypogaeum (fig. 3).23 Initially described as a lararium, the shrine has more recently been reinterpreted as a sanctuary of Isis.24 A nearly life-size statue of Isis-Fortuna stood in the center of the arch, and shelves on the flanking walls boasted an array of busts, herms, statuettes, and reliefs. A bust of Serapis, a statue of Harpocrates, and a Ptolemaic stela enhanced the Egyptian flavor of the collection. All the statuary is reused and is mostly of second-century date. Serena Ensoli Vitozzi suggests that a second-century shrine to Isis was incorporated into a late antique home and received further sculpture at that point. The mithraeum in the same house was likewise furnished with reused statuary. Statuary also played a decorative role elsewhere in this house. A large nymphaeum had seven niches in the curve of its apse and two more flanking the entrance. Small statues of “excellent manufacture” were found in situ here but, unfortunately, were not further described. Bronze spouts in the form of wild animals added to the glamour of the fountain.

Learned Collectors across the Empire 169

In addition to the house mithraeum under the Via Giovanni Lanza, at least two others were still in use in the fourth century and had statuary decoration.25 Other late antique mithrea are known in the city of Rome. Inscriptions attest to the popularity of this cult with some members of the elite classes. The choice of antique statuary for these shrines is interesting, since we know from Sidon that fresh Mithraic statuary was sometimes commissioned (figs. 40–42).26 A few features stand out about statuary collecting in late antique Rome. First, the archaeological evidence makes it clear that statuary continued to be part of the expected decor of a wealthy home. Occasional literary allusions, such as Melania’s gift of statuary to the empress Serena, confirm this. Second, the collections of Roman aristocrats predominantly comprise antique statuary rather than contemporary pieces.27 Very few late mythological statuettes of the genre under study in this book have been found in Rome; the Vatican maenad is a rare exception, and nothing is known of its specific findspot (fig. 51). One factor explaining the relative paucity of contemporary works may be that with an enormous supply of heirloom statuary available and a shrinking elite class, patrons could fill their statuary needs with high-quality antiques, such as the Antinoös from the House of Gaudentius.28 The high caliber of the antiques stands out in comparison to other sites, such as Ostia. As elsewhere, Dionysiac themes are popular in the ideal statuary. Contemporary portraits clearly played an important role, as the plaques and honorific bases demonstrate.

ostia he port town of Ostia continued to flourish during the fourth century because of the importance of the grain trade.29 Giovanni Becatti excavated and published thirteen townhouses in Ostia from this period, noting their common architectural features, such as a small peristyle, arched porticoes, floors in opus sectile or mosaic, and marble-clad walls.30 Nymphaea, usually decorated with niches, were another common feature. The ubiquitous niches raise the expectation that statuary was displayed, and, indeed, numerous ideal sculptures and portraits were found in several of the houses.31 The statuary assemblages of Ostia reflect a wealth less than that of the senatorial classes of Rome. The vast majority of sculptures are reused and are often substantially repaired or recut.32 The House of Fortuna Annonaria stands out because two sculptures were found in situ in the gar-

T

Fig. 57. View of the courtyard of the House of Fortuna Annonaria, Ostia. The cast of the statue of Fortuna Annonaria sits on the pedestal where the original statue was found. (Drawn by J. Heinrichs.)

Findspots of statuary Fortuna Annonaria Hera/Demeter Artemis Head of Aphrodite Ceres,Athena, two male portraits

B, pedestal against S wall B, niche at center of S wall C, in court C, in nymphaeum D

Fig. 58. Plan of the House of Fortuna Annonaria. (From Becatti 1948, 23, fig. 23. Used by permission of the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici di Ostia.)

Learned Collectors across the Empire 171

den (figs. 57–58).33 A statuette of Juno or Ceres adorned a niche placed prominently in the peristyle, in a location where it was visible from the vestibule. The intercolumniations of the peristyle were adjusted to ensure full visibility for the statuette from the doorway. A life-size statue of an enthroned woman wearing a mural crown and carrying a cornucopia and rudder was found against another wall of this peristyle. Comparing the iconography to coins, Becatti identifies this figure as Fortuna Annonaria. Thus, on entry to the peristyle, one would see the Juno/Ceres directly ahead, with the Fortuna Annonaria to the right, sheltered by the peristyle. Facing the peristyle was a large reception room with a nymphaeum and a large apse. Three pieces of a nearly life-size hunting Diana were found in a large reception room facing the peristyle. That all three pieces of this statue, which had already experienced extensive repair and piecing in antiquity, were found in the same room suggests that it originated there. More problematic is the head of a crouching Venus Anadyomene found in the basin of the nymphaeum. The body was found in the road. Nevertheless, one may propose a location for this piece in one of the niches above the basin. The flat composition of this Venus type is suited to presentation in a niche, and the conceit of Venus wringing out her hair is well suited to a nymphaeum. Another find in this basin was a statuette of the genius of autumn. In the latrine, which was behind the nymphaeum, Becatti reports another statuette of Hera and a nearly life-size Athena.34 No findspot is reported for an archaizing female head.35 In addition to rather conventional choices, such as the hunting Diana and the Venus Anadyomene, this patron had a noticeable interest in goddesses of prosperity and agriculture, as seen with the Fortuna, the Ceres, and the Juno/Ceres. Becatti dates this house to the mid-fourth century. Findspots for statuary are also recorded at the House of the Porch.36 A life-size hunting Diana and a nearly life-size Apollo were found at opposite ends of a portico facing a nymphaeum. Johannes Boersma suggests that they stood as pendants in this portico, where they would have been in the line of view from the largest triclinium into the stately courtyard, which featured basins. Alternatively, they could have stood in a pair of niches on either side of the nymphaeum. The base of the Diana was extensively recut, presumably to help it fit into its new location; this is an interesting comparison to the heavily reworked Diana from the House of Fortuna Annonaria. A halfdraped “Venus Marina” was found in another room, one with an opus sectile floor. The findspots of four female heads seem less telling for interpreting their place of display, because of their greater portability; but they do reveal the presence of at least two additional statues in the house.

the learned collector 172

One fourth-century house at Ostia had contemporary sculpture. A statue of Cupid and Psyche found in the house of the same name is usually attributed to the fourth century because of its crenellated drapery and pudgy proportions (fig. 59).37 Wings were attached separately to the figures, with iron dowels. Becatti reports gilding in the hair.38 The house, constructed in the early fourth century, had lavish opus sectile floors and a garden with a long nymphaeum overlooked by alternating squared and round niches. The composition of the statuette of Cupid and Psyche invites the viewer to walk around it. Thus, it may have stood in a large, open space, such as the largest reception room. A portrait of a youth dating to Gallienic times was also found in this house but may not have belonged there originally. The five niches in the nymphaeum suggest the likelihood of further statuary decoration. The House of the Columns yielded a hunting Diana, the torso of an old man with a sack (perhaps a fisherman), and a young man with a fawnskin (possibly a satyr or Dionysos), along with three reused reliefs.39 Specific findspots are not reported. More ambiguous in contextual interpretation is the Nymphaeum of the Erotes, which has often been interpreted as a public fountain, but which may have been part of a luxurious entranceway for a grand house.40 Built in the early fifth century, this rectangular room was revetted in white marble and had large niches in three walls. In one niche, a statue base with two bare, female feet were found in situ; these are interpreted as belonging to Venus. Two copies of Eros stringing a bow, attributed to Lysippos, were found in the room and presumably adorned the other two niches. This site provides another example of late antique admiration of artistic masterworks, here displayed in an environment and color scheme suitable to Venus’s marine associations. Some themes may be identified in the material from Ostia. The omnipresent niches associated with nymphaea indicate that nymphaea were a major venue for statuary display. The recurrent taste for ideal statuary featuring, for example, nymphs and Venus is suitable for this aquatic, often open-air location. We see from the House of Fortuna Annonaria that goddesses of prosperity and abundance (Fortuna, Juno/Ceres) were fitting for a garden, though these goddesses are not found extensively in late antique collections. Becatti may, then, be correct in associating this house with officers of the annona. Finally, the hunting Diana appears three times in two configurations. At the House of Fortuna Annonaria and the House of the Porch, the owners went to considerable lengths to repair their statues of Diana. As we shall see, the hunting Diana was universally popular in late antiquity.

Learned Collectors across the Empire 173

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 59. Statuette of Cupid and Psyche found at Ostia. Ostia Museum, inv. 180. (Copyright Scala/Art Resource, NY.)

italy and sicily

N

ot surprisingly, the Roman elite also continued to display statuary in their country residences.41 Literary sources confirm the presence of statuary in late antique villas. Along with the scenic vistas, “a variety of statues” enhanced the pleasure of bathers at a villa belonging to Melania the Younger.42 Naucellius, in his country house, was inspired by both statues of the Muses and the beauty of nature, demonstrating the ongoing association of country leisure and literary pursuits, a theme also much emphasized by Symmachus.43 Richard Neudecker observes that many villas with statuary collections of the imperial period were still occupied in late antiquity.44 The imperial villa at Sperlonga, for instance, had portraits of the tetrarchic period and was

the learned collector 174

occupied into the seventh century.45 At Fianello Sabino, a group of at least fifteen late Hellenistic statues imported from Greece were evidently treasured and carefully curated over five centuries.46 The statues represented the customary themes of Dionysiac leisure, athletic prowess, and philosophical repose. At some point after A.D. 400, a church was built over the villa, and the statues, still in exquisite condition, were broken up and sealed under a thick layer of cement. Although this findspot cannot inform us about the specific display of this statuary in late antiquity, it is clear that the statuary was still present and in good condition at the time of the church’s construction. Statuary decoration was also a conventional accoutrement of new villas freshly built in the fourth century. Piazza Armerina in Sicily is best known for its lavish mosaics, but decoration there also included figural frescos and statuary, with Apollo and Hercules being particularly well represented.47 It was built in the early fourth century and remained a wealthy residence until at least the end of the fourth century. Several fragmentary statues associated with Hercules were found in the villa. Most famous was a colossal head, which could have adorned the apse of the basilical room, although it was found near the baths. At Nérac, parts of oversize statues were found both in the baths and near the monumental entrance, whose basilical layout resembles that of Piazza Armerina. At Piazza Armerina excavator Gino Vinicio Gentili convincingly reconstructs an “ephebic” male head and a hand grasping an antler as Hercules wrestling a stag. These fragments were found in the sacellum (chapel) in the main peristyle. More speculative is his reconstruction of a nude male torso as belonging to a seated figure, perhaps a statue inspired by the seated Hercules Epitrapezos. It was found near a porticoed yard that was probably used for athletic pursuits.48 As Gentili and others have pointed out, the lavish mosaic program of the villa also presents Hercules frequently. The popularity of Hercules in the villa’s decor led Gentili to associate the villa with the tetrarchic emperor Maximian Herculius, though the association is not widely accepted.49 Other ideal statuary included a statue of Venus Anadyomene accompanied by a putto and a dolphin. Several larger fragments of this statue clustered in an aedicula near the entrance to the larger baths, while smaller pieces were found in the vestibule of the room with circus mosaics. On balance, a location gracing the vestibule of the baths suits the theme of this statue better. A putto holding a dove would be suitable decoration for a fountain. A foot from a second putto had a channel for water in its base. There were two statues of Apollo: one of Apollo Lycaeus, the other a replica

Learned Collectors across the Empire 175

of the Apollo Sauroktonos, identified by a fragment of a hand resting on a tree.50 A partial torso of a nude male is the final ideal sculpture.51 Feet from two fourth-century portraits were recovered. A booted foot carved from porphyry matches the feet of the statue of the tetrarchs in Venice. Some drapery and a woman’s foot in a slipper are preserved on another base. Slippers appear in women’s garb in the fourth century—for instance, in the diptych of Serena, on a statue of an empress in Naples, and on a statue of a Muse at Aphrodisias.52 The villa, then, combined contemporary portraiture, one contemporary mythological statue (the colossal Hercules), and heirloom ideal statuary. Hercules featured largely in the iconographic program in both sculpture and mosaic, arguably appearing at least twice in the sculpture. Apollo, as the patron of learning and the arts, fits in well with an emphasis on paideia. Venus and putti are conventional decoration for aquatic environments, such as baths and fountains. Niches and statue bases in the triclinium and the peristyle provide possibilities for display in addition to those just mentioned. The iconographic content of the statuary collection at Piazza Armerina does not stand out as unusual in a fourth-century context. Even the quantity of life-size statues finds parallels in Rome and Athens. For these reasons, the statuary assemblage is not decisive evidence in the ongoing debate over the possible imperial ownership of this villa. The porphyry foot finds a parallel in a tetrarchic bust found at a villa in Antioch.53 Hercules is attested at numerous other sites, such as Chiragan, Desenzano, and Nea Paphos. In the fourth and fifth centuries, Milan and, later, Ravenna became imperial capitals on the strength of their strategic northern location. Thus, the later fourth-century emperors Valentinian, Gratian, and Theodosius spent more time in Milan than in Rome. The Milan Meleager, a late antique mythological statuette discussed in chapter 4, is a tantalizing glimpse of artistic goods arriving in Milan from the East (fig. 50), as is a late antique statuette of a dancing maenad now in Aquileia.54 Near Milan, the luxury seaside villa of Desenzano had a sizable sculptural collection. Built originally in the second century, the villa had renovations in the early fourth century, including the installation of lavish new mosaics (fig. 60).55 One mosaic of a figure surrounded by animals is variously interpreted as the Good Shepherd or Orpheus. Further renovations in the baths took place in the second half of the fourth century. A large group of sculptural fragments was found in a cistern under the peristyle, another large cluster of fragments came from rooms behind one apse of a reception room, and some large pieces were found in an octagonal room near the garden. In several instances, joining pieces of the same statue were found in more than

the learned collector 176

Fig. 60. Plan of villa at Desenzano, showing findspots of sculpture. (From Scagliarini Corlàita et al. 1994, p. 61, pl. 1. Copyright authors. Reproduced by permission of the Soprintendenza Archeologica della Lombardia.)

one location, indicating that the statuary remained on view until the time of the villa’s destruction sometime in the early fifth century.56 The statuary in the cistern was accompanied by building debris, lamps of the fourth and fifth centuries, and coins running from the early fourth century to the second half of the fifth.57 The lamps had Christian symbols on them, as did a glass cup with incised decoration. Although this statuary has sometimes been interpreted as hidden or desecrated, it seems more likely to have arrived in the underground chamber through tidying at a time when the site was turned to another use. Evidently the opening to this chamber remained open for a time, as the debris is covered by a sterile alluvial soil. Within the sculptural assemblage, eight sculptures are substantially preserved. Another five, different statuettes are identifiable from small fragments (heads, hands, etc.). All but one date to the second century. Five of

Learned Collectors across the Empire 177

the statues show figures from the circle of Dionysos, reflecting standard themes in villa decoration. There are two statuettes of Hercules, and a third head may also represent Hercules. Another piece worth noting is a small head of Apollo dating to the fourth century (fig. 61).58 Despite its battered condition, it appears to have had the ridged, arched eyebrows of the late fourth-century pieces. It also has puffy eyes, stylized serpentine locks of hair around the face, and a sloping chin. A plinth with part of a Delphic tripod on it probably belonged to the same statuette.59 Despite the broken and scattered condition of the statuary, findspots may shed some light on its display (fig. 60). Most fragments were found in the cistern, obviously not a location of primary display. The remaining findspots, few in number, may reflect the location of a piece at the time it was hacked up. An octagonal room, possibly part of a dining complex, had an early second-century portrait bust and significant pieces from a nude male (perhaps an athlete) and a Hercules carrying a cornucopia. The head of Apollo was the only sculpture found outside the peristyle-viridarium complex of the villa. A nymphaeum in the viridarium of the villa had a large apse flanked on either side by six niches. These niches provide a logical place to display statuary, and both Dionysos and Hercules would be suitable in this outdoor setting. Palazzo Pignano was another north Italian villa with sculptural decoration.60 Built in the fourth century and occupied through the fifth century, the villa had an octagonal peristyle, a basilical reception room, and polychrome mosaics. Three sculptural fragments were found during construction of a shed roof near the octagonal peristyle. A broken base has the same slightly irregular molding as the late mythological statuettes—a flat scotia with upper and lower moldings of double fillets. An iron dowel provides evidence of ancient repairs. A cutting into the base shows where the statue had been inserted into it. As the majority of late mythological statuettes are carved from a single block of stone, the separate insertion of this statuette probably also reflects the repairs. The Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (fig. 7) and the statuette of Christ in the Palazzo Massimo Museum provide parallels for a separately carved base and figure. The other sculptures found at Palazzo Pignano were a torso of Venus and a male foot in a sandal, also from statuettes. Ravenna increased in importance in the fifth century and maintained close contact with the Eastern court. A distinctive series of high-quality sarcophagi made in Ravenna at this period reflects the influence of the Eastern court style.61 A statuette of the Good Shepherd now in Boston is said to be from Ravenna.62 The energetic drilling and the flares on the tunic link this piece to late mythological statuary. This statuette may represent an attempt

the learned collector 178

Fig. 61. Head of Apollo found at Desenzano. Antiquario di Desenzano, inv. St. 13840. (From Scagliarini Corlàita et al. 1994, no. 25. Copyright authors. Photo courtesy of the Soprintendenza Archeologica della Lombardia.)

to use allegorical or Christian subjects in a decorative role similar to that played by mythological statuary. A villa at Mensa Matelica outside Ravenna produced a small-scale head of Apollo wearing a wreath with a diademlike jewel over the forehead.63 Although previous scholars have dated this piece to the Constantinian era and linked it to Constantine’s lingering flirtation with solar cults, the ridged brows, thick eyelids, pouty lips, and bridged drilling in the hair align well with late mythological statuettes. Regrettably, this sculpture was a chance find, and nothing is known of its context. Later in date, but still of interest, is a relief of Hercules fighting the Cerynean hind.64 It vividly reflects classical antecedents in the hair, musculature, and pose, but it is dated stylistically to the later fifth or sixth century.

the iberian peninsula

A

number of wealthy late antique villas in Spain boasted sculptural collections principally comprising antique statuary in a combination of portraits and mythological subjects.65 These assemblages offer a close par-

Learned Collectors across the Empire 179

allel to the Gallic assemblages discussed earlier, in the wide variety of subjects, scales, and materials. As in Gaul, the statuary evidently remained in use over very long periods, as the fragments were found in debris layers of the fourth, fifth, and even sixth centuries. For the topic of late antique statuary, the most famous villa in Spain is Valdetorres de Jarama near Madrid (fig. 62). Salvage archaeology in 1978–82 exposed an octagonal structure with four apses. The rest of the building has not been excavated, but it is feasible that this octagon was part of a bath or nymphaeum in a large villa with a creative, cellular design similar to Piazza Armerina or Montmaurin. Pottery found in the excavation indicates that the building was constructed no earlier than the late fourth century. It remained in use until the eighth century, by which time it had been converted to agricultural uses, to judge from the numerous tools found in the building.66 Scattered through one side of the octagon were broken pieces from thirteen statues in different colors of marble. Carved from gray marble were a giant kneeling on snaky legs, two archers, and a dying figure on a collapsing horse (probably a Niobid). Carved in similar marble were two more male figures and a satyr or Silenus with a wineskin. The wineskin shows wear from running water, indicating that the satyr acted as a fountain. A statue of a Nubian was carved from black marble. There are four statuettes in fine-grained white marble—an Asklepios and three badly damaged male figures. A coarser-grained white marble was the material for a statuette of Ganymede and the eagle. Two molded bases, also in a coarser white marble, complete this very diverse collection. The giant is the best-known piece in the assemblage. It has some of the trademark features of Aphrodisian work, such as rosette-shaped tufts of hair on the chest and knotted chest musculature. The excavators draw an apt stylistic comparison to the statuary at Silahtaraga in Turkey, also linked to Aphrodisias.67 The Silahtaraga statuary has close stylistic ties to the controversial Esquiline group, with its dedicatory inscriptions of the mid-fourth century. Both archers probably represent Apollo, one paired with the giant, one with the dying Niobid. These groups flamboyantly demonstrate the cost of hubris. A piece of drapery carved from red marble may have been attached to the Niobid in a coloristic effect to contrast the gray marble. Four statuettes carved in a fine-grained white marble display some characteristics of late mythological statuettes. First, the best-preserved of these statuettes depicts Asklepios (of the “Pitti” type) leaning on his staff. The smooth carving, abstracted drapery, and crenellated folds on the Asklepios are consistent with a late antique date, but in the absence of the head, it is not possible to be certain. This type of Asklepios appears in other securely

the learned collector 180

giant niobid archer 1 archer 2 unknown figure A unknown figure B fragments of black marble Fig. 62. Octagonal structure excavated at Valdetorres de Jarama, showing findspots of statuary in white and red marble. (From Puerta, Elvira, and Artigas, 1994, 198, fig. 23. Copyright Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, by permission.)

dated late antique artworks, including a diptych and a statuette from a house in Aphrodisias. Second, a panther’s head and some other fragments remain from a statuette of Dionysos. The panther’s head has a ruff of fur, delicately touching fangs, and a carefully articulated tongue within the mouth—akin to the boar from Montmaurin, although the overall treatment of the boar is more sfumato.68 The third statuette is represented by a group of fragments that include some folds of drapery crossing an elbow and a flare of drapery similar to those at the waist of the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-

Learned Collectors across the Empire 181

Montagne (fig. 4). Such fanning flares of drapery are rare on male figures, and there is nothing preserved in these fragments to exclude an identification of the statuette as a Diana with drapery caught over one elbow and flaring out at the side.69 Fourth, slatlike wings and fragments of an eagle’s head are taken to be Apollo with a griffin. Given that griffins are not common in Roman sculpture in the round, a simple identification as an eagle makes more sense.70 It may then have belonged to a group of Ganymede and the eagle resembling the Carthage statuette. The slatlike wings of the “griffin,” with their small interconnecting struts, are closely reminiscent of the Ganymede in Carthage, a piece dated to the late fourth or early fifth century (fig. 2). This would admittedly mean that there were two groups of Ganymede and the eagle at the villa, but such repetition perhaps allowed contemplation of differences in iconography or style. The second Ganymede group is carved from a medium-grained white marble. Thus, this building boasted a very diverse assemblage of mythological sculpture. The exuberant, roughly life-size statues in gray marble were perhaps situated in the apses of the octagon as two vignettes of Apollo the archer, slaying a giant and a Niobid. The large apses are suitable for the scale and action of these statues. The remaining life-size statuary probably filled the other niches. The satyr and wineskin evidently adorned a fountain. The statuettes, with their more intimate scale, may have decorated smaller wall niches or a garden. The patron may have relished the comparison between two differing versions of Ganymede and the eagle (if the interpretation proposed here for the small-scale wing is correct). The excavators interpret the assemblage as a collection of antiques assembled in the late fourth century from disparate sources. However, nearly all the statuary can be linked to Asia Minor, making the group seem, in fact, quite homogenous. We have already noted that the giant carved from gray marble had distinctive Aphrodisian traits. The fragment of a chlamys in red marble is linked to quarries near Aphrodisias (or near Tenaro in Greece).71 The coloristic effect of this red drapery against the dark gray marble of the dying Niobid brings to mind the black-and-white style favored by Aphrodisian sculptors.72 The coarser white marble of the larger Ganymede and eagle resembles marble of the Greek islands.73 The statuettes in fine-grained white marble have petrographic similarities to Carrara marble. Moreover, statues from Asia Minor were not the only luxury goods from the eastern Mediterranean that were found at the villa. Pieces of carved ivory panels dating to the late fourth or early fifth century and probably made in Egypt were also discovered in the octagon.74 One panel carved in

the learned collector 182

a soft, classicizing style showed a nymph, while the other displayed a mythological creature, perhaps a unicorn, in a more abstracted style. The panels may have decorated furniture or chests. They confirm both a taste for and access to imported, classicizing luxury goods. Given the Eastern connections of most of the luxury goods at Valdetorres de Jarama and the fact that the villa was newly built ca. 400, it is possible that the whole assemblage was purchased at once by someone traveling in the East (perhaps with a stop in Rome). Aristocratic connections between Spain and the eastern Mediterranean are easily documented, the career of the Hispanic emperor Theodosius being perhaps the most obvious.75 Another very large collection of reused statuary was found in layers of the fourth and fifth centuries at the villa of El Ruedo near Córdoba.76 Occupied since the first century, the villa had elaborate renovations in the second century and again in the late third or early fourth century, and luxurious occupation continued well into the fifth. Architecturally, the focal point of the villa was a peristyle court with a large biapsidal pool. Looking onto the peristyle from the north was a triclinium endowed with a circular dining couch (stibadium) and a nymphaeum. A short marble dado ran along the bottom of the wall; above it were paintings imitating the veins and swirls of colored marble. All the rooms surrounding the peristyle had mosaics, wall paintings, and traces of marble revetment. All the excavated statuary was found inside the pool in the peristyle or in these luxurious rooms. However, it had clearly been moved about during the villa’s destruction, as joining pieces of the same statue were sometimes found in different rooms. Excavations at the villa uncovered the heads or bodies of at least fifteen statues, the most spectacular of which are bronze statues of Hypnos and of a dancing hermaphrodite. Two herms and a portrait discovered in the late nineteenth century are also attributed to the site. Other finds include several marble wings and two left hands holding palms. Excavators Desiderio Vaquerizo Gil and José Miguel Noguera Celdrán point to recurring Dionysiac themes among the statuary and compare it to decoration in houses and villas of Pompeii.77 Another way to look at the statuary is to consider its design. Only a few pieces were meant to be viewed from all angles: the hermaphrodite; arguably the Hypnos and a group of Pan pulling a thorn from the foot of a satyr; and perhaps two heads of Venus, even though they seem rather less worked at the back than at the front. These statues, then, are the best candidates for decorating the pools in the peristyle and the stibadium. The dancing hermaphrodite in particular invites the viewer to walk around it, first through its lithe, twisting form, then through its surprising anatomy.

Learned Collectors across the Empire 183

With a height of 43 cm, it would be an appropriate size for the small pool in the center of the stibadium, where it would make a good conversation piece. The Hypnos is rather larger (87 cm) and would suit the peristyle pool, perhaps even pointing through the colonnaded doorway to the intimate and luxurious space of the triclinium. Venus has a long-standing tradition as decoration in fountains and pools. A marble statuette of Perseus rescuing Andromeda from the sea monster is less finished at the back than at the front. With its dominant frontal view, it would make an attractive decoration in the aedicular niche of the nymphaeum in the main triclinium. Water trickling around the statuette would complete the landscape of a rocky shore portrayed on its base. The statuette is a reused piece of the first century A.D. and has no drill work. Nevertheless, with its complex composition involving several figures, rendering of landscape, and narrative outlook, it fits in well with the aesthetics of the late-antique mythological statuettes, discussed in chapter 4.78 A total of four herms were found at the villa. Three represent Dionysos (in quite different styles), and the fourth shows a heavily veiled woman, perhaps Ceres. The three herms of Dionysos are different in style: one was archaizing, one imitated an impish Hellenistic style, and the third had the heavy rounded forms and drilled eyes of the Severan Age. All, however, have drilled details in the hair, wreaths, and lips. By contrast, no drilling at all is visible on the “Ceres,” whose facial features are rather uneven. In all cases, the backs are cut flat and vertical, as though the herms stood against pilasters or walls. There are two portraits at the villa: one is a head of Domitian recut from one of Nero, and the other is a boy dating to the mid-first century A.D. A shoulder from a bust must represent a third portrait, as the marble evidently is different from that of either of the heads just mentioned. Domitian, an emperor hated by the senatorial class, seems an odd choice. Perhaps a fourth-century patron selecting a group of antiques did not recognize him. The remaining statuary—a Kairos, possibly a second Kairos, one or more putti, a youth in Persian garb (Attis?), and a bucolic relief—must also have decorated the peristyle or the lavish rooms around it.79 Vaquerizo Gil and Noguera Celdrán argue that the statuary collection did not comprise heirlooms passed on from earlier phases of the villa but, rather, was assembled as antiques at the time of the final lavish renovation. The wide variety of subjects, scales, and materials within the assemblage supports this interpretation. The portrait of Domitian seems a curious item to cherish through the centuries and is better explained as an antique.80 The four herms, though similar in height, are all carved in different styles

the learned collector 184

from different stone (yellow Chemtou marble and three different white marbles). They were approximately the same height and depth, and all had the back carved flat and vertical.81 Evidently, four different herms were reworked into a roughly matching set. Two other fourth-century villas near Córdoba had biapsidal pools in their peristyles and reused statuary evoking Dionysiac themes. At the Casa del Mitra, a Dionysos, a sleeping Eros, and a Mithras Tauroktonos were found in the apses of the pool.82 A fragment of drapery found later probably represents a fourth statue.83 The Dionysos and Eros are suitable as decoration in a peristyle or reception room, but the excavators are surely wrong to view the statue of Mithras as decorative. The cult of Mithras required initiation and was selective in its membership. As a god, Mithras stood outside familiar Greco-Roman myth. For both these reasons, statuary of Mithras would surely not have been suitable outside the context of a mithraeum. Though no mithraeum has yet been recognized at the villa, the site has not been fully excavated. The Casilla de la Lámpara likewise had a biapsidal pool in which reused statuary was found.84 An outflung bronze arm belonged to a sleeping satyr or Dionysos. There were two marble statues: a satyr with a wineskin and a hunting Diana. A small bronze panther acted as the spout on a fountain. These sculptures once again evoke the aristocratic pleasures of the Dionysiac world and hunting. The architectural similarity of the peristyles at the Casa del Mitra, the Casilla de la Lámpara, and the villa at El Ruedo is striking and may reflect the efforts of a particular contractor located in Córdoba. Vaquerizo Gil and others have noted the thematic similarities at the three sites, with the interest in Dionysos and the representation of sleeping figures or sleep itself (Hypnos).85 The villa of Els Antigons near Tarraco had a collection of reused statuary in the nymphaeum of its fourth-century phase.86 These included a Dionysos with a panther and a laughing satyr. Most interesting, however, is a headless statuette of Cybele enthroned between two lions. The closest iconographic parallels for this statuette are found in terracottas from Afyon in Turkey. This is the only statue of Cybele found on the Iberian Peninsula, and in general, representations of Cybele are uncommon in the western empire.87 Thus, the presence of this Cybele gives an Eastern flavor to the collection and raises the possibility of direct connections to Asia Minor, where the iconography would be at home. The Spanish villas sampled here demonstrate commonalities in contents and display.88 With the possible exception of Valdetorres de Jarama, statuary assemblages from late antique villas in Spain principally comprise antiques, not contemporary works. Dionysos and his circle were popular, as

Learned Collectors across the Empire 185

they were throughout the empire. Portraiture was not widely displayed, though a large coastal villa at Milreu in Lusitania had a half-dozen imperial portraits ranging from Agrippina Minor to Gallienus in its fourth-century layers.89 In all the villas, statuary is closely associated with nymphaea. Parts of the large collection at El Ruedo were found in other rooms of the villa as well. Finally, connections with the eastern Mediterranean appear at several villas. Some statuary at Valdetorres de Jarama has petrographic and stylistic links to Aphrodisias or the island of Paros. Ivory furniture decorations found there were made in Egypt. The Cybele at Els Antigons is linked iconographically to Afyon in Turkey. In all these cases, it is tempting to posit travel by high-ranking aristocrats as the explanation.

provinces of africa

N

umerous houses have been excavated in the cities of North Africa. Though mosaics illustrate country estates and emphasize status items, such as baths, at those estates, few have been excavated—none fully. The lavish mosaics at the baths of a villa at Sidi Ghrib near Carthage provide a tantalizing glimpse of the luxurious decoration that a rural villa could attain.90 The wealthy townhouses of fourth-century North Africa also had lavish decoration in the form of mosaics, many of them figural. Patterns of statuary use vary considerably across the region. Let us commence with Carthage, a prosperous city and major trade center of the western Mediterranean in the fourth century. Despite the evident wealth of the many late antique houses excavated here (as seen in their mosaics and marble revetment), statuary is not commonly reported from these residences.91 Nevertheless, there are two quite famous examples of statuary associated with late antique homes. The House of the Greek Charioteers is the most likely venue for the famous late antique statuette of Ganymede and the eagle found in sixth-century fills in an adjacent cistern (fig. 2). The statuette was probably displayed on one of two pedestals in the triclinium.92 A pendant statuette must have graced the other pedestal. The Maison de la Cachette is so named for an extraordinary find of sculptures walled into an underground room and covered over with a mosaic of a marine procession of Venus.93 Katherine Dunbabin dates the mosaic to the late fourth or early fifth century, thus providing a terminus post quem for the hiding of the statuary.94 Under the mosaic, stairs led to an underground room with niches in the walls and colorful wall paintings. The back portion of the room was sealed off with a wall. Behind the wall, Paul Gauckler found a mixture of debris including chunks of wall plaster

the learned collector 186

(including one painting of a girl with a lotus on her head, possibly a priestess of Isis); a lion’s-head spout; two terracottas of Mithras; pottery; and lamps decorated with fish, palms, and crosses. Within this debris were broken up statues of Venus with a dolphin, a seated Jupiter with an eagle, a seated young man wearing a chlamys, a head of Amor, and a mask of Silenus. Propped in the back corner was an inscription dedicated to Jupiter Hammon Barbarus Sylvanus. A series of additions on the stela named several priests. At the foot of the inscription was a votive bull’s head in marble, dedicated to Saturn. The exquisite preservation of four statuettes found at the bottom of the fills (paint even remained on their surfaces) contrasted with the statuary described thus far. Gauckler interpreted the four as being deliberately hidden here. He identified them as the Greek Demeter, the Ceres Africana, and two attendants—one a cistophoros (bearing a casket), the other wearing transparent drapery. In the later house, the house with the Venus mosaic and another of hunting Amazons, the only sculptural decoration was a bust of Marcus Aurelius. Interpreting the statuary at the Maison de la Cachette and how it came to be walled into a subterranean room is difficult. Some of the finds, such as the votive inscriptions, make it very clear that worship was carried out in this house. The two statues of seated figures evoke cult statues and thus also have a religious flavor. Several of the other smashed statues—the Venus, Amor, and Silenus—accord with the decorative taste of the time and need not be interpreted as religious. As for the four well-preserved statuettes, the presence of attendants (if Gauckler is right to so identify them) again makes an unmistakable reference to worship. How are we to interpret the demise of this statuary? Gauckler argued that a pagan devotee, who had perhaps emerged for a last hurrah in the heady days of Julian’s restoration, later had to hide the accoutrements of his religion from Christian authorities. Gilbert-Charles Picard further suggests that the four highestquality statues may have been rescued from the nearby sanctuary of Ceres Africana to be hidden in the house.95 Indeed, the life of the late fifthcentury Egyptian saint Severus records how statuary from the sanctuary of Isis at Memphis was hidden behind a false wall in a house before being betrayed and destroyed.96 Some parts of this argument positing concealed articles of pagan religion work: the statuary does indeed seem to be hidden, and some of it is clearly religious. Inconsistencies intrude, however. Why is some, but not all, of the statuary broken? The smashed statuary includes subjects considered here as decorative, that is, not necessarily evoking worship. Perhaps those who broke the statuary did not make such a distinction. Gauckler asserts that

Learned Collectors across the Empire 187

the statuary was deliberately broken, but he does not describe the evidence that led him to that conclusion. It is possible that, as at other sites discussed thus far, it was broken up as building material. Another curiosity is that the Venus and Amor within the broken statuary match themes on the mosaic sealing the deposit. Are we to understand that the statues were offensive but a mosaic was not? It appears so. The late fourth- or early fifth-century date of the Venus mosaic coincides with a well-documented period of antipagan violence in the region and imperial epistulae addressed to its governors about pagan worship, sanctuaries, and their contents.97 It does seem very plausible that the breaking and hiding of the statuary at the Maison de la Cachette are related to the violence of the age. A statuary assemblage thrown down a cistern was found at a Roman peristyle house at Kélibia (Clupea).98 These statues included a head of Jupiter with traces of gilding in the hair, a youthful portrait of Marcus Aurelius wearing the wreath of the Arval priesthood, fragments of a male statuette and a draped female statue, a double herm in black marble, and a lion’s head from a stone table. Ancient repairs are evident on the Jupiter and the lion. These were evidently discarded during renovations or destruction of the house sometime in the fourth century.99 An aedicula with an apse paved in geometric mosaic sat over the cistern but does not seem to have sealed it. The short publications on the site thus far do not reveal what type of occupation the building had after this destruction, though there is a reference to late construction over a basin in the garden. Jírí Frel attributes fresh cuts on the statuary as evidence of deliberate desecration. The findspots within the cistern suggest that the fragments of the male and female statue fell in by accident well before the destruction of the house (they were found at the bottom, about a meter lower than the other statues. The other three pieces were found right at the top of the cistern, evidently having been mutilated and thrown in. Frel attributes the damage and deposition to antipagan zeal on the part of Christians. Such an interpretation is possible, especially if his identification of the damage on the statues as deliberate mutilation is correct, but throwing statuary into a cistern is also consistent with tidying up a property that will be turned to other uses. Sculptural finds are much more common in the houses of Cherchel (Caesarea Mauretaniae). Numerous difficulties arise with the information from this site, as many of the records for these houses date back to the middle of the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, from data compiled by Philippe Leveau, it is clear that statuary was found in several houses that had fourth-century phases.100 Superimposed mosaics and renovations to

the learned collector 188

walls and rooms show that many of these houses were occupied over a long period. Moreover, mosaics of the fourth century, such as one showing a triumph of Venus, exist in many of the houses, indicating a luxurious standard of living at this time. Niches, a good indicator for statuary, are a common feature at the houses of Cherchel, much as they are at Ostia. Finally, the statuary seems to be found above floor levels (as opposed to being reused as building material in later phases or jettisoned down cisterns), and much of it is well preserved. Thus, though the data are rather vague, it is evident that statuary formed a component in the decoration of fourth-century houses at Cherchel. All the datable sculptures from these houses date to the second and third century and thus were antiques by the fourth century. Leveau interprets the use of domestic statuary in this later period as decorative rather than religious. In one house with fourth-century mosaics, the House of the Thybridii Basiliani, a statue of Apollo was found fallen face down in front of a tall base at the end of a long room. Smaller bases with protruding iron dowels flanked the larger base; they likely carried statuary originally. The mosaic on the floor of the room showed two quadrigae.101 A statue of a draped woman and a torso of Sylvanus were also found in this location. Along with fourth-century mosaics, the House of the Julii had statues of Bacchus, Sylvanus, a faun, and a shepherd. There was also an archaizing head of Apollo and a portrait of the first-century A.D. Mauretanian king Juba II. Most of this assemblage works together in Dionysiac and bucolic themes, with the portrait of Juba adding a distinctive regional note. Even without secure dates, some interesting patterns of subject matter emerge in the statuary. Many pieces are life-size. Apollo and Bacchus are widespread. Portraits of the first-century A.D. Mauretanian king Juba II appear in three houses, and a head of Ptolemy appears once. It is hard not to see local pride in these choices. Two of these portraits appear in houses that also have apses at the end and rows of columns in the middle of the room, a feature that appears related to the late antique trend for basilical rooms. Two other discoveries in North Africa may be mentioned briefly. At the Nympharum Domus at Neapolis (Nabeul), a head of a woman wearing a topknot (perhaps a Venus or nymph) was found in the destruction levels.102 A broken statuette base with feet and a lion found in a house at Leptis Magna may date to the later fourth or early fifth century but is cruder in workmanship than the Ganymede at Carthage.103 Some trends within the assemblages of North Africa merit further attention. It is noteworthy that Jupiter appears twice; this may be related to the

Learned Collectors across the Empire 189

importance of Jupiter in the African pantheon. Sylvanus is found at Cherchel twice—both times in houses with fourth-century phases—and in an inscription at the Maison de la Cachette in Carthage. He does not appear in any of the other fourth-century houses surveyed in this chapter. Marcus Aurelius also appears twice: in Carthage, as the only statue retained after the renovations to the Maison de la Cachette; and in Kélibia, where his bust was jettisoned (and possibly deliberately damaged) along with the other statuary. Frel suggests that with its wreathed head, the bust in Kélibia may have been taken to represent a divinity or priest.104 The Marcus Aurelius in Carthage fits in with a pattern of renewed popularity for this emperor in the later fourth century, as seen already in Castelculier and Nérac. The differences between regions of North Africa are perhaps more striking than the similarities. Sculptural decoration was common in houses at Cherchel but seems more rare in the region of modern-day Tunisia. In the latter region, it appears that disinterest in statuary on the part of homeowners seems to characterize not just late antiquity but the entire Roman period, to judge from the paucity of sculpture in earlier houses as well.105 In Roman and late Roman times, these wealthy patrons evidently preferred mosaics as a medium for expressing their rank, education, and wealth. The high quality of the work of the North African mosaicists generally is reflected in the fact that they worked at other places in the empire. Mythological and allegorical scenes appeared frequently in their mosaics; perhaps statuary provided too much visual competition for figural mosaics. By contrast, an equal taste for figural mosaics did not inhibit the elite homeowners at Cherchel from displaying antique statuary. These differences may reflect the long-term impact of different local influences, such as the philhellenism of Juba II. In the region where domestic statuary was not widely popular, two of the three known assemblages were damaged and jettisoned in a very deliberate fashion. Luxurious occupation continued at the Maison de la Cachette; the nature of reoccupation in Kélibia is less clear. Some of the sculptures from the Maison de la Cachette were clearly religious in use, and the hiding of the statuary may well be attributable to religious conflict. A similar explanation has been made for the statues found in Kélibia, and the apparent traces of deliberate damage on them could support this theory. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that the statue of Ganymede and the eagle from Carthage (fig. 2) and the statuette base found at Leptis Magna were manufactured, purchased, and presumably displayed ca. 400, at about the same time that the other two collections were removed from view. We do not know how long the Ganymede was displayed, but the

the learned collector 190

owner did prize it enough to repair it. Its fragments were deposited in the cistern sometime in the sixth century.

britain

T

he province of Britain stands out in this survey in that marble statuary (and imported marble generally) was an uncommon form of decoration in any venue, public or private—not just in late antiquity, but throughout the Roman period.106 Very few villas of any date in the whole province have yielded marble statuary; of these, only Woodchester had more than three fragments of sculpture.107 By contrast, colorful figural mosaics of mythological scenes abound in fourth-century villas, demonstrating that, as in some parts of North Africa, the local elites found another medium to communicate their standing vis-à-vis classical culture and learning.108 It is interesting, for our purposes, that the largest assemblage of marble statuary in any Romano-British context whatsoever occurs at the villa at Woodchester, where there was fourth-century activity. Two late mythological statuettes have been found in Britain, both in religious contexts. A sanctuary at Walbrook in London had a late statuette of Bacchus and other marble statuary. A base from another late antique mythological statuette, possibly also a Bacchus, appeared in a sanctuary at Maiden Castle. These assemblages thus merit our attention not because they are representative within Britain but, rather, because they are not. Their uniqueness within the region may make characteristics shared on a more empire-wide basis more visible. The large villa at Woodchester is best known for its large mosaic of Orpheus, but it in fact had a rich decorative program involving mosaics, opus sectile, marble revetment, statuary, and wall painting.109 The villa has an axial layout; a progression of three courtyards leads to a large heated reception room with a mosaic showing Orpheus at its center and water nymphs in the spandrels of the composition. The Orpheus mosaic is dated stylistically to 325–50.110 Eleven fragments of statuary were found in the villa, with the majority of provenanced pieces coming from a suite of large rooms facing the room with the Orpheus mosaic, across the inner courtyard.111 A large statuette of Diana with a bull’s head at her foot (known as Diana Luna) was found in the room furthest to the north within this suite. The drill work and the rather stiff, inorganic drapery suggest a fourth-century date for this piece.112 Also found in this room were two bases for statuettes and another base (now lost) whose scale is not recorded. The last base listed is of interest because, though it is now missing and the scale is not known, the sketch made at the time of discovery shows that it was oval and had a base mold-

Learned Collectors across the Empire 191

ing very similar to the late mythological statuettes. With two feet, part of an animal paw, and a break that could be the butt of a spear, this statuette may have been a Meleager with a spear and a dog or a Bacchus with a panther and a thyrsus. This missing base is said to have been in the same gray marble as the Diana Luna, a feature that differentiates it from late mythological statuettes. Also in this suite were found another statuette base and a draped shoulder of a masculine bust (now lost). It is clear that these rooms once had very ornate decoration indeed: other finds included fragments of painted plaster, tesserae, and colored marble from opus sectile. Regrettably, renovations of these rooms in a later phase mean that none of the sculpture or other decoration was found in situ.113 A torso of Cupid and Psyche was found in the north side of the outer courtyard. It resembles the famous Ostia statuette not only in its iconography but also in its technical workmanship; therefore, it probably likewise dates to the mid-fourth century. A leg of a marble statuette came from a room near the bath suite on the south side of this court. A piece of a third-century female portrait and a fragment of alabaster drapery at about one-third life-size were also found somewhere in the villa. Thus, the assemblage at Woodchester can be summarized as two portraits (male and female) and at least five statuettes (at minimum, four marble bases plus the alabaster statuette). The statuary at Woodchester stands out within British assemblages for its sheer quantity. The villa is noticeable for its other costly decoration as well, including mosaics and opus sectile.114 The statuary is made from imported stone of different sorts: gray marble, white marble, and alabaster. We thus see an interest on the part of the owner in status symbols used elsewhere in the empire. The ideal statuary, whether contemporary or antique, is all statuette-sized and thus more portable than full-size statuary. Such a consistency of scale is not found in most late antique assemblages of this size, even where they combine contemporary and older pieces. The Cupid and Psyche and the Diana Luna seem to be late pieces. The other statuary is undatable, though one base may belong to a late mythological statuette. The fragment of drapery from a male shoulder is undatable, but the hairstyle of the female portrait provides a clear third-century date. How did this imported statuary, much of it antique, find its way to Woodchester? The consistent smaller size of all the statuary (busts and statuettes) makes it reasonably portable. The owner of the villa may have acquired his or her taste for international status symbols and the statuary itself on travels abroad for personal or imperial business. Given that Woodchester is located very close to Cirencester, which was by then the capital of the province of Britannia Prima, an imperial functionary not originally from

the learned collector 192

Britain may have resided there at times. Because there is so little tradition of owning portrait busts in Britain, it is reasonable to imagine that the male and female portraits may also have been acquired abroad, either by an owner in the third century or by an individual in the fourth century who recognized the status conveyed by imagines in the household and purchased them as antiques despite the lack of actual connection to his own family. The villa’s owner would have had access to both contemporary works and antiques on these putative travels. Since the Woodchester collection does not include Asklepios, Cybele, Isis, or philosopher portraits, all elements that are common in Eastern collections, we may suggest that this collection was inspired by collections in Italy or western provinces, such as Gaul or Spain. The statuette of Cupid and Psyche, for instance, brings to mind similar statuettes found in Ostia and Rome. As for display, it is interesting that no statuary was found in the room with the Orpheus mosaic, located on the east side of the inner court, at the end of the villa’s central axis. The ebullient imagery of this mosaic already dominates the room and would have diminished the impact of small-scale sculpture. Notwithstanding the later disturbance of the area, the concentration of statuary finds and remnants of other luxury decorations in the rooms to the west of the inner court is striking. This suite, too, clearly functioned as an important reception area, and here the more varied decoration in marble revetment, painting, and mosaic (of unknown design) may have allowed statuary to stand out more. The Diana Luna and the missing base with bare feet and an animal’s paw were found here, and both were made of the same gray marble. Their manufacture from the same marble raises the possibility that they were pendant statues. The hunter Meleager would be a suitable consort for Diana, although the long dress of the Diana Luna admittedly does not strongly evoke her aspect as huntress. An identity as Dionysos would accord with an interest in transformative myths of apotheosis, an interest seen in the Orpheus mosaic and the statuette of Cupid and Psyche. The portraits, one of which was found in this suite, would evoke status and a long history for the family. A villa at Lullingstone possessed portraits rather than ideal statuary, but it merits discussion here because it is so clear that these busts were worshiped.115 Two male portraits of the second century were found fallen over in their places in an underground room. In earlier phases of the villa, this room was entered by two staircases and served a nymphaeum, possibly with religious uses. By the beginning of the fourth century, however, the stairs were completely blocked off by renovations, and the two damaged busts were set up on the lower steps, which remained in the room as a shelf of

Learned Collectors across the Empire 193

sorts.116 Vessels set into the floor in front of the statues evidently received offerings, as one contained a coin and another held part of the rib of a sheep. Numismatic and ceramic evidence taken together suggest that worship of the statues continued through the fourth century.117 A floor laid around the middle of the fourth century had two vessels protruding from it to receive libations. In the late fourth century, a house church with vivid painted decoration was built in the room above the portraits. The excavators insist that worship of the portraits continued right up to the villa’s destruction by fire in the early fifth century—that is, that it coexisted with Christian worship in the church. The difficult access to the portrait shrine and its cramped, dark quarters make it possible that this worship was not sanctioned by the villa’s owners who built the church, who perhaps were even unaware of it. At Lullingstone, then, statuary was manifestly used in a religious context. Mid-fourth-century mosaics of Bellerophon and Europa, one quoting lines from the Aeneid, demonstrate the owner’s interest in literary culture, and the house church shows that the family became Christian later on. The mosaics of mythological figures remained in use. The Walbrook Mithraeum in London yielded another noteworthy assemblage of marble statuary, with some twelve pieces.118 Of these, most belonged to the building’s initial use as a mithraeum. In the early fourth century, the temple was renovated, and its Mithraic sculpture was buried in two shallow pits within it.119 In the renovations, interior colonnades were removed, creating a more open space, and two altars and a baldachin, perhaps for a cult image, were placed in front of the apse at the west end. Sculpture found in the later phases of the building includes a statuette of Bacchus with his followers and two partial torsos of Bacchus. Evaluating the layout, statuary, and other finds, Martin Henig has convincingly proposed that the renovated building housed a cult of Bacchus. The Bacchus statuette (fig. 63), with its openwork, subsidiary figures, extreme flatness, and long proportions, finds good parallels in statuettes of the later fourth century.120 Isotopic analysis of the marble links this statuette to the Dokimeion quarry in Phrygia.121 The isotopic evidence provides significant support to stylistic analysis in overturning Jocelyn Toynbee’s influential opinion that the statuette was carved from Carrara marble exported to eastern Europe for working.122 The statuette is also interesting for the paint preserved on the surface—red on parts of the flesh, green in the grapes and tree, and blue behind the head of the satyr.123 The statuette was found lying on the latest floor of the sanctuary, indicating its use and availability in the temple’s latest phases. The sanctuary

the learned collector 194

[To view this image, refer to the print version of this title.]

Fig. 63. Statuette of Bacchus found at Walbrook, London. Museum of London, accession no. 18496. (Photo courtesy of the Museum of London.)

was abandoned at an unknown time after the late fourth century, and its ruins probably remained visible into Saxon times.124 The design of the statuette is not overtly votive; rather, this statuette seems to be a piece of decorative sculpture adapted to a religious purpose. The inscription, “Bacchus, give eternal life to wandering mortals,” was added as part of the dedicatory use.125 Two other marble statuettes of Bacchus are known in Britain. Both are late antique and have a roughly similar lacy composition where a languid Bacchus is accompanied by animals or other followers, although their overall workmanship is not as delicate as that of the Walbrook Bacchus.126 A base found in a shrine at Maiden Castle had the molded base characteristic of late antique mythological statuettes. On the extremely battered base are a tree trunk, a bare human foot, and the haunches of an animal. Martin Henig makes a convincing argument that the statue represented Dionysos

Learned Collectors across the Empire 195

with a panther.127 Evidently, this piece, too, was put to a votive use, as it was found in debris of the floor of a round shrine, along with coins and pottery of the late fourth century. A more crudely executed statuette of Bacchus and a panther dated to the third or fourth century appeared at the foot of a grave outside a villa at Spoonley Wood.128 It probably played a decorative role in the villa before its burial. It seems significant that these statuettes are roughly contemporary and similar in design. As they depict a Mediterranean god and are probably imports from the Mediterranean, they must reflect modes of taste from the center of the empire, where Dionysiac subjects were popular decorative themes. Again, one may suspect that wealthy elites brought these objects home from travels elsewhere in the empire. Any assemblage of marble statuary in Britain stands out because of the extreme rarity of marble statuary in the province. The two largest assemblages in the province belong to contexts still in use in the fourth century (although at Walbrook, most of the statuary was buried by A.D. 310–20). Both votive and decorative uses are evident. In its diversity of subjects and scales, the assemblage at Woodchester looks just like assemblages from Spain or Gaul, attesting to the internationality of the elite classes.

danube provinces

I

n the late third and early fourth centuries, the military importance of the Danube frontier led to new, strategically located imperial capitals. With the court presence came elaboration of certain cities and living quarters, and a number of well-appointed villas were built in Danube locations. They are usually identified as palaces and associated, in particular, with the tetrarchic emperors. A number of fourth-century villas at Sirmium, Naissus, and other sites have yielded high-quality statuary in white marble.129 Most were constructed in the late third or early fourth century and thus are rather early for the present survey. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to consider two particularly well-endowed sites at Mediana and Stobi. Naissus was an important strategic city in Moesia, and textual sources attest emperors of the fourth and fifth centuries holding court and issuing laws from its residential district of Mediana.130 Intermittent excavations in Mediana have uncovered a villa with a large peristyle, a basilical hall at one end, a nymphaeum, and baths. In 1984, a group of fifteen fragments of statues and statuettes was found lying on an earthen floor in one of the west rooms of the peristyle (the excavators speculate that they were placed there during cleanup).131 A pair of porphyry statuettes depicted Asklepios and

the learned collector 196

Hygieia. The statuary in white marble comprised two further statuettes of Asklepios (one with a Greek dedicatory inscription), one of Hygieia, a draped woman of the “Europa” or “Aspasia” type, a sleeping figure holding a lamp (the lanternarius type),132 a nude youth, a satyr head, the base of a male statue, and fragments of one or more statues of Hercules and Dionysos. Altogether, the fifteen pieces reported may belong to twelve or thirteen different sculptures. They do not seem to be a unified commission; they vary in date and in the types of marbles, mostly identified as nonlocal. The statues in white marble have the high polish and drill work associated with the second century and later. A few additional sculptures are reported from the villa. In earlier excavations, a marble statuette of an unidentified goddess carrying a calf and purse, with a boar’s head beside her, was found along with four other sculptures (now lost).133 Fragments of compositions of Hercules and Dionysos are reported from the baths.134 The villa was constructed in the early fourth century, and the latest coins found there were issued from 395 to 408, showing that this villa and its contents remained in use well beyond the early fourth century.135 Thus, the statuary was assembled in the early fourth century or later. Although the statues vary in size, the consistency of quality may indicate that this assemblage was pulled together at one time by a patron with access to highquality goods from the Mediterranean Basin. At least two of the statuettes are approximately contemporary with the construction of the villa in the early fourth century. The porphyry statuettes of Asklepios and Hygieia carried Greek votive inscriptions bearing the Thracian name Roimetalkes. This is probably the same Roimetalkes who is attested as a governor of Egypt in the reign of Constantine.136 As products of Egypt, the statuettes were probably acquired during Roimetalkes’s governorship there. On one statuette, his name has been scratched out, an intriguing phenomenon. Perhaps he tampered with the imperial monopoly on the porphyry quarries and was condemned. Although the porphyry Asklepios and Hygieia are shown in Hellenistic representations, the tall pillars supporting the back of the statuettes are an Egyptian feature. The Mediana collection shows a high level of interest in the healing gods Asklepios and Hygieia. The votive inscriptions on three of these statuettes also provide secure evidence for a religious function. The emphasis on Asklepios and Hygieia links the collection to an eastern Mediterranean taste. Dionysos and Hercules are well represented in late antique domestic assemblages more broadly. A very classicizing taste is evident in the choice of the so-called Europa statuette, which is a version of a well-known

Learned Collectors across the Empire 197

early classical statue. The figure of this statuette was frequently copied in the Roman period but resists a secure identification from modern scholars.137 The lanternarius, a Hellenistic genre piece, is unique among the late antique collections surveyed here. The unidentified goddess evidently reflects the Thracian context, as she is not a familiar Greco-Roman divinity. She holds a calf and purse and is flanked by a boar’s head with a double ax above it. Various identities have been proposed for the goddess, including a Dardanian household goddess or a syncretism of Cybele with a local fertility goddess.138 Thus, alongside the strong Mediterranean connections attested by marbles, workmanship, and Greco-Roman divinities (e.g., Asklepios), the patron of the statuary assemblage retained a significant local identity. The Thracian names in the dedications further indicate local connections for the patrons. This conjunction of regional and Mediterranean identities finds parallels at SaintGeorges-de-Montagne, with its Jupiter-giant column, and at Cherchel, where some elite houses displayed portraits of Juba II. An assemblage of heirloom statuary found in a wealthy house at Stobi, the so-called Theodosian Palace, compares better to the chronological parameters of the Gallic villas discussed earlier.139 Built probably in the mid-fourth century and refurbished around the early fifth century, it was used throughout the fifth century and is the most luxurious home excavated in Stobi to date. The house had a large peristyle and a marble-paved basilical hall with a vaulted apse opening off one side. Smaller reception rooms or triclinia with mosaic pavements and marble dados opened off the end. Reused columns evidently drawn from a variety of sources lined the peristyle, which had three deep ornamental basins at one end. Above the largest basin, in the wall facing the triclinia and reception rooms, were seven small niches separated by green marble columns with white capitals and bases. Around the sides of the basin were eight engaged pedestals in white marble, decorated with twisting flutes. Found in the basin were thirteen statues and statuettes of marble and bronze, all reused.140 The material breaks down into four different groups. The smallest bronze pieces—a Lar, an Apollo, a Fortuna, and a Venus and satyr—range in size from 10 to 30 cm. The presence of a Lar and the medium and small size of these statuettes suggest that they were the contents of a lararium. These statuettes were presumably removed from another room in the villa to be thrown into the basin. Four marble statuettes form the second group and include a nude Venus, a Dionysos, and a Hygieia. The Dionysos is a reused votive piece and its base has inscriptions in Greek and Latin providing a date of 119.141 The assemblage includes three pieces that are larger

the learned collector 198

in size or scale: a large bronze statuette of a satyr playing pipes, an ideal female head with hair drawn back in a bun and inlaid eyes (now missing), and an oversize Serapis with gilding surviving in the hair.142 The fourth distinctive group within the assemblage comprises two reliefs, one of Cybele and an archaizing work of the first century A.D. showing Pan and the nymphs. The four marble statuettes and the two heads would fit nicely in the seven niches above the largest pool. One or both of the reliefs may also have decorated the niches; another late antique house at Stobi had a reused funerary relief—showing two men, a woman, and Telesphoros—embedded in the wall behind a fountain, evidently as decoration.143 The bronze satyr, with a height of 115 cm, is too large for the niches (which are ca. 110 cm tall) and perhaps stood on one of the pedestals or in the garden, where his twisting pose could better be appreciated.144 Lead adhering to the feet of this statuette indicates that a marble base once supported it. There are several interesting points to observe about this assemblage. It must have been created deliberately after the house was built sometime around the middle of the fourth century. The presence of the statuary in the latest levels indicates that it was still available at the time of the destruction of the building. Numerous elements within the collection demonstrate or imply religious usage (as defined in chap. 2): the lararium group, the mystery gods (Cybele and Serapis), the dedicatory statuette (Dionysos), and the two reused votive reliefs. The lararium group is interesting, as this is the only assemblage in the present survey of late antique material where an actual Lar has been found.145 The reuse of votive reliefs also stands out as unusual in the wider late antique context. Reused Hellenistic reliefs appear in several late Athenian residences; perhaps there is an Athenian influence on the collection. The inclusion of Hygieia and Cybele and the absence of portraits in the collection also reflect the tastes of mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean. The statuary itself is all reused and varies widely in quality. The two bronze satyrs are Hellenistic works of the second or first century B.C. The head of Serapis is finely carved, and the gilding in the hair demonstrates the high valuation and intrinsic worth of the piece. By contrast, the smaller Venus statuette shows unremarkable workmanship, and the statuettes of Dionysos and Hygieia look like products of a regional workshop. Evidently the patron had access to some high-quality works but used less masterful pieces in other cases. Some of the works may have been imported to Stobi in late antiquity explicitly for this house, but it seems more plausible that

Learned Collectors across the Empire 199

they originated in existing structures, as had the columns of the colonnade of the peristyle. Smaller amounts of reused statuary appeared in other late antique houses at Stobi. The House of Parthenius, next to the “Theodosian Palace,” had a similar layout, with a peristyle and a row of niches above a basin.146 Crosses decorated the impost blocks of the peristyle, in which were found two bases and a wreathed head. A wreathed head could belong to a mythological sculpture, in which case it apparently coexisted with the overtly Christian symbolism on the impost blocks. Several reused sculptures appeared in the House of the Psalms, whose mosaics date to the late fourth and early fifth centuries: a Roman portrait in the pose of the Large Herculaneum woman, a relief of Dionysos, and statuettes of Asklepios and Zeus.147

athens and greece

B

y far the best-known and best-published assemblages of domestic statuary in Greece come from the city of Athens. However, before moving on to this rich assemblage and its site-specific issues, let us survey briefly other evidence for the collecting of statuary in late antique Greece. A group of statuettes recently excavated from a suburban villa in Corinth included a statuette of a seated Roma, as well as statuettes of Artemis, Asklepios, and others.148 Ten statues of imperial date found near Patras may have come from a late Roman villa.149 They include male and female portraits as well as a Hercules, a Hermes, and a satyr. The most unusual find in the group was an archaizing kore. Archaizing styles are not frequently chosen in late antique assemblages, apart from the occasional herm (e.g., at El Ruedo). A group of bronze statues were found at a late Roman house at Ambelokipi, outside Athens.150 Niches in other late antique houses presuppose statuary decoration, though none was found during excavation. A wealthy late house at Delphi, for instance, had large niches in its three apsidal rooms, which were built in a phase of renovation sometime before the late sixth century.151 Statuary deposits of the late fourth century at Isthmia and Knossos do not appear to be domestic. A pit near the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia was filled with coins of the late fourth century, three stelae (including a double stela of Cybele), three marble heads, and some fragments.152 The location near the sanctuary implies that the statuary originated in the sanctuary. At Knossos, marble statuary appeared above a robber trench of the fourth century, but the excavations were not extensive enough to deter-

the learned collector 200

mine the nature of the building.153 The statuary all belonged to the late Hellenistic or early imperial period. A number of wealthy late antique homes with sculptural decoration are known in Athens, mostly on the north slope of the Areopagus, on the south slope of the Akropolis, and in the southeastern area now under the National Gardens.154 The comparative wealth of literary sources concerning late antique Athens allows parts of the social context to be known and creates the temptation to associate excavated remains with known institutions or persons, specifically the Neoplatonic schools of philosophy and their charismatic teachers, as well as the Athenian-born empress Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II. Thus, debate over specific historical attributions dominates the discussion of many of the remains and clouds the ability to see these buildings in a wider context of the eastern Mediterranean in particular. Late antique Athens is celebrated in the Expositio totius mundi as a center of learning and beautiful antiquities.155 It was home to thriving philosophical schools, mainly of Neoplatonists. As we have seen with Ausonius of Bordeaux, skills of rhetoric and argumentation were markers of class and could lead to advancement in status. Aristocratic youths from across the eastern Mediterranean paid the high fees at the philosophical schools of Athens, whose alumni included the orator Libanius of Antioch, the bishop Gregory Nazienus, and even, the emperor Julian. Lives of the philosophers and their own writings provide grist for possible attributions of specific houses either to specific individuals or to philosophers more generally (as distinguished from, say, municipal aristocrats or government officials). Building Chi (often called the “House of Proclus”), on the south slope of the Akropolis, and three well-appointed houses on the north slope of the Areopagus are central to these discussions. Let us start with the so-called House of Proclus. Proclus (A.D. 412–85) was the head of the Neoplatonic school during the years 437–85.156 Marinus’s Life of Proclus describes Proclus’s close relations to the gods, emphasizing his worship of Cybele, mother of the gods; his popularity with students; and the miracles accomplished through his piety. Along with the position as head of the Neoplatonic school, Proclus inherited the house of the school’s founder, Plutarch. The house is described in a much cited passage of Marinus: “[It was] near the Asklepieion made famous by Sophocles and the Temple and Theatre of Dionysos. . . . it could be seen, or at least discerned, by someone standing on the Akropolis of Athens.”157 A wealthy late antique dwelling excavated on the south slope of the Akropolis in 1955 and known more neutrally as “Building Chi” meets this topographical

Learned Collectors across the Empire 201

description (fig. 64). Its sculptural assemblage, along with other features, has led many scholars to identify it as the house of Proclus. Only the northern part of Building Chi was exposed, consisting of several south-facing rooms sporting mosaic floors. Excavator I. Meliades argued that the house was built sometime after the sack by Alaric in 396, and mosaics in the house are dated by scholars to different points in the first half of the fifth century. There are at least two phases of building. Thus, some argue that while Plutarch’s original house was more modest, it expanded as the fame and wealth of his school grew.158 The central room had a large apse with a mosaic floor, marble revetment, and a large apse with seven niches in the wall. Alison Frantz argues that the large apse would be highly suitable as a lecture theater; the late antique philosophers of Athens are known to have taught in their own homes.159 A room to the side of the apse had a squared recess (ca. 1 x l m) with a shrine (fig. 65). This room, its niches, and the sculptures were built into the house from the start.160 Set into niches in the walls were two reused votive reliefs. One shows Cybele enthroned with a lion in her lap. The other shows an enthroned, bearded god holding a cornucopia (perhaps Asklepios or the chthonic god Pankrates).161 Three worshipers approach him. A reused relief base from a grave of the fourth century B.C. was set into the floor of the recess. The side that faces out of the recess shows a scene in which men in himations gather around a seated man. The top of this base was recut at some time after its original use; it may have supported a statue, though the cutting is also suitable for receiving libations. As already mentioned, Proclus is known to have particularly worshiped Cybele, who appears on one of the reused reliefs.162 Lorenz Baumer argues that a better, more comprehensive explanation is that this was a locale for Proclus to make offerings to the souls of dead philosophers.163 Marinus describes Proclus doing this in a designated space in his house. Baumer points out that the scene of a gathering of men evokes philosophical discussion among a group of students and teachers.164 Moreover, in the late antique context, the funerary base has been deliberately turned sideways to present this scene frontally. While reused classical votive reliefs are common in late antique Athenian houses, a funerary relief is more unusual.165 Two other statues were found in Building Chi, a portrait of Neronian date and a head from a statue of Isis, recut as a bust.166 The Isis was found in the westernmost room, a room that did not have niches. It was probably originally located in an Isaeum on the south slope of the Akropolis, perhaps

the learned collector 202

Fig. 64. Building Chi, Athens. The shrine is located in room A; the sacrifice was found in room B. (Plan courtesy of American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations. Reproduced by permission of the First Ephoria of Prehistoric and Classical Archaeology, Athens.)

even as the cult statue.167 Isis was another divinity dear to Proclus, who wrote a hymn to her.168 There is clear evidence of pagan worship in this house, in the form of a sacrificed piglet found with an iron knife still in its neck. Vases and a lamp showing Eros accompanied it.169 Interesting as this evidence of pagan sacrifice is, Frantz cautions that “there is no record that pigs and Neoplatonism had anything in common.”170 The argument for identifying the owner of this house in the mid-fifth century as Proclus thus rests in the main on the passage in Marinus describing the location of Proclus’s house and on the presence of a shrine to Cybele (or the spirits of the dead), the pagan sacrifice, and an apse that could have been used as a lecture theater. The weakest of these arguments is that concerning the apse. While an apsidal room could certainly be used as a venue for lectures, such rooms are utterly commonplace features of late antique domestic architecture, as we have already seen in Gaul (chap. 3).171 In every late antique context other than Athens, apsidal rooms are discussed in terms of ceremony, presentation, and aggrandizement of the owner and suitability for dining around a hemicyclical (sigma) sigma table. As for the shrine, the reuse of votive reliefs evokes a more religious atmosphere than reuse of ordinary ideal sculpture, and the sacrificed piglet sets the house firmly into a world of pagan sacrifice. The sculpted references to Cybele suit what is known from Marinus of Proclus’s piety. Marinus’s description

Learned Collectors across the Empire 203

Fig. 65. View of excavations at Building Chi. The shrine in room A is visible in the center of the image. (Photo reproduced by permission of the First Ephoria of Prehistoric and Classical Archaeology, Athens.)

of the location of the house is very suggestive, but this evidence, too, is not conclusive, since there were clearly other late antique houses on the south slope of the Akropolis that would suit the topographic description.172 Baumer’s interpretation of the reused funerary base as a shrine for the souls of dead philosophers is attractive in its specificity in explaining a feature of the house that is unusual even in Athens. The house excavated in 1955 is possibly, but not certainly, the house of Proclus. Tantalizing information about a specific nearby house uncovered during excavations for the Akropolis metro station could support an equally strong circumstantial case for its identity as Proclus’s house.173 Here, in a continuously occupied area, villas paved with mosaics dating variously between the late fourth century to the mid-fifth century were built over houses of the second century. Imposing foundations indicate that the later houses may have stood two stories tall. The buildings had agglomerative architecture and at least one apsidal room. Finds from the late antique layers

the learned collector 204

include a classicizing ivory plaque of a Dioskouros dating from the fifth or sixth century and children’s toys. Some statuary was built into the foundations of these late antique houses, but other sculpture was found in the fill and therefore was evidently still in circulation by the time of the destruction of the late houses. Sculpture found at the site includes a head of Plato, a seated philosopher, a double herm of Dionysos and Hermes, cupids broken off of a larger composition, and a small-scale head of Athena. Individual findspots for these pieces (fill or foundations) are not specified as yet, so strong conclusions cannot be drawn. Nevertheless, following the same line of logic that is used to identify Building Chi as the house of Proclus, this assemblage is equally suggestive. A bust of Plato would clearly have had a place in a Neoplatonic headquarters, with a second philosopher to add to the atmosphere. The head of Athena could reflect Proclus’s reverence for Athens’s tutelary deity, who reportedly came to live with him after her cult statue in the Akropolis was removed by Christians. Similar questions concerning possible association with philosophical schools have arisen concerning a group of houses on the north slope of the Areopagus. Frantz identified these houses as schools of philosophy, citing their appropriate chronology (mid-fourth century to early sixth century), the apses with their potential for use as lecture theaters, and their abundant collections of heirloom statuary.174 The chronology is indeed appropriate. The ubiquity of apses in late antique domestic architecture has already been discussed. The sculptural assemblage is the element most deserving of consideration here. House C had the most statuary, with five portrait busts (Antoninus Pius; a woman in a wreath; another woman; a bearded man; and a headless, draped male figure), a head of Helios, a Herakles at about two-thirds life-size, and a classicizing head of Nike. There were also two reused late classical reliefs. One showed Hermes handing the infant Dionysos to the nymphs; the other showed a hunting Artemis with fluttering drapery and a dog.175 All but three of these pieces were found in three wells. Renovations in the early sixth century incorporated a statue of Athena as a threshold block; this statue may formerly have been decoration within the house. One peristyle in House C had a fence with herms of Silenes as posts. It echoes a late antique taste for herm balustrades, as seen at Welschbillig and on the obelisk base of Theodosius. A well in House B contained a statuette of Hermes, a headless statuette of a seated man, and a head of Nemesis. Franz calls the seated figure a philosopher,176 but it could equally well be a Zeus or Asklepios. No finds of statuary are specifically associated with House A, although it did have

Learned Collectors across the Empire 205

three suitable niches in an apse. A small female bust and a statuette of Asklepios were found in the general vicinity of the houses. All three houses have rooms with niches suitable for the display of this statuary. Frantz saw in these assemblages of statuary a “marked academic or religious flavour,”177 principally because she automatically interpreted all the ideal statuary in a religious role. However, only two of the sculptures meet the criteria outlined in chapter 2 for positively identifying religious sculpture. The relief of the infant Dionysos (not discussed by Frantz) has a “religious flavour,” as it mirrors the iconography of a common type of votive relief, although it does not carry a dedicatory inscription. Also, one of the female portraits wears a wreath, perhaps identifying it as a priestess. The relief of the hunting Diana, again lacking a votive inscription, may well have been a votive relief. Thus, this statuary collection probably belonged to a pagan owner. The case for an “academic flavour” is much weaker since there is only one possible philosopher portrait among the three houses. Frantz saw the pendants of Hermes and Herakles specifically as patrons of education and the gymnasium, a plausible enough interpretation. However, by the time of the floruit of the Areopagus houses, these gods had been conveying something of the flavor of the palaestra to Roman villas for centuries, and they need not be interpreted as unique to a philosophical setting. Herakles appears fairly frequently in late antique domestic collections—in Mediana and Rome, for instance. Frantz does not discuss the portraits in her argument, and the heirloom female portraits in particular seem unrelated to philosophy. In general, this assemblage is similar to other late antique domestic assemblages of Athens and elsewhere. Within Athens, it stands out somewhat in that Cybele is not represented. Another argument used to support the identification of these houses as belonging to philosophers has been that the statuary, some of it mutilated, was thrown into wells around the time of Justinian’s decree closing the schools of philosophy in 529.178 As we have seen at several sites now, statuary was frequently thrown in wells and cisterns during cleanup and renovation of buildings (Desenzano, Kélibia, the House of the Greek Charioteers at Carthage). The Athena reused as a doorsill may reflect particular hostility toward the former tutelary deity of Athens, though we have seen at Rome that the use of statuary as building material was not always ideologically driven (see chap. 2). John Camp has also pointed out selective mutilation on the two reliefs, a convincing indication of antipagan sentiment.179 However, the mythological sculptures, the pieces that could simply have been decorative, were jettisoned without mutilation. The portraits were not mutilated either, not even the wreathed woman who could be

the learned collector 206

interpreted (then and now) as a priestess. The selective mutilation at this site seems to support the view that Christian sentiment against statuary was particularly directed at statuary used in worship. Hostility toward statuary used in pagan practice does not prove the existence of philosophical schools at this site. Another building that is drawn into historical discussions is the so-called Palace of the Giants in the Athenian agora. This palace, archaeologically dated to the early fifth century,180 is named for colossal pilasters of writhing giants that adorn the entrance to its large court of honor; they are reused from the Odeion of Agrippa.181 Six large niches in the back wall of the court of honor are suitable for displaying statuary. Thus, the giants would tower over the visitor, who would look down the long vista of the courtyard to the statuary on the back wall, flanking the entrance to the vestibules. The residence has three further courts (one hemicyclical) aligned on a reasonably axial plan and a bath suite, all standard features of luxury homes of the period, although it has alternatively been designated a gymnasium.182 The giants are the only statuary securely associated with the building, apart from possibly a fifth-century portrait of a togate official, found in the vicinity.183 This structure stands out even in prosperous early fifth-century Athens for its size and grandeur. While Frantz suggested this building was the residence of imperial officials, funded to a suitable level of ostentation by the Athenian-born empress Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II, Garth Fowden has suggested that it belonged to the empress herself, a pied-à-terre in her hometown.184 Eudocia received a thorough classical education during her upbringing in Athens, where her father, Leontius, held a prestigious Sophistic chair. She composed speeches and arguments in hexameters and wrote Homeric centos on Christian topics. She continued to patronize educational enterprises and was also known for her Christian charity. Although the Palace of the Giants does not have an assemblage of freestanding statuary apart from possibly the togate portrait, the reuse of the colossal giants in such a visible locale is of interest. As Niels Hannestad has pointed out, giants appear in a number of statuary assemblages made or used in the later fourth century, including those at Silahtaraga and Valdetorres de Jarama.185 At those sites, nearly life-size statues of giants, probably contemporary works of Aphrodisian manufacture, were used as decoration in a nymphaeum setting. Around the same time, Claudian wrote a poem called the Gigantomachia. The villa of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne in Gaul had a reused Jupiter-giant column that must have brought to mind the myth of the gigantomachy for its owners.

Learned Collectors across the Empire 207

The gigantomachy also appeared in imperial art earlier in the fourth century, art that would still have been visible. Above the gate of Constantine’s palace in Constantinople was a picture that Eusebius describes as the emperor and his sons trampling the Devil in the form of a snake, an image perhaps inspired by the classical gigantomachy. This he displayed on a very high panel set before the entrance to the palace for the eyes of all to see, showing in the picture the Saviour’s sign placed above his own head, and the hostile and inimical beast, which had laid siege to the church of God through the tyranny of the godless, he made in the form of a dragon borne down to the deep. For the oracles proclaimed him a “dragon” and a “crooked serpent” in the books of the prophets of God; therefore the emperor also showed to all, through the medium of encaustic painting, the dragon under his own feet and those of his sons, pierced through the middle of his body with a javelin, and thrust down in the depths of the sea.186 The Senate house at Constantinople (built by Constantine) had bronze doors decorated with a gigantomachy. They had apparently been taken from the temple at Ephesos.187 An early fourth-century mosaic showing this subject adorned one of the larger triclinia at Piazza Armerina.188 Evidently this myth of titanic struggle between good and evil appealed in an era that saw the proliferation of rhetoric painting a similarly titanic struggle in political and religious spheres, as, for instance, in the passage of Eusebius. The Gallic rhetor Pacatus, in his panegyric of 389 to Theodosius, describes the gigantomachy as an overused theme (vulgata).189 In the case of the Palace of the Giants, if it was indeed commissioned by the classically educated Eudocia, the choice to retain this decoration may reflect her appreciation of the images and allegories of classical literature. Thus far I have examined the sculptural assemblages of well-known late antique Athenian houses, the discussion of which is now inexorably bound up with historical issues and literary sources. Several additional, lesserknown assemblages have been found in prosperous homes of late antique Athens. In particular, I will examine a house under the National Gardens and one in Plaka. Consideration of their assemblages makes it all the more clear that the statuary collections of House C on the Areopagus or of Building Chi (the possible house of Proclus) are not unusual in the Athenian context. Excavations in the 1980s and 1990s in the National Gardens near Herodou Attikou Street revealed fifteen rooms of a lavishly decorated late

the learned collector 208

antique building possessing statuary.190 The building had two main phases of construction, one in the late third or early fourth century and the other in the fifth or sixth century. The final phase of renovation boasted mosaic floors (including one of the four seasons), marble basins, bright wall paintings with patterns imitating a dado in colored marble, and an extensive system of water supply. Statues found in the complex are mentioned tantalizingly in preliminary publications and the popular press.191 An apsidal room contained two statuettes of Cybele enthroned and a Hygieia. Reused votive reliefs of Asklepios and Cybele were also found. Though these structures were initially identified as a house, the excavators now suggest that they may belong to the same building as some fifth-century mosaics in the northeast corner of the National Gardens, in which case they argue that the overall structure would be too large to be a dwelling. They also suggest it could instead be associated with a bath building partially uncovered to the east. This bath building also yielded statuettes during the nineteenth century, including a highly polished, finely detailed statuette of the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias, a masterpiece of late fourth-century mythological statuary. A statuette of Hygieia and one of a priestess of Isis were found with the Aphrodite.192 In the present state of publication, it is difficult to evaluate the thesis that these suites were part of the same complex, but size alone need not exclude an identification of the building as a house. Private baths were an important mark of status in aristocratic dwellings. Costly statuary on an intimate scale would be appropriate decoration for them. While Asklepios and Hygieia, divinities of healing, are found fairly commonly in bath buildings, Cybele would be an unusual find for a bath and suits a domestic context better, especially in Athens.193 Adding to the domestic profile of the building are the reused reliefs of the classical period, which are a feature of three other late antique houses in Athens. Also in the National Gardens, a building with several mosaic floors and a hemicyclical nymphaeum paved in marble was excavated near the Zappeion in 1889. It was interpreted as a gymnasium at the time, but others have suggested it was a villa.194 Statuettes associated with it included Athena, Aphrodite, Dionysos, Pan, a satyr, and dancers. There were also several portraits—a head of a youth, a portrait of a woman, and possibly a portrait of Hadrian. Some of the statues had been built into the foundations, but others were evidently in the fill, which means that they must have been available and in use in the late antique phases.195 Recent excavations for the Athens Metro rediscovered part of this building.196 Statuary was found in this area, but it is not clear from the publication whether any of it could

Learned Collectors across the Empire 209

have been displayed in the late antique levels. Another lavish building in the northeast corner of the National Gardens may be a house as well.197 A more modest fourth-century house in Plaka, northeast of the Akropolis, had a rather battered collection of reused statuary, all small-scale and all reused.198 There were three reused classical reliefs, two of Cybele and one of a rider standing next to a horse. There were also a small marble female head with a wreath, a small steatite statuette of an enthroned goddess, a statuette of Harpocrates, and a bust of Isis. Interest in mystery cults stands out as a uniting theme in this collection. The house was probably destroyed in Alaric’s sack in 396.199 A final Athenian assemblage possibly relevant to late antiquity was found at the northern edge of the city, just inside the city wall.200 In 1880, excavations near the Varvakeion School, since demolished, revealed a few painted walls from a Roman house. The paintings showed imitations of marble patterns in the dado, and in one panel, flanked by an Ionic column, a bird was visible in the main field. These designs are similar to the paintings excavated in the Herodou Attikou shaft of the metro and to ones found further afield—for instance, at Montmaurin or in Rome. Found in the house were the famed Varvakeion Athena, modeled after the statue of the Parthenos on the Akropolis; a statuette of Asklepios; and a small female head. The Athena was found facedown under a brick arch that contemporary observers took to be a structure for concealment, whereas it may have been a niche for display. A hand from a terracotta statuette, some fragments of drapery, and a few corroded coins, none datable, were the only other finds.201 There is no external evidence from which to date this assemblage, but it could fit historically in Athens of the fourth or fifth century, since we know that the intellectual and social elite of that time took a great interest in the history and cults of the city. Another example of a patron selecting a statuette based closely on a recognizable cult statue (albeit not an Athenian one in this instance) is the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias found in the National Gardens. Thus, there is a rich record from Athens concerning domestic assemblages of statuary in late antiquity. Several interesting and distinctive patterns emerge. Asklepios is clearly the most popular divinity, appearing in every assemblage but two (those of the Plaka house and the house near the Zappeion). Hygieia often accompanies him. Cybele, too, has a noticeable popularity, appearing in statuettes or reused relief sculptures at Building Chi, the house near Herodou Attikou Street, and the house in Plaka.202 Another Eastern divinity, Isis, appears at Building Chi and the house in

the learned collector 210

Plaka. Nearly all works, with the notable exception of the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias, are reused pieces of earlier eras. Votive reliefs of the fourth century B.C. appear at four houses. This is a distinctive feature of domestic assemblages in Athens and is not found in other cities or regions in late antiquity, although an archaizing relief in the “Theodosian Palace” at Stobi is an interesting comparison.203 These reliefs lend a sacral character to their assemblages. With the exception of the flamboyant and colossal giants on the pilasters of the House of the Giants, most statuary is undersized, ranging from about one-quarter to two-thirds life-size). Portraiture is not ubiquitous, though a fifth- or sixth-century torso of a standing togate man found near the Palace of the Giants probably adorned that building in some official capacity, and a bust of Neronian date was reused in the “House of Proclus.”204 House C on the Areopagus had an Antoninus Pius and three portraits of unknown individuals (one man and two women, all of the second century). A statuette of a seated philosopher and a bust of Plato appeared in the excavations for the Akropolis metro station, though their precise relationship to the late antique houses there remains unclear. On the whole, in light of the philosophical schools dominating the intellectual life of upperclass Athens in late antiquity, philosopher portraits attributable to domestic contexts are not as abundant as one might expect. On balance, the domestic assemblages in Athens have more overtly religious pieces in them than those we have examined elsewhere. Cybele was important in late antique paganism, as seen in the letters of Julian and in Marinus’s Life of Proclus. The reused classical votive stelae, with their scenes of adoration and their original religious function, evoke worship rather than myth or paideia. The alcove with statuary in Building Chi appears to be a shrine, and the presence of pagan sacrifice elsewhere in this house is unmistakable. Given the frequent indicators of pagan religion in the houses of Athens, it is probable that the ubiquitous presence of Asklepios also reflects devotional sentiment, rather than simply allegorical references to health and prosperity. Dedications of marble statuettes continued at Epidauros as late as A.D. 309.205 Worship of Asklepios in Athens evidently continued into the 480s.206

cyprus

T

he Villa of Theseus at Nea Paphos, Cyprus, is famous for its lavish mosaic cycle but less known for its equally extraordinary sculptural collection.207 Built on a grandiose scale in the second half of the second century, it received further renovations and refurbishments in the fourth

Learned Collectors across the Empire 211

and fifth centuries. In general, the south wing of the villa contained ceremonial suites; the west wing comprised well-appointed quarters for sleeping and dining; the north wing had service areas, including a laundry; and the east wing focused on the monumental entrance to the villa (as well as storage and some humbler rooms not accessible from the monumental entryway). Mosaics (both geometric and figural), marble veneer, wall painting, and statuary decorated the villa. Citing its size, its lavish decoration, and its combination of GrecoHellenistic and Italo-Roman architectural features, excavator Wiktor Daszewski argues that this villa was an official residence for the Roman governor of the province of Cyprus. Daszewski further adduces into his argument a statue of a nude Aphrodite with an upraised sword, arguing that its novel iconography represents a syncretism of the armed Aphrodite with the Venus Victrix.208 Imperial interest in the cult of Venus Victrix under Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus would have created a fertile climate for such creativity on the part of an imperial official, he proposes. A basilical structure in the southwest wing stands out in the plan.209 Destroyed sometime in the fourth century, it would have been suitable for reception or judicial and other official functions in the earlier phase of the villa. While these arguments are tempting, there is no concrete evidence to support this specific attribution. Let us consider the villa as it existed in the fourth century. Its basic layout, centered on a large peristyle, remained largely unchanged over the centuries. Renovations in the fourth century increased the lavishness of the south wing of the peristyle by adding an aula (reception hall) and forecourt,210 and other new, lavish rooms were added in an organic, rather than strictly symmetrical, fashion. In the last quarter of the fourth century, one room received a mosaic of Poseidon and Amphitrite, while the eponymous late third-century mosaic of Theseus, located in an apsidal room, received skillful repairs to damage possibly caused by an earthquake.211 Colored glass tesserae from a wall or ceiling were also found in this room.212 A bath suite with marble veneer and figural paintings in the frigidarium was added to the southeast corner of the building. In the fifth century, a mosaic installed in the forecourt of the aula showed, on one of its panels, the infant Achilles being bathed by nymphs. The other panels are not preserved but probably represented other scenes of the life or youth of Achilles, a theme popular in silver platters and stone tables of the day.213 The most stunning finds of the late antique layers, however, were the numerous fragments of statues and statuettes discovered in the west wing of the villa. Most were lying directly on the mosaic floors. Thus, they had

the learned collector 212

clearly remained in use into the latest phases of the villa. The fragments represent more than twenty statues and statuettes. In one room on the west portico, an Asklepios, Hercules, and Dionysos were found together. In the adjacent room were two statuettes of Aphrodite and a wreathed female head. Other finds include an Apollo, a Silenus, a satyr, a Demeter, a Persephone, and a possible Isis.214 Most of the statuary ranges in date from the Hellenistic period through high imperial times. The divinities and mythological figures complement, rather than repeat, those of the mosaics. With Asklepios, Dionysos, Demeter, Persephone, and Isis, there is something of an emphasis on cults of healing and redemption. Of interest in the assemblage are two statuettes of heavily draped women who evidently shared a separately carved statue base.215 One was carved from a white marble, the other from a dark gray marble that Daszewski proposes may be Carian. Both are fully draped, with a veil pulled over the head. Stars decorate the gown of the statuette in dark marble. Barbara Lichocka suggests that the white statue originally represented Aphrodite and the dark one Isis and that when they were placed together on the base, they would evoke different aspects of Nemesis, a goddess sometimes worshiped in a double format.216 These statuettes bring to mind carved statuettes of Cybele and Asklepios found in a house in Aphrodisias. The Aphrodisias pair shared a base decorated with astral symbols. The drapery and veiling of the Nea Paphos figures also seems appropriate for a priestess; a somewhat similar veiled, swathed figure found in the Portico of Tiberius at Aphrodisias is so identified. The starry decoration on the darker statuette at Nea Paphos certainly suggests a religious function for the statuettes. A pair of identical classicizing female faces may belong to some similar pairing.217 Interestingly, the published statuary does not include any portraits, either private or imperial, though an oversize hand holding a patera could have belonged to a statue of the emperor as pontifex maximus.218 Images of philosophers are also lacking. Portraits appear in many, though not all, of the late antique assemblages of Anatolia and the Near East, though they are not as ubiquitous in the East as they are in Western collections. Next to the Villa of Theseus is the House of Aion, where a few rooms have been excavated, all with very high-quality mosaics.219 The mosaics show a number of scenes related to Dionysos as well as the punishment of Marsyas. Daszewski proposes that this house was built in the second quarter of the fourth century and occupied until the sixth century. A female head wearing a topknot similar to the hunting Diana or a nymph was found

Learned Collectors across the Empire 213

in the vestibule of this house. With its bulging eyes and detached tendril of hair at the neck, it could be a late antique piece, though the facial proportions seem rather slim. There are other examples of interest in sculptural decoration in late antiquity on Cyprus. At Salamis, some statuary in the baths evidently remained on display after the baths were rebuilt in the fifth century, though others were mutilated and deposited into drains and rooms no longer in use.220 Carved tabletops dated to the late fourth or early fifth century— variously showing Tyche in a mural crown, the judgment of Paris, and biblical scenes—have appeared in different locations.221 The statuette of an empress discussed in chapter 4 was found somewhere on Cyprus (fig. 53).222 It would be interesting to know more about the context and function of a small-scale imperial portrait such as this. A relief panel from Nicosia shows a goat under three trees. The symbolism is probably Christian, but this piece is stylistically linked to late mythological statuettes.223

constantinople

E

xamining the use of late mythological statuettes (and other statuary) in their region of origin—Constantinople and western Asia Minor— has obvious importance. As in North Africa, the main venue for investigation is urban housing rather than villas. Notwithstanding a description of a villa by Gregory of Nyssa (much contested in modern scholarship), rural villas were evidently not seats of luxury for the aristocratic classes in Asia Minor: none has appeared archaeologically.224 However, urban and suburban houses could be lavishly adorned with mosaic, wall painting, and statuary. While no assemblages of domestic sculpture of the fourth or fifth century have yet been discovered in Constantinople, literary sources make it clear that mythological statuary was prominently displayed in many public places.225 The Baths of Zeuxippos, a benefaction by the emperor Constantine himself, displayed mythological statuary along with portraits of philosophical, literary, and historical figures. Taken together, this display represented Constantinople as the inheritor of Greece and Rome through the continuance of paideia.226 Constantine also installed statues of the Muses in the Senate house, surely another reference to paideia; in front of this building were statues of the Zeus of Dodona and the Athena of Lindos.227 Constantine decorated the hippodrome with statuary and monuments brought from all over his empire. Statues of Zeus and Artemis reflected the importance of animals in the hippodrome’s entertainment, while Herakles,

the learned collector 214

who appeared at least twice, was a traditional patron of victory in the circus. Alongside these were statues representing the city of Rome, such as one showing the she-wolf with Remus and Romulus. Guberti Bassett argues that while some of these decorations evoked traditional patrons of the circus, athletics, or victory, others, such as the Remus and Romulus, trumpeted Constantinople’s inheritance of the glories and authority of Rome’s past.228 Subsequent emperors added to the adornment of the circus; most notably, Theodosius erected an obelisk there in 390. Public statues of Perseus and Andromeda are mentioned under Constantius II.229 The collection of Lausos, formed in the early fifth century, contained a dozen masterpieces by famous Greek artists (such as the Zeus of Olympia by Pheidias) and numerous animal statues, both real and mythical. These were possibly displayed in a public portico.230 Individual aristocrats may have emulated these prestigious collections in their homes. A large assemblage of statuary found at Silahtaraga, not far from Constantinople, seems to have belonged to a nymphaeum associated with a suburban villa. All the statuary was found in a room with water fixtures and niches in three of the four walls. It includes snaky-legged giants carved from black marble, statues of several gods and goddesses, two portraits, and a portrait tondo. While most scholars agree in attributing these sculptures to Aphrodisias, the date of manufacture is disputed, with dates ranging from the second to the fourth centuries. In the primary publication, these sculptures are dated stylistically to the second and third centuries.231 Other publications since have proposed dates in the fourth century, comparing the sculptures variously to the Esquiline group, the statuary found in the sculptor’s workshop at Aphrodisias, the finds at Valdetorres de Jarama, and other items.232 The stylistic comparisons to the Esquiline group are certainly sound, but as we have seen in chapter 4, the dating of the Esquiline group has fluctuated dramatically in recent decades. A statue of Helios with rounded, stylized eyes and patterned, heavily drilled hair resembles a fifth-century Helios from Aphrodisias.233 The plasticity of his body may be compared to the Bacchus at Chiragan. Bergmann compares the delicate face and calligraphically swirling gown of a statue of Selene to the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, although it is clear that there is greater plasticity in the face and body of the Silahtaraga piece.234 She also compares the face of the Artemis to the Aphrodisias emperor.235 Thus, some of the statuary at Silahtaraga has solid late antique comparanda even apart from the controversial Esquiline group. As an assemblage, this group reflects the recurring late antique interest in gigantomachies and the hunting Artemis.

Learned Collectors across the Empire 215

aphrodisias

A

phrodisias has already been discussed extensively in chapter 4 as an important sculptural center in late antiquity. The sculptor’s workshop excavated there is of vital importance for any discussion of manufacture of statuary in late antiquity. Several houses excavated in Aphrodisias—the Atrium House, the North Byzantine House, and the North Temenos House—also shed light on questions of collecting, display, and religious connotations. A collection of portraits of philosophers at the Atrium House is one of the best-known statuary collections from late antiquity. Nine inscribed tondi of philosophers and students were found in a dump in an alley behind the house, along with unguentaria of the sixth century. They include famous teacher-student pairs—such as Aristotle and Alexander, Socrates and Alcibiades—along with Pythagoras, Pindar, Apollonius, and an unidentified philosopher and student. The treatment of hair, beard, and drapery compare closely to those on a group of portraits of magistrates dated to the second half of the fifth century. A few further fragments showed that other tondi had existed. Nearby were a bust of a long-haired, bearded man and another incomplete bust. R. R. R. Smith proposes that the tondo format was used for sages of the past, while contemporary philosophers were honored with busts instead.236 A late antique statue of a Muse and a cuirassed male figure were found in another room. The building also yielded miniatures of the Hanging Marsyas, the “old fisherman,” and parts of a relief of Herakles. In the atrium was found a headless portrait of a man carrying a statuette of the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias (fig. 55).237 The house has two architectural focal points, the eponymous atrium and a peristyle with a large apse at the south end. The wide apse has nine alternating square and round niches in it, plus two more flanking it. Though the Corinthian columns of the peristyle are reused, the tall pediments over the aediculae are “of very striking and certainly late Roman design.”238 Most have shells in the pediment, but one shows a scene of Aphrodite Anadyomene raised aloft by a pair of muscular tritons.239 An apsidal hall revetted in marble faced onto the peristyle from the north. Smith reconstructs pairs of philosopher portraits placed in each niche. There is conspicuous interest in philosopher portraits at this house. The fifth-century patron commissioned statuary to honor both contemporary thinkers and philosophers of the past. The statue of a Muse, also late antique, is further confirmation of interest in literary culture. Smith contends that this evidence, taken together, shows that the house belonged to

the learned collector 216

a philosopher who used it as a venue for teaching. The apsidal hall and the wide apse in the peristyle would be a suitable framework for a philosopher lecturing to a congregation of students. Moreover, the portraits of famous students (Alcibiades, Alexander) point to an interest in teaching. Though apsidal rooms and structures were common in late antique houses, the concentrated sculptural interest in philosophy at the Atrium House supports Smith’s proposal. Smith further proposes that the house may have belonged to Asklepiodotos, a fifth-century Alexandrian philosopher who took up residence in Aphrodisias after marrying an Aphrodisian woman. The remarkable bust found in the atrium must show a priest of the cult of the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias and therefore provides concrete evidence of pagan cult at the house (fig. 55).240 The statue is important for the study of late antique art because the molding on the statuette matches that of late antique statuettes, such as the Ganymede of Carthage or the Venus and Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (figs. 2, 4, 7). In the North Byzantine House, two large niches faced onto a courtyard. Found in front of the niches were many miniature jugs and late Roman lamps, interpreted as offerings, along with a pair of marble statuettes (fig. 56).241 One showed a seated woman, probably Cybele, with traces of gold leaf on her diadem and veil. The other was an attenuated Asklepios leaning on a staff under his left arm. The statuettes may have been paired on an oval base with two cuttings in it. The sides of the base were inscribed with snakes, celestial signs, and other symbols. The celestial and chthonic emblems on the base, the presence of Cybele, and the presumed offerings to the statuettes indicate that the statuettes were used in cult. An Egyptian ushabti and a statuette of an Egyptian goddess were also found in this house.242 The North Temenos House, located just north of the temple of Aphrodite, is noteworthy for four pilaster capitals with figural decoration found there.243 This house, too, is centered around a large apsidal hall, and two of the capitals were found in this room. The other two were found in a forecourt in front of the apsidal room, one of them built into a late wall. The pilasters decorated the apsidal hall. The house was constructed sometime between the late second century and the fourth or fifth century and was occupied into the sixth century. It continued to receive ornate decoration, such as the mosaics in the atrium, which were laid sometime in the later fourth or fifth century. The capitals have a common framework, with acanthus spirals and volutes on either side and an egg and tongue molding below. The figures show the Knidian Aphrodite, Apollo, an Amor, and a draped woman who

Learned Collectors across the Empire 217

resembles a classical figure of Tyche. It is noteworthy that three of these figures copy well-known statues, and the Apollo is even represented standing on a plinth. Perhaps the patron wanted to make a statement about his appreciation of art, not simply his understanding of mythology. Comparison with other works at Aphrodisias indicates that the pilaster capitals date to the late third or early fourth century. A fifth pilaster capital matching the style of these was found in a late wall elsewhere on the site.244 It is so close stylistically that it must originate from the same workshop or even perhaps from the North Temenos House. This pilaster capital shows a hunting Artemis in the Versailles pose. Other finds of statuary at the house included a statuette of Asklepios, one of Eros, and a female portrait of early imperial date. A round base in the northeast corner of the forecourt once carried a statue—perhaps of a magistrate, to judge from the lacunose Latin epigram on the base.245 An incomplete verse inscription of the fifth century uses the adjective Paphian, presumably referring to Aphrodite.246 Though the statuary at this house is not overtly religious by the standards established in chapter 2, the reference to Aphrodite in the inscription and the proximity to the sanctuary of Aphrodite certainly raise the possibility that some of the statuary was used religiously. Mythological sculpture also functioned as public decoration in late antique Aphrodisias. A series of pilaster capitals decorated with playful putti decorated the colonnade of the Tetrapylon street.247 These are dated stylistically to the fourth or fifth century, in part because of similarities to late mythological statuettes. A final important find at Aphrodisias should be mentioned even though it did not come from a house. A fourth- or fifth-century statuette of a priestess was found in the pool of the Portico of Tiberius.248 The woman is closely cloaked in a mantle that goes over her head and that is secured there by a fillet. A knob at the front of the fillet suggests that it was a bust crown, though the subject of the bust is no longer distinguishable. Broken struts on the woman’s right side show that she carried an attribute there. The statuette is highly polished. With her rounded face and eyes, this figure resembles the Cybele from the North Byzantine House. A bust of a similarly veiled woman, said to be from Izmir, is now in the National Byzantine Museum in Athens.249 The Athens bust wears a twisted fillet crowned by a wreath.

other cities of asia: ephesos, halicarnassos

T

he city of Ephesos has already been discussed as a late antique sculptural center that may have contributed to the synthetic Constanti-

the learned collector 218

nopolitan style of the later fourth century. It is well known for its series of late antique portraits. Rich decorative assemblages found in the terrace houses (Hänghäuser) were initially thought to have lasted continuously into the seventh century, with the final decorative scheme dating to the early fifth century.250 Further studies of mosaics and wall paintings have revised that chronology substantially, however, showing that the final phase of decoration dates to the mid-third century and was damaged soon afterward by the earthquake of 262.251 Occupation did continue in the fourth century and, in some cases, as late as the seventh century, albeit usually in reduced or industrial circumstance. Stratigraphically, the sculpture within these houses must date before the earthquake.252 Thus, these houses are not the rich late antique domestic assemblages they were once thought to be. Ephesos provides some examples of reused mythological statuary in more public contexts. The Baths of Scholastikia, built at the end of the fourth century, displayed numerous reused statues. A reclining river god with two holes for water pipes acted as a fountain in a niche in the wall of a “refreshment room,” where it was found in situ.253 It is less clear whether fragmentary and abraded statuary found in late fill layers was used in the bath building.254 A public fountain of the late fourth or fifth century displayed reused statuary of Dionysos leaning on a satyr, a sleeping putto, and a Harpocrates with a mask, all pieces that evoked a comfortable life.255 The Harpocrates had a spout in the mask for pouring water. The statues would have stood in the three brick arches of the fountain. Although the earthquake of 262 damaged the interior of the Library of Celsus beyond repair, the allegorical figures in the facade remained on view as a backdrop to a late Roman fountain built into the stairs in front of it.256 There are several statuary finds associated with a late antique house at Halicarnassos.257 The house was built in the late fourth or early fifth century and occupied through to the sixth. A lavish program of mosaics included Tyches of various cities, a marine triumph of Aphrodite, Dionysiac imagery, and hunting scenes, with an epigram encouraging the visitor to admire the gleaming mosaics. The statuary includes a portrait, the lower part of an oversize statue in the pose of the smaller Herculaneum woman, a hand, and a hip-herm of Hercules. The hand, to judge from its heavily pieced condition, may have been a contemporary piece, but the rest were heirlooms. An idealized male portrait of the first century B.C. or A.D. found in a well may also have been displayed in the late villa. There does not seem to be an earlier villa at the site, which indicates that the sculpture was brought deliberately to adorn the late building.258

Learned Collectors across the Empire 219

antioch and alexandria

O

ne of the best-known groups of domestic statuary from late antiquity is a group of statues found in a villa constructed ca. 400 outside Antioch, in the suburb of Daphne.259 Along with three imperial portraits, there were ten mythological statues, including two Aphrodites and several figures from the circle of Dionysos. A torso of Meleager and a head of Mars are from late mythological statuettes, and there is a late fourth century copy of a local cult statue of Apollo. The portraits show the emperors Pertinax and Gordian and a tetrarch, all uncommon subjects in fourth-century collecting. The mythological statuary is fairly conventional, with references to Aphrodite, Dionysos, and hunting. The copy of Apollo of Bryaxis is an interesting example of the importance of local reference points and public art in creating private taste. Little is known of the residence that housed these pieces. Statuary was found in other suburban residences at Daphne, many of which were still occupied in the fourth century. However, excavation data do not permit confidence that statues remained on view. A tantalizing example is a group of twelve statues—among them Hygieia, Tyche, and Dionysiac figures—found built into a “late pool” of the House of Menander.260 Obviously, they had gone out of use by the time of the late pool, but the house was occupied in style from the second century to the fifth or sixth century, allowing for the possibility that these statues had heirloom status in the house during the fourth century.261 A fountain in the room next to the pool had four niches that would have been suitable for statuary. A cache of statuary outside Alexandria, at Sidi Bishr, may have belonged to a suburban villa. Found together in a pit were an exquisite late fourthcentury statuette of Aphrodite (fig. 49), a Mars, a Harpocrates, a Hygieia, a Dionysos, a female portrait, and some other pieces.262 Walls and foundations of a Roman building surrounded the pit. Waterproofing cement on some of these may indicate the presence of a bath.263

patterns of sculptural collecting in late antiquity

A

fter the preceding impressionistic sketch of some of the betterrecorded or more interesting assemblages of domestic statuary from the late empire, it is possible to make some regional observations, as well as to reconsider certain questions that have arisen along the way. Late antique domestic assemblages across the empire share a catholic taste in that they incorporate statuary of different scales, subjects, and materials.

the learned collector 220

Three mythological themes stand out as popular throughout the empire: the circle of Dionysos, Venus (in different aspects but typically with marine attributes), and the hunting Diana (most often in a variation of the Versailles pose). These myths clearly represent common interests of the aristocracy across the empire: the “good life” and leisured world of Dionysiac imagery, hunting and enjoyment of nature as seen in this imagery and that of Diana, and Venus’s regal world of ideal beauty. These motifs also appear frequently in other media. Similar renderings of Diana at the hunt, for instance, enjoyed considerable popularity in many genres in late antiquity, appearing in paintings, mosaics, and textiles.264 Statuary of Diana inspired by the Versailles type is especially popular in contemporary pieces, such as the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (fig. 4), a pilaster capital at Aphrodisias, and an unfinished statuette in the sculptor’s workshop there. Many collectors displayed antiques of this or other types of the hunting Diana—for instance, at the Casilla de la Lámpara, Silahtaraga, and possibly Valdetorres de Jarama. Interestingly, one of the reused classical reliefs at House C on the Areopagus shows a hunting Artemis (not the Versailles type, however). Perhaps the owner chose this antique because of its resonance with contemporary taste. The myth of Marsyas evidently resonated in late antiquity.265 The satyr Marsyas challenged Apollo to a musical competition, lost, and was punished by flaying. An undated statuette of Marsyas was found in the Atrium House at Aphrodisias and another at an Italian villa belonging to M. Voconius Pollio.266 An Athena of the type associated with the punishment of Marsyas appeared at Chiragan. Marsyas also features in a number of late antique mosaics in the western provinces and Cyprus. The formal qualities of the sculptural group, with the tree and subsidiary figures, corresponded to late antique aesthetics. The cruel punishment of Marsyas may have acquired additional significance in an era when crucifixion was taking on a new meaning. The majority of portraits preserved from late antique villas are antiques. In cases where a villa had earlier inhabitation, one may imagine that they were family heirlooms; in other cases, they were perhaps purchased as antiques. Most of the time, it is not possible to distinguish between these two possible origins. Very occasionally, collections contain contemporary portraits, such as the turbaned woman at Chiragan, the male head thrown into hypocaust fill at Séviac, or the philosopher bust at the Atrium House in Aphrodisias. Further contemporary portraits are attested through inscriptions on preserved bases, as at the House of the Valerii in Rome or the North Temenos House in Aphrodisias.267 The bases in the House of the Valerii

Learned Collectors across the Empire 221

specified that particular cities in North Africa set up these statues in Valerius’s vestibulum in gratitude for his good offices as provincial governor. It is interesting that the statues should be set up in the patron’s own home rather than in the cities that dedicated them. Evidently the patron found it more useful to have these accolades visible in a place where his peers and superiors would see them. Ammianus refers disdainfully to senators’ excessive zeal to have statues dedicated to them; perhaps he is thinking of statuary he surveyed while enduring humiliatingly long waits in aristocratic houses (another of his complaints).268 People sometimes set up portraits of senior magistrates in their homes. Roueché has suggested that the statue base found in the North Temenos House at Aphrodisias showed a governor of Caria, praising him for incorruptibility and perhaps bilingualism.269 Further confirmation for this practice comes from the Theodosian Code. An edict of 399 condemning the eunuch Eutropius, formerly a praetorian prefect, ordered the destruction of his statuary, even in private homes. All his statues [statuas], all his images [simulacra], in bronze as well as in marble, in pigments, or in whatever material is suitable for portraiture [apta effingendis], We order to be destroyed in all cities and towns, both in private and public places, in order that the stigma of our age, so to speak, may not pollute the sight of those who look at such images. (C.Th. 9.40.17) Displaying statuary of prominent magistrates in one’s home would be a way to seek patronage from the powerful or to demonstrate it once it was acquired. Imperial portraits appear at some villas. No emperors later than the tetrarchs appear in the private contexts surveyed here. Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius have a certain prominence, and Lucius Verus appears at more than one house in the city of Rome. I have already noted the popularity of Marcus Aurelius in the late antique villas of Gaul. He appears frequently in collections outside Gaul as well. A striking example is from the Maison de la Cachette in Carthage, where the only sculpture not walled into the underground basement room was a bust of Marcus Aurelius. The only other domestic assemblage published from the province of Byzacena, the one at Kélibia, also possessed a portrait of Marcus, shown as a youth— though the youthfulness of the emperor casts some doubt on whether its identity was properly recognized. House C on the Areopagus had an Antoninus Pius.

the learned collector 222

Literary sources appear to confirm a domestic interest in Marcus Aurelius in the later fourth century. The anonymous author of the Historia Augusta writes: It was not sufficient that people of every age, sex, status and rank gave him divine honours—anyone who did not have a likeness of him in his own house who, because of his personal circumstance, either could or should have had one, was adjudged guilty of sacrilege. Indeed, even today, in many houses statues of Marcus Antoninus [Aurelius] stand among the household gods. (SHA Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 18.5; trans. Birley 1976) There are two points of interest in this passage.270 First, it shows that the wealthy displayed imperial busts in their homes and had a particular predilection for portraits of Marcus Aurelius. The practice was evidently normal and widespread, at least among the elite of Rome, the region the author presumably had in mind. The second interesting point in this passage is the author’s offhand remark that his own contemporaries also displayed statuary of Marcus Aurelius. Unfortunately, there is some doubt about the temporal frame of reference. The author purports to be writing in the reign of Diocletian, at the beginning of the fourth century, but anachronisms in the text establish that he was in fact writing at the end of the century.271 If this casual reference is a description of the author’s own real era, it is a useful commentary on habits of sculptural collection during the time that late mythological statuettes were being made. Elsewhere, the author of the Historia Augusta refers to statues of deified emperors in the private lararium of the emperor Alexander Severus.272 Moreover, the emperor Theodosius showed particular interest in the Antonines. François Chausson has made a case that Theodosius represented himself first as the heir to the traditions of the Antonine emperors and later as a genuine heir.273 According to the orator Themistius, Theodosius even exhibited portraits of the Antonine emperors in his palace to emphasize the link.274 Catherine Balmelle suggests that the relative frequency of Marcus Aurelius in Gallic collections stems from aristocratic emulation of Theodosius.275 The popularity of Marcus Aurelius outside Gaul and the passage from the Historia Augusta corroborate her proposal. Some regional differences are also apparent. In the western Mediterranean, with the exception of Spain, private portraits appear in most collections. By contrast, collectors in the eastern Mediterranean show a lesser interest in private portraiture. Evidently the Roman interest in ancestral

Learned Collectors across the Empire 223

portraits, though it changed over the centuries, did not capture the imagination or aspirations of aristocrats in the Greek East to any great extent. Eastern collectors show a somewhat greater interest in portraits of philosophers, an interest that is most vividly expressed in the portrait busts in the Atrium House at Aphrodisias. Literary sources inform us that the house of the Sophist Julian was decorated with statues of admired colleagues.276 Statuary collections of the Greek East also have a distinctive profile. Nearly all Eastern collections displayed Asklepios, usually accompanied by Hygieia. Cybele is another frequent divinity in the East, particularly in Greece. A few Western collections (such as those at Els Antigons, Valdetorres de Jarama, and Chiragan) reflected Eastern contacts or interests through displaying images of Asklepios, Hygieia, or Cybele. Of these, an overall Eastern connection is quite clear at Valdetorres and Chiragan, where patrons commissioned numerous statues from the workshops of Aphrodisias. Within the eastern Mediterranean, Athens is distinct for the frequent reuse of classical reliefs (including votive stelae) and the rarity of contemporary sculpture. At Aphrodisias, a center involved with the supply of statuary, contemporary statuary is readily apparent in domestic assemblages. By and large, there are more Eastern collections than Western collections where a religious use can securely be attributed to the statuary. Reused herms are popular in the city of Rome and appear in other collections.277 The villa of Welschbillig near Trier stands out, of course, for its enormous balustrade of herms dating to the reign of Gratian (367–83).278 The formalized format of the herm perhaps evoked a greater antiquity or may have shown a higher, canonized status for philosophers and persons so represented. The city of Rome has its own unique flavor. Most domestic statuary there is reused. Selection patterns somewhat favor works “copying” or referring to canonical works by the famous Greek artists whose names appear in Pliny and in the letters, speeches, and epigrams of his late antique readers as hallmarks of quality. Evidently such works were available either on the antiquities market or as heirlooms in collections, and late antique patrons at Rome retained an interest in named pieces and artists. Some senators put their wealth to good use in purchasing life-size Aphrodisian works, such as the centaur found on the Caelian or perhaps the Esquiline group, although the stratigraphic context of the latter is now in question. Late mythological statuettes are very rare. Although our focus here has been on domestic collecting and display of statuary, we have glimpsed some elements of sculpture in the cityscape. Thus, at Rome and some North African sites, inscriptions attest the reded-

the learned collector 224

ication or moving of statuary to new locations. Constantine enhanced the antiquity of his new capital Constantinople with imported sculpture—for instance, on the hippodrome and in the Baths of Zeuxippos. This public display of mythological sculpture, some of it former cult statuary, made the emperor’s biographer Eusebius very uneasy. Eusebius weakly insists that Constantine’s goal is for viewers to mock these exemplars of false and discredited worship.279 In the early fifth century, another fresh assemblage was formed and put on public display by the chamberlain Lausos. Other cities, too, had statuary in public places. Many statuary collections in baths must have remained on view (such as that in the Baths of Caracalla at Rome), and some newly built baths, such as those of Scholastikia in Ephesos, received fresh statuary decoration in the form of reused sculptures. Statuary could adorn streets and fountains. One porticoed street at Aphrodisias had pilaster capitals with putti. A statue of a satyr was set up in a colonnaded street in Aizanoi, another Asian city.280 Some antique statues, apparently already lacking their heads, were erected along city streets in Caesarea in the sixth century or so.281 Fountain houses with reused statuary at Ephesos and Ostia have already been discussed.

statuary and pagan practice

T

he preceding impressionistic survey of villa collections across the empire provides data with which to speculate about some larger questions. A frequent assumption in scholarship on domestic statuary in late antiquity is that it must automatically reflect domestic religion. In chapter 2, I proposed that only certain rigid criteria can firmly establish that statuary was used religiously: clear reference to elements of pagan practice, such as votive offerings, priests, or sacrifice; evidence of actual sacrifice near the statuary; an identifiable shrine; or presence of Eastern mystery divinities. Looking through the lens of these criteria, I will now consider three cities commonly reported to have retained flamboyant paganism in late antiquity: Athens, Aphrodisias, and Rome. I begin with Athens, portrayed in ancient sources as a hotbed of philosophical paganism. While I dispute the specific identification of certain Athenian houses as schools of philosophy, a large proportion of Athenian collections do meet the standards of proof just described for religious interests. Cybele appears at the house near Herodou Attikou Street, Building Chi (figs. 64–65), and the house in Plaka; Isis is found in the latter two houses. The Cybele at the house near Herodou Attikou Street was found in a niche in a shrinelike apsidal room.282 A late antique statuette of the

Learned Collectors across the Empire 225

Aphrodite of Aphrodisias was found at this building in the nineteenth century. Reused classical votive reliefs with clear references to pagan religious practice appeared at the Areopagus houses, Building Chi (fig. 64), and the house at Herodou Attikou Street. Thus, most houses in Athens did have some strong indicator of religious practice for their statuary. Only the house under the Zappeion and the Palace of the Giants did not yield concrete evidence (by these criteria) of a pagan religious context for their statuary. Thus, the literary description of lively paganism in Athens is borne out in the archaeological record of individual households. Works by or about philosophers of the fourth and fifth centuries as well as epigraphy depict open pagan worship at Aphrodisias. Two of the three excavated late antique houses there reflect religious practice. An unmistakable bust of a priest appeared at the Atrium House, and statuettes with offerings existed in the North Byzantine House (figs. 55–56). At the North Temenos House, an apparent reference to Paphian Aphrodite in a verse inscription may well have a religious significance. Again, the picture from literary sources is reflected in domestic archaeology. Modern scholars stress the importance of the “pagan resistance” and the “pagan party” at Rome.283 Inscriptions mentioning priesthoods and initiation into Mithraic mysteries survive from the city. Does the scholarly depiction of lively paganism translate into visible religious use of domestic statuary? Yes and no. House mithrea constitute an unambiguously religious use of statuary. The mithraeum under the Via Giovanni Lanza, with its accompanying shrine of Isis (fig. 3), has lavish sculptural decoration, but at least two other late antique house mithrea with statuary are known.284 Other sculptural collections in Rome do not show such clear religious use of statuary, and we do not have other indication of the religious persuasions of their owners. The House of the Valerii even seems to offer a rare example where decorative use of ideal statuary can positively be demonstrated. Both ideal statuary and silver vessels with Christian symbols have been excavated at this house. While one might be tempted to view these as possessions of successive owners of the house, all were found in the debris of Alaric’s sack in 410.285 Though the seventeenth-century source describing the discovery is not clear, there is some implication that the atrium statuary was found in situ, a reasonable possibility given that a different peristyle of the same house retained herms in their original place. Thus, at a time when literary sources, epigraphy, and archaeological finds indicate that the Valerii had become Christian, they still valued ideal statuary in their home.286 In the case of Rome, then, domestic archaeology reflects the popularity of Mithras, provides one example of ideal statuary that is clearly dec-

the learned collector 226

orative, and remains otherwise ambiguous about the religious use of statuary in homes. The evidence from statuary does not wholly corroborate the image of ostentatious pagan resistance.

philosophers’ schools

T

he vibrant world of Neoplatonist philosophy and philosophical paganism is revealed to us by the works of the philosophers and by the biographies that their students and admirers wrote. The renowned philosophical schools of Athens drew scholars as diverse as the future emperor Julian, the future orator Libanius of Antioch, and the future bishop Synesius of Cyrene. Alexandria was another important center, with Hypatia as one of its leading lights until her stoning death by monks in 415. Philosophical schools were active in other cities as well, including Aphrodisias. Literary sources make it clear that philosophers taught in their own homes, and statuary assemblages from Athens and Aphrodisias allow us to assess the impact of the philosophical schools on domestic archaeology. In both cities, archaeologists have proposed certain buildings as philosophical schools or houses, using ornamentation and layout in their arguments. The proposal of the Atrium House at Aphrodisias as a philosophical school is fairly persuasive. Significant and striking are the high numbers of philosopher portraits, the interest in contemporary philosophers as well as masters of the past, and the apparent emphasis on students and teaching. Nine tondi of sages and students found behind the house probably adorned the elaborate niches of a large apse at one end of the peristyle. The inclusion of students as well as philosophers in the tondi shows an interest in teaching. The house also possessed a bust portrait of a contemporary philosopher. A statue of a Muse adds to the literary atmosphere. Taken together, these factors show an unusually strong interest in philosophy and philosophers and support the suggestion that this house belonged to a professional philosopher. Literary sources refer to the polytheist devotion of philosophers, and pagan religion in the house is confirmed by a bust of a priest of Aphrodite of Aphrodisias, seen holding an idol of the goddess. An apsidal hall in the house would indeed be suitable for teaching in this context, though this architectural form is by no means exclusive to this usage. In Athens, Building Chi on the south slope of the Akropolis and two lavish houses on the Areopagus have been proposed as philosophers’ houses and schools on the basis of their sculptural assemblages, layout, location, and other features. None of the three houses has the same concentration of philosopher portraits as the Atrium House at Aphrodisias, and the circum-

Learned Collectors across the Empire 227

stantial associations with philosophy are correspondingly much weaker. As we have seen, Building Chi is identified by the excavator I. Meliades as the house of the philosopher Proclus, based on a literary description of its location, the presence of a shrine to Cybele displaying reused classical reliefs, the preserved pagan sacrifice, and an apsidal room for holding lectures (fig. 64). The house indeed suits the ancient descriptions of location, but it is not the only one that does. Lorenz Baumer makes a more sophisticated argument in favor of philosophical associations for the house, based on the iconography of the reused classical funerary relief showing groups of men in conversation (fig. 65).287 He associates this relief with Proclus’s attested practice of offering libations to the souls of dead philosophers in a designated area in his home. Ultimately, though, the evidence here remains circumstantial. The case for interpreting the Areopagus houses as philosophers’ schools is entirely circumstantial. The reused votive relief of Dionysos and the nymphs attests the presence of pagan worship in the houses, but the statuary assemblage is otherwise unremarkable by late antique standards in Athens, combining ideal statuary with private and imperial portraiture. One headless statuette may show a seated philosopher but may equally well represent Zeus or Asklepios.288 Other than the reused votive reliefs, the statuary assemblages from the Areopagus houses are similar to those found across the empire, with a mixture of ideal statuary and portraiture. The case for seeing the Areopagus houses as philosophers’ schools grows weaker still when their assemblages are compared with the concentration of philosopher portraits at the Atrium House in Aphrodisias.

private collecting in late antiquity

T

he preceding rapid survey of statuary in houses and villas across the empire confirms many of the basic trends already observed in the Gallic material. Patrons used a combination of mythological statuary and portraiture—heirlooms and contemporary pieces—and a range of scales and materials to express their status, education, distinguished background, and leisured pursuits. Display of statuary, insofar as it can be recovered from archaeological and literary evidence, focused on rooms used for reception and self-display. Portraits were most common in the areas seen by most guests or clients at a villa—porticoes and vestibules. Baths displayed mythological statuary, as did gardens. Mythological statuary was evidently used within the house as well, in triclinia or reception rooms. Late mythological statuettes were one element in a rich landscape of sculpture, mosaic, marble, and textile.

chapter seven

Statuary, Paideia, and Collecting: Conclusions

S

tatuary found in Gaul has provided the core material for fresh analysis of three important topics for the study of late antiquity: late mythological statuettes, classical education, and private collecting of sculpture. The first topic has not previously received a dedicated study of this length, the second topic has been little investigated in relation to statuary, and the third has scarcely been broached in a synthetic, interregional manner.

the genre of late mythological statuettes

I

n recent years, the manufacture of mythological statuary in late antiquity has been a topic of controversy, one in which finds from Gaul have been frequently discussed. In the present volume, finds from Gallic villas formed a core for examining the genre of late mythological statuettes from first principles. These finds constitute a useful case study of the genre of late mythological statuettes because of their excellent preservation and possession of an archaeological context. Starting from the Gallic finds and moving outward, I have defined the characteristics of late mythological statuettes. Consistent facial features include ridged, arched brows; puffy eyes with drill dots; small, attached earlobes; and drilled details. Hair typically has bridged drilling, and female statuettes often have shallow S-shaped curls in the center of the forehead. The figures have thickset proportions and doughy anatomy. They often appear in a latticelike landscape setting with subsidiary figures accompanying them. A common base molding comprising a flat scotia with upper and

228

Statuary, Paideia, and Collecting 229

lower moldings of double fillets appears on many of the statuettes. The sculptures are thin, with the frontal view emphasized, and are typically highly polished. Stylistic comparison to independently datable monuments, such as the statuettes from the mithraeum at Sidon and the Theodosian obelisk base, confirm a date in the later fourth to early fifth centuries for these statuettes. The numerous comparanda found outside Gaul underline the overall coherence of the genre and the importance of a Mediterranean setting for the Gallic finds. The late mythological statuettes found in Gaul and elsewhere have stylistic affinities to works of major sculptural centers in Asia Minor. Late mythological statuettes have been found in Aphrodisias and Ephesos (the latter to a lesser extent), while stylistically related works, such as the Sarigüzel sarcophagus, have been discovered in Constantinople. Expanding on a model initially proposed by Bente Kiilerich,1 I have proposed that groups of sculptors from different centers in Asia Minor worked together in Constantinople in the late fourth century, resulting in a blended and fluctuating (though recognizably Asian) style for works of art, including late mythological statuettes. Previous scholarship has not considered the transport and dissemination of late mythological statuettes.2 There were many mechanisms of trade and travel by which these statuettes could have traveled from their proposed Eastern origins to their verifiable final destinations in Gaul and elsewhere. There are demonstrable trade contacts with the East for the Mediterranean emporiums of southern Gaul. The wealthy aristocratic class who could afford these statuettes also held high offices at court and sometimes owned property in more than one province. Accounts of pilgrimage narrate the logistics of travel eastward from Bordeaux and Spain. A law of Julian even refers to the illegal use of the imperial post to carry marble for adorning homes. At some villas where late mythological statuettes are found, there are additional finds pointing to contact with the East, such as a pilaster capital in an Asian style at Chiragan. At Valdetorres de Jarama, scientific testing on the marble statuary pointed East, and there were also carved ivory plaques from Egypt. PA I D E I A

O

and classicizing taste

ne of the greatest obstacles to overcome in arguing for continued manufacture of mythological statuary through the fourth and early fifth centuries is a pervasive assumption that the arrival of Christianity into the imperial house and into imperial legislation spelled the end of statuary col-

the learned collector 230

lecting, display, or manufacture. What is overlooked in such assumptions is the importance of paideia, the classical education system in which all aristocrats participated, be they pagan or Christian. The education system stressed classic works by such authors as Virgil and Cicero in the West, Homer, and Demosthenes in the East. Comprehension of myths was an important part of textual exegesis; then of rhetorical training (through practice speeches on mythological topics); and, finally, of upper-class speeches, correspondence, and literature. As Peter Brown has amply demonstrated, no aristocrat could forgo this essential marker of status ,with its coded language understandable only to others of similar training.3 Thus, all aristocrats participated in paideia. The classics-based curriculum fostered interest in mythology, admiration for classicizing style, and knowledge of literary and artistic masterpieces of the past. Classical language and ideas were expected in certain contexts. In such an educational climate, it is not surprising to find aristocrats not only collecting, repairing, and displaying older statuary but also purchasing new mythological statuettes whose iconography reflected concerns of the day. Career Christians such as Augustine and Jerome expressed deep unease with their classical training, but lay Christians among the aristocracy evidently found less of a conflict. Both ideal sculpture and silver vessels bearing Christian scenes were found at the House of the Valerii in Rome, for instance. A famous nonsculptural example of mythical artwork commissioned for Christian patrons is the Projecta Casket, with its imagery of Venus and Christian inscription.4 Another objection frequently raised to the possibility of continued manufacture and display of statuary is that imperial legislation forbade it. In fact, chronological survey of imperial legislation shows an interest in statuary only in sanctuaries—that is, statuary receiving worship. The greater concern of most of these laws is to prohibit sacrifice, divination, and black magic. These laws do not affect “decorative” statuary, either explicitly or implicitly, and they only mention houses once, in the context of worship. Moreover, even if they did refer to domestic statuary, universal application of these laws at the time of their issuing is questionable, since many are addressed to the governor of a particular province, and there was no consistent mechanism for promulgating laws throughout the empire. Passages in certain laws and some patristic writers support the idea that a distinction could be drawn between statuary that received worship and statuary that did not.5 Guidelines for establishing positive proof (rather than a simple presupposition) that statuary actively served religious ends show that some domestic statuary from late antique homes was used in worship. Where

Statuary, Paideia, and Collecting 231

those features did not exist, this study has assumed domestic statuary to be decorative rather than religious. Additionally, nearly all the considerable literary evidence for destruction of sculpture refers to statuary located in sanctuaries or otherwise receiving worship. The few incidents that took place in houses involved sacred objects that supporters had rescued from nearby temples and sanctuaries and vainly hidden in their homes.

learned collectors in gaul and elsewhere

L

ate antique mythological statuettes in Gaul did not exist in a vacuum. The villas that housed them also displayed other forms of high-status decoration, most notably mosaics created by the skilled and prolific mosaic schools of Aquitaine. By evaluating finds at the six core villas and elsewhere, along with Gallic literary testimonia, we find that other luxury goods, such as wall paintings, cloth hangings, silverware, bronze statuettes, and ivory vessels, also graced these homes. When all factors are taken together, it becomes clear that statuary collections were housed in the very wealthiest class of Gallic villas, where the rarest markers of high status might be found—basilical halls, opus sectile floorings, or vegetal mosaics, to name a few examples.6 Gallic sculptural collections feature a catholic taste encompassing mythological statuary, portraiture, heirlooms, and contemporary pieces, all in a range of scales and media. Imperial sculpture appears occasionally, possibly reflecting high office, loyalty to the imperial house, or the emperor Theodosius’s interest in the Antonine emperors, especially Marcus Aurelius.7 Not surprisingly, the limited evidence from findspots suggests that statuary was displayed in public rooms that received other forms of decorative emphasis, including mosaic floors and marble revetments. Statuary must have stood out in especial prominence as one of the very few forms of figural decoration in late antique Gallic villas. The many heirloom pieces in the assemblages illustrate that Gallic taste for statuary decoration started well before the fourth century and that the study of Gallic sculptural collecting more generally would be a fruitful endeavor. The statuary assemblages of the lavish villas of prosperous late antique Gaul make an excellent core for a broad study of domestic statuary in late antiquity. In surveying domestic statuary in late antique houses and villas across the empire, we find that many of the same broad trends appear: catholic taste in genres, mixture of contemporary and antique works, and

the learned collector 232

display focusing on rooms used for reception. Venus, Dionysos, and the hunting Diana (usually in a pose inspired by the Versailles type) were universally popular. This survey also makes it possible to identify regional trends. Statuary of philosophers and of Asklepios seems more popular in the East, for instance. Collections in Athens usually had religious elements (as defined in chapter 2), and Cybele was extremely popular. Collectors in the city of Rome apparently purchased few contemporary pieces, a circumstance that may reflect a particularly rich antiquities market. Imperial portraits, when they appear, somewhat favor the Antonines. In some regions of Africa, it seems that statuary was not a major feature of domestic decoration at any period, perhaps because of the pervasive taste for figural mosaics. This book is the first widespread survey of late antique domestic statuary, a topic that has not yet received synthetic attention. Doubtless, further research will nuance or change some of these observations.

statuary and education

L

ate mythological statuettes, paideia, and patterns of statuary collecting in Gaul and elsewhere are all important topics for the understanding of late antique society. Researching them in conjunction with one another enriches our understanding of both material and intellectual aspects of late antique Gallic society and of the complex interactions among polytheism, Christianity, and traditional Roman culture during this crucial period of social change.

Notes

chapter 1 An important new study of domestic sculpture in Ephesos appeared too late in the manuscript process to be incorporated into this volume: Maria Aurenhammer, “Skulpturen aus Stein und Bronze,” in Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Funde und Ausstattung, ed. C. Lang-Auinger (Forschungen in Ephesos 8.4; Vienna, 2003) 153–208. 1. Chapter 5 contains a lengthier discussion of Ausonius and Martin. All references to Ausonius’s works are numbered in accordance with the edition by R. P. H. Green (1991). 2. On mosaics and silverware, see, for instance, Dunbabin 1978; Shelton 1981; Mundell Mango and Bennet 1994. The catalogue of an epochal exhibit of late antique art in 1979 (Weitzman 1979) makes few references to mythological sculpture but perceptively explores mythological imagery in other media and the changing meaning of mythological images in late antiquity. Reflecting changes in research directions, mythological statuary is more extensively represented in the catalogue of a recent large show on late antiquity (Ensoli and La Rocca 2000). 3. For instance, Brinkerhoff 1970; Gazda 1981, 125–78; Christof 2001. Bente Kiilerich’s study of the “plastic arts” (1993) discusses mythological sculpture briefly but does not explore the subject at length. 4. Wrede 1972, 97–101. 5. Katakes 2002, 23–25, no. 21; 73–75, no. 70; 200–205. By contrast, Theodosia Stefanidou-Tiveriou (1993) argues that both statuettes were earlier pieces reused in the fourth century. 6. Smith 1990, 129; Mansuelli 1958, vol. 1. 164, no. 140. 7. Kaiseraugst: Kaufmann-Heinimann 1984. Daphne-Harbie: Ross 1953; Mundell Mango 1986, 271, no. 98. 8. Kiilerich 1993, 149–51. 9. These stylistic characteristics and the basis for the date will be explored in detail in chapter 4, with appropriate documentation and comparanda. 10. Fullerton (1998) explores the difficulties of using labels such as classicizing or archaizing and notes the absence of a descriptor for later works influenced by Hellenistic styles (71). 233

Notes to Pages 3–18 234 11. Kiilerich (1993, 189–92) discusses the eclecticism of classicizing art of the closing decades of the fourth century and the continuity of classicizing art through the fourth century (220–34). 12. Balmelle 2001. 13. Finds from Saint-Georges-de-Montagne are presented at greater length in Stirling 1996a. 14. Fouet 1969. 15. Joulin 1901. 16. Gazda 1981, 141–48 (date of Ganymede), 150–60 (Venus and Diana). 17. For instance, Bonfante and Carter 1987, 247–57; Merker 1987. 18. Erim and Roueché 1982. 19. Steinby 1986, 141; Moltesen 2000. This group and the apparently contradictory epigraphic data are further discussed in chapter 4 of the present study. 20. For instance, Erim 1990; Smith 1990, 1996. 21. Rockwell 1991; Van Voorhis 1999. 22. For instance Willers 1996; Filges 1999. 23. Stirling 1994; Hannestad 1994; M. Bergmann 1999. 24. The book is reviewed by Varner (1995) and Claridge (1997). 25. This is also acknowledged by M. Bergmann (1999, 13, 60). 26. M. Bergmann (1999, 69) cites Stirling 1994 on these topics. 27. For reasons of conservation, I have not been able to obtain permission for isotopic testing on finds from Saint-Georges-de-Montagne or Chiragan. 28. Here and elsewhere, I use the word Asian in its Roman sense as the adjective for Asia Minor. 29. For exclusivity in education, see Brown 1992, 39–41; Scott 1997. 30. Roberts 1989a. 31. Mathisen 1993, 105–18; Marrou 1956, 330–52. 32. Marvin 1983.

chapter 2 1. Philippe Jockey (1996) addresses some of these questions in less detail. 2. Visconti 1885; Guidobaldi 1986, 194–98; Ensoli and La Rocca 2000, 454–55, nos. 43–45; Ensoli Vitozzi 1993. 3. Fouet 1969, 94–95, fig. 47. 4. Brueckner 1926, 129–32; Merritt 1961, 248–49. 5. Frisch 1975, no. 63. 6. Corinth sculpture inv. no. S-1999-02; for the general context of discovery, see G. D. R. Sanders 2001. 7. The following arguments are summarized from Coates-Stephens 2001. 8. Prioritizing the evidence from brick stamps, he accepts a construction date in the time of Maxentius or even Diocletian for a bath building whose walls contained a base signed by one of the sculptors of the controversial Esquiline group (Coates-Stephens 2001, 219). This topic is further discussed in chapter 4 of the present study. 9. That pagan aristocrats such as these incorporated broken statuary as building material illustrates that such treatment need not be ideologically driven.

Notes to Pages 18–25 235 10. So Neudecker (1988) has argued from a more general standpoint. 11. Thus, in the case of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, Amtmann (1904) provides a great deal of tantalizing information and even some earlier references, but modern scholars tend to cite entries in the more accessible Espérandieu 1907–38, vol. 2. 12. Colini 1944, 255. 13. Becatti 1948, 122–24. Four mythological sculptures and two portrait busts were also found in the house, which dates to the mid-fourth century. 14. Meliades 1955; Karivieri 1994. 15. Wiseman 1973, 40–41, fig. 5. 16. Meates 1979, 17–23, 35–40. 17. Blanchard-Lemée 1975, 193. At Ephesos, a second-century inscription refers to statues of Aphrodite on a staircase between the atrium and basilica of unit 6 in Terrace House 2 (Aurenhammer 1995, 261). 18. Capannari 1885. The statue was missing, so we do not know whether it was a contemporary or reused piece. 19. Colini 1944, 253–58. 20. Provost and Mennessier-Jouannet 1994, 193–97. 21. Michon 1916, 59. 22. Fouet 1969, 92. 23. Frantz 1988, 65. 24. Gauckler 1899. 25. Frantz 1988. 26. Wilson 1983, 33; S. P. Ellis 1991, 127. 27. The underground shrine with portrait busts at Lullingstone (discussed further in chap. 6) is a significant exception. 28. Contemporary literary evidence concerning domestic decoration is discussed in chapters 3 and 5. 29. For instance, Dunbabin 1978; J. R. Clarke 1991; Parrish 1995. 30. Eliav 2003, 427 (quote). This subject is also discussed in chapter 5 of the present study. 31. Mediana: Petrovic´ 1994. Stobi: Petkovic´ 1937. 32. Gauckler 1899. 33. Erim 1990, 17, fig. 9; also discussed in Brody 1999. 34. Meates 1979, 36–39. 35. Erim 1990, 27, 29, fig. 30. 36. Karivieri 1994. 37. Baumer 2001a. Reused funerary stelae are also found. 38. Camp 1989. One statue of Athena was found facedown, used as a doorsill, a situation that may reflect either desecration of Athens’s former tutelary deity or pragmatic reuse. 39. Gauckler 1899. 40. A curious case from a Christian context in ninth-century Egypt is difficult to interpret. A trapezophoros of Dionysos was sealed intact and upright into a disused kiln, perhaps an effort to annul the power of the statue (Engemann 1998). This choice is all the more deliberate as the statuette could have simply been thrown into nearby contemporary lime kilns.

Notes to Pages 25–32 236 41. Areopagus House C: Frantz 1988, 41–42. Similarly, a portrait head in a hypocaust fill at Séviac may be a random jettisoning, or if it is ideological, it must stem from the person’s identity rather than religious motivations (Braemer 1982, 139–41; Balmelle 2001, 229–30). 42. Frantz 1988; Camp 1989; Rothaus 2000, 117. 43. S. P. Ellis 1985, 33–34. 44. Vorster 1998. 45. Elsner (1995, 249–70) discusses a number of examples, mainly from elite silverware. 46. Colini 1944, 254; Brenk 1999. 47. Kitzinger 1946, 120. 48. This is discussed by Elsner (1995, 249–70, esp. 259–60). 49. A “household” was not a homogenous entity, of course. Even when it is possible to distinguish the presence of pagan religious practice, this need not show that every person in the home followed the same beliefs. However, given that statuary was an expensive item, it is reasonable to assume that religious statuary reflects the practices of the owners of the house.

chapter 3 1. Amtmann 1904; Valensi 1973; Braemer 1982, 116–20, 124; Brinkerhoff 1970, 36–37, 54; Gazda 1981, 150–55, 157, 160; Dresken-Weiland 1991, 10–11; LIMC, s.v. Artemis/Diana 376; Sion 1994, 220–23; M. Bergmann 1999, 21–23; Balmelle 2001, 375, no. 33. The site is also known as Petit-Corbin or Saint-André, but the Musée du Louvre and the Musée d’Aquitaine in Bordeaux, which house the Venus and Diana, refer to the site as Saint-Georges-de-Montagne. It seems advisable to follow the usage associated with the most accessible finds from the site. The material from this site is published at greater length in Stirling 1996a, but the statuary is not extensively evaluated there in its Gallic or Mediterranean context, as is the purpose here. 2. “C’est une surface de plus de dix hectares, coupeé en tous sens par des lignes de murailles qui, malheureusement, n’ont pas été relevées à mesure qu’on les rencontrait, de telle sorte que pour reconstruire le plan primitif de la villa, operation qui eût être facile à l’époque des premiers défoncements et qui nous paraît des plus indispensables, il faudra de nouvelles fouilles et de nouvelles dépensements” (Amtmann 1904, 75, quoting a report by M. Rabanis in 1843). 3. The original account is Amtmann 1904. For a synthesized discussion of extant fragments, oral history, and early records, see Stirling 1996a, 138–41. 4. Inv. 71.16.1. Full height of statuette: 75 cm; height of Diana alone: 69 cm. 5. Full height of statuette: 75 cm; height of Venus alone: 69 cm. 6. The base is carved from a separate piece of marble. See Braemer 1982, 116 n. 57. 7. These pieces are illustrated and analyzed in greater detail in Stirling 1996a. Preserved height of Apollo head: 14.5 cm; Scheitelzopf head: 15.9 cm; Mars head: 12 cm. 8. For Apollo Musagetes, see, for instance, LIMC, s.v. Apollo 135. 9. On the Scheitelzopf hairstyle, see Wessel 1946–47, 62–72. For a discussion of women’s hairstyles in the later fourth century, see Kiilerich 1993, 115–18. Late fourth-century examples of the Scheitelzopf include a brooch from Ténès in Alge-

Notes to Pages 33–40 237 ria (Kiilerich 1993, fig. 48) and a portrait in the Thessaloniki museum (L’Orange 1973, figs. 1, 3). 10. Painter 1977, pls. 1, 6. The Achilles plate from the Sevso treasure depicts a mask wearing a Scheitelzopf; Marlia Mundell Mango (1994, 179) identifies it as Ariadne. For more examples, see Stirling 1996a, 115 n. 25. 11. Amtmann 1904, 79, no. 12; pl. VIII, fig. 9. 12. At 9 cm tall, the fourth (lost) head is slightly smaller than the other heads, which range around 15 cm. This degree of difference is not significant. The neck is not preserved on the smaller head. 13. LIMC, s.v. Meleagros 3. 14. These are published at greater length in Stirling 1996a. 15. Braemer 1982, 119–20, fig. 16 (head); 115–16 (torso). 16. Amtmann 1904, 80, no. 20. 17. Most of these pieces are listed by Amtmann (1904, 80, nos. 22–25). See also Stirling 1996a, 125–26 (bovine head); Braemer 1982, 115–16, fig. 8 (animal torso). 18. It is visible under the draped legs in an old photograph reproduced in Stirling 1996a, 105. 19. A syncretized late antique statuette in Milan has a Meleager torso configured similarly to the Saint-Georges-de-Montagne one, with a head of Helios (fig. 50 in the present study; see Cagiano de Avezedo 1967, 5–17). 20. Amtmann 1904, 78–79, no. 8, pl. VII; Dresken-Weiland 1991, 5–6; Stirling 1996a, 126–29, fig. 19. 21. The childlike proportions of the foot and its dimensions exclude the possibility that it could have belonged to one of the late mythological statuettes. 22. De Sarrau 1940, 14. 23. The arguments for this reconstruction and the significance of the monument over time are set out in Stirling 1996a, 132–35. Jupiter-giant columns were popular in Gaul and Germany and stood in sanctuaries and on private estates (Bauchhenβ and Noelke 1981). 24. For this head, see Coupry 1955, 198, fig. 13; Braemer 1982, 114–16, fig. 7. Height is 19 cm (Braemer). 25. Fouet 1969. See also Balmelle 2001, 379–85, no. 35, and passim. 26. Balmelle 2001, 124. 27. Fouet 1969, 92, 186 (findspot of bust support); 66, 92 (calcite draped woman); 170 (tree trunk, boar, and youth); 92 (head of bust). 28. Findspot of draped woman: Fouet 1969, 94. 29. For the mosaics, see Balmelle 1980, 80–83, nos. 74–77, pls. 27–31. For the other decoration, see Fouet 1969, 101; 102, fig. 49; 123–27. 30. Fouet 1969, 170 (findspot of torso, branches, infant, unspecified fragments), 92 (fragment in third court). Venus head: conversation with G. Fouet, 12 March 1993. 31. Fouet 1969, 94, 169, pl. LII.A–B. Preserved height: 51 cm. 32. LIMC, s.v. Aphrodite 627–42. 33. Bonfante and Carter 1987, 255. 34. Fouet 1969, 83, 92, 170–71; Stirling 1996b, 216–22. Height of torso: 15 cm; right arm with hair: 14 cm; tree trunk: 26.5 cm; running youth: 15.8 cm; boar: 14 cm; diademed head: 9 cm.

Notes to Pages 41–49 238 35. Fouet 1969, 25, 161. 36. Fouet 1969, 170. 37. For a fourth-century rendering of the myth, see Servius Comm. in Verg. Ecl. 10.18. 38. On the left side, the wing of hair at the side of the face is thicker and squarer, and only some cursory chisel lines indicate waves in it. This differential treatment results in facial asymmetry when the head is viewed from the front. 39. The reconstruction given here is based on Stirling 1996b. 40. Stirling 1996b, 220–22. 41. LIMC, s.v. Adonis 2a. 42. LIMC, s.v. Myrrha 3a = LIMC, s.v. Artemis Eleuthera 4. 43. Fouet 1969, 92 (bust of youth); 66 n. 9, 92, 171 (calcite Venus); 25, 186 (nonextant male heads). Female head “dite de Cérès”: Fouet and Labrousse 1949, 40 n. 3. 44. Fouet 1969, 168–69, pls. LI; LII, upper photo. 45. Fragments of portrait statuary were also found in the courtyard of the villa at Séviac: Aragon-Launet 1959, 1962, 1974, 1977; Rome et le sud-ouest de la Gaule 1984. 46. The niche was 2.10 m wide and 1.50 m deep (Fouet 1969, 66). 47. This is proposed by Fouet (1969, 73, 94). 48. Fouet 1969, 46–50 and fig. 18 (first villa), 59 (third-century destruction and abandonment). 49. Fouet 1969, 59 (Constantinian renovations), 59–87 (renovation of ca. 350), 91–92 (first fire), 92–93 (final destruction), 93 (no fifth-century finds). 50. Fouet 1969, 62. There was also a coin of Faustina. 51. Fouet 1969, 56. 52. Fouet 1969, 59. 53. All of this information comes from Fouet 1969, 91. 54. Fouet 1969, 92. 55. Fouet 1969, 92. 56. Fouet 1969, 93. 57. Bost 1986, 226–28, figs. 1–3. 58. Gauthier 1975, 34. He is cited by Balmelle 1980, 12 n. 8. See also Bost 1986, 219–30, esp. 225; Depeyrot 1982, 1:196; C. E. King 1992, 184. For gold minting, see Lafaurie 1963, 295–97. 59. Bost 1986, 225. 60. The date is based on the stylistic study of mosaics (Lauffray, Schreyeck, and Dupré 1973, 153). 61. The most recent commentary is Balmelle 2001, 379–85. For more extensive discussion of comparanda, see Balmelle 1980, 74–84. 62. Balmelle 1980, 81–83, no. 75. Fouet had dated this to the mid-fourth century based on a terminus post quem from a coin of Constantius II dating 355–360 and found in an adjacent room (Balmelle 1980, 80–81, no. 74). There was also late stamped pottery, both gray and orange, under these four floors (Balmelle 1980, 83, no. 75). In her 1980 publication, Balmelle gives Fouet’s date but adds, “le style du pavement suggérerait une datation postérieure.” Elsewhere, she assigns dates in the third quarter of the fourth century, but cautions, “au plus tôt” (Balmelle 1980, 80–81, no.

Notes to Pages 49–52 239 74; 83, no. 76). For important further commentary on the villa, see Balmelle 2001, 379–85. 63. Fouet 1969, 251–59 (252 for general findspots of stamped wares). 64. Balmelle (2001, 75–76) summarizes results from Bordeaux. For a preliminary publication, see Soulas 1996. Gauthier (1975, 35) specifically challenges the date of the final destruction for Montmaurin. 65. New chronology for ceramics means that the earliest possible date for the renovations at Montmaurin (and Valentine—see the section on sculpture as an indicator of status, later in the present chapter) is the last quarter of the fourth century (Balmelle 2001, 106). 66. For instance, in the region of the mosaic of room 20, the latest coin was minted 355–60. However, the style of the mosaic compares best with fifth- and sixth-century examples. 67. Sodini (1995, 159) concurs with this date but does not explain why. 68. The major source is Joulin 1901. See also Lebègue 1891. Other references are listed by Cazes (1999, 181–93). 69. These figures are derived from Balmelle 2001, 124. Compare the size of wealthy homes on the Caelian at 6500–8000 m2 (Pavolini et al. 1993, 494). 70. This figure is based on a rough calculation by the author. 71. Balmelle 2001, 160, fig. 61d; 161, fig. 62c (Mediana), fig. 62d (Gamzigrad); 162; 171; 327. Balmelle stresses that basilical halls with an area above 240 m2 are distinctive as a class within the empire at large. Apsidal rooms with an area around 130 m2 are much more commonly found in aristocratic houses and villas. 72. Balmelle 2001, 174, 223. 73. This estimate is a conservative one based on Espérandieu’s catalogue (1907–38, 2:29–93, nos. 891–1006). Joulin (1901, 482) refers to 300 fragments in the impluvium alone, although he may be including architectural sculptures as well. Jean Boube (1955, 92) says there were 272 pieces, including 73 imperial busts. Balmelle (2001, 367) estimates the figure around 200. Moreover, additional sculptures are known to have come from the site before and possibly after the nineteenth-century excavations. 74. Hannestad 1994, 127–43; M. Bergmann 1999, 26–43, 55, and passim. JeanCharles Balty conducted a comprehensive restudy of the imperial portraits. He identifies four portraits (two male, two female) as a tetrarchic group comprising Maximian, Maxentius, and their wives (Le regard de Rome 1995, 234–38). A recent exhibit guide for the Musée Saint Raymond in Toulouse provides lavish new photographs and fresh interpretations (Cazes 1999); it does not follow the late dates given by Hannestad and M. Bergmann for much of the large-scale statuary. The villa and its finds also figured largely in an exhibit focused on late antique Rome (Ensoli and La Rocca 2000). Balmelle (2001, 367–70 and passim) provides important synthesis and references, although she discusses the sculpture very little. 75. Le regard de Rome 1995, nos. 1, 4–8, 10, 13, 17, 49, 102–3, 110, 113–15, 117–19, 122–23, 125–26, 153, 156–57, 163, 171–74 (entries by D. Cazes and J.-C. Balty); see 234–38 for the tetrarchic group. Balty plans a more extensive study of the villa in the light of this tetrarchic group (Le regard de Rome 1995, 234–35). A head evidently belonging to the reliefs of the labors of Hercules has the same features as the head

Notes to Pages 52–54 240 of Maximian, as observed by Balty (Le regard de Rome 1995, 235) and M. Bergmann (1999, 34). Bergmann accepts the grouping of the four portraits but moves their date to the later fourth century based on the hairstyles of the women. 76. Joulin (1901, pl. III) distinguished related sets of rooms as “groupes,” using Roman numerals. His plans were reproduced in color by Cazes (1999, 77–78) and Balmelle (2001, 90). Within each “groupe,” Joulin assigned Arabic numerals to individual rooms. As this numbering is difficult to reproduce at the present scale and provides much more detail than is needed for the present discussion, my figures 22–24 have labels only for selected rooms. Some references to Joulin’s numbering are provided in the footnotes for ease of consultation with his publication. 77. Joulin 1901, 486. 78. Northwest and southwest courts: Joulin 1901, 240–44 (Groups I and II). For the pit of sculpture and a (brief) chart of its contents, see Joulin 1901, 376, 498–501. 79. Joulin 1901, 246–48 (Group V). 80. Joulin 1901, 482 (room V.4). 81. Joulin 1901, 248–49. (Group VI). 82. Joulin 1901, 249–52 (Group VII). 83. Joulin 1901, 252–55 (Group VIII). 84. Joulin 1901, 357–74. 85. Balmelle 2001, 112, 114, 370. Joulin also relied on coins and architectural techniques. 86. Joulin 1901, 374, 511. 87. Bost 1986, 224, figs. 1–2. However, Séviac has Merovingian coins and buckles, which are lacking at Chiragan (Lapart and Paillet 1991, 173). 88. Balmelle 2001, 115–18. 89. Joulin 1901, 373. 90. Constantinian renovations: Joulin 1901, 373–74. 91. Joulin 1901, 373. 92. Based on excavations of a well-appointed, though small, villa in the nearby town of Martres-Tolosane, Boube (1957) has suggested that around the mid-fourth century, the owners of Chiragan left their unwieldy villa, with its reduced living quarters, and moved to a smaller nearby residence. At this point, he argues, Chiragan became primarily a working estate, with the reduced living quarters turned over to the tenants. Built originally in the late third century, the Martres-Tolosane villa had extensive renovations in the mid-fourth century, and it is the findspot of numerous coins of Constantius II, with the latest coins showing Valentinian and Valens (d. 378). Found among the debris were columns, capitals, architectural sculpture, and fragments of figural sculpture (Boube 1955, 95, 97). The sculpture is not published. This villa ended in a fire of unknown date and later became a cemetery. The theory of a change in residence has some appeal, but Gallic aristocrats owned multiple villas, so the proximity of the two sites does not rule out the possibility that they overlapped in time. Percival (1976, 47–48), for instance, follows Boube’s interpretation but acknowledges that the early date of Joulin’s report makes its conclusions somewhat open to question. 93. Joulin dates it to the late fourth or early fifth century, for historical, rather than archaeological, reasons. Clearly, the destruction would have to come sometime after the early fifth century.

Notes to Pages 54–59 241 94. Most of the sculpture came from “terrain profondément boulversé” that extended some 45 x 15 m, with depths ranging from 1 m to 5 m (Joulin 1901, 232 [quote], 232–33, 498–501). The pits of debris postdate the burning layer that marks the final destruction of the villa (Joulin 1901, 376–77). 95. Joulin 1901, 376–77 (destruction and cleanup), 482 (impluvium finds). 96. Joulin 1901, 482. He refers to three hundred fragments of sculpture but presumably is including architectural sculptures within that number. 97. Lebègue 1891, 401 (citing an earlier publication of a dig carried out in 1840–42). 98. Seventeenth-century sources report standing remains as tall as 3 m (Joulin 1901, 224), but it would nevertheless aid in agriculture if the more mobile debris was buried below the reach of the plow. 99. Height: 25 cm; width: 45 cm. Joulin 1901, 316, pl. XII, no. 158; Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: no. 921; Cazes 1999, 115; M. Bergmann 1999, 54, pl. 51.3–4. 100. Height: 18 cm. Joulin 1901, 314, pl. X, no. 132; Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: no. 924; Stirling 1996b, 163–64; M. Bergmann 1999, 55, pls. 55.3–4, 56.3. 101. Height: 67 cm. Joulin 1901, 100, pl. XII, no. 160 (head); Joulin 1901, 100, pl. XI, no. 155 (body); Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: nos. 919 (head), 935 (body); Hannestad 1994, 134, 136; Cazes 1999, 111–12; M. Bergmann 1999, 51, pls. 45.1–2, 52.1. 102. Height: 20 cm. Joulin 1901, 100, pl. XIII, no. 161; Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: no. 925; Cazes 1999, 114; M. Bergmann 1999, 55, pl. 58. 103. Hannestad 1994, 127–43; M. Bergmann 1999, 26–43, 55, and passim. 104. Smith 1998; 1996, 57–63. On the “old fisherman,” see Joulin 1901, 322, pl. XIV, no. 200B; Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: no. 952; Rey-Delque 1975, 89–95; Hannestad 1994, 135, 138–39 (arguing for a late antique date and Aphrodisian manufacture); M. Bergmann 1999, 55. A black marble fragment with a foot and a treeshaped strut probably belongs to this statue. Joulin reports that Dumège found an arm holding part of a net, although this piece was lost by the time of Joulin’s report. 105. Hannestad 1994, 127–43. 106. Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: no. 892.1–12; Cazes 1999, 83–85. 107. Smith 1990. 108. Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: no. 899.1–10; Cazes 1999, 85–99. Hannestad (1994, 139–40) and M. Bergmann (1995; 1999, 32, 35) have observed stylistic links to Aphrodisias. 109. Joulin 1901, 304, 308; Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: nos. 892, 899; M. Bergmann 1999, 38–39, with further references. Scientific tests such as stable isotope analysis have not been run on the marble of these statues. 110. Erim and Roueché 1982; Matthews and Walker 1990. 111. These objections and others were raised to Bergmann’s first (1995) discussion of the reliefs as an Aphrodisian product, as recorded in M. Bergmann 1999, 39. Bergmann now leaves the question open and calls for scientific testing. 112. For instance, Willers 1996; Filges 1999. 113. Mette Moltesen (2000) summarizes the debate, with extensive references. 114. Inscriptions on the base: Erim and Roueché 1982. The new date is based on fresh study of the brick stamps by M. Steinby (1986, 141). 115. Joulin (1901, 346) provides the following breakdown of subjects (some of these identifications have changed since 1901, and the total here does not entirely

Notes to Pages 60–64 242 correspond to figures elsewhere): satyrs and others from circle of Dionysos (11), Dionysos (8), Ariadne (7), Hercules (6), Venus and Amor (5), Minerva (3), Diana (2), naiad and river god (2), Fortuna and Victory (2), Ceres and Proserpine (2), unidentified goddesses (2), Mars (1), Niobe (1), Ganymede (1), Asklepios (1), Adonis (1), possible Apollo (1), possible Mercury (1). 116. Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: nos. 911, 902, 893. 117. Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: no. 898. 118. Cazes 1999, 100–104. Note that pieces of the Harpocrates were found widely dispersed over the site. The Sarapis finds its closest parallel in a HadesSarapis on the theater of Hierapolis (Pammukale, Turkey), thus supporting an Eastern attribution. A female head with corkscrew curls may also represent Isis, as a break at the top of the head could once have supported a crescent or disk. This sculpture is not securely attributed to Chiragan. 119. Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: no. 892.2, 4. 120. Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: nos. 951, 964, 966–67, 970–74, 979–80, 984–86, 988–91, 993–95, 997, 999–1002, 1006, 1011. 121. Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: nos. 948, 950, 954–58, 960–63, 965, 968–69, 975–78, 981–83, 987, 992, 996, 998, 1003. Le regard de Rome 1995, 234–35 (tetrarchic group; entries by Balty); Queyrel 1992. 122. Braemer 1952–53, 147. 123. Joulin 1901, 321, pl. XIV, no. 193BD (for Socrates, see no. 197E [Demosthenes]). Joulin also identifies a draped torso (no. 194E) as a philosopher, but this does not seem conclusive. 124. M. Bergmann 1999, 30, 42–43. 125. Cazes 1999, 145–47; Kiilerich 1993, 123–24 (with further references). 126. M. Bergmann 1999, 32; Joulin 1901, 324, pl. 14, no. 220B. 127. Admittedly, such a scene would be unique on a relief of that size, but the identification seems correct. There is epigraphic evidence for honorific portraits set up in the homes of magistrates (see discussion in chap. 6). Though there are no parallels, such portraiture could include a relief. 128. This is pointed out by M. Bergmann (1999, 32). 129. Sapelli 1998, 61. 130. Cazes 1999, 79, 81 (third or fourth century); M. Bergmann 1999, 32 (ca. 400); Balmelle 2001, 223 (tetrarchic). 131. Cazes 1999, 85. 132. M. Bergmann 1999, 30, 42–43. 133. CIL 13.11007; Eck 2000; M. Bergmann 1999, 43. 134. Eck 2000. 135. Dumège 1832–33; Samazeuilh 1865; Marcadal 1964a, 1964b; Fages 1995, 257–59, no. 195; Stirling 1997; Balmelle 2001, 390–93. 136. Marcadal 1964a. See also Lebègue 1889, 58–74, 129–63. Lebègue argues that Dumège was not just Crétin’s dupe but participated actively in the fraud. 137. This reconstruction is proposed by Balmelle (2001, 142), who compares the villa to a riverside villa at Saint-Emilion. 138. Balmelle 2001, 176–77, 280–98. 139. Balmelle 2001, 280–98. 140. Balmelle 2001, 142–43, 199 (opus sectile) 206 (imported marble).

Notes to Pages 64–66 243 141. The fragmentary nature of most of the statues makes them too unassuming to have played a role in Crétin’s efforts to create the palace of Tetricus. 142. Preserved height: 35 cm. Dumège 1832–33, 226; Samazeuilh 1865, 451; Fouet 1969, 169, pl. LII-C; Braemer 1982, 135–36, figs. 36–37; Stirling 1997, 151–56. An arm from this figure was found in the river but is no longer extant (Dumège 1832–33, 226). 143. Koppel 1985, 59–60, no. 83, pl. 30. Compare also a torso from Caesarea Mauretaniae (Cherchel) in Landwehr, 1993, 82, no. 59. 144. Dumège 1832–33, 226, 400, 405 (unlabeled sketch by T. Crétin); Samazeuilh 1865, 451. No measurements are given. 145. It is not mentioned by Dumège (1832–33) but appears without a recorded provenance in the earliest extant inventory of the museum (1926–27). Most of the Gallo-Roman objects in the museum come from the villas at Bapteste and Nérac. At the time of the inventory, there were several cases devoted to finds from Bapteste and an assemblage of Gallo-Roman finds whose provenance was no longer known. The first curator of the museum, A. Faugère-Dubourg, conducted the excavations at Bapteste (Faugère-Dubourg 1875) and doubtless prepared the exhibits on this villa. His original inventory of the museum was missing by 1926. Since the finds from Bapteste were still in separate cases, it seems likely that the “unprovenanced” material would have come from Nérac. 146. Inv. 47-1-417 (base), 47-1-439 (goat leg). Width of base: 35.3 cm; maximum preserved height of base: 16.2 cm; height of molding: 2.9 cm; height of base at back: 4.6 cm; maximum depth: 14.1 cm; length of human foot: 7.3 cm. Fouet (1969, pl. LIII) published a photograph of the base, which lacked the goat leg at that time. 147. Inv. 47-1-384; maximum preserved length: 9.0 cm. Inv. 47-1-408; maximum preserved length: 8.9 cm. 148. Inv. 47-1-426; maximum preserved length: 9.3 cm. Carved from fine-grained white marble, the front is well smoothed (accretion and abrasion mask any polish that may have existed). The back has an uneven, rocky surface; indents from a wide chisel or point are clearly visible. This is similar to the back of the base. Despite the fact that the animal was only meant to be viewed from the front, a line from a running drill distinguishes the two legs, which are fully separated below the knee. The tail swerves to the dog’s left, as though to attach to a strut or support. A muscular upper arm carved from fine-grained white marble may also belong to this statuette, although the size seems rather large (inv. 47-1-430; maximum preserved length: 5.9 cm; diameter: 3.0–3.8 cm). 149. Pan’s other leg must have been raised off the ground, presumably supported by tree branches. 150. Discussing the statuette of Ganymede and the eagle found at Carthage, Gazda (1981, 174) points out that goats were considered especially promiscuous. A leaping dog also appears next to the Carthage Ganymede. 151. Oversize heads, hand, small head: Samazeuilh 1865, 451–52. Minerva: Dumège 1832–33, 235; possibly shown (unlabeled) on 349. 152. Carved from a medium-grain marble, the oversize hand with a rod (inv. 471-322) may belong with a fragment of male coiffure showing two rows of curls (inv. 47-1-405). Several unclothed fragments of a life-size figure in white marble remain: a shoulder (inv. 47-1-396), two sections of arms (inv. 47-1-324, 47-1-325), small mas-

Notes to Pages 67–70 244 culine knees (inv. 47-1-428, 47-1-410). As discussed already for the base, the archaeological finds in the Musée du Château Henri IV come principally—perhaps entirely—from the villas at Nérac and Bapteste. 153. This site is also sometimes referred to as Grandfonds or Lamarque. Early finds are reported in Boudon de Saint-Amans 1859, 58; Fages 1995, 184–95, no. 51; Balmelle 2001, 348–51, no. 14 (with further references). 154. Balmelle 2001, 115–17. 155. Stéphanus 1987–88, 139, fig. 58; Stirling 1996b, 222–23. Preserved height: 48 cm. 156. Balmelle 2001, 230; 232, fig. 126; 331. 157. Headless bust: Coupry 1963, 528–29, fig. 40; Rome et le sud-ouest de la Gaule 1984, 75, no. 90. First-century A.D. portrait: Boudon de Saint-Amans 1859, 217 and IX notice, pl. 1, no. 3; Rome et le sud-ouest de la Gaule 1984, 29, no. 17; Stirling 1996b, 212–13. Oversize head: Boudon de Saint-Amans 1859, 58. Female head: Boudon de Saint Amans 1859, 218. 158. It must be remembered that the two nonextant sculptures cannot be dated. 159. Lapart and Petit 1993, 266–85, no. 324. This statuary will be published at length in the upcoming site report for Séviac, planned as a supplement to Aquitania. It is not possible to publish photographs in advance of this publication. 160. Inv. M39. Preserved height: 5.2 cm. 161. The infant torso at Montmaurin is 6.5 cm tall. 162. Toynbee 1962, 128–30, no. 12; Shepherd 1998, 189. See further discussion in chapter 6 of the present study. 163. Lauzun 1911, 274, no. 2. The length is 5 cm. 164. Braemer 1982, 139–41, with a mid-fourth-century date; Balmelle 1987, 19 n. 42, citing J.-C. Balty for a fifth-century date; Balmelle 2001, 229. The stone is described as “marbre oriental” (Cazes, Ugaglia, and Vidal 1987, 79, no. 171). No scientific testing has been done. One of the closest comparisons for the Séviac piece is a head dated to the first half of the fifth century and now in Bonn (Inan and Alföldi-Rosenbaum 1979, 305–8, no. 304, pl. 259). Other useful parallels come from Rome, such as a fifth-century head with a similarly long ear set off by a wide hairless gap behind it, sloping chin, square forehead, and deep-set eyes under hatched eyebrows (L’Orange 1933, 87, 149, no. 122, figs. 228, 230). 165. Balmelle 1987, 172–74, no. 293, pls. 116–17; Balmelle 2001, 297–98. 166. Balmelle 2001, 163, 206. 167. Aragon-Launet 1959, 1962, 1974, 1977; Rome et le sud-ouest de la Gaule 1984. Baths: Monturet and Rivière 1986. Mosaics: Balmelle 1987, nos. 285–310. 168. Morel 1866, 442. 169. Bapteste: Faugère-Dubourg 1875, 47. Faugère-Dubourg reports “une tête d’enfant d’un bon style.” Braemer (1982, 135) suggests that this piece is a child’s head now on display in the Musée du Château Henri IV in Nérac. Montcaret: Formigé 1939, 192. 170. Balmelle 2001, 421. 171. Further enticing references to statuary in southwest Gaul may be mentioned more briefly: a life-size head of a child from a possible villa at Sempeserre (Lapart 1986, 59, fig. 4; 62), fragments of marble sculpture at a late antique villa at

Notes to Pages 70–75 245 Léogeats (Sion 1994, 177, no. 256), and a small-scale arm of a child at Plassac (personal communication from excavator J.-P. Bost). See also further references for villas in Balmelle 2001, 237 n. 183; 427, no. 65. Fragments of the arm and leg of a statuette and a head of a deer now in the Musée d’Aquitaine in Bordeaux must come from Bordeaux or its environs (Stirling 1996b, 226, fig. 18). While the deer head has delicate carving and undercutting and securely late antique features, the arm and leg are undatable. It is even possible that the pieces come from Saint-Georges-deMontagne. Another local find that has some affinities to late antique statuary is a female head wearing a diadem (Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: no. 1204). I have not seen this piece. Further east of our study area, a torso seemingly of Venus Anadyomene, to judge from its raised arms, is known from Valros (Hérault) (Lantier 1947–55, 15: no. 8804). This statuette has a curiously muscular physique similar to the torso of Venus at Montmaurin. The villa of La Vérune in Neffies, occupied from the second to the fourth century, had a herm of Bacchus and a bust of Hadrian (Mauné 1998, 408, with earlier references). 172. Valentine, Montcaret, and Bapteste, where sculpture is indicated in some fashion, are also in the second tier. 173. Balmelle 2001, 159–63, 330. A statue is also reported from Montcaret, one of the two other residences with the largest class of basilical hall. 174. Balmelle 2001, 206. Chiragan, with the pilaster capital resembling examples from Asia Minor, may well be another (Balmelle 2001, 223). 175. Balmelle 2001, 227. Figural opus sectile evidently fascinated the early fifthcentury poet Ennodius, who devoted two ecphrastic poems to it, IC (Carm. 2.10; MGH 7.122) and CCIX (Carm. 2.91; MGH 7.169). The former poem concerns a house in Milan, and the latter is inspecific. See also Kennell 2000, 116. 176. Binsfeld, Goethert-Polaschek, and Schwinden 1988, 149–50, no. 308, pl. 72. The site, essentially unpublished apart from a rather schematic plan focusing on the baths (Koethe 1940, 92–94) currently underlies the train station. Height of statuette: 51 cm. 177. Hettner 1893, 228–29, no. 669, pl. XVI.4. 178. “Gegenstände aus römischer Zeit” 1874–77, 82. 179. Flasch 1876, 102. The coins may have been considerably later than the second half of the second century for him to be quite so perplexed, although he rightly points out that the coins and sculpture do not have to be contemporary. There was no further mention of datable material from the site. 180. Deyts 1976, no. 201; Stirling 1997, 164–66; M. Bergmann 1999, 45–47, 51, 54. Preserved height: 16 cm. 181. Farine 1887, 141, no. 2; 144, pl. XXVIII, no. 2; Musée d’Aquitaine, inv. X177. Preserved height: 18.5 cm. Balmelle (1992, 355, 358) reviews the evidence for suburban villas in Bordeaux and elsewhere. 182. Bordeaux Saint-Christoly 1982, 45–52. 183. Lantier 1947–55, 12: no. 7937. Preserved height: 13.5 cm. Lantier notes that her style does not match the date of the theater. 184. A squared clump of stone at the back of the head may be a neck strut. 185. Fourth century: Amm. Marc. 14.5.1. Quarrying: Vita S. Hilarii 15 (PL 50, col. 1235). The theater was subsequently filled in with debris and rubbish; perhaps the head was deposited at this time (Constans 1921, 293–95).

Notes to Pages 75–78 246 186. Bartman (1992, 42 n. 61; 95, no. 11; 136, no. 16a) suggests that statuettes in theaters may have been displayed in entrances or hallways, since they would be accessible and visible to the audience in such locations. 187. Espérandieu 1920, 46–48, no. 77. Espérandieu 1907–38, 3: no. 2523; Santa Maria Scrinari 1972, 19; Stirling 1996b, 2245; Musée Archéologique de Nîmes, inv. 391.25.2. Preserved height: 58 cm. 188. Marcadé and Sabrié 1999. 189. Wallace-Hadrill 1994; Dwyer 1982; J. R. Clarke 1991. For late antique studies, see Schneider 1983; Thébert 1987; S. P. Ellis 1988, 1991, 1997. 190. Epig. 32: mixobarbaron Liberi patris signo marmoreo in villa nostra omnium deorum argumenta habenti. Green (1991, 392) argues that Epig. 33 is inspired by the same statue. 191. Kay 2001, 27. 192. Epig. 36; Green 1991, 394; Kay 2001, 152. 193. Ennodius IC (carm 2.10; MGH 7.122): si niteant crustis aut domini merito. See also Kennell 2000, 103–4. 194. Ennodius Ep. 112 (Carm. 2.17; MGH 7.127): ut domus ingenium non taceat domini. 195. Nazarius, Pan. Lat. 4(10).5.1 (nam et in vestibulo suo inquirentem repellit obiecta veneratio); 4(10).6.1. (verum ut in magnis domibus interiorem ornatum vestibula ipsa declarant). 196. Vitruvius 6.5.1. 197. In Rufinum 161–62. Admittedly, Claudian probably never saw the ancestral home of Rufinus; what is important is his assumption that a stately home in Gaul would have made use of such marks of status. 198. S. P. Ellis 1988, 1991. 199. Carm. 22.158–68, 200–203; Balmelle 2001, 152, 203. 200. Balmelle 2001, 203. 201. Epig. 26.7–10 (trans. Kay 2001, 130): hos ille Serum veste contexi iubet, hos caelat argento gravi, ceris inurens ianuarum limina et atriorum pegmata. See Kay 2001, 130–34 for commentary. 202. S. P. Ellis 1997a. The triclinium was an important venue for business and social transactions. For instance, the saintly Melania the Younger placed her vast supply of alms in temporary storage in the triclinium, and it was here that the Devil came to tempt her, according to Vita Melaniae 17 (E. A. Clark 1984). 203. Carm. 23.500–506. 204. Cupido cruciatur. 205. Ep. 9.13, lines 20–27 of the enclosed poem. 206. C.Th. 9.17.5, addressed to the people, A.D. 363. All translations from the Theodosian Code throughout this book are by Pharr unless otherwise stated, notwithstanding the cautions raised by T. D. Barnes (2001). 207. CXII (Carm. 2.17): discitur in valvis ars virtus nomen origo. See Kennell 2000, 105. 208. Ep. Bob. 16. 209. S. P. Ellis 1997a. 210. Carm. 18, 19, 22; Ep. 2.2. To some extent, the description of baths is a literary topos (Percival 1996, 162–63).

Notes to Pages 78–83 247 211. Ep. 2.2.6 212. Ep. Bob. 2, 3, 4. Private baths are emphasized in the enumeration of Melania the Younger’s vast rural properties in Vita Melaniae 18 (E. A. Clark 1984). 213. C.Th. 15.2.3. The rescript is addressed to the city prefect of Constantinople. 214. Balmelle 1987, 109–10, no. 234. On figural mosaics, see also Morvillez 1997. 215. Ep. Bob. 5. See also Ennodius Ep. 64; CLXIII (Carm. 2.44; MGH 7.148); CLXIV (Carm. 2.45; MGH 7.149). 216. CXXVI (Carm. 2.18; MGH 7.134); Kennell 2000, 104. 217. Sidonius Ep. 2.9.4–5. J. J. Rossiter (1991, 200–201) discusses this passage and speculates that artwork could have been displayed in libraries. 218. Epistula Rustici ad Eucherium. For text and discussion of this letter, see Hebert 1988, 537; Vessey 2001. 219. Symmachus (Ep. 3.47) comments that Minerva is strong for his friend Eutropius, a historian. 220. Eugene Dwyer’s 1982 insightful investigation of Pompeian domestic sculpture, for instance, relies on accurate knowledge of findspots. 221. C.-Th. 9.17.5, addressed to the people, A.D. 363. 222. Dumège 1832–33, 226; Braemer 1982, 136–37, figs. 38, 39. 223. Dumège 1832–33, 235; probably shown (unlabeled) on 349. 224. Dumège 1832–33, 183. Traces of mosaic were found on the floor. 225. Cazes 1999, 85. 226. Aragon-Launet 1971, 236 (room 32). Balmelle 1987, 172–174, no. 293, pl. 116, 117. Balmelle stresses the difficulty of assigning absolute dates. 227. An interior peristyle court at Piazza Armerina in Sicily had niches around the side, a feature that suggests that statuary was displayed here (S. P. Ellis 1991, 127). 228. So Dwyer (1982, 41, 119) demonstrates for Pompeian houses. 229. “Dans cette salle, deux cubes de maçonnerie semblent avoir servi de piédestal à statue ou colonne” (Aragon-Launet 1971, 234, room 13). As for mosaics, a few fragments are reported. 230. The mosaic shows a pattern of trees and baskets. Balmelle 1987, 172–74, no. 293, pls. 116, 117; 2001, 297–98. 231. C.Th. 9.40.17. 232. Chaisemartin and Marcadal 1998. 233. Lauzun 1911, 274, no. 2; Aragon-Launet 1959, 88, no. 2. 234. Ziéglé and Roussot-Larroque 1991, 79–80, fig. 55. 235. Balmelle 2001, 200–201, 301. Balmelle adds, “Très révélatrices également sont les images mythologiques, par ailleurs rares dans le reste des demeures, qui animent les salles thermals et les annexes des bains, soit sous forme de tapis en mosaïques, soit sous forme de statuettes en marbre” (201). 236. Balmelle 2001, 255, 301; 1987, 109–10, no. 234. 237. Compare, for instance, a statuette of Bacchus found at Walbrook in London (Henig 1998). See also further discussion in chapter 6 of the present study. 238. Rome: Guidobaldi 1992, 109; Athens: Parlama and Stampolidis 2000, 193–94. 239. Balmelle 2001, 203, 205. 240. Clyti-Bayle 1989.

Notes to Pages 83–86 248 241. Carm. 22.158–68, 200–203; Ep. 2.2.6. 242. Thébert 1987, 389. He cites Augustine Sermo 51.5 (PL 38, col. 336) on the importance of hangings for displaying rank. On hangings and curtains, see also Maguire, Maguire, and Duncan-Flowers 1989, 45–47. 243. For instance, Kitzinger 1977, fig. 67 (diptych of Probianus), fig. 82 (another diptych), fig. 79 (Projecta Casket). 244. Carroll 1988; Baratte 1985, 31–76. 245. Morvillez 1997, 19–20. 246. Ep. 9.13, lines 20–27 of the second enclosed poem. 247. Amm. Marc. 16.8.8. See also Reinhold 1970, 62–70. 248. Montmaurin: Fouet 1969, 168–69, 171, pls. LI; LII, upper photo; LV, upper left-hand photo. Nérac: Dumège 1832–33, 235. Séviac: Rome et le sud-ouest de la Gaule 1984, no. 47. 249. Stirling 1996a, 129, fig. 20. 250. Santrot 1996. 251. Provost and Mennessier-Jouannet 1994, 193–203. Observations on the statuary are provided by Florence Ours. 252. Séviac: Rome et le sud-ouest de la Gaule 1984, 85, nos. 128–37; the fragments are dated to the second to third centuries. St.-Loup-de-Comminges: Fouet and Labrousse 1952, 117–29. 253. Painter 1989, 240–48, nos. 197–203. 254. Colin, Feugère, and Laurens 1986, 26–34; Delamare et al. 1996. 255. Eucharisticus 209: argentumque magis pretio quam pondere praestans. 256. Ennodius CXXIX (Carm. 2.21; MGH 7.135): Delia vervus aper tigris leo bucula pardus / adportant mensis fercula, docte, tuis. Ennodius wrote at least ten epigrams on silverware, variously discussing the imagery and the artisanal skill (Kennell 2000, 113–16). 257. Hochuli-Gysel 1993, 84–86, fig. 3, no. 8; fig. 4. The piece probably dates to the third century, and it is the only published example of diatrete glass in southwest Gaul. 258. S. P. Ellis 1991. 259. To name just a few examples, versions of the Diana of Versailles are found in Ostia, Aphrodisias, and Silahtaraga. See further discussion in chapter 6. 260. In this type, the hunter holds a spear in his left hand and leans his weight on his right leg. He wears only a chlamys, which is draped over his left arm. He holds his right hand behind his back. Often a dog accompanies him. No hand appears on the back of the Saint-Georges-de-Montagne Meleager, but perhaps it was placed slightly lower than on other examples of the type. The backward thrust of the right shoulder is certainly appropriate if he does indeed hold his hand behind his back. Brinkerhoff (1970, 54) suggested the identification as Meleager based on the front view, and the back view confirms it. This Meleager type is thought to derive from a fourth-century B.C. statue by Skopas. 261. Antioch: Brinkerhoff 1970, 29–30, figs. 34–35. The chlamys folds and musculature on the Antioch piece resemble those of the piece from Saint-Georges-deMontagne. The tiered, round chlamys pin is similar to pins seen on the Carthage Ganymede (fig. 2 in the present study) and a Phrygian youth in Krakow (fig. 43 in the present study). The back of the Antioch piece is much less worked than the

Notes to Pages 86–88 249 front, and the statuette appears (in photographs) to have a neck strut. For all these reasons, a late fourth-century date is plausible for this sculpture. Brinkerhoff compares the Antioch piece to a statuette from a palaestra at Salamis on Cyprus (Brinkerhoff 1970, fig. 36). The comparison works well for the pose, but the Salamis statuette does not compare very well stylistically with the late ideal statuettes. The strutwork is heavy, and the round tree stump next to the figure’s left leg does not resemble the trees of the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne or the Montmaurin Venus and Adonis groups. The deeply cut folds of the chlamys do not match very well with the late mythological statuettes, nor does the dog (albeit very weathered) have the distinctive square snout and collar of fur seen on the dogs of the Carthage Ganymede and the Sidon Mithras. For further discussion of the Nicosia statuette, see Karageorghis 1964, 18–19, no. 8, pl. 16. 262. For textiles, see Baratte 1985, 44, 45 (fig. 12), 49; Simon 1970. There are also two seventh-century plates, dated by stamps (Simon 1970, 48, fig. 20; 49, fig. 21). The second of these, now in the Hermitage Museum, shows Meleager standing in the pose of the “Skopaic” statue, accompanied by Atalanta and two servants, with a curved tree and tower providing landscape elements. 263. Figural mosaics, including hunting mosaics, are rare in southwest Gaul. There is, however, a hunting mosaic at the villa of Palat at Saint-Emilion, not far from Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (Balmelle, Gauthier, and Monturet 1980). There may once have been another at Saint-Romain, near Loupiac. 264. Delvoye 1984; Dresken-Weiland 1991, 98–99. 265. Gratiarum actio. Gratian’s father, Valentinian I, had risen to the purple from obscure origins through merit (Isbell 1974, 30). 266. Delvoye 1984, 193, fig. 1, for two hunting scenes; Dresken-Weiland 1991, fig. 140. 267. On the strength of Dionysiac cult and imagery, see especially Bowersock 1990, 41–54. A cult building of the fourth and fifth centuries has been excavated at Cosa (Collins-Clinton 1977). 268. Colin, Feugère, and Laurens 1986, 26–34. The three plates were found with pottery of the third to fifth centuries. The second plate shows a seated woman with a snake in her lap, and the third has a shepherd in the middle, encircled by a border of architecture and pastoral scenes. In-depth study of these finds, their dates, and their juxtaposition of pagan imagery with potentially Christian imagery has not yet been carried out. 269. Both the satyrs, however, were found in bath buildings. The Wellen satyr came from the small private baths of a villa, while the satyr head was found in a public bath building, the Barbarathermen. 270. Epig. 32 (Green). 271. Ep. Bob. 16. There is no clear indication whether the poet has in mind a real statue or if this is a literary conceit. 272. Bartman 1991, 76; Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 17–37. 273. Picard 1957, 270–73, foldout between 272 and 273, pls. 9, 10; Espérandieu 1907–38, 11: nos. 1753–58. The monument encompassed several oversize statues showing a tropaeum, captive provinces, and winged victories. 274. Ennodius CCCLXVI (Carm. 2.142; MGH 7.266). 275. Flower 1996.

Notes to Pages 88–92 250 276. Epicedion in patrem. 277. Symmachus Ep. 1.2. 278. Ep. 1.6.2: trabeatis proavorum imaginibus. These passages and others are further discussed in chapter 5 of the present study. 279. Balmelle 2001, 233, 331; Chausson 1998. This topic is further discussed in chapter 6 of the present study. 280. Agricola 4.2. 281. Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: no. 946; Hermary 1996, 21–30. 282. It may belong to the Homer “Apollonius of Tyana” type (Richter 1965, 1:48–54, esp. figs. 48–50) or the Sophocles “Farnese” type (Richter 1965, 1:125–28, figs. 611–74). R. R. R. Smith (1995, 333) argues that fillets are particularly associated with poets. 283. The Welschbillig collection will be discussed at greater length in chapter 4. 284. Espérandieu’s catalogue shows very few philosophers, among which are a Plato or Sophocles from Viala (Hérault) (Lantier 1947–55, 15: no. 8800); a philosopher or Asklepios from Nîmes (Lantier 1947–55, 15: no. 8785); a philosopher possibly from Aix-en-Provence (Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: no. 1692); and a Socrates of unknown provenance, now in Toulouse (Espérandieu 1907–38, 2: no. 1023). For philosophers in sculptural collections outside of Gaul, see Neudecker 1988, 105–14, 147–57; Smith 1990.

chapter 4 1. “L’exécution de cette statue est assez défectueuse; le cou est allongé, la tête hors de proportion, les bras roides et les jambes engorgées, en un mot, tous les caractères du Bas-Empire” (Amtmann 1904, 77–78; my trans.). 2. “Die flieβende Glätte der Marmorarbeit, die überlängten Proportionen der übrigen Beifiguren der Gruppe, sowie die Rundbohrung der Pupillen . . . datieren die Statuette in das letzte Viertel des 4. Jahrhunderts” (Wrede 1972, 81–82; my trans.). He bases his date for the pupils on comparison to sarcophagi of the late fourth century. 3. I stress at the outset that adjectives such as rubbery or puffy, are meant solely as descriptive terms, not value judgments. 4. Marianne Bergmann (1999) identifies many of these traits as part of a Kunstkreis that encompassed statuettes and life-size statuary. She also emphasizes meanderlike curls with drill dot (“mäandrierende Lockenschema mit Bohrpunkten”) as a signature trait, the tondo format, and hairstyles involving the topknot, as seen on the Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne. 5. Using overlapping evidence, M. Bergmann (1999) and I (Stirling 1994) reached similar conclusions about workshop formation in late fourth-century Asia Minor (also acknowledged in M. Bergmann 1999, 13, 60). Reference will be made to M. Bergmann (1999) principally when her evidence or conclusions are different from those in my doctoral dissertation (Stirling 1994). 6. Amiet 1968, 307–8; Jidejian 1971, 78, 88–93. An uninscribed relief plaque of Mithras Tauroktonos from the same mithraeum is possibly of the same date, although its figures have slimmer proportions (Gazda 1981, 154 n. 42). DreskenWeiland (1991, 15–16) disagrees, preferring a second-century date. Among other

Notes to Pages 93–98 251 things, she points out the plaque’s dissimilarity to low-relief sculpture on Theodosian-period tables. Other statuettes of similar size were also found in the mithraeum. While they are broadly similar to the Mithras Tauroktonos in facial features and proportions, they are not as finished or as delicate in structure. The present discussion is limited to the three pieces that actually carry inscriptions. M. Bergmann (1999, 24–25) also treats this assemblage as a core group in her Kunstkreis. She includes the relief and statuettes of Cautes and Cautopates and Mithras carrying the bull as late antique. Among other things, she stresses the tondo format on the relief as a trademark of the Kunstkreis. As is evident in the discussion, the statuette of Ganymede and the eagle from Carthage is another very important comparative piece. Despite its well-documented excavation context, it is dated by rigorous stylistic comparisons rather than by its stratigraphy. The Ganymede was found in refuse that mostly accumulated in the mid-fifth century, but such refuse could contain residual material from any preceding century. Gazda argues persuasively that the excellent quality of the surface treatment on the statuette and its repair history suggest that it was new when it was discarded. However, consider that Hellenistic statues built into the foundations of a fifth-century church at Fianello Sabino were apparently in mint condition (Vorster 1998). 7. Date: Will 1950, 261–69. Another relief showing a Mithras Tauroktonos, now in Naples, is epigraphically and prosopographically dated to the second half of the fourth century, probably toward its end (Will 1950, 265; Dresken-Weiland 1991, 9–10 and n. 37; LIMC, s.v. Helios/Sol 376, with further bibliography). However, as the style resembles neither that of the Sidon statuettes nor that of the Diana and Venus from Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, the piece will not be discussed here. 8. Jidejian 1971, 78. 9. For further discussion of animal renderings in this period, see DreskenWeiland 1991, 43–47. 10. It is very unusual to find Graces wearing shoes rather than in sandals or barefooted (Will 1950, 268). 11. For Amtmann and Wrede, see notes 1 and 2 in the present chapter. Sarcophagi: Kitzinger 1977, figs. 41–44. Diptychs: Kitzinger 1977, figs. 67–71, 76–77, 84. Mosaics: Schneider 1983, 71 (fig. 17), 141 (fig. 38); Daszewski and Michaelides 1988, 29 (fig. 17), 38 (fig. 27), 44 (fig. 33), 66–68 (figs. 46–51). 12. Kitzinger 1977, fig. 57. 13. Boston satyr: Vermeule 1964, 359–74. 14. Erim 1974, 767–75; Smith 1996, 57–63; Kiilerich and Torp 1994, 311; Hannestad 1994, 118 n. 191; Van Voorhis 1999, 80. 15. Braemer 1982, 122. 16. This is noted by Gazda (1981, 142–44, figs. 21–27, with schematic diagrams showing the module). Date of obelisk base: Kiilerich 1993, 43–48. 17. Date: Kiilerich 1993, 51–52. There is also a broad facial resemblance to a statue of an emperor found in Aphrodisias (Delbrueck 1933, 29, 44, 70, 195–98, pl. 92; Inan and Rosenbaum 1966, 89–90, pls. 41.5, 42.1–2). 18. Kitzinger 1977, fig. 57. Jutta Meishner (1996) has challenged the date using stylistic and historical arguments, proposing instead a date of A.D. 421. Meischner’s later date is also feasible for the late mythological statuettes, given their links to

Notes to Pages 98–104 252 such statuary as the Beyazit emperor or the Paris empress (figs. 52–53 in the present study). 19. Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 118–19, no. 180, pls. 209–10. The resemblance is observed by Gazda (1981, 160–61). 20. Dresken-Weiland 1991, 22–24, figs. 191–92. 21. Christ: Thulin 1929, 201–59; Gazda 1981, 145, 160. Beyazit emperor: Kiilerich 1993, 87–89. 22. Harrison 1986, 157–60, nos. 19b.i–xxix, pls. 207–27. One face particularly resembles the Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (159, no. 19b.vii, pl. 215). 23. Firatli 1990, 127, no. 242; M. Bergmann, 1999, 50. 24. Sarigüzel angel: Kollwitz 1941, 132–45, pls. 45.1, 46.1–2; Gazda 1981, 154. 25. Deyts 1976, no. 201; Stirling 1997, 164–66; M. Bergmann 1999, 45–47, 51, 54. 26. Sidon: Mendel 1914, 76, no. 313; Dresken-Weiland 1991, 10–11, fig. 182. Sidi Bishr: Hannestad 1994, 123–26, figs. 80–82, with further references at 123 n. 209. 27. Boston: Vermeule 1964. Antioch: Brinkerhoff 1970, 33–37. Rhodes: Laurenzi 1933–38; M. Bergmann 1999, 50–51, figs. 54.4, 56.1. The Mactar head is unpublished. 28. Milano capitale, no. 5a.1f; Cagiano de Azevedo 1990, 5–17. 29. Merker 1987, 15–20. 30. A few late antique statuettes that do not appear to adhere within this specific genre include an Apollo from a villa near Ravenna (Milano capitale 1990, 229–30, no. 3g.2b); a female head, possibly a nymph, from Bordeaux (Braemer 1982, 143–44, figs. 44–47); a female head found in Israel (Kahane 1961, 23 and fig. 8); and a Cupid and Psyche found in Ostia (fig. 59 in the present study; Brinkerhoff 1970, 54–55, fig. 6). 31. Amtmann 1904, 78–79, no. 8, pl. VII; Stirling 1996, 126–27, 128 fig. 19. 32. Gazda 1981, 156, fig. 44. 33. Mildenhall: Gazda 1981, 157, fig. 45. Sevso: Mundell Mango and Bennett 1994, 98, 154. 34. Kaschnitz-Weinberg 1937, 92, no. 185, pl. 36. 35. See note 34 above. 36. Amtmann 1904, 80, no. 18, pl. IX, fig. 14; Stirling 1996, 120–21, figs. 13–14. 37. Monza diptych: Kiilerich and Torp 1989, 321, fig. 2. Sevso casket: Mundell Mango and Bennett 1994, 444–48. 38. Fredrich 1897, 361–62; M. Bergmann 1999, 53, pls. 64.2–3, 65. 39. For examples, see Kitzinger 1977, figs. 43, 44. See also Benoit 1954, no. 5, pl. 42; no. 9, pl. 6.2; no. 39, pl. 12.2; no. 45, pl. 17. 40. So Gazda (1981, 150–51) observes. For recent bibliography, see Kiilerich 1993, 222 n. 722. 41. Dresken-Weiland 1991. 42. Bonfante and Carter 1987, 248, fig. 1. 43. The most detailed publication is Toynbee 1986, 39–42. However, recent research shows that the marble of the statuette comes from Dokimeion and posits a fourth-century date (Matthews and Bowman 1998; Walker 1998; Henig 1998). See further discussion in chapter 6 of the present study. 44. Boston satyr and maenad: Gazda 1981, 163–65, figs. 54, 55, 57. Achilles and Penthesilea: Lauffray 1940, 30, pl. 5, right. Vatican maenad: Kaschnitz-Weinberg 1937, 92, no. 185, pl. 36.

Notes to Pages 105–8 253 45. So Gazda (1981, 154) observes. 46. Gazda 1981, 136–37, fig. 10. 47. Krakow youth: Bienkowski 1919, 73–74, no. 24; Braemer 1982, 122. Additional sculptures with evidence of the attachment of trees or branches include the putto torso from Séviac, a molded base in the Musée de Nérac, and a satyr head from Trier. A tree branch from Saint-Georges-de-Montagne that cannot be fitted onto the tree accompanying the Diana provides secure evidence for a second sculpture involving a tree at that site. 48. Henig 1983; Wheeler 1943, 288–89, pl. 31A; Cunliffe and Fulford 1982, 26–27, no. 98, pl. 26. The kneeling animal is very similar to those of the Ganymede and Diana. 49. The hindquarters of a dog found at Nérac, though incomplete, align well with these features. 50. Some similar animals appear on the Carrand diptych (Kiilerich 1993, 152–53, fig. 87). For a lengthy discussion of animal renderings of this date, see DreskenWeiland 1991, 43–47. A head of a deer currently in the Musée d’Aquitaine in Bordeaux is undoubtedly from a late mythological statuette (Stirling 1996b, 226, fig. 18). 51. The Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne will not be discussed in this context, as doubts have been raised about the authenticity of the base, which is separately carved. Braemer (1982, 116 n. 57) considers it to be a nineteenth-century restoration. I believe the remounting is ancient, perhaps done as a repair or to refit the statuette for a squared niche. There are other examples of repair to late mythological statuettes: the Carthage Ganymede and the Aphrodite from Sidon have iron dowels from ancient repairs. 52. The groove of the scotia usually ends in a squared cutting on the side of the base. 53. Muthmann 1951, 120, 124. Georg Lippold (1923, 95–103) makes similar observations. 54. Muthmann 1951, 122–23. 55. Many of his examples come from Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli and therefore are presumably of Hadrianic date. 56. Muthmann 1951, 101, 176 n. 55. 57. So Gazda (1981, 149) observes. 58. To name a few examples, Budde and Nicholls 1964, 61–62, no. 97; Kunzl 1971, 3; Comstock and Vermeule 1976, 89, no. 139; Bartman 1992, 173, no. 3. 59. Hesperid base: Bonfante and Carter 1987, figs. 1–4. 60. The Carthage base is unpublished. It is located in the end of the wall nearest the museum. Preserved height: 7 cm; width 29 cm. Other examples of Hercules with a bull: Fuchs 1992, 157–59, no. 22, figs. 159–63; Moreno 1982, 478–85, figs. 104–17. 61. Toynbee 1986, 27–29, pl. IX. Toynbee assigns a second-century date. 62. Inan and Rosenbaum 1966, 10. Other examples are the Victory in the Ashmolean Museum, the Minerva from Khirbat-al-Mafjar, a satyr and maenad group possibly from Aphrodisias, and a Ganymede from Oxyrhynchus (Müller 1975, pl. 52d). 63. The Carthage Ganymede comes from a secure excavation context; thus, the polish cannot be attributed to modern restoration.

Notes to Pages 108–14 254 64. This is remarked by Wrede (1972, 81–82). See also L’Orange 1973; M. Bergmann 1999, 19, 51, 54. 65. Shepherd 1998, 189. 66. Erim 1990, 27. 67. Lange 1880, 377–78; Schuchardt 1963, 39. 68. See note 13 above. 69. L’Orange 1973. See also Kiilerich 1993, 112–15. A portrait of a woman in Thessaloniki has abstractly ridged brows like those of the late mythological statuettes (L’Orange 1973, 55, fig. 3). 70. Beyazit emperor: Kiilerich 1993, 87–89, fig. 40, with earlier references at n. 257. Empress: L’Orange 1973, 73; Kiilerich 1993, 96–98, with earlier bibliography at n. 290. For the similarity between the two sculptures, see Kiilerich 1993, 97; L’Orange 1973, 67. 71. Gazda 1981, 146. 72. Gazda 1981, 146. 73. Aphrodisias emperor: Delbrueck 1933, 29, 44, 70, 195, figs. 67–68; Inan and Rosenbaum 1966, 89–90, pls. 41.5, 42.1–2. A late fourth-century or early fifthcentury empress at the Norwegian Institute in Rome: Kiilerich 1993, 27–30, fig. 3. A togatus in the Capitoline Museum, dated ca. 400: von Sydow 1969, 98; Kiilerich 1993, 111, fig. 57. Folds on the thighs of the angels of the Sarigüzel sarcophagus: Gazda 1981, 156, fig. 44. 74. Gazda 1981, 147, fig. 32. 75. Lauffray 1930, 30, 31, fig. 5. 76. Cagiano de Azevedo 1967, commenting at length on the Asian features of this sculpture (8); Camporini 1979, 62–64, no. 50, pl. 34; Milano capitale 1990, 326–27, no. 5a.1f; Kiilerich 1993, 230. Dresken-Weiland (1991, 14–15) disputes the fourthcentury date, saying that the composition and surface treatment indicate a thirdcentury date—but she does not cite comparanda. 77. Ganymede: Gazda 1981. Krakow youth: Braemer 1982, 122, figs. 22–23; Bienkowski 1919, 73–74, no. 24, fig. 27. The figure is missing his left foot, his right leg below the knee, his left arm below the shoulder, and his right arm from the elbow. Two metal screws are inserted above his buttocks. The head is reattached. Bienkowski argued that the head did not belong to the body, being too large for it, but spectographic analysis of the marble has shown that the head and body were carved from the same marble (letter of 4 October 1992 from Krystyna Moczulska, curator of ancient art at the Muzeum Czartoryzki). Several identifications are possible for this youth based on his Phrygian cap: he could be another Ganymede, looking down at an eagle, an Attis, or a Paris. I have not seen this sculpture. 78. A similar pin appears on a Meleager in Antioch (Brinkerhoff 1970, fig. 34) and on the Milan Meleager-Helios (fig. 50 in the present study). The low conical profile on the brooch of the Mithras from Sidon is more distantly related. 79. Bienkowski (1919, 273–74) dates the piece to the Antonine period because of its high polish. Braemer (1982, 122) notes its similarity to the Diana of SaintGeorges-de-Montagne and so presumably considers it, too, Constantinian. 80. The groupings presented here are stylistic. M. Bergmann (1999) defines some different subgroups but uses iconography and format (e.g., tondi or peopled

Notes to Pages 115–17 255 scrolls) as criteria for groupings along with style (44). Thus, she links the Ganymede to Dokimeion rather than Aphrodisias (23) and identifies a group that has some overlap with the Saint-Georges-de-Montage group presented here (51). Bergmann, too, finds significant links across different groups. 81. The fundamental work on these sarcophagi is Benoit 1954. Also important is Février 1979, 317–59. 82. Crenellated folds: Benoit 1954, no. 2, pl. 2; no. 4, pl. 3; no. 5, pl. 4.2–4; no. 9, pl. 6.2; no. 39, pl. 12. Large-headed proportions and drilled details are almost universal among the Arlesian sarcophagi. For columns or trees as dividers, see Benoit 1954, nos. 1–42. My figure 54 illustrates Benoit’s no. 5, on p. 36. 83. See, for instance, the details of heads in Benoit 1954, pls. 10, 11. 84. For instance, Benoit 1954, nos. 39, 45, 88 (see particularly no. 39, pl. 12.1; no. 45, pls. 17, 34.3–4). 85. Benoit 1954, no. 5, pl. 4.2 (the seated Peter on viewer’s right); no. 9, pl. 6.2 (the apostle on the viewer’s right). See also Boube 1984, 222, no. 21, pl. 20.1. Boube sees the tiny strut as a technical flourish. 86. Benoit 1954, no. 2, pl. 2. Other highly finished sarcophagi include Benoit no. 5, pl. 4.2–4; no. 9, pl. 6.2; no. 39, pl. 12. 87. The one late mythological statuette whose marble seems different is the Venus-Victory from Montmaurin. It has perceptibly larger crystals than the marble of the Venus and Adonis fragments. There has been some disagreement about whether this marble is local or not (Braemer 1982, 138–39). This statuette also stands out stylistically among the late mythological statuettes in the extreme interest in crenellated folds. 88. Thulin 1929. The statuette, formerly in the Terme Museum, is now in the Palazzo Massimo Museum. The provenance is possibly Cività Lavinia near Rome (Thulin 1929, 202 n. 2). Gazda (1981, 145) observes the facial comparisons and adds that the configuration of the Christ’s hair has the same schema as that of the Ganymede. Schumacher (1984) argued that the “statuette” was created by detaching the figure of Christ from a sarcophagus, roughly carving the back, and adding a base. However, M. Bergmann (1999, 48) points out that the depth of this statuette (15 cm) is significantly thicker than the maximum thickness used in fourth-century sarcophagi at Rome (12 cm). Moreover, the molding is compellingly similar to the indisputably ancient Ganymede from Carthage. At the sides of the Palazzo Massimo piece, the scotia ends in a forked pattern outlined by an incised line. This has good parallels in the pattern on the pegs of the epigraphically datable Hekate herm from Sidon (fig. 41 in the present study). 89. Sultanahmet angel: Dresken-Weiland 1991, pls. 191–92; Kollwitz 1963, 222. Kollwitz compares the drapery to that of the Paul on the end of the Sarigüzel sarcophagus. 90. Gazda 1981, 160–61, fig. 50; Fittschen-Zanker 1983, vol. 3, 118–19, no. 180, pls. 209–10; M. Bergmann 1999, 50, pl. 42.3, pl. 57. 91. The neck support is visible in Fittschen-Zanker 1983, vol 3, 118–19, no. 180, pls. 209–10. 92. Inan and Rosenbaum 1966, 10. 93. Kollwitz 1963, 221 (a line of reworking across Christ’s forehead shows very clearly in Kollwitz’s fig. 18). M. Bergmann (1999, 48) argues against reworking,

Notes to Pages 117–20 256 pointing out that the “serpentine pattern of the curls” with drill dots in the middle fits with other works of the Kunstkreis, particularly from Constantinople. 94. So Gazda (1981, 150–51) observes. 95. Inan and Rosenbaum 1966, 10. Braemer (1990) has listed many North African examples and maintains that the variety of marbles used shows that they are locally made. He mentions the use of neck supports in Asia Minor and Roman Egypt and argues that this “influence” spread west along the trade routes of the southern shore of the Mediterranean. He does not mention the work of Inan and Rosenbaum. 96. This is pointed out by Gazda (1981, 154). 97. Gazda 1981, 142–44, with a schematic diagram (fig. 21). 98. Dresken-Weiland 1991, 22–24, figs. 191–92. This piece dates to the first half of the fifth century. 99. Helios: Erim 1986, 147, picture on lower right; M. Bergmann 1999, 49, pl. 21.4. 100. For reasons of conservation, I have not been able to obtain permission for isotopic testing of statuary from Saint-Georges-de-Montagne or Chiragan. 101. Diana and Venus of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne: Braemer 1982, 116. Montmaurin Venus and Adonis: Fouet 1969, 170 n. 24. 102. Davis 1981, 189–90. 103. Regional styles: Inan and Rosenbaum 1966, 11–12. 104. Floriani-Squarciapino 1943; Erim and Roueché 1982; Smith and Erim 1991. 105. Van Voorhis 1999; Rockwell 1991. 106. Moltesen 2000, with further references. 107. For instance, Dresken-Weiland 1991, 16–19; Kiilerich 1993, 212–13; Hannestad 1994; M. Bergmann 1999. 108. The comprehensive publication of the workshop and its finds is Van Voorhis 1999. 109. Rockwell (1991) argues that the studio’s location in the center of town, its two large doors opening onto a plaza, and the presence of nearly finished sculpture in the studio show that the sculptors expected patrons to purchase statuary that they could carry away. 110. The carving of these pieces is sufficiently advanced to identify styles of hair and clothing (Van Voorhis 1999, 44–61). 111. Van Voorhis 1999, 227–28; Rockwell 1991, 138, figs. 19–20. For a more frontal view, see Erim 1986, 146, upper right photo. 112. The Aphrodisias Artemis is 76.5 cm high, compared to 75 cm for the Diana of Saint Georges-de-Montagne (Van Voorhis 1999, 219–20, no. 32; Rockwell 1991, 139, figs. 21–22). 113. Van Voorhis 1999, 217–19, 220–21. 114. Van Voorhis 1999, 109–10. 115. The smaller satyr has been finished but not polished. Other preserved fragments show that at least one other small-scale copy of the satyr was made (Van Voorhis 1999, 183–95). Large and small versions of a seated Aphrodite were also found (Van Voorhis 1999, 195–98). 116. Van Voorhis (1999, 79–93) supports a date in the Hadrianic or Antonine period. Smith (1998, 259) is noncommittal, writing, “whatever their exact date.”

Notes to Pages 120–25 257 Others support a fourth-century date because of comparisons with the Esquiline group (Hannestad 1994, 117–18; Kiilerich and Torp 1994, 311). 117. Van Voorhis 1999, 199. 118. Erim 1990, 18; 17, fig. 9. For another late fourth-century Aphrodite of Aphrodisias, see Dresken-Weiland 1991, 10; Fleischer 1973, 146–47, no. A1, pl. 64; M. Bergmann 1999, pls. 53.4, 64. A tantalizing find at Ephesos is an oversize hand carrying a statuette of the Artemis of Ephesos, of whom only the feet and base are preserved (Aurenhammer 1995, 252–54). The published drawing of this piece shows that the statuette has a base molding with a central groove, though double fillets flanking it are not indicated. It was found in Terrace House 2. 119. Gazda (1981, 146, fig. 31) also compares the profile of the folds on the Ganymede’s chlamys to those of folds on fifth-century statues of magistrates from Aphrodisias. She draws a similar comparison to statues from Ephesos, however, so this similarity in drapery is not necessarily an indicator of Aphrodisian origin. 120. Gazda 1981, 160, 163–64, figs. 54–56. Dresken-Weiland (1991, 16–19) prefers an early third-century date. 121. Erim 1990, 27, 29. 122. Roueché and Smith 1996, 20, 24, figs. 17–18. 123. Dillon 1997. 124. Dillon 1997, 748, fig. 13. 125. Erim 1986, 135. 126. Smith 1990, 130. 127. Moltesen 2000 provides detailed photographs of the statues and comprehensive bibliography; for discussion of the circumstances of discovery, see pp. 122– 24, 126–27. 128. Matthews and Walker 1990, 147–51. Thus, marble testing on the Gallic sculptures might tell only part of the story of their origins. 129. Erim and Roueché 1982, 106 and n. 17. 130. Erim and Roueché 1982, 108. 131. Ramifications of this new evidence are explored in Hannestad 1994, 110–13; Kiilerich and Torp 1994; M. Bergmann 1999. 132. Scholarship on this base is summarized in Moltesen 2000, 123–24. 133. Steinby 1986, 141; La Rocca 1987, 11; these are accepted by CoatesStephens 2001, 219. 134. Noting that there are also Diocletianic brick stamps, Coates-Stephens (2001, 219) considers this building to be of the late third century and treats it as the earliest datable wall built from spolia created during the construction of the Aurelianic. See further discussion in chapter 2 of the present study. 135. Moltesen 2000, 126. 136. More elaborate musculature appears on the Boston satyr (Gazda 1981, 163, fig. 54) and, to a lesser extent, on the Venus torso from Montmaurin (fig. 17 in the present study). 137. Gazda 1981, 146, and fig. 32. 138. Erdemgil et al. 1989, 132–33, inv. 1402; Oberleitner 1959, 88, fig. 60. I owe this observation to Elaine Gazda. 139. Inan and Rosenbaum 1966, 23, 148–49, nos. 189–90, pl. 111; 1979, 1:185, no. 149; 1979, 2: pl. 119.3–4.

Notes to Pages 125–28 258 140. Strocka 1985, 229–32, pls. 27–28. 141. Inan and Rosenbaum 1966, 38–44. 142. Current research shows that the luxurious phases of the terrace houses at Ephesos were destroyed in the last third of the third century, considerably earlier than was previously thought. Thus, the statuary from these houses cannot provide evidence for the manufacture or even appreciation of mythological statuary in the later fourth century. See further discussion and references in chapter 6. 143. Filges 1999. 144. Filges 1999, 411: “Einer schon im Kapitel zu den Plinthen- und Basisformen vermuteten zeitlichen Einordnung der Statuetten des Stammaterials in den Zeitraum von der mittelantoninischen Zeit—also etwa ab 150 n. Chr.—bis in das Ende des 3. Jh. n. Chr. steht deshalb nichts im Wege.” Five of the forty statuettes discussed come from archaeological contexts, although these contexts are not discussed as chronological evidence. 145. Filges 1999, 397. The tall diadem also appears on Hellenistic terracottas, but then the tradition is interrupted. 146. Filges 1999, 377: “zweitklassiger Steinmetzen.” 147. Filges 1999, 408. 148. Inan 1975, no. 8. 149. Filges 1999, 410–11: “mehr oder weniger regelmäβigen stilistischen Entwicklung.” Discussing two models for viewing stylistic development in the third and fourth centuries, Filges adds, “Eines folgt der Annahme einer mehr oder weniger regelmäβigen stilistischen Entwicklung, die von einer anfangs mehr an der Nature orientierten plastischen Gestaltung zu einer flachen, abstrakten Formgebung hinführt.” For this reason, he rejects the attribution by Kiilerich and Hannestad of such statuary as the Esquiline and Silahtaraga assemblages to the fourth century (406–11). He concedes a late fourth-century date for the Carthage Ganymede, the Venus and Diana of Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, and a few others, albeit with palpable hesitation (408–9). 150. For recent discussion, see Kampen 2003, with further references. To name a single example, the reliefs of the Tomb of the Haterii at Rome are roughly contemporary with the Cancelleria reliefs (Kleiner 1992, 190–92, 196–99). Fullerton (2000, 513) raises similar questions about stylistic development in the fourth century B.C. 151. Column: Kiilerich 1993, 76–77, fig. 56. 152. Kiilerich 1993, 129, fig. 71. 153. Kiilerich 1993, 130–32, figs. 73–74. 154. Harrison 1986, 157–60, nos. 19b.i–xxix, pls. 207–27. These may come from a sarcophagus or relief panel, perhaps showing the apostles. In particular, note no. 19b.vii, pl. 215. 155. Firatli 1990, 153–54, no. 301. 156. Firatli 1990, 127, no. 242. 157. The statuette is on display in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum (inv. 4565 T). 158. Inan and Alföldi Rosenbaum 1979, 138–39, no. 82, pl. 74; Kiilerich 1993, 79–80, 196, 201–3. 159. Stichel 1982, nos. 47, 52–57, 72.

Notes to Pages 128–33 259 160. Kiilerich 1993, 79–80, 196, 201–3, 218. 161. Kiilerich 1993, 213. Theodosia Stefanidou-Tiveriou (1995, 83–96) makes a similar argument that the building program of Galerius in Thessaloniki in the late third century drew in sculptors from many different regions, creating syncretistic and uneven styles. See also Despinis, Stefanidou-Tiveriou, and Voutiras 1997, 184–95. 162. Kiilerich 1993, 70–71, fig. 4. The presence of Aphrodisian work in Silahtaraga, a suburb of Constantinople, could also indicate Aphrodisian activity in the capital (Chaisemartin and Örgen 1984; reviewed in Fleischer 1988). 163. M. Bergmann 1999, 59–60, citing Stirling 1994 as confirmation of these findings. 164. M. Bergmann 1999, 59, pl. 44.1–3. 165. L’Orange 1973, 54–71. See also Kiilerich 1993, 112–15. 166. L’Orange, 1973, 69, 70; fig. 28. This head is reworked from an earlier piece (Kiilerich 1993, 104–5). 167. L’Orange 1933, 147, no. 117, fig. 221. 168. Kollwitz 1963, 197–200, 203, 229; Brandenberg 1979, 464. 169. Milan sarcophagus: Kollwitz 1963, 197–200, 203, 229. For similar argumentation, see Brandenberg 1979, 464. Others have considered it an actual Eastern product (Lawrence 1927–28; von Schönebeck 1935, 51). 170. Dresken-Weiland 1991, 61–68. 171. Kiilerich 1993, 158–59. See also Kitzinger 1977, 35–41. 172. Side: Inan 1975, no. 8. Aphrodisias: Erim 1990, 27, 29; fig. 30. 173. Walda et al. 1997, 66–67. 174. Bacchus from Walbrook (fig. 63 in the present study): Toynbee 1986, 39–42. A probable Bacchus from the Maiden Castle excavations: Cunliffe and Fulford 1982, 26–27, no. 98, pl. 26; Henig 1983. 175. Bonifay and Villedieu 1989, 19; Congès and Leguilloux 1991, 201–34; Tomber and Williams 2000. 176. Amphoras: Bonifay 1986, 279–82; Bonifay and Villedieu 1989, 19, 42. Lead seals: Binsfeld 1996, 288–89. 177. Bonifay and Villedieu 1989, 37; Tomber 1993, 158. Tomber dates the commencement of the Eastern amphora trade to the late fourth or early fifth century. 178. De gub. dei 4.69. 179. Février, Fixot, and Goudineau 1980, 479, fig. 400. 180. Braemer 1978, 739–40. 181. Braemer 1978, 739. 182. Ordo 78–80. For the extent of Aquitania, see Chastagnol 1970, esp. 282–83. Among other citations, he gives Amm. Marc. 15.11.13 and 21.7.4. 183. Ordo 124–27. 184. Expositio totius mundi 58. Only Trier is mentioned as a specific recipient of goods funneled through Arles. The author of the Expositio did not know Gallic geography very well (Rougé 1966, 311). 185. MGH 3.14, quoted by A. H. M. Jones (1986, 1360 n. 96). 186. Braemer 1982, 106–10; Braemer 1983, 85–86; Bost and Monturet 1987, 72–73, 77; Balmelle 1980, 14; Balmelle 1982, 147–56; Balmelle 1987, 14: Balmelle 2001, 227.

Notes to Pages 133–39 260 187. Nony 1974. 188. Gardelles 1973, 74, no. 95. 189. Bonifay and Villedieu 1989, 42, 45; Watier 1973, 113–18. There are only two other finds of Eastern amphorae along the Atlantic coast, at Tours and at Bréhat in Brittany (Bonifay and Villedieu 1989, 42, 45). 190. Bonifay and Villedieu 1989, 43. For further discussion of Eastern amphorae in southern Gaul, see Congès et al. 1983, 358, fig. 5; Bonifay, Congès, and Leguilloux 1989, 660–63. 191. Tomber 1993, 143–4; Renfrew 1984, 127–28. 192. Finewares: Fouet 1969, 226–29. African amphorae: Watier 1973. 193. Parker (1992) gives many examples, including nos. 57 (Artemision), 616 (Madrague de Giens), 965 (Punta Scifo A), 984 (Rhône delta), and 1108 (Spargi). A wreck dating 450–600 at Favaritx in Spain (Parker no. 397) included bronze statues, but they appear to have been scrap. 194. Parker 1992, no. 682. 195. Matthews 1971, 1078. 196. Matthews 1971. 197. Professores 1.4 (Constantinople); 1.4, 6.17 (Rome); 2.9–10 (Athens). 198. Or. 26, 27, 28, 29, particularly 28.20; see PLRE, s.v. Icarius 2. 199. Paulinus: Eucharisticus 272, 414–19. Eutropius: Symmachus Ep. 3.53. 200. Ep. 120, 117. 201. Gregory of Tours Gloria confessorum 45 (PL 71, col. 862). 202. Sivan 1988, 59–72. 203. Rockwell 1991, 138, 141. 204. Binsfeld 1996. 205. Binsfeld 1996, 289; Hilar. frag. A IV 1.27. 206. For instance, on four occasions, Symmachus thanked Ausonius and others for warrants for people to travel on the post (Ep. 1.21, 4.7, 9.22). A. H. M. Jones (1986, 830–31) discusses the system and its abuses. 207. C.Th. 8.5.15: quo minus marmora privatorum vehiculis provincialium transferantur, ne otiosis aedium cultibus provincialium patrimonia fortunaeque lacerenter. 208. The weight is provided by Michel Gourdin, restorateur at the Musée d’Aquitaine in Bordeaux. 209. Morel 1983, 66–74, esp. 67, 69. 210. Amm. Marc. 16.88; Salvian De gub. dei 7.2–5, 7.12. See also Expositio totius mundi 58.

chapter 5 1. Guinodie 1845, 280–83; Amtmann 1904, 82–83, citing others. Robert Etienne (1962, 354–57) suggests Saint-Georges-de-Montagne as one of three possibilities for Ausonius’s Villa Lucaniaca, based on the instructions for reaching it provided in one of Ausonius’s letters (Ep. 15). On Ausonius, see Sivan 1993. 2. Ausonius was clearly a Christian by the end of his life, and Green (1991, xxvii–xxviii) postulates that he may well have been Christian all his life. The existence, sincerity, and timing of Ausonius’s Christianity have been the subject of much debate, based in large part on the fact that his writings contain both Christ-

Notes to Pages 140–42 261 ian and mythological content (Sivan 1993, 110, with further references). The very existence of the two kinds of content in Ausonius’s writings and the modern furor they have created are the most significant aspects of this debate. 3. Cameron 1993, 78–96, esp. 81–84, disputed in Kay 2001, 13–14. 4. Symmachus Ep. 1.24. 5. It is discussed as a literary conceit in Malamud 1989, 24–25. 6. Knidia and heifer: Ausonius Epig. 62–69. Court art: Epig. 5–6. Occasio: Epig. 12; Cupido cruciatur. 7. Epig. 32. 8. Epig. 36; Green 1991, 394; Kay 2001, 152. 9. Protrepticus ad nepotem. This list is corroborated by a school text probably written in Gaul in the fourth century: see Dionisotti 1982, 122, for list of authors. For a longer description of the texts, curriculum, and methods of teaching, see Haarhof 1958, 52–119. Education of the later fifth century is discussed in Riché 1976, 17–51. 10. Eucharisticus 72–80. 11. Augustine described a similar curriculum in the Confessions. In retrospect, he was disturbed at the power of pagan myths to move him and distract him from more Christian pursuits. (Conf. 1.13–14). 12. Sat., praef. 1–3. Tiberius Claudius Donatus likewise dedicated his commentary on the Aeneid, the Interpretationes Virgilianae, to his son, saying, “Dear son, I wrote down these things for your benefit, not so that you will peruse them alone, but so that after making a comparison, you might understand what you should pursue from [earlier commentators’] efforts and what you should glean from your father’s efforts.” 13. Nearly all the epistles of Ausonius contain learned mythological allusions. Sidonius Apollinaris, a Christian Gallic writer of the mid-fifth century, is equally fulsome in his use of literary and mythological allusion. For literary influences on Sidonius and his use of mythology, see Stevens 1933, 4–7; see also 32, 47, 133. In fifthcentury Gaul, during the formation of the barbarian kingdoms, classical education became even more important as a way to distinguish the aristocratic class (Mathisen 1993, 105–18). 14. Lavagne 1994, 238–48. 15. Baratte 2001, 280–83. Ammianus Marcellinus (28.4.14) mocked the aristocrats of Rome for their vulgarity and inattention to literature and finer pursuits. 16. Scott 2000, 128. 17. Kennell 2000, 73–78. 18. Haarhof 1958, 57–58, 70, with examples. Concerning mythological exempla, Koortbojian (1995, 36) argues that this educational practice “no doubt produced . . . a tendency to think in terms of these formulae.” On the importance of mythological allusions, see Haarhof 1958, 68–70, citing evidence from Augustine (Conf. 1.17), Servius (Comm. in Verg. Aen. 10.18), and Ennodius (Dict. 20). 19. Yates 1966; B. Bergmann 1994; Elsner 1995, 76–80. Writes Elsner (78): “In effect, we cannot draw a sharp distinction between the architectural and visual world of the Roman educated elite on the one hand and their mental and rhetorical world on the other. Together they make up the mentalité, the particularity and identity of Roman civilization: Each was the precondition and determining impulse behind the other.”

Notes to Pages 142–44 262 20. Ausonius Prof. 1.2; Jerome Ep. 125. 21. Pan. Lat. 2(12).17.1–2 (exempla of loyal friends), 2(12).26.4 (Charybdis), 2(12).39.4–5 (Castor and Pollux; Pegasus), 2(12).42.3 (Furies), 2(12).44.5 (artists should cast aside banal themes, such as the labors of Hercules, the triumph of Bacchus, and the gigantomachy, in favor of the exploits of Theodosius). Pacatus was a younger contemporary of Ausonius and grew up in the Nitiobroges territory, perhaps in its capital, Agen, which lies very near the villa of Castelculier (discussed in chap. 3; see Nixon 1987, 3–4). Even more outstanding examples of the use of mythological comparisons in panegyrics delivered to devout Christians are Claudian’s speeches lauding Stilicho (De consulatu Stilichonis), Honorius (Panegyricus de sexto consulatu Honorii Augusti), and Serena (Laus Serena). 22. Ep. 3.51: sed frater meus Hyperechius iamdudum institutione Romanus est. This letter was addressed to the Gallic historian Eutropius. The word for “education” (institutio) is also used in this context in the preface to the Saturnalia (Sat., praef. 2). 23. Ep. 2.79. 24. Perry (2002) discusses the impact of these metaphors and of rhetorical ideals and aesthetics on Roman taste in statuary from the first century B.C. to the second century A.D. Roberts (1989a) explores the influence of classical precedents and style on late antique art and poetry, as well as their common aesthetic. 25. Laudatio in Gratianum Augustum 5 (MGH 6.331). This speech dates to 369. For a study of related imagery in panegyric and imperial art, see MacCormack 1981. 26. I have already illustrated in chapter 4 that a good education and a teaching career provided opportunities for physical mobility, as Ausonius’s catalogue of Aquitanian rhetors includes individuals with successes in Rome, Athens, or Constantinople. Such men, with a professional interest in and respect for mythology in texts, might well have purchased marble statuary of mythological figures on their travels. See Hopkins 1961. 27. Gratiarum actio 4, 13 (Homeric references); 18 (Pegasus and other mythological steeds). Historical references appear throughout. 28. Nixon (1983) argues that the collected Latin Panegyrics were used as teaching texts in the schools of Gaul and that because of their use in education, they were important instruments in training the youth of Gaul in love of empire and, ultimately, as civil servants. On the schools of Bordeaux, see Sivan 1993, 74–93. 29. Louis Maurin (Maurin et al. 1992, 194) makes a similar argument more succinctly: “Certes, les lettrés, laïcs ou clercs, restent imprégnés de mythologie grecque et latine et ornent leur demeure des effigies des dieux anciens, de même que la culture classique, étroitement liée au paganisme, est toujours à la base de l’enseignement; mais il s’agit désormais d’une culture où peu à peu la croyance a de moins en moins de part.” 30. Brown 1992, 40. 31. Helen Saradi-Mendelovici (1990) also attributes an admiration for classical monuments in late antiquity to the influence of education. 32. Russell and Wilson 1981, xxxiv–xl. 33. Comparison of this handbook with extant speeches finds both similarities and differences. Russell and Wilson (1981, xviii) argue that Menander’s treatises “represent a systematization of practice, together with a certain degree of innova-

Notes to Pages 144–46 263 tion, which proved very influential in the widespread revival of literary skills that accompanied the revival of prosperity and stability in the fourth century.” 34. Russell and Wilson 1981, xxxiv–xxxv, xl. 35. Treatise II.399–405, along with the bedroom speech (405–12). A good survey of mythological imagery (especially Venus) in late antique epithalamia is Roberts 1989b; see also Pavlovskis 1965. 36. Treatise II.400, trans. Russell and Wilson 1981, 137. 37. Treatise II.404, trans. Russell and Wilson 1981, 145. 38. Cento 33: Veneris iustissima cura, trans. White 1919, vol. 1, 381. 39. Epithalamium de nuptiis Honorii Augusti. 40. Sidonius Carm. 11. 41. Fournet 1998. 42. Paulinus Carm. 25.9–10. Roberts (1989b, 337–38) argues that Paulinus saw Venus as a frivolous image rather than as an indicator of serious pagan belief. 43. Brown (1992), Cameron (1999), Rappe (2001), and many others stress this. 44. Eudocia: Holum 1982, 112–29, esp. 117–18. Prudentius: Roberts 1993; Malamud 1989. MacCormack (1998) traces Augustine’s varied and difficult, but always passionate, engagement with Virgil. 45. For the development of monastic schools, see Marrou 1956, 330–39. Monastic schools began in the fourth century but explicitly only educated children who were to become monks. In the West, it was not until the sixth century that religious schools became the routine purveyors of reading skills. 46. Jerome Carm. 10.21–22, 111–13 (Green 1991, app. B, Ep. 3) 47. Ep. 9.12.1 (trans. Anderson 1965, vol. 2, 561, Loeb trans.). 48. Ep. 22.30; Adversus Rufinum 1.30–31. This letter Ep. 22.30 was known in Gaul in Gregory of Tours’s day and probably earlier, as Jerome had several Gallic correspondents (Van Dam 1985, 225). He also discussed the dilemma of classical literature in a letter to Damasus (Ep. 21). See Rousseau 1999 for discussion of this letter and the attitudes of Jerome, Augustine, and Paulinus of Nola toward classical education. 49. Conf. 1.13–18; MacCormack 1998. 50. For much lengthier discussion of various Christian writers and their attitudes toward secular learning, see Ellspermann 1949; Hagendahl 1958; Kaster 1988, 70–96. 51. The Projecta Casket, with its Christian inscription and decoration showing the marine procession of Venus, is a superb example of explicitly Christian interest in mythology in the visual arts (Shelton 1981, pl. 2, upper photo; pl. 11). 52. Clark and Hatch 1981; Salzmann 1990, 229. 53. Ausonius Ep. 9, to the praetorian prefect Probus; Sidonius Ep. 8.3.1 Sidonius compares the recipient, Leo, to Apollonius in his wisdom and asceticism. 54. Virgilius Vaticanus: Wright 1993; Stevenson 1983. Vergilius Romanus: Rosenthal 1972. 55. Reynolds and Wilson 1968, 32–35; Cameron (1999) disputes this claim. Subscriptions dating from the fourth through the sixth centuries appear on many manuscripts (often preserved even in later recensions). Symmachus, too, edited Livy (Symmachus Ep. 9.13).

Notes to Pages 146–49 264 56. Cameron 1993, 78–96, esp. 81–84, disputed in Kay 2001, 13–14. For Ausonius on translation, see Epitaphs, praef. 57. Unfortunately, neither author offers an explanation or justification of his project in the preface. Even so, the simple fact of their writing commentaries reflects the high level of contemporary interest in classical texts. For an analysis of the pedagogic purposes and methods of Servius, see Kaster 1988, 169–98. 58. Symmachus refers admiringly to the archaizing literary style of Praetextatus (Ep. 1.53.2), Naucellius (Ep. 3.11), and the Bordelais Siburius (Ep. 3.44.1). John Matthews (1975, 5–6) dismisses this admiration as a literary affectation, but even so, it is interesting that Symmachus considered it a worthwhile one. 59. Roberts 1989a, 57, 93–100. 60. Green 1991, xx–xxii. 61. CIL 13.128. Pailler 1986; Sivan 1989. Pailler gives a mid-fifth-century date, Sivan an early fifth-century one. It is interesting to find religion once again linked to style and education, as though only pagans employed a classicizing style— although Sivan rightly points out that a classical education and style does not in itself signify pagan religion. For classical quotes in Christian epitaphs generally, see G. Sanders 1976. 62. Bost and Dubedat 1979. 63. Jacquemard-Le Saos (1994, viii–xxi) argues that Rutilius Namatianus was the author. 64. For Eutropius, see Michel 1979. 65. Ep. 2.9.4. 66. For instance, MacCormack 1998; Roberts 1993; Malamud 1989. 67. Epigrams on statuary include 5, 12 (Kairos of Pheidias); 22, 45–47, 50, 51, 62 (Knidia); 63–71 (heifer); 81. For the close relation of these poems to Greek epigrams, see Cameron 1993, 81–83, 91–92. 68. Epig. 32. 69. For the use and popularity of enumeration in late antique poetry, see Roberts 1989a, 41–44. 70. Epicedion in patrem, praef. 71. Cupido cruciatur. Other poems describing real artwork describe a portrait of Valentinian II and a painting of a lion killed by Gratian (Epig. 5, 2). 72. Querolus 18: ita seminudus dealbatusque incedit, toto splendet corpore. 73. The possibility of painted decoration on late mythological statuettes remains open because there is little evidence for or against it (see discussion in chap. 4). Even if they were painted, the limbs may well have been left white, allowing the highly polished surfaces to show. The description of the Lar as white seems significant, since Lares were normally bronze statuettes. 74. Querolus 2 (prooemium): Nos fabellis atque mensis hunc librum scripsimus. See also Hermann 1937, iv. For mealtime performances in the high empire, see C. P. Jones 1991. 75. Ep. 1.29. 76. Brinkerhoff 1970, 55. Zosimus was admittedly a pagan historian. 77. Curran 1994; Lepelley 1994. Some of these magistrates were Christians. For some responses to statuary in the eastern empire, mostly somewhat later in date, see Mango 1963.

Notes to Pages 149–54 265 78. Vita Melaniae 14. The modern commentator D. Gorce (1962, 154–57) interprets this statuary as heirloom mythological statuary, citing the example of Lausos. On Melania generally, see E. A. Clark 1984. 79. Guberti Bassett 2000, 11. 80. Mango 1991. 81. G. Clark 1993, 130–35 (philosophic women), 135–38 (education). 82. The informativeness of the findspot of the magistrates is debatable, since they were found broken up as binder in a late wall (Coates-Stevens 2001). 83. Flower (1996, 264–9) discusses four late antique references to wax masks (imagines): Cod. Just. 5.37.22.3 (an edict of Constantine); SHA Severus Alexander 29.2; SHA Tacitus 19.6; and Boethius De consolatione philosophiae 1 pros. 1.3. 84. Flower 1996, 40–46. 85. Ep. 1.1, 1.2. 86. Ep. 1.6.2. A public portrait (imago) of the father of Rutilius Namatianus in Pisa was presumably also in stone (Rut. Namat. De reditu suo 1.573–92). 87. Epistula Rustici ad Eucherium (discussion and text provided in Vessey 2001). 88. Epistula Rustici ad Eucherium (trans. Vessey 2001, 281): expressas lapillis aut ceris discoloribus formatasque effigies. He goes on to call them autotypi [the very models] (trans. Vessey 2001, 278). 89. Contra Symm. 1.59: inter veteres cera numerentur et aere. 90. Ep. 26.9–10: [hos] ceris inurens ianuarum limina et atriorum pegmata. For commentary, see Kay 2001, 130–34. 91. De consolatione philosophiae 1 pros. 1.3 (fumosas imagines), discussed in Flower 1996, 265–66. Notwithstanding Flower’s arguments to the contrary, the inspecificity of these references raises the possibility that wax masks of ancestors are simply a literary topos. 92. Epicedion in patrem, praef. (trans. White 1921, 41; Loeb trans.). 93. In the context of epithalamia, Menander Rhetor advises, “If one of the families is distinguished and the other not, set against the distinction the other family’s virtues (temperance, moderation)” (Treatise II.403; trans. Russell and Wilson 1981, 143). 94. For discussion of the qualities praised in honorary inscriptions and for further bibliography, see Horster 1998, 40–41. 95. Relatio 12. 96. Ep. 1.1. 97. Ep. 1.2–4. Varro’s cataloguing approach to portraits (literary or visual) was influential in late antiquity (Vessey 2001, 284–86). 98. De reditu suo 1.573–92. 99. Ep. Bob. 6–7, 8a–b. 100. Ep. Bob. 6. 101. Ep. Bob. 8b. 102. Wrede 1972, 96–97. 103. Wrede 1972, 89. 104. In republican and early imperial times, argues Bartman (1991, 73–74), the wide variety of genres, styles, and dates of pieces in private Roman sculptural collections reflected that of public displays of plunder, in order to convey the wealth and power of a patron who could assemble a similarly varied collection. Deliberately

Notes to Pages 154–57 266 eclectic collections of artwork doubtless continued to convey such connotations of wealth, status, and tradition, just as the public displays of statuary continued to be available as inspiration. By the late fourth century, the historical reasons for a catholic taste may not have been foremost in collectors’ minds, although they would have been well aware that Roman aristocrats had traditionally assembled a variety of different kinds of sculptures for different purposes and that a diverse assemblage connoted power and status. 105. Guberti Bassett 1996. 106. The following account is drawn from Ibrahim, Scranton, and Brill 1976. 107. The following discussion is drawn from Guberti Bassett 2000. 108. Citing earlier scholarship, Guberti Bassett (2000, 12–13) shows that the topographic indicators in the ancient passages discussing the statuary rule out the identification of a complex to the north of the hippodrome as the “Palace of Lausos,” even though this name is frequently given to it. She places the quarter of Lausos further east. 109. Peristephanon 2.481–84. 110. Sulpicius Severus Dialogues 3.9.1–2. For other attacks on statuary, see Vita Martini 15; Dialogues 3.8.4. 111. Sulpicius Severus Vita Martini 22.1; Dialogues 2.13.6, 3.6.4. See also Stancliffe 1983, 328–40. Saint Martin was not alone in destroying statues: in the midfourth century, Bishop Simplicius of Autun tore down a statue of Berecynthia (Gregory of Tours Gloria confessorum 76). On the date, see Stroheker 1970, 219, no. 361. 112. Uneducated Christians such as Martin were not the only ones to choose an ascetic lifestyle. Martin’s Gallic contemporary Paulinus (a protégé of Ausonius) founded a monastery at Nola. His rejection of classical literature no doubt encompassed a rejection of classicizing artwork as well. Nevertheless, for those educated Christians who did not turn to asceticism or make a career in the church, education provided a means to appreciate classical literature and artwork. 113. For a survey of scholarship on this topic, see Saradi-Mendelovici 1990, 47–50. There is archaeological confirmation as well. For instance, a statue of Isis was found broken into three pieces under the floor of a Christian building at Laodicea on the Lycus (Donderer 1991–92, 250). In Carthage, a “statue of a woman in the guise of Venus,” broken into eleven pieces, was found under the floor of the Dermech I basilica (Alexander, Ben Abed-Ben Khader, and Métraux 1996, 367). 114. For instance, all the examples used in Thornton 1986 are in sanctuaries or other situations of worship. 115. Matthews 1975, 140–42. 116. Mango 1963, 56. Mango assesses a variety of sources concerning the destruction of statuary. 117. Contra Symm. 1.502–5 (trans. Malamud 1989, 23). 118. Peristephanon 2.481–84: tunc pura ab omni sanguine tandem nitebunt marmora stabunt et aera innoxia quae nunc habentur idola. Note that the purified statues are described in neutral terms as marmora and aera, while in their defiled state they are called idola. 119. Abodah Zarah 3.4 (trans. Neusner 1988). See Schäfer 2003, 345–46, with further references; Eliav 2001. 120. Eliav 2003, 421 (quote), 427. (Greco-Roman outlook).

Notes to Pages 157–62 267 121. Abodah Zarah 5.4 (trans. Neusner 2002). 122. In the Mishnah (trans. Neusner 1988), see Abodah Zarah 3.1 (“All images are prohibited”), 4.4 (“An idol belonging to a gentile is prohibited forthwith”). In the Tosefta (trans. Neusner 2002), see Abodah Zarah 5.6 J (“Whether he treats it as a god or does not treat it as a god, it is forbidden”). 123. Examples appear in Mango 1963, 56; Saradi-Mendelovici 1990, 56. 124. Lepelley 1994, 5. 125. N. King 1961, 71–86; Williams and Friell 1995, 119–33; Curran 2000, 161–217. Hunt (1993) discusses other aspects of Christianity in the Theodosian Code. 126. For instance, see Gauckler 1899, largely followed by Terry 1992. Some authors assume that these laws would even make it illegal to own statuary. 127. Even the law that does allude to domestic statuary is concerned with worship, not statuary per se (C.Th. 16.10.12). 128. Harries 1999; J. F. Matthews 2000. For a briefer summary, with references, see Curran 2000, 161–69. 129. Harries 1999, 20–21 (see also 26–31); Matthews 2000, 13–18, 66–70. 130. Matthews 2000, 66. 131. Matthews 2000, 66, 168–69. 132. Harries 1999, 82–88. 133. N. King 1961, 73; A. H. M. Jones 1986, 167; Curran 2000, 198–207. 134. C.Th. 16.10.8. 135. The emperors’ concern with sacrifice that could lead to divination or black magic is emphasized by N. King (1961, 73) and Curran (2000, 198–212). 136. C.Th. 16.10.8. 137. Matthews 1975, 140–42. 138. C.Th. 16.10.7, addressed to Florus, praetorian prefect; C.Th. 16.10.9, addressed to Cynegius, praetorian prefect. 139. C.Th. 16.10.10. 140. Hunt (1993, 157) emphasizes that these laws are aimed at high-ranking individuals. 141. C.Th. 16.10.11. 142. C.Th. 16.10.12. Private homes are not mentioned in the earlier laws under this title. One earlier law by Constantius and Julian in 356 did mention statuary as it forbade “worship[ing] images.” 143. C.Th. 16.10.13. 144. C.Th. 16.10.14, addressed to Caesarius, praetorian prefect. 145. C.Th. 16.10.15. 146. C.Th. 16.10.16. 147. C.Th. 16.10.17–18. For an outline of religious controversy and violence in Africa at this time, see Markus 1990, 112–21. 148. C.Th. 16.10.19. 149. C.Th. 16.10.20: Sane si quondam consecrata sacrificiis deceptionem hominum praestiterunt, ab usibus lavacrorum vel publicis affectibus separentur, ne inlecebram errantibus praestent. 150. C.Th. 16.10.21. The remaining laws in this section of the Theodosian Code mainly reiterated topics already discussed.

Notes to Pages 162–67 268 151. This distinction also appears in Jewish texts of approximately the same era (Eliav 2001). 152. Guberti-Bassett 2000, 12. 153. Anth. Graec. 9. 528 (trans. W. R. Paton, 1917, vol. 3, 295; Loeb trans.). Cyril Mango (1991) argues that a sixth-century compiler of Palladas’s poetry, thinking specifically of the baths of Marina, added the title On the House of Marina to the poem. In another poem, Palladas addresses a bronze statue of Hercules cast down by the roadside (Anth. Graec. 9.441). 154. The emphasis on sacrifice and the cataloguing of forbidden types of reverence in this law show that the underlying concern was acts of worship, not destruction of statuary.

chapter 6 1. For an excellent bibliographic survey of late antique housing more generally, see Sodini 1984, 1995, 1997. Sodini principally discusses architecture and mosaics, signaling sculpture more occasionally. 2. Amm. Marc. 28.4.12 (trans. J. C. Rolfe 1939, vol. 3, 145; Loeb trans.): ita hi quoque columnarum constructiones, alta fronte suspensas mirando, atque parietes lapidum circumspectis coloribus nitidos. See generally 14.6, 28.4. 3. Olympiodorus extracted in Photius Bibliotheca 63a (trans. N. G. Wilson 1994). 4. Marvin 1983. 5. Curran 1994; Lepelley 1994. 6. Ep. 18.31: Non illi satis sunt lavacra, non porticus, non plateae occupatae simulacris? 7. In addition to the houses discussed here, see Guidobaldi 1986. A thirdcentury statue of Jupiter Optimus Maximus appears to have been part of the decoration of the fourth-century House of Neratius Palmatus (Chioffi 1999, 38–42). 8. Colini 1944, 253–58; Guidobaldi 1986, 186–88. 9. CIL 6.1684–88. 10. One herm is illustrated in Ensoli and La Rocca 2000, 451, no. 39. A series of ten more herms also found on the Caelian may have come from here or may belong to an adjacent villa (Colini 1944, 258). 11. The statue of Cupid and Psyche is illustrated in Brenk 1999, 72, fig. 1. 12. CIL 6.1690–93. An inscribed statue base dedicated to Vulcaeus Rufinus, who was active in the third quarter of the fourth century, was found in situ in another house at Rome (Capannari 1885, 17). The inscription specifies that the statue be placed in Rufinus’s vestibulum. Horster (1998, 51, n. 82) lists many more examples of such dedications in the city of Rome. 13. Brenk 1999. 14. Vita Melaniae 14, discussed further in chapter 5 of the present study. 15. Spinola 1992 (975 for statuary); Pavolini et al. 1993. 16. Carignani 1993, 490. For the stamp and cup, see Carignani in Ensoli and La Rocca 2000, 149–51. See also Colini 1944, 281. 17. The new apse evidently blocked access to seven niches in the preexisting structure. 18. Ep. 1.12, 3.12, 8.42.10–13.

Notes to Pages 167–71 269 19. Coates-Stevens 2001, discussed in chapter 2 of the present study. 20. Guidobaldi 1986, 211; see also Coates-Stephens 2001, 222–26. 21. Bertoletti, Cima, and Talamo 1999, 108–10; Ensoli and La Rocca 2000, 432–37, nos. 12–16, 18–20. 22. Visconti 1885; Guidobaldi 1986, 194–98. 23. Visconti 1885, pls. 3–4. The statuary has clearly suffered in the ensuing century, as seen in Ensoli and La Rocca 2000, 454–55, nos. 43–45. 24. Ensoli Vitozzi 1993. Also Ensoli and La Rocca 2000, 518–24, nos. 146–60. 25. The two house mithrea with statuary are San Clemente (Vermaseren 1956, 156–59, nos. 338–348) and Santa Prisca (Vermaseren 1956, 193–201, nos. 476–500). Two other fourth-century house mithrea are found at the Palazzo Barberini (Vermaseren 1956, 168–70, nos. 389–95) and the Domus Nummi Albani (Vermaseren 1956, 167, nos. 386–8). Vermaseren lists numerous dedicatory inscriptions of the fourth century. 26. A tauroktonic relief found in Pausilypum near Naples is attributed to the second half of the fourth century (LIMC, s.v. Mithras 131; see also LIMC, s.v. Helios/Sol 376). The linear, incised style of this relief is not comparable to late mythological statuettes. 27. M. Bergmann (1999) identifies some tondi (45–47, 55) and a life-size centaur (62–63) as belonging to the Kunstkreis. 28. Neudecker (1988, 117) maintains that new statuary was only commissioned in the edges of the empire, where there were fewer antiques in circulation. 29. Inscriptions name substantial donations by holders of the office of procurator annonae throughout this period (Becatti 1948, 46). 30. The following discussions of individual houses are drawn from Becatti 1948. 31. Although late lime kilns are reported at Ostia, they were mostly located near the forum and other public buildings (Lenzi 1998). There is no consistent relationship between the amount of sculpture found in a house and its distance from a lime kiln. Some of the houses closest to lime kilns, such as the Domus del Pozzo (ca. 50 m) contained no sculpture. However, the House of Fortuna Annonaria, some 60–80 m from a limekiln, had numerous sculptures, among them two statues found in situ, clear evidence of their use in this house. The Nymphaeum of the Erotes, ca. 50 m from a limekiln, contained two matching statues, both virtually complete (Pensabene 1999). They do not seem like random lime-burning rubble. The House of the Nymphaeum, located ca. 100–120 m from any lime kiln, was devoid of sculpture, though the seven niches in the nymphaeum and a further one in a reception room surely bespeak the initial presence of statuary. 32. Hannestad (1994, 103) remarks on the frequent repairs in the assemblages of houses at Ostia. 33. Becatti 1948, 23–25. 34. There is some confusion over the Hera. Becatti’s (1948, 23, 24) description of it is very similar to the Juno/Ceres already mentioned, and currently only one statuette of this description is attributed to this house in the records of the Ostia Museum (inv. 1115). The preserved statuette wears a wreath of ears of grain, which indicates an identification as Ceres. Two portraits were also found here, but Becatti (1948, 24) suggests, without saying why, that they did not belong to the house.

Notes to Pages 171–77 270 35. Becatti (1948) does not mention this piece, but the accession card attributes it to this house and gives a plausible date of discovery. 36. Becatti 1948, 21–23; Boersma 1985, 101–3 (phasing of the house and its decoration), 280–92 (catalogue of statuary). The findspots for the sculptures are as follows: Apollo and Diana, portico 28; Venus, 12; genius, 14; female heads, 6, 21, 14, and 27. 37. Becatti 1948, 6–8. 38. Becatti 1948, 8. 39. Becatti 1948, 15–18. This is a rare example of reused reliefs outside Athens. 40. Pensabene (1999) stresses the ambiguity of the standing remains and the absence of excavation around this structure. It may even have belonged to the adjacent Domus delle Nicchie a Mosaico. 41. The following paragraphs discuss some of the most outstanding or bestrecorded examples of late antique statuary collections from Italian villas, but others exist. An Aphrodite Anadyomene and a Hercules Farnese were found at the villa of San Giusto, which was renovated in the fourth century (Volpe 1998). The villa of Voconius Pollio had a very rich statuary collection and was evidently occupied until at least the early fifth century (Lanciani 1884). 42. Vita Melaniae 18 (trans. E. A. Clark 1984). 43. Ep. Bob. 5. 44. Neudecker 1988, 117. 45. Neudecker 1988, 117, 223. 46. Vorster 1998. 47. The following account is based on Gentili 1999, 2:11–28; Wilson 1983, 33. Dating is drawn from Wilson 1983, 34–42. 48. Found near rooms 52 and 53. 49. Gentili 1999; Carandini, Ricci, and De Vos 1982; Wilson 1983. 50. The body of the statue was found fallen in the apse, and its head was thrown into a late pit in another room, along with Arab and Norman pottery (Gentili 1999, 2:15). 51. Gentili’s (1999, 19–20) interpretation of this piece as a seated figure, possibly Jupiter, seems strained given the size of the fragment. 52. Serena diptych: Kiilerich 1993, fig. 79. Naples empress: M. Bergmann 1999, pl. 79. Muse: Smith 1990, 129, pl. V.4. 53. Brinkerhoff 1972, 19–28. 54. Milan Meleager: Milano capitale 1990, no. 5a.1f; Cagiano de Azevedo 1967, 5–17. Aquileia maenad: Christof 2001. 55. Scagliarini Corlàita et al. 1994; Milano capitale 1990, 260–66. 56. Scagliarini Corlàita et al. 1994, 64. In chapter 3 of the present study, there is a similar argument concerning the Gallic material. 57. Scagliarini Corlàita et al. 1994, 59. For a description of the fill, see Bravar 1964–66, 113. 58. Scagliarini Corlàita et al. 1994, 95–96, no. 25. They date it to the early fourth century, comparing it to Apollos from Antioch and Mensa Matelica, both of which have published dates of the early fourth century. I consider both of the comparanda to be late fourth-century pieces, however (see the discussions of Ravenna and Anti-

Notes to Pages 177–83 271 och in the present chapter). The Desenzano Apollo differs from the other two in its slight smile. 59. Scagliarini Corlàita et al. 1994, 99–100, no. 28. 60. Massari et al. 1985 (for statuary, see 210–11, figs. 11–13). 61. Lawrence 1927–28. 62. Romans and Barbarians 1976, 121–22. 63. Milano capitale 1990, 229–30, no. 3g.2b; Scagliarini 1968, 56–57. The mosaics at the villa indicate that it was in use from the first to the fourth century. Another late antique villa at Borghetto near Ravenna had fragmentary marble statuettes and a small bronze of Bacchus (Scagliarini 1968, 54–55, no. 33A). 64. Rebecchi 1983, 543. 65. At the villa of Els Munts, long considered to have a lavish fourth-century phase involving a new bath complex with an extensive collection of heirloom statuary (Koppel 1993b, 222–23), new excavations have redated the villa’s phases of luxury to the first and second centuries and have shown that there was only limited agricultural occupation there in the fourth century (Tarrats Bou et al. 2000; Koppel 2000). 66. This account is based on Arce, Caballero Zoreda, and Elvira 1979; Puerta, Elvira, and Artigas 1994. 67. Puerta, Elvira, and Artigas 1994, 183; Chaisemartin and Örgen 1984; Hannestad 1994, 127; M. Bergmann 1999, 21. 68. It corresponds well to Dresken-Weiland’s (1991, 43–47) characterization of animals in late fourth-century sculpture. 69. Compare, for instance, a Hellenistic statue from Delos (LIMC, s.v. Artemis 402), a relief from Rome (LIMC, s.v. Artemis-Diana 142), or a statuette now in Bonn (LIMC, s.v. Artemis-Diana 33e). 70. The LIMC shows a single Apollo with a griffin (LIMC, s.v. Apollon-Apollo 25), an archaizing statue with a heraldic griffin in profile next to one leg. The tiny stylized wing of the griffin does not at all resemble the wing preserved at Valdetorres. 71. Puerta, Elvira, and Artigas 1994, 195. 72. Van Voorhis 1989, 72–79. 73. Puerta, Elvira, and Artigas 1994, 195. 74. Carrasco and Elvira 1994. 75. Other Spanish aristocrats rose to prominence in his court (Matthews 1975). The pilgrim Egeria may have started her journey to the Holy Land in Spain (Sivan 1988). 76. This account is drawn from Vaquerizo Gil and Noguera Celdrán 1997. 77. Vaquerizo Gil and Noguera Celdrán 1997, 99. 78. A late fourth-century ivory pyxis found at Trier shows the rescue of a woman by a man, perhaps Andromeda and Perseus (Trier, Kaiserresidenz und Bischofsitz 1984, 181–82, no. 70). Though configured differently from the statuette at El Ruedo, it reflects contemporary interest in such myths. 79. Interestingly, Kairos was also displayed at the fifth-century palace of Lausos in Constantinople, and Ausonius wrote an epigram on this statue type (Epig. 12). 80. The portraits at Chiragan included emperors who were unpopular or suffered damnatio memoriae, including Geta (Cazes 1999, 131).

Notes to Pages 184–89 272 81. Only the Ceres has a preserved plinth. The height of the head or face of the others corresponds to the Ceres though. 82. Blanco, García, and Bendala 1972; Vaquerizo Gil 1995, 84–87. 83. Vaquerizo Gil 1995, 86. Vaquerizo Gil mentions other unspecified sculptural fragments. 84. Vaquerizo Gil 1995, 89–91. 85. Rodriguez Oliva 1993; Vaquerizo Gil 1995; Vaquerizo Gil and Noguera Celdrán 1997, 101–3. 86. Koppel 1993b, 224–25, including discussion of the iconography of the Cybele. 87. Garcia y Bellido 1967, 42. 88. For further examples of statuary in villas (not necessarily late antique), see Koppel 1993a, 1993b; Rodriguez Oliva 1993; Vaquerizo Gil 1995. 89. Koppel 1993a, 197–98. The villa also possessed private portraits of the first and second century and a cuirassed torso. 90. Ennabli 1986. A statue of a venator from this site seems to be funerary rather than decorative (Baratte 1998). 91. Admittedly, most of these houses were cleared in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century, and published records are terse, but sculptures were an item of interest to the excavators. Gauckler (1902) mentions a torso of Diana in onyx in a late Roman house at Carthage, but without detail. A house of inspecific date near the amphitheater had a headless bust of an emperor in a niche and a nymphaeum peopled by statuettes of Venus, Bacchus, and Amor (Gauckler 1904, 13–15). 92. Gazda 1981. See chapter 4 in the present study for further discussion of the statuette. 93. Gauckler 1899. 94. Dunbabin 1978, 156–58. 95. Picard 1965, 107. 96. Mango 1963, 56, citing the Vita Severi (Patrologia Orientalis 2:27). 97. Markus 1990, 112–21. 98. Frel 1969; Ennabli and Lassère 1969. 99. A. Ennabli (cited in Frel 1969, 271) provisionally suggested an early fourthcentury date based on the lamps. 100. Leveau 1982. I am grateful to Sabah Ferdi for providing fourth-century dates for the mosaics at the House of the Julii and the House of the Thybridii Basiliani. 101. Michon 1916, 58–59 (description of findspot); Leveau 1982, 115, 162. Very little else is reported about the site. 102. Darmon 1980, 8 n. 21. 103. Walda et al. 1997, 66–67. 104. Frel 1969, 275. 105. In her catalogue of sculpture from Sousse and its environs, Nathalie de Chaisemartin (1987, 152) comments on the rarity of sculptural decoration in wealthy homes. A statue of an African boy holding a dove (47–49, no. 42), found in a secondcentury house, is the only example of domestic statuary among the provenanced pieces in the Sousse Museum. I have not found references to domestic statuary in publications from Bulla Regia and Thugga. At Djemila (Cuicul), Michèle Blan-

Notes to Pages 190–93 273 chard-Lemée (1998) shows how a garden containing a statuette of Venus was no longer used in the later (fifth-century) phases of the house, after renovations reversed the orientation of the major reception areas. 106. Peacock and Williams 1999. 107. G. Clarke (1982, 208) provides a list of five villas and their finds. To these can be added Bancroft Villa (Henig 1993, nos. 7, 12, 15) and Dryhill Villa (Henig 1993, no. 9). 108. Scott 2000. 109. Excavated in the 1790s, it was later recovered with earth; there have been some subsequent sondages at the site. The present account is based on G. Clarke 1982; Clarke restudied the finds and reappraised the interpretations of the original excavator, Samuel Lyons. The decorative program at Woodchester stands out among British villas for both the quantity of mosaics and the quantity of sculpture. For the sculpture, see also Henig 1993, 3–7, nos. 1–13. 110. G. Clarke 1982, 206–7. The Orpheus mosaic has marked similarities to one in Trier, but the Trier mosaic apparently dates to the third century (Scott 2000, 42). 111. Moving from north to south, these are rooms 25–27 on Clarke’s fig. 1. 112. Toynbee 1964, 84, disputed by Henig (1993, 4, no. 4), who prefers a date in the early third century and links it to Severan iconography. 113. The room where most of the statuary was found seems to have been converted into a granary. The fragmentary, incomplete state of the statuary and its discovery in layers of later date is similar to the pattern seen with statuary in villas of Gaul and Spain. 114. G. Clarke (1982, 210–12) points out that decorative marble (e.g., opus sectile or marble sheathing, in particular) is rare in Britain. The only parallels are Flavian or Trajanic, which suggests that the marble cladding at Woodchester was installed in an early phase of the villa. It may still have been in use in late antiquity. 115. Meates 1979, 17–23, 35–40. 116. It is not clear how one entered this dark, underground room. There may have been an opening at the top of one wall, or people may have entered via a trapdoor in the wooden floor above. 117. Meates 1979, 35–40. Meates is rather vague about the stratified pottery that established some of these dates. 118. Shepherd 1998 is now the authoritative source for this site, updating the preliminary interpretation in Grimes 1968. For our purposes, there are some significant changes between these two volumes. First, while Grimes proposed a destruction date of ca. 350 for the building (thus giving a terminus ante quem for the statuette of Bacchus), Shepherd contends that there was no specific event of destruction for the building—rather, that it was used into the later fourth century and abandoned sometime after that to decay slowly. Second, isotopic analysis of the marble of the statuettes (Matthews and Bowman 1998) links them to Dokimeion, rather than to Cararra as earlier ultraviolet studies had suggested (S. E. Ellis 1986). 119. Other mithraic sculptures and a statuette of a genius were found in the building or its vicinity in less archaeologically controlled circumstances. 120. This is also proposed by Henig (1998, 230), who compares it to finds at Chiragan and to the Carthage Ganymede. 121. Matthews and Bowman 1998; Walker 1998.

Notes to Pages 193–97 274 122. Toynbee 1986, 39–42. 123. Shepherd 1998, 189. 124. Shepherd 1998, 229. 125. Hominibus bagis bitam. Translation and discussion: Toynbee 1962, 130. 126. The three statuettes discussed here (from Walbrook, Maiden Castle, and Spoonley Wood) are the only securely identified statues of Dionysos from Britain. Two larger-scale nude torsos found in reuse contexts near the Walbrook Mithraeum may have belonged to statues of Bacchus within the temple (Toynbee 1986, 23–25). 127. Henig 1983. For Maiden Castle and the find context, see Wheeler 1943, 74, 171, 288–90. The tree and panther are on one side of Dionysos, and the shape of the broken base suggests that further figures would have appeared on the other side. 128. Henig 1993, 3, no. 1; Toynbee 1964, 69. 129. Statuary from fourth-century villas at Sirmium, Naissus, and other sites is illustrated in Srejovic´ 1993. 130. Petrovic´ (1994, 71–72) rehearses these sources. The account of finds at Mediana is based on Petrovic´ 1994; Jovanovic´ 1973–74; Tomovic´ 1989–90, 1993. I am grateful to Ana Panic´ for translating Jovanovic´ 1973–74 for me. 131. The most comprehensive list of the statuary is Tomovic´ 1993, as follows: inscribed porphyry statuette of Asklepios (98, no. 112, fig. 36.1–2); inscribed porphyry statuette of Hygeia (98, no. 111, fig. 27.1–2); inscribed statuette of Asklepios (98–99, no. 113, fig. 35.3); statuette of Asklepios (no. 114, fig. 35.4); statuette possibly showing Hygieia (97–98, no. 110, fig. 28.5–6); statuette of “Aspasia”/Europa type (94, no. 96, fig. 27.3–4); statue of a nude youth with a chlamys on his shoulder (111, no. 156, fig. 33.3); statuette of a man crouching on a seat (112, no. 162, fig. 34.2); head of a satyr (113, no. 166, fig. 21.4); head of a panther (122, no. 228, fig. 54.7); support with a tree and grape cluster (109, no. 149, fig. 50.5); fragment of Hercules’s knee next to a lion skin and boar’s head (104–5, no. 130, fig. 50.9); hand of Hercules with apples and lion skin (105, no. 132, fig. 50.4); base with feet, a tree trunk, and a ram (104, no. 128, fig. 50.2–3); statue base with feet and a columnar support decorated with palmettes (119–20, no. 205, fig. 53.7). The panther and support with a grape cluster may belong together in a statue of Dionysos, and there are at least three statue fragments that may be associated with Hercules, although differences in workmanship suggest that they may belong to two statues rather than one. 132. This figure (Tomovic´ 1993, 112, no. 162, fig. 34.2; Petrovic´ 1994, 88, no. 7) may be compared to one from Gortyn (Romeo and Portale 1998, 184–86, no. 52). 133. Petrovic´ 1994, 80; Tomovic´ 1993, 94, no. 95, fig. 28.3. 134. Tomovic´ 1993, 103–4, no. 127. Another statuette found somewhere at Mediana is the torso of a statuette of Cybele (Tomovic´ 1993, 91–92, no. 88). 135. Jovanovic´ 1973–74, 64. Jovanovic´ suggests that the statuary was damaged and discarded during the invasions of the Goths in the late fourth century or those of the Huns in 441. Dated references to court presence at Mediana continue into the fifth century. 136. Petrovic´ 1994, 89, citing CIL 3.12073. 137. LIMC, s.v. Europe. 138. Tomovic´ 1993, 94, no. 95. 139. The National Museum at Belgrade excavated at Stobi in the years 1924–34, uncovering numerous houses and other structures. Important résumés of discover-

Notes to Pages 197–99 275 ies at Stobi are Kitzinger 1946; Wiseman 1973; Parovic´-Pesikan 1984, 120–21. Discussion of the plan here is from Wiseman 1973; Nestorovic´ 1936. 140. The original publication of the statuary is Petkovic´ 1937. The statuary is included in two subsequent catalogues that provide greater detail and sometimes correct Petkovic´: Grbic´ 1958, nos. 15, 23–25, 46, 48, 50–51, 53, 56–57; Sokolovska 1987, nos. 135, 142, 154, 160–61, 186, 196. The statuary is now in the National Museum in Belgrade. The groupings outlined here are my own. 141. Grbic 1958, 131. 142. For the identification as Serapis, see Grbic´ 1958, 131, no. 46; Sokolovska 1987, no. 196. 143. House of Peristerias: Wiseman 1973, 40–41, fig. 5. Mosaics in this house date to the late fourth or early fifth century. 144. Nestorovic´ (1936) does not give a figure for the height of the niches (though their height was fully preserved archaeologically), but from his reconstruction drawing (fig. 112) one may deduce a height of about 110 cm. 145. A bronze genius appeared in an assemblage from a domestic sanctuary at Clermont Ferrand, in a house destroyed sometime in the last quarter of the fourth century (see chap. 3 in the present study; Provost and Mennessier-Jouannet 1994, 193–203). A marble statuette of a genius was found at Walbrook in London (Toynbee 1962, 139–40, no. 32). The term Lar appears twice in later fourth-century legislation, once used figuratively to refer to a house, and once used literally. A rescript addressed by Gratian, Valentian, and Theodosius to the (ferociously antipagan) praetorian prefect Cynegius in 384 referred to people returning to their own home (C.Th. 8.5.44: ad larem proprium). The law concerned illegal use of the imperial post. The second law was issued by the same emperors and dates to 391 (C.Th. 16.10.12). It forbids veneration of the Lar, along with many other acts of pagan worship, as discussed in chapter 5 of the present study. The Historia Augusta, composed in the late fourth century, refers to the lararium of emperor Severus Alexander (Severus Alexander 29.2), and an animate Lar narrates the early fifth-century Gallic play Querolus (discussed in chap. 5 of the present study). 146. Kitzinger 1946, 120. 147. This is also referred to as the “Summer Palace.” Portrait (survives from elbows up): Wiseman 1973, 36; Kitzinger 1946, 134; Sokolovska 1987, no. 6. Relief: Kitzinger 1946, 135. Statuettes: Sokolovska 1987, 257. The “Palace of Polycharmos,” or “Winter Palace,” where a portrait and statue of Venus were found (Kitzinger 1946, 140–41; Parovic-Pesikan 1984, 122), is now interpreted as the Large Bath (Wiseman 1973, 37–39). 148. G. D. R. Sanders 2001. 149. Neratzoules 1930–31, 38–40. The findspot is described as a villa, datable by late Roman pottery. Neudecker (1988, 128 n. 1330) calls the statues stray finds and expresses skepticism about the designation of the spot as a villa. The early date of the statuary need not preclude its use in a late Roman villa; we have seen that all the statuary at Fianello Sabino dates to the first centuries B.C. and A.D. but remained available until the early fifth century A.D. 150. Daux 1968. 151. Phasing and plan: Badie, Déroche, and Petridis 1997. Niches as part of second phase: Déroche, Petridis, and Badie 1996, 849. For brief discussion of other

Notes to Pages 199–205 276 well-to-do late houses at Delphi, see Petridis 1997. Sodini (1984, 351, 385) mentions Athenian houses with niches. 152. Clement 1972. 153. Catling and Waywell 1977. 154. Dating distinctions between the fourth and fifth centuries were not always made, especially in early excavations. 155. Expositio LIII: Athenas vero <studia>et historias antiquas et aliquid dignum nominatum, arcum ubi multis statuis stantibus mirabile est videre dicendum antiquorum bellum. 156. Modern scholars have coined the term Neoplatonic, which was not used in antiquity. 157. Marinus Vita Procli 29 (trans. Frantz 1988, 43). 158. Frantz 1988, 44. 159. Frantz 1988, 45, citing Eunapius VS 483 for the “private theatres.” 160. So Baumer (2001a, 62) observes. 161. Karivieri (1994, 132) calls this figure Asklepios; Baumer (2001a, 59) points out the cornucopia as a chthonic element and links the scene to reliefs from a sanctuary of Pankrates just outside the city walls. 162. This is pointed out by Frantz (1988, 43–44); Karivieri (1994, 132). 163. Baumer 2001a, citing Vita Procli 36. 164. Karivieri 1994, 120. 165. Baumer 2001b. The House of Peristerias at Stobi had a funerary relief set into a wall behind a fountain (Wiseman 1973, 40–41, fig. 5). 166. Meliades 1955, 49; Karivieri 1994, 131–32 and fig. 30a–b. Karivieri emphasizes that the statues were found in fill, not in situ. There are two portrait heads that are sometimes associated with this building, but Karivieri points out that the findspot of one is unsubstantiated, while the other came from a late (Frankish) reuse context that sheds little light on original locale. 167. Karivieri 1994, 132. 168. Karivieri 1994, 132. 169. Frantz 1988, 43. 170. Frantz 1988, 44. 171. Other examples in Athens are listed by Frantz (1988, 26–28). 172. Fowden 1995, 565. 173. This is also remarked by Baumer (2001a, 60, 62). The following description is summarized from Parlama and Stampolidis 2000, 34–37, 71 (Dioskouros), 88–91; the statues of Plato (35) are not illustrated there. 174. The following discussion is based on Frantz 1988, 37–48; Camp 1989. Athanassiadi (1999) supports the attribution as a philosophical school. For debate, see Sodini 1984, 349–50. 175. Baumer (2001a, 63) identifies the first relief as Neoptolemos; see Camp 1986, 205, for an illustration of the Artemis. 176. Frantz 1988, 41. 177. Frantz 1988, 46. Frantz also stressed that the apsidal rooms could be used as lecture theaters. 178. Frantz 1988; Camp 1989.

Notes to Pages 205–9 277 179. In particular, he points out that the figures on the relief of Dionysos are reasonably well preserved, while all the heads are missing (Camp 1989, 54). This does seem deliberate, especially given that the thick, protruding frame ought to protect the figures within from random damage. 180. This discussion is drawn from Frantz 1988, 95–116. 181. Frantz 1988, 100. The pilasters with the giants were carved in Antonine times as additional decoration for the Odeion of Agrippa. 182. Camp 1986, 200. 183. As a life-size, standing statue, this portrait seems more appropriate for an outdoor or architectural setting. 184. Frantz 1988, 115; Fowden 1990. Holum (1982, 112–29) argues that Eudocia’s father came from Antioch but did teach philosophy in Athens. 185. Hannestad 1994, 126–27. There was also a statue of a giant at the Italian villa of M. Voconius Pollio, where the statuary collection was probably largely formed in the late first or second century but evidently remained in use until sometime in the fourth (Neudecker 1988, 169, no. 25.10). 186. Eusebius VC 3.3.1–2 (trans. Cameron and Hall 1999). 187. Mango 1963, 67. 188. Carandini, Ricci, and De Vos 1982, 312. 189. Pan. Lat. 2 (12).44.5. 190. The description of this house, located west of the junction of Herodou Attikou Street and Vassilies Sophia Street, is based on Spathare and Chatziote 1983; Karivieri 1994; Parlama and Stampolidis 2000. 191. Spathare and Chaziote 1983, 25. A photograph of the statuary appeared only in the popular press (Kiosse 1984, cited in Karivieri 1994). 192. Fredrich 1897, 361–62; M. Bergmann 1999, 53; Romiopoulou 1997, 117, no. 123. 193. Not one example of Cybele appears in Hubertus Manderscheid’s catalogue of 560 sculptures found in baths (Manderscheid 1981, 28). 194. Kavvadias 1889, 7–17 and fold out plan at the back; Spiro 1978, 54–59, no. 21. 195. Kavvadias (1889, 15) lists statuary but cannot specify findspots for it, in part because the initial excavation there was carried out by a roadwork crew rather than by archaeologists (8 n. 1). 196. Parlama and Stampolidis 2000, 135. 197. Here, mid-fifth-century mosaics in an apsidal room with a fountain were uncovered in 1846 and are still visible today (Spiro 1975, 36–54 nos. 14–20). Finds are not recorded from this building. 198. Alexandre 1969 (with illustrations of most of the pieces), also discussed by Karivieri 1994, 137. 199. A final assemblage possibly relevant to late antiquity comprises the Varvakeion Athena, a statuette of Asklepios, and a small female head, found in the northern edge of the city, just inside the city wall. 200. Lange 1880 is the most detailed contemporary publication. Schuchardt 1963 lists additional bibliography. Only the torso was preserved from the Asklepios statuette.

Notes to Pages 209–13 278 201. Interestingly, later excavations in the same general area recovered a head of a Lapith from one of the metopes of the Parthenon (Kourouniotos 1913, 200; Studniczka 1921, 329–34, identifying the Lapith head as belonging to the Parthenon). Perhaps the owner of the Varvakeion Athena had also acquired this authentic souvenir of the city’s greatest temple. If so, the Lapith head presumably could not have been detached from the Parthenon until a fairly late date. Statuettes of a seated Aphrodite, a head of Dionysos, and a Cybele were also found. These pieces were admittedly built into a Byzantine wall, so their association with the earlier finds at the Varvakeion is tenuous. I am grateful to Dr. Judith Binder for this reference. 202. This is also observed by Baumer (2001a, 63). 203. Baumer (2001b) shows that Roman aristocrats of the first century A.D. collected classical reliefs, however—listing finds in Rome and its environs, as well as cargo on the Mahdia wreck. 204. Togate man: Frantz 1988, pl. 66b; Frantz (65) argues for its association with the palace. Neronian bust: Karivieri 1994, 131–32, fig. 30a–b. 205. Katakes 2002, 23–25 (no. 21), 73–75 (no. 70), 200–205; von Heintze 1972, 164, 166. 206. Baumer 2001a, 65. 207. Except where otherwise specified, this paragraph on chronology follows Daszewski 1985; Maier and Karageorghis 1984. Daszewski (1985, 289–91) provides extensive bibliography. The area of the villa is at least 7600 m2. 208. Daszewski 1989. 209. Room 23. 210. Rooms 39 and 40. 211. Poseidon and Amphitrite: room 76. Theseus: room 36. 212. Daszewski 1977, 11. 213. Delvoye 1984. 214. Fifteen of the better-preserved pieces have been illustrated in publication, and it is clear from the descriptions that well over twenty statues or statuettes once existed at the villa. Statuary finds are presented in Michalowski 1966; Daszewski 1968, 1970, 1976. 215. Daszewski 1968, 55. 216. Lichocka 1978. Daszewski (1968, 55) suggests that the white statuette may represent a domestic aspect of Aphrodite, while the gray one with stars embodies her celestial aspect. 217. Daszewski 1976, 222–23. 218. Michalowski 1966, 357. 219. Daszewski 1984, 304–7; Daszewski 1985, 286–87; Bowersock 1990, 48–53. 220. Karageorghis 1964; 1969, 191. 221. Dresken-Weiland 1991, 300–305. 222. Kiilerich 1993, 95–98. 223. Megaw 1974, 69, pl. 11. 224. S. P. Ellis 1997b. 225. Themistius (Or. 34.8–9, as cited in Chausson 1998, 111) reports that Theodosius I displayed portraits of the Antonine emperors in his palace. 226. Guberti Bassett 1996.

Notes to Pages 213–18 279 227. Mango 1963, 57. The statues of the Muses were destroyed in 404 by the followers of John Chrysostom. 228. Guberti Bassett 1991. 229. Mango 1963, 58. 230. Guberti Bassett 2000. 231. Chaisemartin and Örgen 1984. 232. Fleischer 1988; Kiilerich 1993, 232; Hannestad 1994, 120–26; M. Bergmann 1999, 17–18. 233. Erim 1986, 147. 234. M. Bergmann 1999, 25. 235. M. Bergmann 1999, 19–20, 53; see also Fleischer 1988. Bergmann suggests that the greater abstraction in the imperial portrait may reflect conventions of the genre rather than a different date. 236. Smith 1990. 237. Erim 1990, 17, fig. 9. The iconography of this statuette is discussed in Brody 1999. 238. Smith 1990, 129. 239. Erim 1986, 135. 240. Altars were found as well. 241. Erim 1990, 27, 29. 242. Roueché 1989, 92. 243. This discussion is drawn from Dillon 1997, especially 732–44. 244. Dillon 1997, 765. 245. Roueché 1989, 19–20, no. 8; Dillon 1997, 742. 246. Roueché 1989, 82, no. 47. 247. Dillon 1997, 744–62. 248. Erim 1990, 20, 24, figs. 17–18. 249. Sklavou-Mavroeithe 1999, 28, no. 14. The name Isbardia is inscribed on the base. 250. References have been collected by Ladstätter (2002). 251. Krinzinger 2002 provides the revised dates for Terrace House 2. See also Parrish 1999, discussing unit 2 in Terrace House 2. For ideal sculpture, including finds from the terrace houses, see Aurenhammer 1990. Aurenhammer (1999) specifically analyzes and contextualizes the assemblage from Terrace House 1. Christof and Rathmayr (2002) interpret the assemblage from Terrace House 2. 252. In earlier research (Stirling 1994, 89–90), I proposed that arms of Marsyas (Aurenhammer 1990, 77–78, no. 57, pl. 39b–c) and a plinth with the feet of Zeus and an eagle (Aurenhammer 1990, 25–26, no. 3, pl. 3a–b) dated to the later fourth century. It is now clear that they must predate the destruction of the houses in the last third of the third century (Christof and Rathmayr 2002, 143–44). 253. Aurenhammer 1990, 102–3, no. 83. There is still some question as to whether this room actually belongs to the baths. 254. These include a Dionysos (Aurenhammer 1990, no. 38), satyr (no. 49), Hercules (no. 94), and two youths (nos. 119, 151), all subjects eminently suitable in a bath. 255. Jobst 1986; Aurenhammer 1990, 66–67 (no. 46), 93–94 (no. 74), 101–2 (no. 82). 256. Scherrer 2000, 132.

Notes to Pages 218–25 280 257. The following summary is based on Poulsen 1997a, 1997b. Part of the house was excavated in 1856 by Charles Newton of the British Museum. Danish excavations in the 1990s have uncovered another large portion of the house and fresh sculpture, some of it still unpublished. 258. Thus, a fragment of relief, a Nike, and a male portrait found under the mosaics and a female head built into a wall of the house were obviously not displayed within a villa at this site (Poulsen 1997b, 80). 259. Brinkerhoff 1970; Terry 1992. A Princeton team led by Richard Stillwell excavated this site in 1934. 260. Stillwell 1941, 119–21, nos. 285–98; 155, no. 49. In Stillwell’s report, the house is referred to as the villa at Daphne Harbie, sector DH-26. See also Dobbins 2000, 57–59. 261. The late pool evidently belonged to the late sixth century or later (Stillwell 1941, 25–26, fig. 30). 262. Gassowska 1977. Hannestad (1994, 124–25) illustrates the Aphrodite. 263. El Gheriani 1995, 160–61. 264. Paintings: Usai 1972, 386–87, color plates 8–9. Mosaics: Baratte 1985, 45, figs. 10–11. Textiles: Baratte 1985, 39, fig. 7; 45, fig. 9. 265. This is also noted by Hannestad (1999, 198). 266. Lanciani 1884, 160; Neudecker 1988, 168–70, no. 25. Built in the second century, the villa was occupied into the fourth or fifth century. 267. They are also attested at the houses of Vulcaeus Rufinus and of the Nummii. Neudecker (1988, 128) lists further examples. For an epigraphically based discussion of such dedications, see Horster 1998. 268. Amm. Marc. 14.6.8 (statues), 14.6.13 (treatment of strangers). 269. Roueché 1989, 19–20, no. 8. 270. The passage is also discussed in Stirling 1997, 171–72. 271. Syme 1968, 72–79. 272. SHA Severus Alexander 29.2. 273. Chausson 1998. 274. Themistius Or. 34.8–9, cited in Chausson 1998, 111. Heather and Moncur (2001, 316) take this reference as allegorical rather than literal. 275. Balmelle 2001, 233, 331. 276. Eunapius VS 483, cited in Frantz 1988, 45. 277. Studying miniature herms, Claudia Rückert (1998) has shown that the largest number of examples comes from Italy, followed by Spain. Some of these remained in use into late antiquity—for instance, at El Ruedo. 278. Wrede 1972, 96–97. 279. VC 3.54 (trans. Cameron and Hall 1999). 280. Von Mosch 1995. 281. Holum et al. 1988, 186–87. 282. It remains possible that it was simply an ornate form of presentation, however. No photos of this room have been published thus far, only a plan. 283. Alan Cameron (1999) has recently challenged all aspects of this interpretation. 284. Statuary is found in house mithrea at San Clemente (Vermaseren 1956, 156–59, nos. 338–48) and Santa Prisca (Vermaseren 1956, 193–201, nos. 476–500).

Notes to Pages 225–31 281 285. Colini 1944, 254, quoting a contemporary observer of the excavations. 286. Brenk (1999, 80) argues that the Christian owners tolerated the “pagan” statuary. The implied adversarial connotations are unnecessary. 287. Baumer 2001a. 288. Frantz 1988, 41.

chapter 7 1. Kiilerich 1993, 79–80, 201–3, 219. Citing me (Stirling 1994) as having reached the same conclusion, M. Bergmann (1999, 60) argues for the development of a synthetic style in Constantinople and stresses the contribution of Aphrodisias to this Kunstkreis. 2. There is from a much briefer discussion in Stirling 1996a. 3. Brown 1992. Awareness of mythology and mythological figures was not, of course, limited to the upper classes, but literary education was expensive and elite, and rhetorical education was even more so. 4. Shelton 1981, pl. 2, upper photo; pl. 11. 5. Eliav (2003) makes a similar argument concerning rabbinical sources on Greco-Roman sculpture. 6. This very broad analysis is made possible by Balmelle’s (2001) extensive publication on aristocratic residences of southwest Gaul. 7. This is suggested by Balmelle (2001, 233, 331).

Bibliography

Abbreviations follow the conventions of the American Journal of Archaeology. Alexander, M. A., A. Ben Abed-Ben Khader, and G. P. R. Métraux. 1996. “The Corpus of the Mosaics of Tunisia: Carthage Project, 1992–1994.” DOP 59:361–68. Alexandre, O. “Kevkropo~ 7–9.” ArchDelt 24 (1969):50–53. Amiet, P. 1968. “Musée du Louvre: Antiquités orientales.” RLouvre 18:301–8. Amtmann, T. 1904. “Les statues de la villa du Petit-Corbin (Gironde).” Société archéologique de Bordeaux 25:72–83. Anderson, W. B., trans. 1936–65. Sidonius: Poems and Letters. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA. Aragon-Launet, P. 1959. “Fouilles de Séviac.” Bulletin de la société archéologique, historique, littéraire et scientifique du Gers 60:85–92. ———. 1962. “Fouilles de Séviac (1961) sur l’emplacement villa gallo-romaine.” Bulletin de la société archéologique, historique, littéraire et scientifique du Gers 63: 322–28. ———. 1971. “Séviac 1970.” Bulletin de la société archéologique, historique, littéraire et scientifique du Gers 72:228–36. ———. 1974. “Montréal-du-Gers, villa gallo-romaine de Séviac, fouilles 1972–73.” Bulletin de la société archéologique, historique, littéraire et scientifique du Gers 75: 350–56. ———. 1977. “Montréal-du-Gers, villa gallo-romaine de Séviac, fouilles 74, 75, 76.” Bulletin de la société archéologique, historique, littéraire et scientifique du Gers 78: 319–37. Arce, J., L. Caballero Zoreda, and M. A. Elvira. 1979. Valdetorres de Jarama (Madrid): Informe preliminar de las excavaciones arqueológicas; Primera campaña 1978. Madrid. Athanassiadi, P. 1999. Damascius: The Philosophical History. Athens. Aurenhammer, M. 1990. Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, Bildwerke aus Stein: Idealplastik. Forschungen in Ephesos 10.1. Vienna. ———. 1995. “Sculptures of Gods and Heroes from Ephesos.” In Ephesos, Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture, ed. H. Koester, 251–80. Harvard Theological Studies 41. Valley Forge. 283

Bibliography 284 ———. 1999. “Zur Skulpturenausstattung des Hänghauses 1 von Ephesos.” In 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, Akten des Symposions Wien 1995, ed. H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, 535–44. Vienna. Badie, A., V. Déroche, and P. Pétridis. 1997. “Delphes: Villa Sud-est.” BCH 121:754–55. Balmelle, C. 1980. Recueil général des mosaïques de la Gaule. Vol. 4, Province d’Aquitaine, pt. 1, Partie méridionale (piemont pyrénéen). With collaboration from X. Barral i Altet. Gallia Supplement 10. Paris. ———. 1982. “A propos de quelques mosaïques à décor végétal de l’Aquitaine méridionale.” In Actes du 104e congrès national des sociétés savantes, archéologie et l’histoire de l’art, Bordeaux 1979: L’Aquitaine, études archéologiques, 147–56. Paris. ———. 1987. Recueil général des mosaïques de la Gaule. Vol. 4, Province d’Aquitaine, pt. 2, Partie méridionale, suite. With collaboration from X. Barral i Altet. Gallia Supplement 10. Paris. ———. 1992. “L’habitat urbain dans le sud-ouest de la Gaule romaine.” In Villes et agglomerations urbaines antiques dans le sud-ouest de la Gaule, histoire et archéologie: Deuxième colloque Aquitania, Bordeaux 1990, 335–64. Aquitania Supplement 6. Paris. ———. 2001. Les demeures aristocratiques d’Aquitaine: Société et culture de l’Antiquité tardive dans le sud-ouest de la Gaule. Aquitania Supplement 10; Ausonius Mémoires 5. Paris. Balmelle, C., M. Gauthier, and R. Monturet. 1980. “Mosaïques de la villa du Palat à Saint-Emilion (Gironde).” Gallia 38:59–96. Baratte, F. 1985. “Héros et chasseurs: La teinture d’Artemis de la Fondation Abegg à Riggisberg.” MonPiot 67:31–76. ———. 1998. “Un témoignage sur les venatores en Afrique: La statue de Sidi Ghrib (Tunisie).” AntAfr 34:215–26. ———. 2001. “Culture et images dans le domaine privé à la fin de l’anquité: Du rêve à la réalité?” Antiquité tardive 9:275–83. Barnes, T. D. 2001. “Foregrounding the Theodosian Code.” JRA 14:671–85. Bartman, E. 1991. “Sculptural Collecting and Display in the Private Realm.” In Gazda 1991, 71–88. ———. 1992. Ancient Sculptural Copies in Miniature. Leiden. Bauchhenβ, G., and P. Noelke. 1981. Die Iuppitersäulen in den germanischen Provinzen. BJh Supplement 41. Cologne. Baumer, L. E. 2001a. “Klassische Bildwerke für tote Philosophen? Zu zwei spätklassischen Votivskulpturen aus Athena und ihrer Wiederverwendung in der späten Kaiserzeit.” AntK 44:55–69. ———. 2001b. “Praeterea typos tibi mando—Klassische Weihreliefs in römischem Kontext.” In Griechenland in der Kaiserzeit: Neue Funde und Forschungen zu Skulptur, Architektur und Topographie; Kolloquium zum sechzigsten Geburtstag von Prof. Dietrich Willers, Bern, 12.–13. Juni 1998, ed. C. Reusser, 85–94. Hefte des archaologischen Seminars der Universitat Bern Beiheft 4 Zurich. Becatti, G. 1948. Case ostiensi del tardo impero. Rome. Benoit, F. 1954. Sarcophages paléochrétiens d’Arles et de Marseille. Gallia Supplement 5. Paris.

Bibliography 285 Bergmann, B. 1994. “The Roman House as Memory Theater: The House of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii.” ArtB 76:225–56. Bergmann, M. 1995. “Un ensemble de sculptures de la villa romaine de Chiragan, oeuvre de sculpteurs d’Asie Mineure, en marbre de Saint-Béat?” In Les marbres blancs des Pyrénées, approches scientifiques et historiques, ed. J. Cabanet, 197–205. Saint-Bertrand de Comminges. ———. 1999. Chiragan, Aphrodisias, Konstantinopel: Zur mythologischen Skulptur der Spätantike. Deutsche Archäologisches Institut Rome, DAI, Palilia 7. Wiesbaden. Bertoletti, M., M. Cima, and E. Talamo, eds. 1999. Sculptures of Ancient Rome: The Collections of the Capitoline Museums at the Montemartini Power Plant. Trans. D. A. Arya and S. Mari. Rome. Bienkowski, P. 1919. O rzezbach klasycznych z marmuru w Krakowie: Prace komisji historyi sztuki. Vol. 1. Kraków. Binsfeld, W. 1996. “Trier und Kleinasien: Beziehungen im römischen Reich.” IstMitt 46:287–91. Binsfeld, W., K. Goethert-Polaschek, and L. Schwinden. 1988. Katalog der römischen Steindenkmäler des Rheinisches Landesmuseums Trier. Vol. 1, Götter und Weihedenkmäler. Trierer Grabungen und Forschungen 12.1; Corpus signorum imperii Romani, Deutschland 4.3. Mainz. Birley, A., trans. 1976. Lives of the Later Caesars. London. Blanchard-Lemée, M. 1975. Maisons à mosaïques du quartier central de Djemila (Cuicul). Paris. ———. 1998. “Dans les jardins de Djemila.” AntAfr 34:185–97. Blanco, A., J. García, and M. Bendala. 1972. “Excavaciones en Cabra (Córdoba), la Casa del Mitra (primera campaña, 1972).” Habis 3:297–319. Boersma, J. S. 1985. Amoenissima civitas: Block V.ii at Ostia; Description and Analysis of Its Visible Remains. Assen. Bonfante, L., and C. Carter. 1987. “An Absent Herakles and a Hesperid: A Late Antique Marble Group in New York.” AJA 91:247–57. Bonifay, M. 1986. “Observations sur les amphores tardives à Marseille d’après les fouilles de la Bourse (1980–1984).” RANarb 19:269–305. Bonifay, M., G. Congès, and M. Leguilloux. 1989. “Amphores tardives Ve–VIIe siècles à Arles et à Marseille.” In Amphores romaines et histoire économique, dix ans de recherché: Actes du colloque de Sienne (22–24 mai 1986), 660–63. CÉFR 114. Rome. Bonifay, M., and F. Villedieu. 1989. “Importations d’amphores orientales en Gaule, Ve–VIIe siècle.” In Recherches sur la céramique Byzantine, ed. V. Déroche and J.-M. Speiser, 17–46. BCH Supplement 18. Athens. Bordeaux Saint-Christoly: Sauvetage archéologique et histoire urbaine. 1982. Bordeaux. Bost, J.-P. 1986. “Les monnaies.” In Les thermes sud de la villa gallo-romaine de Séviac, ed. R. Monturet and H. Rivière, 219–30. Aquitania Supplement 2. Paris. Bost, J.-P., and Paul Dubedat. 1979. “Dédicaces antiques et modernes de la Fontaine de Brille à Saint-Sever.” Bulletin de la Société de Borda 104:1–12. Bost, J.-P., and R. Monturet. 1987. “Les décors architecturaux de la villa de Plassac (Gironde): Style provincial et marbres pyrénéens.” In Les relations entre le sud-ouest et la péninsule ibérique, 65–85. Fédération historique du sud-ouest, actes du 37 congrès. Pau.

Bibliography 286 Boube, J. 1955. “La nécropole paléochrétienne de Martres-Tolosane (HauteGaronne).” Pallas 3:89–115. ———. 1957. “Les sarcophages paléochrétiens de Martres-Tolosane.” CahArch 9:33–72. ———. 1984. “Contribution à l’étude des sarcophages paléochrétiens du sud-ouest de la Gaule.” Aquitania 2:175–238. Boudon de Saint-Amans, J.-F. 1859. Essai sur les antiquités du département de Lot-etGaronne. Agen. Bowersock, G. W. 1990. Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Jerome Lectures 18. Ann Arbor. Braemer, F. 1952–53. “Les portraits antiques trouvés à Martres-Tolosane.” BAntFr:143–48. ———. 1978. “Problèmes posés par les matériaux et les thèmes de la sculpture et de la décorations en Anatolie et dans autres régions de l’empire romain: Influences et développements parallèles.” In Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara-Izmir 1973, ed. E. Akurgal. ———. 1982. “L’ornementation des établissements ruraux de l’Aquitaine méridionale pendant le haut-empire et la basse antiquité.” In Actes du 104e congrès national des sociétés savantes, archeeologie et l’histoire de l’art, Bordeaux 1979: l’Aquitaine, études archéologiques, 103–46. Paris. ———. 1983. “La décoration en matériaux noble (marbres, porphyres . . .) des édifices de la Gaule et des régions limitrophes durant le haut-empire et la basseantiquité.” In Mosaïque, recueil d’hommages à Henri Stern, ed. J. Christophe. 81–91. Paris. ———. 1990. “Les relations commerciales et culturelles de Carthage avec l’orient romain à partir de documents sculptés.” In Carthage et son territoire dans l’antiquité: Actes du IVe colloque international sur l’histoire et l’archéologie de l’Afrique du nord, Strasbourg 1988, 175–98. Paris. Brandenberg, H. 1979. “Stilprobleme der frühchristlichen Sarkophagkunst Roms im 4 Jahrhundert: Volkskunst, Klassizismus, spätantiken Stil.” RM 86:439–71. Bravar, G. M. 1964–66. “Lucerne paleocristiane dalla villa romana di Desenzano.” Sibrium 8:113–20. Brenk, B. 1999. “La cristianizzazione della Domus dei Valerii sul Celio.” In The Transformations of Urbs Roma in Late Antiquity, ed. W. V. Harris, 69–84. JRA Supplement 33. Providence. Brinkerhoff, D. 1970. A Collection of Sculpture in Classical and Early Christian Antioch. New York. Brody, L. R. 1999. “The Iconography and Cult of the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias (Turkey).” Ph.D. diss., New York University. Brown, P. 1992. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. Madison. Brueckner, A. 1926. “Mitteilungen auz den Kerameikos, II.” AM 51:128–41. Budde, L., and R. Nicholls. 1964. A Catalogue of the Greek and Roman Sculpture in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Cambridge. Cagiano de Avezedo, M. 1967. “Una nuova personificazione de Alessandro Magno.” Notizie dal chiostro del Monastero Maggiore (1967): 5–17. Milan. Cahn, Herbert A., and A. Kaufmann-Heinimann, eds. 1984. Der spätromische Silberschatz von Kaiseraugst. Derendingen, Switzerland.

Bibliography 287 Cameron, A. 1970. Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius. Oxford. ———. 1993. The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes. Oxford. ———. 1999. “The Last Pagans of Rome.” In The Transformations of Urbs Roma in Late Antiquity, ed. W. V. Harris, 109–22. JRA Supplement 33. Providence. Cameron, A., and S. G. Hall. 1999. Eusebius: “Life of Constantine.” Oxford. Camp, J. M. 1986. The Athenian Agora. London. ———. 1989. “The Philosophical Schools of Roman Athens.” In The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, ed. S. Walker and A. Cameron, 50–55. BICS Supplement 55. London. Camporini, E. 1979. Mediolanum-Comum. vol. 1, Sculture a tutto tondo del civico museo archeologico di Milano. Corpus signorum imperii Romani, Italia regio 11. Milan. Capannari, A. 1885. “Delle scoperte archeologiche avvenute per la costruzione del Palazzo del Ministero della Guerra.” BullCom 13:3–26. Carandini, A., A. Ricci, and M. De Vos. 1982. Filosofiana, the Villa of Piazza Armerina: The Image of a Roman Aristocrat at the Time of Constantine. Palermo. Carignani, A. 1993. “La residenza del settore centrale.” In Pavolini et al., 483–86. Carrasco, M., and M. A. Elvira. 1994. “Marfiles coptos en Valdetorres de Jarama (Madrid).” ArchEspArq 67:201–8. Carroll, D. L. 1988. Looms and Textiles of the Copts. Seattle. Castrén, P., ed. 1994. Post-Herulian Athens: Aspects of Life and Culture in Athens, A.D. 267–529. Helsinki. Catling, H. W., and G. B. Waywell. 1977. “A Find of Roman Statuettes at Knossos.” BSA 72:85–106. Cazes, D. 1999. Le musée Saint-Raymond, musée des antiquités de Toulouse. Paris. Cazes, D., E. Ugaglia, and M. Vidal, eds. 1987. De l’age de fer aux temps barbares: Dix ans de recherches archéologiques en Midi-Pyrénées. Toulouse. Chaisemartin, N. de. 1987. Les sculptures romaines de Sousse et des sites environnants. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani, Tunisie 2.2. Rome. Chaisemartin, N. de, and Y. Marcadal. 1998. “Le sanctuaire de Calès à Mézin.” In Villes et campagnes en Gaule romaine, ed. P. Gros, 175–87. Paris. Chaisemartin, N. de, and E. Örgen. 1984. Les documents sculptés de Silahtaraga. Mémoires de l’Institut français d’études anatoliennes 46. Paris. Chastagnol, A. 1970. “Le diocèse civil d’Aquitaine au Bas-empire.” BAntFr: 272–92. Chausson, F. 1998. “Remarques sur les généalogies impériales dans l’histoire Auguste: Le cas de Théodose.” In Historiae Augusta: Colloquium Argentoratense, ed. G. Bonamente and K. Rosen, 105–14. Bari. Chioffi, L. 1999. “Sulle case dell’élites a Roma e dintorni: Supplemento al Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae.” BullCom, n.s., 9:37–52. Christof, E. 2001. “Neudatierung einer Marmorkleinplastik in Aquileia.” Forum Archaeologiae 21.12, http://www.farch.net (21 August 2003). Christof, E., and E. Rathmayr. 2002. “Die chronologische Stellung der Skulpturfunde in den Wohneinheiten 1, 2, 4, und 6.” In Das Hanghaus 2 von Ephesos: Studien zu Baugeschichte und Chronologie, ed. F. Krinzinger, 137–44. Archäologische Forschungen 7. Vienna. Claridge, A. 1997. “Late-Antique Reworking of the Ara Pacis and Other Imperial Sculpture?” JRA 10:447–53.

Bibliography 288 Clark, E. A. 1984. The Life of Melania the Younger. Studies in Women and Religion 14. New York. Clark, E. A., and D. F. Hatch. 1981. The Golden Bough, the Oaken Cross: The Virgilian Cento of Faltonia Betitia Proba. American Academy of Religion, Texts and Translations Series 5. Chico, CA. Clark, G. 1993. Women in Late Antiquity: Pagan and Christian Lifestyles. Oxford, 1993. Clarke, G. 1982. “The Roman Villa at Woodchester.” Britannia 13:196–228. Clarke, J. R. 1991. The Houses of Roman Italy, 100 B.C.–A.D. 250: Ritual, Space, and Decoration. Berkeley. Clement, P. A. 1972. “Isthmia Excavations.” ArchDelt 27.2:224–31. Clyti-Bayle, C. 1989. “Peintures romaines inédites de Gironde.” Aquitania 7:95–117. Coates-Stephens, R. 2001. “Muri dei bassi secoli in Rome: Observations on the Reuse of Statuary in Walls Found on the Esquiline and the Caelian after 1870.” JRA 14:217–38. Colin, M.-G., M. Feugère, and A.-F. Laurens. 1986. “Béziers: Un trésor d’argenterie antique.” ArcheologiaPar 210 (February): 26–34. Colini, A. M. 1944. Storia e topografia del Celio nell’antichità. Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana d’Archeologia, series 3, vol. 7. Rome. Collins-Clinton, J. 1977. A Late-Antique Shrine of Liber Pater at Cosa. ÉPRO 64. Leiden. Comstock, M., and C. C. Vermeule. 1976. Sculpture in Stone: The Greek, Roman, and Etruscan Collections of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston. Congès, G., M. Bonifay, J.-P.Brun et M. Pasqualini. 1983. “Un dépotoir de la fin de l’antiquité dans la grotte de la Fourbine, St.-Martin-de-Crau (Bouches-du Rhone).” RAN 16:347–60. Congès, G., and M. Leguilloux. 1991. “Un dépotoir de l’antiquité tardive dans le quartier de l’Esplanade à Arles.” With collaboration from F. Brien-Poitevin. RANarb 24:201–34. Constans, L. A. 1921. Arles antique. Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 119. Paris. Coupry, J. 1955. “Informations archéologiques.” Gallia 13:198. ———. 1963. “Informations archéologiques.” Gallia 21:528–29. Cunliffe, B. W., and M. G. Fulford. 1982. Great Britain. Vol. 1, part 2, Bath and the Rest of Wessex. Corpus signorum imperii Romani, Great Britain 1.2. Oxford. Curle, A. 1923. The Treasure of Traprain: A Scottish Hoard of Roman Silver Plate. Glasgow. Curran, J. 1994. “Moving Statues in Late-Antique Rome: Problems of Perspective.” Art History 17:46–58. ———. 2000. Pagan City and Christian Capital: Rome in the Fourth Century. Oxford. Darmon, J.-P. 1980. Nympharum Domus: Les pavements de la maison des Nymphs à Neapolis (Nabeul, Tunisie) et leur lecture. ÉPRO 75. Leiden. Daszewski, W. A. 1968. “A Preliminary Report on the Excavations of the Polish Archaeological Mission at Kato (Nea) Paphos in 1966 and 1967.” RDAC: 33–61. ———. 1970. “Polish Excavations at Kato (New Paphas in 1968–1969.” RDAC: 112–41.

Bibliography 289 ———. 1976. “Les fouilles polonaises à Nea Paphos 1972–1975, rapport préliminaire.” RDAC:185–225. ———. 1977. Nea Paphos. Vol. 2, La mosaïque de Thésée: Études sur les mosaïques avec représentations du labyrinthe, de Thésée et du Minotaure. Warsaw. ———. 1984. “Fouilles polonaise à Kato Paphos, chantier de Maloutena.” RDAC:294–314. ———. 1985. “Researches at Nea Paphos, 1965–1984.” In Archaeology in Cyprus, 1960–1985, ed. V. Karageorghis, 277–91. Nicosia. ———. 1989. “Aphrodite from Paphos and from Egypt.” In Cyprus and the East Mediterranean in the Iron Age, ed. V. Tatton-Brown, 122–31. London. Daszewski, W. A., and D. Michaelides. 1988. Guide to the Paphos Mosaics. N.p. Daux, G. 1968. “Chronique des fouilles.” BCH 92:741–48. Davis, L. H. 1981. “Neutron Activation Analysis of the Ganymede Group.” In Humphrey 1981, 189–90. Delamare, F., E. Darque-Ceretti, J. Chevalier, and W. Mourey. 1996. “Etude technique du trésor d’argenterie gallo-romaine de Béziers.” BAntFr:73–90. Delbrueck, R. 1933. Spätantike Kaiserporträts von Constantinus Magnus bis zum Ende des Westreichs. Studien zur spätantiken Kunstgeschichte 8. Berlin. Delvoye, C. 1984. “Eléments classiques et innovations dans l’illustration de la légende d’Achille au Bas-empire.” AntCl 38:184–99. Depeyrot, G. 1982. Le numéraire gaulois du IVe siècle, aspects quantitatifs. 2 vols. BAR International Series 127. Oxford. Déroche, V., P. Petridis, and A. Badie. 1996. “Delphes: Villa sud-est.” BCH 120: 847–51. De Sarrau, H. 1940. “Le Jupiter à l’anguipède du Petit-Corbin.” Revue de la société historique et archéologique de Libourne 33: 14–29, 42–56, 71–88. Despinis, G., T. Stefanidou-Tiveriou, and E. Voutiras. 1997. Catalogue of Sculpture in the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki. Vol. 1. Thessaloníki. Deyts, S. 1976. Sculptures gallo-romaines mythologiques et réligieuses: Dijon, Musée Archéologique. Paris. Dillon, S. 1997. “Figured Pilaster Capitals from Aphrodisias.” AJA 101:731–69. Dionisotti, A. C. 1982. “From Ausonius’s Schooldays? A Schoolbook and Its Relatives.” JRS 72:83–125. Dobbins, J. 2000. “Houses of Antioch.” In Antioch: The Lost Ancient City, ed. C. Kondoleon, 50–61. Princeton. Donderer, M. 1991–92. “Irreversible Deponierung von Groβplastik bei Griechen, Etruskern und Römern.” ÖJh 61:192–275. Dresken-Weiland, J. 1991. Reliefierte Tischplatten aus theodosianischer Zeit. Studi di antichità cristiana 43. Vatican City. Dumège, A. 1832–33. “Rapport sur les antiquités découvertes à Nérac.” Mémoires de la société archéologique du Midi de la France 1:171–236, 287–349, 387–405. Dunbabin, K. M. D. 1978. The Mosaics of Roman North Africa: Studies in Iconography and Patronage. Oxford. Dwyer, E. J. 1982. Pompeian Domestic Sculpture: A Study of Five Pompeian Houses and Their Contents. Rome. Eck, W. 2000. “Sugli Aconii e sul loro legame con Roma.” In Ensoli and La Rocca 2000, 172–73.

Bibliography 290 El Gheriani, Y. 1995. “Brief Account of the Different Excavations in Alexandria, 1950–1990.” In Il congresso internazionale Italo-egiziano, ed. A. Tullio, C. Naro, and E. Chiara Portale, 156–68. Rome. Eliav, Y. Z. 2003. “Viewing the Sculptural Environment: Shaping the Second Commandment.” In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 3, ed. P. Schäfer, 411–33. Tübingen. Ellis, S. E. 1986. “Appendix 2: Report on the Stones from the Temple of Mithras.” In Toynbee 1986, 64–65. Ellis, S. P. 1985. “Carthage in the Seventh Century: An Expanding Population?” CahÉtAnc 17:30–42. ———. 1988. “The End of the Roman House.” AJA 92:565–76. ———. 1991. “Power, Architecture, and Decor: How the Late Roman Aristocrat Appeared to His Guests.” In Gazda 1991, 117–34. ———. 1997a. “Late-Antique Dining: Architecture, Furnishings, and Behaviour.” In Laurence and Wallace-Hadrill 1997, 41–52. ———. 1997b. “Late-Antique Houses in Asia Minor.” In Isager and Poulsen 1997, 38–50. Ellspermann, G. 1949. The Attitude of the Early Christian Latin Writers Towards Pagan Literature and Learning. Catholic University of America Patristic Studies 82. Washington. Elsner, J. 1995. Art and the Roman Viewer: The Transformation of Art from the Pagan World to Christianity. Cambridge. Engemann, J. 1998. “Ein Tischfuβ mit Dionysos-Satyr-Darstellung aus Abu Mina/Ägypten.” JAC 41:169–77. Ennabli, A. 1986. “Les thermes du thiase marin de Sidi Ghrib (Tunisie).” MonPiot 68:1–59. Ennabli, A., and J. M. Lassère. 1969. “Kélibia.” Africa 3–4:239–41. Ensoli, S., and E. La Rocca, eds. 2000. Aurea Roma, dalla città pagana alla città cristiana. Rome. Ensoli Vitozzi, S. 1993. “Le sculture del ‘larario’ di S. Martino ai Monti: Un contesto recuperato.” BullCom 95:221–43. Erdemgil, S., ed. 1989. Ephesus museum catalogue. Istanbul. Erim, K. T. 1974. “The Satyr and Young Dionysus Group from Aphrodisias.” In Mélanges A.M. Mansel, 767–75. Ankara. ———. 1986. Aphrodisias: City of Venus Aphrodite. London. ———. 1990. “Recent Work at Aphrodisias, 1986–88.” In Erim and Roueché 1990, 9–36. Ann Arbor. Erim, K. T., and C. Roueché. 1982. “Sculptors from Aphrodisias: Some New Inscriptions.” PBSR 50:102–15. ———, eds. 1990. Aphrodisias Papers 1: Recent Work on Architecture and Sculpture. JRA Supplement 1. Ann Arbor. Espérandieu, E. 1907–38. Recueil général des bas-reliefs, statues, et bustes de la Gaule romaine. Vols. 1–11. Paris. ———. 1920. Catalogue des musées archéologiques de Nîmes. Vol. 2, Sculptures antiques, pt. 1, Musée de la Maison Carrée. Nîmes. Etienne, R. 1962. Bordeaux antique. Bordeaux. Fages, Brieuc. 1995. Le Lot-et-Garonne. Carte archéologique de la Gaule 47. Paris.

Bibliography 291 Farine, M. 1887. “Le musée Dubois (suite).” Bulletin et mémoires de la société archéologique de Bordeaux 3:135–41. Faugère-Dubourg, A. 1875. “Mémoires sur les fouilles de Bapteste.” In Congrès archéologique de la France, Agen, 1874, 38–56. Tours. Février, P.-A. 1979. “Sarcophages d’Arles.” In Congrès archéologique de la France, 134e session, 1976: Pays d’Arles, 317–59. Paris. Février, P. -A., M. Fixot, and C. Goudineau. 1980. La ville antique, des origines au IXe siècle, Histoire de la France urbaine. Vol. 1. Paris. Filges, A. 1999. “Marmorstatuetten aus Kleinasien: Zu Ikonographie, Funktion und Produktion antoninischer, severischer und späterer Idealplastik.” IstMitt 49:377–430. Firatli, N. 1990. La sculpture byzantine figurée au Musée Archéologique d’Istanbul. Paris. Fittschen, K., and P. Zanker. 1983. Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom. Vol. 3, Kaiserinnen und Prinzessinnenbildnisse, Frauenporträts. Mainz. Flasch, A. 1876. “Marmorstatuette von Dorf Wellen a.d. Mosel.” BJb 59:88–103. Fleischer, R. 1973. Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien. ÉPRO 35. Leiden. ———. 1988. Review of Chaisemartin and Örgen 1984. Gnomon:61–65. Floriani-Squarciapino, M. 1943. La scuola di Afrodisia. Studi e materiali del Museo dell’impero romano 3. Rome. Flower, H. I. 1996. Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture. Harvard. Formigé, J. 1939. “Fouilles de Montcaret.” Congrès archéologique de la France 192:182–95. Fouet, G. 1969. La villa gallo-romaine de Montmaurin (Haute Garonne). Gallia Supplement 20. Paris. Fouet, G., and M. Labrousse. 1949. “Découvertes archéologiques en Nébouzan (Haute-Garonne) de 1945–48.” Gallia 7:23–54. ———. 1952. “Ivoires romaines trouvés à St.-Loup-de-Comminges (HauteGaronne).” MonPiot 46:117–29. Fournet, J. -L. 1998. “Un nouvel épithalame de Dioscore d’Aphrodité adressé a un gouverneur civil de Thébaïde.” In Les gouverneurs de province dans l’antiquité tardive. Antiquité tardive 6:65–82. Paris. Fowden, G. 1990. “The Athenian Agora and the Progress of Christianity.” JRA 3:494–501. ———. 1995. “Late Roman Achaea: Identity and Defense.” JRA 8:549–67. Frantz, A. 1988. The Athenian Agora. Vol. 24, Late Antiquity: A.D. 267–700. Princeton. Fredrich, C. 1897. “Die Aphrodite von Aphrodisias in Karien.” AM 22:361–80. Frel, J. 1969. “Les sculptures d’une villa romaine à Kélibia (Tunisie).” Listy Filologicke 92:271–75. Frisch, P. 1975. Die Inschriften von Ilion. Inschriften griechischen Städte aus Kleinasien 3. Bonn. Fuchs, M. 1992. Römische Idealplastik. Glyptothek München, Katalog der Skulpturen 6. Munich. Fullerton, M. 1998. “Description vs. Prescription: A Semantics of Sculptural Style.” In STEFANOS: Studies in Honor of Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, ed. K. Hartswick and M. Sturgeon, 69–78. Philadelphia.

Bibliography 292 ———. 2000. “Statuary Types and Some Perils of Positivism.” JRA 13:510–14. Garcia Bellido, A. 1967. Les religions orientales dans l’Espagne romaine. ÉPRO 5. Leiden. Gardelles, J. 1973. “Objets médiévaux et art réligieux.” In Société archéologique de Bordeaux, exposition du centenaire, 73–90. Bordeaux. Gassowska, B. 1977. “Depozyt rzezb z Sidi Bishr w Aleksandrii.” In Starozytna Aleksandria w badaniach polskich, ed. M. L. Bernhard, 99–116. Warsaw. Gauckler, P. 1899. “Découvertes à Carthage.” CRAI 4.27:156–65. ———. 1902. Compte rendu de la marche du service en 1901. Tunis. ———. 1904. Compte rendu de la marche du service en 1903. Tunis. Gauthier, M. 1975. “La céramique estampée tardive en Aquitaine: Un siècle de trouvailles bordelaises.” Revue historique de Bordeaux et le département de la Gironde 24:19–46. Gazda, E. K. 1981. “A Marble Group of Ganymede and the Eagle from the Age of Augustine.” In Humphrey 1981, 125–78. ———. 1991. Roman Art in the Private Sphere. Ann Arbor. ———. 2002. “Mythological Marbles in Late Antiquity: The Artistic Circle of Aphrodisias.” JRA 15:660–65. “Gegenstände aus römischer Zeit.” 1874–77. Jahresbericht der Gesellschaft für nützliche Forschungen zu Trier:82. Gentili, G. V. 1999. La villa romana di Piazza Armerina, Palazzo Erculio. Osimo. Gorce, D., ed. and trans. 1962. Vie de Sainte Mélanie. Sources chrétiennes 90. Paris. Grbic´, M. 1958. Choix de plastiques grecques et romaines au Musée national de Beograd. Belgrade. Green, R. P. H., ed. 1991. The Works of Ausonius. Oxford. Grimes, W. F. 1968. The Excavation of Roman and Mediaeval London. London. Guberti Bassett, S. 1991. “Antiquities in the Hippodrome of Constantinople.” DOP 45:87–96. ———. 1996. “Historiae Custos: Sculpture and Tradition in the Baths of Zeuxippos.” AJA 100:491–506. ———. 2000. “Excellent Offerings: The Lausos Collection in Constantinople.” ArtB 82:6–25. Guidobaldi, F. 1986. “L’edilizia abitativa unifamiliare nella Roma tardoantica.” In Socièta Romana e impero tardoantico, vol. 2, Roma politica, economia, paesaggio urbano, ed. A. Giardina, 165–237. Rome. ———. 1992. San Clemente: Gli edifici romani, la basilica paleocristiana e le fasi altomedievali. San Clemente Miscellany 4. Rome. Guinodie, R. 1845. Histoire de Libourne et des autres villes et bourgs de son arrondissement. Reprint, Marseille, 1879. Haarhof, T. J. 1958. Reprint. The Schools of Gaul: A Study of Pagan and Christian Education in the Last Century of the Western Empire. Johannesburg. Original edition, 1920. Hagendahl, H. 1958. Latin Fathers and the Classics: A Study on the Apologists, Jerome, and Other Christian writers. Göteborgs Universitets Årsskrift 64.2. Göteborg. Hannestad, N. 1988. “The Classical Tradition in Late Roman Sculpture.” In Akten des XIII internationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988. Mainz.

Bibliography 293 ———. 1994. Tradition in Late-Antique Sculpture: Conservation, Modernization, Production. Århus. ———. 1999. “How Did Rising Christianity Cope with Pagan Sculpture?” East and West: Modes of Communication; Proceedings of the First Plenary Conference at Merida, ed. E. Chrysos and I. Wood, 173–204. Leiden. Harries, J. 1999. Law and Empire in Late Antiquity. Cambridge. Harrison, R. M. 1986. Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul. Vol. 1. Princeton. Heather, P., and D. Moncur, trans. 2001. Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century: Select Orations of Themistius. Translated Texts for Historians 36. Liverpool. Henig, M. 1983. “The Maiden Castle ‘Diana’: A Case of Mistaken Identity?” Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society Proceedings 103:160–62. ———. 1993. Roman Sculpture from the Cotswold Region, with Devon and Cornwall. Corpus signorum imperii Romani, Great Britain 1.7. Oxford. ———. 1998. “The Temple as a Bacchium or Sacrarium in the Fourth Century.” In Shepherd 1998, 230–32. London. Hermann, L., ed. and trans. 1937. Querolus (le grognon). Brussels. Hermary, A. 1996. “Socrate à Toulouse.” RANarb 29:21–30. Hettner, F. 1893. Die römischen Steindenkmäler des Provinzialmuseums zu Trier mit Ausschluss der Neumagener Monumente. Trier. Hitchner, R. B. 1992. “Meridional Gaul, Trade, and the Mediterranean Economy in Late Antiquity.” In Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? ed. J. Drinkwater and H. Elton, 122–31. Cambridge. Hochuli-Gysel, A. 1993. “Römisches Glas aus dem Südwesten von Frankreich.” In Annales du 12e congrès de l’Association internationale pour l’histoire du verre, 79–88. Amsterdam. Holum, K. G. 1982. Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity. Berkeley. Holum, K. G., R. L. Hohlfelder, R. J. Bull, and A. Raban. 1988. King Herod’s Dream: Caesarea on the Sea. New York. Hopkins, M. K. 1961. “Social Mobility in the Later Roman Empire: The Evidence of Ausonius.” CQ, n.s., 11:239–49. Horster, M. 1998. “Ehrungen spätantiker Statthalter.” In Les gouverneurs de province dans l’antiquité tardive. Antiquité Tardive 6:37–59. Paris. Humphrey, J., ed. 1981. Excavations at Carthage Conducted by the University of Michigan. Vol. 6. Ann Arbor. Hunt, D. 1993. “Christianizing the Roman Empire: The Evidence of the Code.” In The Theodosian Code: Studies in the Imperial Law of Late Antiquity, ed. J. Harries and I. Wood, 143–58. London. Ibrahim, L., R. Scranton, and R. Brill. 1976. Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth. Vol. 2, The Panels of Opus Sectile in glass. Leiden. Inan, J. 1975. Roman Sculpture from Side. Ankara. Inan, J., and E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum. 1979. Römische und frühbyzantinische Porträtplastik aus der Türkei, neue Funde. Mainz. Inan, J., and E. Rosenbaum. 1966. Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor. London. Isager, S., and B. Poulsen, eds. 1997. Patron and Pavements in Late Antiquity. Odense.

Bibliography 294 Isbell, H. 1974. “Decimus Magnus Ausonius: The Poet and His World.” In Latin Literature of the Fourth Century, ed. J. W. Binns, 22–57. London. Jacquemard-Le Saos, C., ed. and trans. 1994. Querolus (Aulularia): Le grincheux (comédie de la petite marmite). Paris. Jacques, P. 1987. “Castelculier.” Archéologie en Aquitaine 6:84–89. Jidejian, N. 1971. Sidon through the ages. Beirut. Jobst, W. 1986. “Ein spätantiker Strassenbrunnen in Ephesos.” In Studien zur spätantiken und byzantinischen Kunst, Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann gewidmet, vol. 1, ed. O. Feld and U. Peschlow, 47–62. Römisch-germanisches Zentralmuseum, Monograph 10.1. Bonn. Jockey, P. 1996. “Le décor sculpté de la maison urbaine en Gaule Narbonnaise.” In La maison urbaine d’époque romaine en Gaule narbonnaise et dans les provinces voisines: Actes du colloque d’Avignon (11–13 novembre 1994), 195–211. Documents d’archéologie vauclusienne 6. Avignon. Jones, A. H. M. 1986. Reprint. The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey. 2 vols. Baltimore. Original edition, 1964. Jones, A. H. M., J. R. Martindale, and J. Morris. 1971. Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Cambridge. Jones, C. P. 1991. “Dinner Theatre.” In Slater 1991, 185–98. Joulin, L. 1901. “Les établissements gallo-romains de la plaine de MartresTolosane.” Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l’Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres 11.1:219–516. Jovanovic´, A. 1973–74. “Certains aspects du problème de la trouvaille collective de sculptures à Mediana près de Naissus.” Starinar, n.s., 24–25:57–65. Kahane, P. P. 1961. “Classical and Local Elements in the Art of the Ancient Land of Israel.” In Atti del settimo congresso internazionale di archeologia classica, 3:17–25. Rome. Kampen, N. B. 2003. “On Writing Histories in Roman Art.” ArtB 85:371–86. Karageorghis, V. 1964. Sculptures from Salamis. With collaboration from C. C. Vermeule. Vol. 1. Nicosia. Karivieri, A. 1994. “The ‘House of Proclus’ on the Southern Slope of the Akropolis: A Contribution.” In Post-Herulian Athens: Aspects of Life and Culture in Athens, A.D. 267–529, ed. P. Castrén, 115–41. Helsinki. Kaschnitz-Weinberg, G. 1937. Sculture del magazzino del Museo Vaticano. Vatican City. Kaster, R. A. 1988. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley. Katakes, Stylianos E. 2002. ¾Epivdauro~: tav glptav tw`n Rwmai>kw`n cronw`n ajpo; to; ïiero tou` Apovllwn~ Maleavta kai; tou` Asklhpiou`. 2 vols. Library of the Archaeological Society in Athens no. 233. Athens. Kaufmann-Heinimann, A.-M. 1984. “Venusstatuette.” In Der spätromische Silberschatz von Kaiseraugst, ed. H. A. Cahn and A. Kaufmann-Heinimann, 318–21. Derendingen, Switzerland. Kavvadias, P. 1889. “Praktikav th`~ en Aqhvnai~ Arcaiologikhv~ ÆEtairiva~.” Prakt:1–25. Kay, N. M. 2001. Ausonius’ Epigrams: Text with Introduction and Commentary. London. Kennell, S. A. H. 2000. Magnus Felix Ennodius: A Gentleman of the Church. Ann Arbor.

Bibliography 295 Kiilerich, B. 1993. Late Fourth-Century Classicism in the Plastic Arts. Odense. Kiilerich, B., and H. Torp. 1989. “Hic est, hic Stilicho: The Date and Interpretation of a Notable Diptych.” JdI 104:319–71. ———. 1994. “Mythological Sculpture in the Fourth Century A.D.: The Esquiline Group and The Silataraga Statues.” IstMitt 44:307–16. King, C. E. 1992. “Roman, Local, and Barbarian Coinages in Fifth-Century Gaul.” In Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? ed. J. Drinkwater and H. Elton, 184–95. Cambridge. King, N. 1961. The Emperor Theodosius and the Establishment of Christianity. London. Kiosse, C. 1984. “Eqnikov~ khvpo~: 1700 crovnwn istoriva th~ Aqhvna~.” Neva, 12 March. Kitzinger, E. 1946. “A Survey of the Early Christian Town of Stobi.” DOP 3: 81–162. ———. 1977. Byzantine Art in the Making: Main Lines of Stylistic Development in Mediterranean Art, 3rd–7th Century. London. Kleiner, D. E. E. 1992. Roman Sculpture. New Haven. Koethe, H. 1940. Die Bäder römischer Villen im Trierer Bezirk. Bericht der römischgermanischen Kommission 30. Mainz. Kollwitz, J. 1941. Oströmische Plastik der theodosianschen Zeit. Studien zur spätantiken Kunstgeschicht 12. Berlin. ———. 1963. “Probleme der theodosianischen Kunst Roms.” RACrist 39:191–233. Koortbojian, M. 1995. Myth, Meaning, and Memory on Roman Sarcophagi. Berkeley. Koppel, E. M. 1985. Die römischen Skulpturen von Tarraco. Madrider Forschungen 15. Berlin. ———. 1993a. “Die Skulpturenausstattung römischen Villen auf der Iberischen Halbinsel.” Hispania Antiqua:193–203. ———. 1993b. “La escultura del entorno de Tarraco: las villae.” In Actas de la I reunion sobre escultura romana en Hispania, ed. T. Nogales Basarrate, 221–37. Mérida. ———. 2000. “Informe preliminar sobre la decoración escultórica de la villa Romana de ‘Els Munts’ (Altafulla, Tarragona).” MM 41:380–94. Kourouniotos, K. 1913. “ÆEx Attikh`~.” Archeologiki Ephemeris:193–209. Kunzl, E. 1971. Die Kelten des Epigonos von Pergamon. Würzburg. Kraeling, C. 1962. Ptolemaïs: City of the Libyan Pentapolis. Oriental Institute Publications 90. Chicago. Krinzinger, F., ed. 2002. Das Hänghaus 2 von Ephesos: Studien zu Baugeschichte und Chronologie. Archäologische Forschungen 7. Vienna. Ladstätter, S. 2002. “Die Chronologie des Hanghauses 2.” In Das Hanghaus 2 von Ephesos: Studien zu Baugeschichte und Chronologie, ed. F. Krinzinger, 9–40. Archäologische Forschungen 7. Vienna. Lafaurie, J. 1963. “La monnaie bordelaise du haut moyen-age.” In Bordeaux pendant le haut moyen age, ed. C. Higounet, J. Gardelles, and J. Lafaurie, 295–325. Bordeaux. Lanciani, R. 1884. “La villa castrimeniese di Q. Voconio Pollione.” BullCom 12:141–71. Landwehr, C. 1993. Die römischen Skulpturen von Caesarea Mauretaniae. Vol. 1, Idealplastik, weibliche Figuren bennant. Archäologische Forschungen 18. Berlin. Lange, K. 1880. “Die Athena Parthenos.” AM 5:370–79. Lantier, R. 1947–55. Recueil général des bas-reliefs statues et bustes de la Gaule romaine, supplément (suite). Vols. 12–15. Paris.

Bibliography 296 Lapart, J. 1986. “Découvertes archéologiques récentes en Lomagne.” In Montauban et les anciens pays de Tarn-et-Garonne, 57–70. Fédération des sociétés académiques et savantes de Languedoc-Pyrénées-Gascogne 41. Montauban. Lapart, J., and J. L. Paillet. 1991. “Ensemble paléochrétien et mérovingien du site de Séviac à Montréal-du-Gers.” In Gallo-romains, Wisigoths, et Francs en Aquitaine, Septimanie, et Espagne: Actes VIIIe Journées internationales d’archéologie mérovingienne (Toulouse, 1985), 171–80. Ed. P. Périn. Rouen. Lapart, J., and C. Petit. 1993. Le Gers. Carte archéologique de la Gaule 32. Paris. La Rocca, E. 1987. L’auriga dell’Esquilino. Rome. Lauffray, J. 1940. “Une fouille au pied de l’acropole de Byblos.” BMusBeyr 4:7–36. Lauffray, J., J. Schreyeck, and N. Dupré. 1973. “Les établissements et les villas gallo-romaines de Lalonquette (Pyrénées Atlantiques).” Gallia 31:123–55. Laurence, R., and A. Wallace-Hadrill, eds. 1997. Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond. JRA Supplement 22. Ann Arbor. Laurenzi, L. 1933–38. “Immagini de divinità rinvenute a Rodi.” Memorie publicate a cura dell’istituto storico archeologico F.E.R.T. e della romana deputazione di storia patria per Rodi 2:37–45. Lauzun, P. 1911. “Ruines gallo-romaines de Séviac, près de Montréal.”Bulletin de la société archéologique, historique, littéraire et scientifique du Gers 12:272–75. Lavagne, H. 1994. “Les trois Grâces et la visite de Dionysos chez Ikarios sur une mosaïque de Narbonnaise.” In Fifth International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics, ed. P. Johnson, R. Ling, and D. J. Smith, 238–48. JRA Supplement 9. Ann Arbor. Lawrence, M. 1927–28. “City-Gate Sarcophagi.” ArtB 10:1–45. Lebègue, A. 1889. “L’empereur Tétricus et le chevalier Dumège.” Revue de l’ Agenais:58–74, 129–63. Lebègue, J. A. 1891. “Notice sur les fouilles de Martres-Tolosanes.” BAC:396–423. Lenzi, P. 1998. “ ‘Sita in loco qui vocatur calcaria’: Attività di spoliazione e forni da calce a Ostia.” Archeologia Medievale 25:247–63. Lepelley, C. 1994. “Le musée des statues divines: La volonté de sauvegarder le patrimoine artistique païen à l’époque théodosienne.” CahArch 42:5–15. Le regard de Rome, portraits romaines des musées de Mérida, Toulouse, et Tarragona. 1995. Barcelona. Leveau, P. 1982. “Les maisons nobles de Caesarea de Maurétanie.” AntAfr 18: 109–63. Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. 1981–88. Zurich and Munich. Lichocka, B. 1978. “Une groupe syncrétiste de Nea Paphos.” ÉtTrav 10:205–26. L’Orange, H. P. 1933. Studien zur Geschichte der spätantiken Porträts. Oslo. ———. 1973. “Der subtile Stil: Eine Kunstströmung aus der Zeit um 400 nach Christus.” In Likeness and Icon: Selected Studies in Classical and Early Medieval Art, 54–71. Odense. MacCormack, S. 1981. Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. Berkeley. ———. 1998. Shadows of Poetry: Vergil in the Mind of Augustus. Berkeley. Maguire, E. D., H. P. Maguire, and M. J. Duncan-Flowers. 1989. Art and Holy Powers in the Early Christian House. Illinois Byzantine Studies 2. Urbana. Maier, F. G., and V. Karageorghis. 1984. Paphos: History and Archaeology. Nicosia. Malamud, M. 1989. A Poetics of Transformation: Prudentius and Classical Mythology. Ithaca.

Bibliography 297 Manderscheid, H. 1981. Die Skulpturenausstattung der kaiserzeitlichen Thermenanlagen. Berlin. Mango, C. 1963. “Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder.” DOP 17:53–76. ———. 1991. “The Palace of Marina, the Poet Palladas, and the Bath of Leo VI.” In ÆEufrovsunon, afievroma stov Manovlh Catzedavkh, 1:321–30. Athens. Mansuelli, G. A. 1958. Galleria degli Uffizi, le sculture, vol. 1, Rome. Marcadal, Y. 1964a. “A propos de Tétricus.” Revue de Nérac 2. N.p. ———. 1964b. “Les origines de Nérac.” Revue de Nérac 2. N.p. Marcadé, J., and R. Sabrié. 1999. “Sculptures du Clos de La Lombarde a Narbonne (Aude).” RANarb 32:309–34. Markus, R. A. 1990. The End of Ancient Christianity. Cambridge. Marrou, H. I. 1956. A History of Education in Antiquity. Trans. George Lamb. New York. Marvin, M. 1983. “Freestanding Sculpture from the Baths of Caracalla.” AJA 87: 347–84. Massari, G., E. Roffia, M. Bolla, and D. Caporusso. 1985. “La villa tardoromana di Palazzo Pignano.” In Cremona romana, ed. G. Pontiroli, 185–259. Annali della biblioteca statale e libreria civica di Cremona 35. Cremona. Mathisen, R. 1993. Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian Gaul: Strategies for Survival in an Age of Transition. Austin. Matthews, J. F. 1971. “Gallic Supporters of Theodosius.” Latomus 30:1073–99. ———. 1975. Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, A.D. 364–425. Oxford. ———. 2000. Laying Down the Law: A Study of the Theodosian Code. New Haven. Matthews, K., and S. Bowman. 1998. “Stable Isotope Analysis of the Marble Sculptures.” In Shepherd 1998, 108–9. London. Matthews, K., and S. Walker. 1990. “Report on the Stable Isotope Analysis of the Marble of the Esquiline Group of Sculptures at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, Copenhagen.” In Erim and Roueché 1990, 147–51. Ann Arbor. Mauné, Stéphane. 1998. Les campagnes de la cité de Béziers dans l’antiquité (partie nordorientale, IIe s. av. J.-C.-VIe s. ap. J.-C.). Archéologie et histoire romaine 1. Montagnac, France. Maurin, L., J. -P. Bost, and J. -M. Roddaz, eds. 1992. Les racines d’Aquitaine: Vingt siècles d’histoire d’une région, vers 1000 avant J.-C.- vers 1000 après J.-C. Bordeaux. Meates, W. 1979. The Roman Villa at Lullingstone, Kent I: The Site. London. Megaw, A. H. S. 1974. “Byzantine Architecture and Decoration in Cyprus: Metropolitan or Provincial?” DOP 28:57–88. Meischner, J. 1996. “Das Missorium des Theodosius in Madrid.” JdI 111:389–432. Meliades, I. 1955. “¾Anaskafaiv notivw~ th`~ ¾Akropovleo~.” Ergon:36–52. Mendel, G. 1914. Musées impériaux ottomans, catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines, et byzantines. Vol. 2. Constantinople. Merker, G. S. 1987. “A Statuette of Minerva in the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.” Eretz-Israel: Archeological, Historical, and Geographical Studies 19:15–20. Merritt, B. D. 1961. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 30:205–92. Michalowski, K. 1966. “Chronique des fouilles à Chypre en 1965, no. 4 Kato Paphos (Mission polonaise).” BCH 90:355–58. Michel, A. 1979. “La culture en Aquitaine au Ve siècle: Le témoignage d’Eutrope.” Annales du Midi 71:115–24.

Bibliography 298 Michon, E. 1916. “L’Apollon de Cherchell.” MonPiot 22:55–70. Milano, capitale del impero romano 286–402 d.c. (Milano, Piazza Reale 24 gennaio–22 aprile 1990). 1990. Milan. Moltesen, M. 1990. “The Aphrodisian Sculptures in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek.” In Erim and Roueché 1990, 133–46. Ann Arbor. ———. 2000. “The Esquiline Group: Aphrodisian Sculptures in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.” AntP 27:111–29. Mommsen, T., ed. 1905. Codex Theodosianus: Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitionibus Sirmondianis. Berlin. Monturet, R., and H. Rivière. 1986. Les thermes sud de la villa gallo-romaine de Séviac. Aquitania Supplement 2. Paris. Morel, J.-P. 1983. “La céramique comme indice du commerce antique (réalités et interprétations).” In Trade and Famine, ed. Peter Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker, 66–74. Cambridge Philological Society Supplement 8. Cambridge. Morel, M. 1866. “Mémoire sur des découvertes d’antiquités romaines faites à Valentine (Haute-Garonne). BMon 32:441–59. Moreno, P. 1982. “Il Farnese ritrovato ed tipi di Ercole in riposo.” MÉFRA 94:379–526. Morvillez, E. 1997. “La salle a absides de la villa de St.-Rustice (Haute-Garonne) et son décor marin.” Mémoires de la Société Archéologique du Midi de la France 57:11–34. Müller, H. W. 1975. “Zwei Darstellung des Ganymed aus Ägypten.” In Wandlungen: Studien zur antiken und neureren Kunst, Ernst Homann-Wedekimg gewidmet, 235–42. Waldsassen, Germany. Mundell Mango, M. 1986. Silver from Early Byzantium: The Kaper Koraon and Related Treasures. Baltimore. Mundell Mango, M., and A. Bennett. 1994. The Sevso Treasure. Part 1. JRA Supplement 12. Ann Arbor. Muthmann, F. 1951. Statuenstützen und dekoratives Beiwerk an griechischen und römischen Bildwerken: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der römischen Kopistentätigkeit. Heidelberg. Neratzoules P. 1930–31. “[Ekqesi~.” ArchDelt 13 (Paratema):38–40. Nestorovic´, B. 1936. “Un palais à Stobi.” In Actes du IVe congrès international des études byzantines, Sofia septembre 1934, ed. B. D. Filov, 173–83. Bulletin de l’Iinstitut Archéologique Bulgare 10. Sofia. Neudecker, R. 1988. Die Skulpturenausstattung römischen Villen in Italien. Mainz. Neusner, J., trans. 1988. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven. ———. 2002. The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew, with a New Introduction Peabody, MA. Nixon, C. E. V. 1983. “Latin Panegyric in the Tetrarchic and Constantinian Period.” In History and Historians in Late Antiquity, ed. B. Croke and A. M. Emmett, 88–99. Sydney. ———, ed. and trans. 1987. Pacatus: Panegyric to the Emperor Theodosius. Translated Texts for Historians, Latin Series 2. Liverpool. Nony, D. 1974. “Une ‘lampe-grenouille,’ témoin des rapports entre Burdigala et l’Egypte.” Revue historique de Bordeaux et du département de la Gironde 23:19–23.

Bibliography 299 Oberleitner, W. 1959. “Fragment eines spätantiken Porträtkopf aus Ephesos.” ÖJh 44:83–100. Önder, M. 1983. The Museums of Turkey and Examples of the Masterpieces in the Museums. Ankara. Pailler, J. M. 1986. “L’enigme Nymphius.” Gallia 44:151–65. Painter, K. S. 1977. The Mildenhall Treasure: Roman Silver from East Anglia. London. Parker, A. J. 1992. Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces. BAR International Series 580. Oxford. Parlama, L., and N. C. Stampolidis, eds. 2000. The City beneath the City: Antiquities from the Metropolitan Railway Excavations. Athens. Parovic´-Pesikan, M. 1984. “Archéologie antique dans le Starinar (1884–1984).” Starinar 35:116–34. Parrish, D. 1995. “A Mythological Theme in the Decoration of Late Roman Dining Rooms: Dionysos and His Circle.” RA:307–32. ———. 1999. “House (or Wohneinheit) 2 in Hänghaus 2 at Ephesos: A Few Issues of Interpretation.” In 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, Akten des Symposions Wien 1995, ed. H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, 507–13. Vienna. Paton, W. R., trans. 1916–18. The Greek Anthology. 5 vols. Cambridge, MA. Pavlovskis, Z. 1965. “Statius and the Late Latin Epithalamia.” CP 60:164–77. Pavolini, C., A. Carignani, F. Pacetti, G. Spinola, and M. Vitti. 1993. “La topografia antica della sommità del Celio: Gli scavi nell’Ospedale Militare (1987–1992).” RM 100:443–505. Peacock, D. P. S., and D. Williams. 1999. “Ornamental Coloured Marble in Roman Britain: An Interim Report.” In Archéomatériaux: Marbres et autres roches, ASMOSIA IV, Bordeaux, Talence, 9–13 octobre 1995, 353–57. ed. M. Schvoerer. Bordeaux. Pensabene, P. 1999. “I rivestimenti marmorei del ninfeo degli Eroti ad Ostia.” In Atti del 6. colloquio dell’Associazione italiana per lo studio e la conservazione del mosaico, Venezia, ed. F. Guidobaldi and A. Paribeni, 341–359. Ravenna. Percival, J. 1976. The Roman Villa: An Historical Introduction. London. Perry, E. E. 2002. “Rhetoric, Literary Criticism, and the Roman Aesthetics of Artistic Imitation.” In The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity, ed. E. Gazda. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome Supplement 1. Ann Arbor. Petkovic´, V. R. 1937. “Antike Skulpturen aus Stobi (Palast des Parthenios).” Starinar 12:12–35. Petridis, P. 1997. “Delphes dans l’antiquité tardive: Première approche topographique et céramologique.” BCH 121:681–95. Petrovic´, Petar. 1994. Mediana, Residence of Roman Emperors. Belgrade. Pharr, C., trans. 1952. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions. Princeton. Picard, G.-C. 1957. Les trophées romains: Contribution à l’histoire de la religion et de l’art triomphal de Rome. Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 187. Paris. ———. 1965. La Carthage de saint Augustin. Paris. Platnauer, M., trans. 1922–56. Claudian, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA. Poulsen, B. 1997a. “The City Personifications in the Late ‘Roman Villa’ in Halikarnassos.” In Isager and Poulsen 1997, 9–23. Odense.

Bibliography 300 ———. 1997b. “The Sculpture from the Late Roman Villa in Halicarnassus.” In Sculptors and Sculpture of Caria and the Dodecanese, ed. I. Jenkins and G. B. Waywell, 74–83. London. Provost, M., and C. Mennessier-Jouannet. 1994. Clermont-Ferrand. Carte archéologique de la Gaule 63.1. Paris. Puerta, C., M. A. Elvira , and T. Artigas. 1994. “La colección de esculturas hallada en Valdetorres de Jarama.” ArchEspArq 67:179–200. Queyrel, F. 1992. “Antonia Minor à Chiragan (Martres-Tolosane, Haute-Garonne).” RANarb 25:69–81. Rappe, Sara. 2001. “The New Math: How to Add and to Subtract Pagan Elements in Christian Education.” In Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, ed. Y. L. Too, 405–32. Leiden. Rebecchi, F. 1983. “La scultura colta in Emilia Romagna.” In Studi sulla città antica: L’Emilia-Romagna, ed. G. Mansuelli, 497–567. Rome. Reinhold, M. 1970. History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity. Collection Latomus 116. Brussels. Renfrew, C. 1984. “Trade as Action at a Distance.” In Approaches to Social Archaeology, ed. C. Renfrew, 86–134. Cambridge, MA. First published in Ancient Civilisation and Trade, ed. J. A. Sabloff and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, 3–59 (Albuquerque, NM, 1975). Rey-Delque, M. 1975. “Le vieux pêcheur: Réplique d’un type hellénistique: Statue trouvée dans la villa de Chiragan, à Martres-Tolosane, et conservée au Musée Saint-Raymond de Toulouse.” Pallas 22:89–95. Reynolds, L. D., and N. G. Wilson. 1968. Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. Oxford. Riché, P. 1976. Education and Culture in the Barbarian West, Sixth through Eighth Centuries. Trans. J. J. Contreni. Columbia, SC. Richter, G. M. A. 1965. The Portraits of the Greeks. 3 vols. London. Roberts, M. 1989a. The Jewelled Style: Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity. Ithaca. ———. 1989b. “The Use of Myth in Latin Epithalamia from Statius to Venantius Fortunatus.” TAPA 119:321–48. ———. 1993. Poetry and the Cult of the Martyrs: The “Liber Peristephanon” of Prudentius. Ann Arbor. Rockwell, P. 1991. “Unfinished Statuary Associated with a Sculptor’s Studio.” In Aphrodisias Papers 2: The Theatre, a Sculptor’s Workshop, Philosophers, and Coin Types, ed. R. R. R. Smith and K. T. Erim, 127–43. JRA Supplement 2. Ann Arbor. Rodriguez Oliva, P. 1993. “Ciclos escultoricos en la casa y en la ciudad de la Betica.” In Actas de la I reunion sobre escultura romana en Hispania, ed. T. Nogales Basarrate, 23–61. Mérida. Rolfe, J. C., trans 1935–39. Ammianus Marcellinus. 3 vols. Cambridge, MA. Romans and Barbarians, Museum of Fine Arts, December 17, 1976–February 27, 1977. 1976. Boston. Rome et le sud-ouest de la Gaule. 1984. Mont-de-Marsan. Romeo, I., and E. C. Portale. 1998. Gortina. Vol. 3, Le sculture. Padua. Romiopoulou, K. 1997. Ellhnororwmai>ka; ¾iero gluptav tou` ÆEqnikou` ÆArcaiologikou` Mouseivou. Athens. Rosenthal, E. 1972. The Illuminations of the Vergilius Romanus. Zurich.

Bibliography 301 Ross, M. C. 1953. “A Silver Treasure from Daphne-Harbie.” Archaeology 6:39–41. Rossiter, J. J. 1991. “Convivium and Villa in Late Antiquity.” In Slater 1991, 199–214. Ann Arbor. Rothaus, R. M. 2000. Corinth: The First City of Greece; An Urban History of Late-Antique Cult and Religion. Leiden. Roueché, C. 1989. Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity. JRS Monograph 5. London. Roueché, C., and R. R. R. Smith, eds. 1996. Aphrodisias Papers 3: The Setting and Quarries, Mythological and Other Sculptural Decoration, Architectural Development, Portico of Tiberius, and Tetrapylon. JRA Supplement 20. Portsmouth. Rougé, J., ed. and trans. 1996. Expositio totius mundi et gentium. Paris. Rousseau, P. 1999. “Christian Culture and the Swine’s Husks: Jerome, Augustine, and Paulinus.” In The Limits of Ancient Christianity: Essays on Late-Antique Thought and Culture in Honor of R. A. Markus, ed. W. E. Klingshirn and M. Vessey, 172–87. Ann Arbor. Rückert, C. 1998. “Miniaturhermen aus Stein: Eine vernachlässigte Gattung kleinformatiger Skulptur der römischen Villeggiatur.” MM 39:176–237. Russell, D. A., and N. G. Wilson, eds. and trans. 1981. Menander Rhetor. Oxford. Salzmann, M. R. 1990. On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity. Berkeley. Samazeuilh, J. F. 1865. “Mémoire sur les fouilles de Nérac.” Revue d’Aquitaine 9:263–78, 345–56, 435–55. Sanders, G. 1976. “Les chrétiens face à l’épigraphie funéraire latine.” In Assimilation et résistance: Actes du VIe congrès international des études classiques, Madrid, 1974, 283–99. Paris. Sanders, G. D. R. 2001. “Corinth Excavations Focus on the Panayia Field.” American School of Classical Studies in Athens Newsletter 45 (winter): 1, 5. Santa Maria Scrinari, V. 1972. Museo archeologico di Aquileia: Catalogo delle sculture romane. Cataloghi dei musei e gallerie d’Italia. Rome. Santrot, J. 1996. “Bronzes et fers de Dax (Landes): La cachette d’un ‘antiquairerestaurateur’ au IVe s. après J.-C.” With contributions from B. Deriou, X. Dupuis, and M. Finckler. Gallia 53:251–343. Sapelli, M. 1998. Arte tardoantica in Palazzo Massimo alle terme. Rome. Saradi-Mendelovici, H. 1990. “Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity.” DOP 44:47–61. Scagliarini, D. 1968. Ravenna e le ville romane in Romagna. Ravenna. Scagliarini Corlàita, D., A. Coralini, R. Ghetti, and C. Compostella. 1994. “Le sculture.” In Studi sulla villa romana di Desenzano, ed. R. La Guardia, 59–110. Milan. Schäfer, P. 2003. “Jews and Gentiles in Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah.” In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 3, ed. P. Schäfer, 335–552. Tübingen. Scherrer, P., ed. 2000. Ephesus: The New Guide. Trans. L. Bier and G. M. Luxton. Turkey. Schneider, L. 1983. Die Domäne aus Weltbild: Wirkungsstrukturen der spätantike Bildersprache. Wiesbaden. Schuchhardt, W.-H. 1963. “Athena Parthenos.” AntP 2:31–53. Schumacher, W. N. 1984. “Die Christus-statuette des Thermen-Museums zu Rom und ihre Probleme.” In Actes du Xe congrès international d’archéologie chrétienne, Thessaloniki, 28 sept.–4 oct. 1980, 2: 489–96. Vatican City.

Bibliography 302 Scott, S. 1997. “The Power of Images in the Late Roman House.” In Laurence and Wallace-Hadrill 1997, 53–67. ———. 2000. Art and Society in Fourth-Century Britain: Villa Mosaics in Context. Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 53. Oxford. Shelton, K. J. 1981. The Esquiline Treasure. London. Shepherd, J. D., ed. 1998. The Temple of Mithras, London: Excavations by W. F. Grimes and A. Williams at the Walbrook. English Heritage Archaeological Report 12. London. Simon, E. 1970. Meleager und Atalante: Ein spätantiker Wandbehang. Bonn. Sion, H. 1994. La Gironde. Carte Archéologique de la Gaule Vol. 33.1. Sivan, H. 1988. “Who Was Egeria? Piety and Pilgrimage in the Age of Gratian.” Harvard Theological Review 81:59–72. ———. 1989. “Town, Country, and Province in Late Roman Gaul: The Example of CIL XIII.128.” ZPE 79:103–13. ———. 1993. Ausonius of Bordeaux: Genesis of a Gallic Aristocracy. London. Sklavou Mavroeithe, M. 1999. Gluptav tou` Buzantinouv Mouseivou Aqhnw`n. Athens. Slater, W., ed. 1991. Dining in a Classical Context. Ann Arbor. Smith, R. R. R. 1990. “Late Roman Philosopher Portraits from Aphrodisias.” JRS 80:127–55. ———. 1995. “A New Shield Portrait in Izmir.” RM 102:331–39. ———. 1996. “Archaeological Research at Aphrodisias, 1989–1992.” In Roueché and Smith 1996, 11–72. ———. 1998. “Hellenistic Sculpture under the Roman Empire: Fishermen and Satyrs at Aphrodisias.” In Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture, ed. W. D. Coulson and O. Palagia, 253–60. Oxford. Sodini, J. -P. 1984. “L’habitat urbain en Grèce à la vielle des invasions.” In Villes et peuplement dans l’Illyricum protobyzantin: Actes du colloque organisé par l’École française de Rome (Rome, 12–14 mai 1982). 341–97. CÉFR Rome. ———. 1995. “Habitat de l’antiquité tardive.” Topoi 5.1:151–218. ———. 1997. “Habitat de l’antiquité tardive.” Part 2. Topoi 7.2:437–521. Sokolovska, V. 1987. Ancient Sculpture in SR Macedonia. Skopje. Soulas, S. 1996. “Présentation et provenance de la céramique estampée à Bordeaux.” Aquitania 14:55–64. Spathare, E., and M. Chatziote. 1983. “Leofovro~ Bas. Sofiva~ kai Hhrwvdou tou Attikouv 2.” ArchDelt 38.2:23–25. Speyer, W., ed. 1963. Epigrammata Bobiensia. Leipzig. Spinola, G. 1992. “Il dominus Gaudentius e l’Antinoo Casali; alcuni aspetti della fine del paganesimo da una piccola domus sul Celio?” MÉFRA 104:953–79. Spiro, M. 1978. Critical Corpus of the Mosaic Pavements on the Greek Mainland, Fourth/Sixth Centuries with Architectural Surveys. New York. Srejovic´, D., ed. 1993. Roman Imperial Towns and Palaces in Serbia, Sirmium-Romulania-Naissus. Belgrade. Stancliffe, C. 1983. St. Martin and His Hagiographer: History and Miracle in Sulpicius Severus. Oxford. Stefanidou-Tiveriou, T. 1993. “Späte attische Sarkophage und das Ende der attischen Werkstatten.” In Grabeskunst der römischen Kaiserzeit, ed. G. Koch, 133–39. Mainz.

Bibliography 303 ———. 1995. To; mikro; tovxo tou` Galerivou sth; Qessalonivkh. Archaeological Society Supplement 151. Athens. Steinby, M. 1986. “L’industria laterizia di Roma nel tardo impero.” In Socièta Romana e impero tardoantico, vol. 2, Roma politica, economia, paesaggio urbano, ed. A. Giardina, 99–164. Rome. Stéphanus, F. 1987–88. “Aquitaine: Castelculier.” Gallia informations, préhistoire et histoire:139–42. Stevens, C. E. 1933. Sidonius Apollinaris and His Age. Oxford. Stevenson, T. B. 1983. Miniature Decoration in the Vatican Virgil: A Study in Late-Antique Iconography. Tübingen. Stichel, R. H. W. 1982. Die römische Kaiserstatue am Ausgang der Antike: Untersuchungen zum plastischen Kaiserporträt seit Valentinian I (364–375 n. Chr.). Rome. Stillwell, R., ed. 1941. Antioch-on-the-Orontes. Vol. 3, The Excavations, 1937–1939. Princeton. Stirling, L. 1994. “Mythological Sculpture in Late Antiquity: A Case Study in Villa Decoration in Southwest Gaul.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. ———. 1996a. “Divinities and Heroes in the Age of Ausonius: A Late-Antique Villa and Sculptural Collection at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (Gironde).” RA:103–43. ———. 1996b. “Gods, Heroes, and Ancestors: Sculptural Decoration in LateAntique Aquitania.” Aquitania 14:209–30. ———. 1997. “Late-Antique Goddesses and Other Statuary at the Villa of LaGarenne-de-Nérac.” EchCl 41:149–76. Strocka, V. M. 1985. “Zuviel Ehre für Scholastikia.” In Lebendige Altertumswissenschaft: Festgabe zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres von Hermann Vetters; Dargebracht von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, 229–32. Vienna. Stroheker, K. F. 1970. Reprint. Der senatorische Adel im spätantiken Gallien. Darmstadt. Original edition, 1948. Studniczka, F. 1921. “Archäologisches aus Griechenland.” AA 36:308–40. Syme, R. 1968. Ammianus and the “Historia Augusta.” Oxford. Tarrats Bou, F., J. M. Macias i Solé, E. Ramón Sariñena, and J. A. Remolà Vallverdú. 2000. “Nuevas actuaciones en el área residencial de la villa romana de ‘Els Munts’ (Altafulla, Ager Tarraconensis): Estudio preliminar.” MM 42:358–79. Terry, J. H. 1992. “Ancient Antiques: Three Private Sculpture Collections from Late Antiquity.” M.A. thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia. Thébert, Y. 1987. “Private Life and Domestic Architecture in Roman Africa.” In A History of Private Life, vol. 1, From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, ed. P. Veyne, trans. A. Goldhammer, 313–409. Cambridge, MA. Thornton, T. C. G. 1986. “The Destruction of Idols: Sinful or Meritorious?” JThS 37:121–29. Thulin, O. 1929. “Die Christus-Statuette in Museo Nazionale Romano.” RM 44:201–59. Tomber, R. 1993. “Quantitative Approaches to the Investigation of Long-Distance Exchange.” JRA 6:142–66. Tomber, R., and D. Williams. 2000. “Egyptian Amphorae in Britain and the Western Provinces.” Britannia 31:41–54. Tomovic´, M. 1989–90. “Calamis’ ‘Aphrodite Sosandra’ and the Problem of the Sculptural Group from Mediana (Nis).” Starinar 40–41:231–39.

Bibliography 304 ———. 1993. Roman Sculpture in Upper Moesia. Trans. G. Radosevic. Monographies 24. Belgrade. Toynbee, J. M. C. 1962. Art in Roman Britain. London. ———. 1964. Art in Britain under the Romans. Oxford. ———, ed. 1986. The Roman Art Treasures from the Temple of Mithras. London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, Special Paper 7. London. Trier, Kaiserresidenz und Bischofssitz. 1984. Mainz. Usai, L. 1972. “L’ipogeo di via Livenza in Roma.” DialArch 6:363–412. Valensi, L. 1973. “Deux sculptures romaines de la villa de Saint-Georges-deMontagne.” RLouvre 23:7–12. ———. 1976. Sculpture médiévale de Bordeaux et du Bordelais. Bordeaux. Van Dam, R. 1985. Leadership and Community in Late-Antique Gaul. Berkeley. Van Voorhis, J. A. 1999. “The Sculptor’s Workshop at Aphrodisias.” Ph.D. diss., New York University. Vaquerizo Gil, D. 1995. “El uso del mármol en la décoracion arqueológica y escultórica de villae cordobesas.” In Pobliamento rural romano en el Sureste de Hispania (Actas de las Jornadas celebradas en Jumilla del 8 al 11 de noviembre de 1993), ed. José Miguel Noguera Celdrán, 81–103. Murcia. Vaquerizo Gil, D., and J. M. Noguera Celdrán. 1997. La villa romana de El Ruedo (Almedinilla, Córdoba): Decoración escultórica e interpretación. Murcia. Varner, E. 1995. Review of Hannestad 1994. AJA 99:746–47. Vermaseren, M. J. 1956. Corpus inscriptionum et monumentorum religionis mithriacae. Vol. 1. The Hague. Vermeule, C. C. 1964. “Aphrodisiaca: Satyr, Maenad, and Eros; A RomanoHellenistic Marble Group of the Third Century A.D. in Boston.” In Essays in Memory of Karl Lehmann, ed. Lucy Freeman Sandler, 359–74. New York. Vessey, M. 2001. “The Epistula Rustici ad Eucherium: From the Library of Imperial Classics to the Library of the Fathers.” In Society and Culture in Late-Antique Gaul: Revisiting the Sources, ed. R. W. Mathisen and D. Shanzer, 278–97. Burlington, VT. Visconti, C. L. 1885. “Del larario e del mitreo scoperti nell’Equilino presso la chiesa di S. Martino ai Monti.” BullCom 8:27–41. Volpe, G., ed. 1998. San Giusto, la villa, le ecclesiae: Primi resultati dagli scavi nel sito rurale di San Giusto (Lucera), 1995–1997. Bari. von Heintze, H. 1972. Roman Art. New York. von Mosch, H. C. 1995. “Eine neue Replik des Satyrs mit der Querflöte und ihre Aufstellung in spätantikem Kontext.” AA 49:741–53. von Schönebeck, H. U. 1935. Der mailander Sarkophag und seine Nachfolge. Studi di Antichità Cristiana 10. Vatican City. von Sydow, H. 1969. Zum Kunstgeschichte des spätantiken Porträts im 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Antiquitas 3.8. Bonn. Vorster, C. 1998. Die Skulpturen von Fianello Sabino: Zum Beginn der Skulpturenausstattung in römischen Villen. DAI Palilia 5. Rome. Walda, H. M., S.-A. Ashton, P. Reynolds, J. Siddell, I. W. Sjöstrom, and K. Wilkinson. 1997. “The 1996 Excavations at Lepcis Magna.” LibSt 28:43–70. Walker, S. 1998. “Comments on the Isotopic Analysis of the Sculptures.” In Shepherd 1998, 109–10. London. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1994. Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton.

Bibliography 305 Watier, B. 1973. “Les amphores funéraires de la nécropole de Saint-Seurin, à Bordeaux: Restauration et étude typologique.” Information de l’histoire de l’art 18:113–18. Weitzmann, K., ed. 1979. The Age of Spirituality: Late-Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century. New York. Wessel, K. 1946–47. “Römische Frauenfrisuren von der severischen bis zur konstantinischen Zeit.” AA 61–62:62–75. Wheeler, R. E. M. 1943. Maiden Castle, Dorset. Reports of the research committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 12. Oxford. White, H. G. E., trans. 1919–21. Ausonius. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA. Will, Ernst. 1950. “La date du mithréum de Sidon.” Syria 27:261–69. Willers, D. 1996. “Das Ende der antiken Idealstatue.” MusHelv 53:170–86. Williams, S., and G. Friell. 1994. Theodosius: The Empire at Bay. New Haven. Wilson, N. G. 1994. Photius: The “Bibliotheca.” London. Wilson, R. J. A. 1983. Piazza Armerina. London. Wiseman, J. 1973. Stobi: A Guide to the Excavations. Belgrade. Wrede, H. 1972. Die spätantike Hermengalerie von Welschbillig: Untersuchung zur Kunsttradition im 4.Jahrhundert n. Chr. und zur allgemeinen Bedeutung des antiken Hermenmals. Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 32. Berlin. Wright, D. H. 1993. The Vatican Vergil: A Masterpiece of Late-Antique art. Berkeley. Yates, F. E. 1966. The Art of Memory. Chicago. Ziéglé, A., and J. Roussot-Larroque. 1991. Gaulois et romains en Aquitaine: Protohistoire, gallo-romain, et haut moyen-age. Bordeaux.

Index

Abundance, 85 Achilles, 104, 113, 211 Aconii, 61–62 Aconius Taurus, Gaius, 61 Adonis, 37, 41, 43, 86, 87. See also Montmaurin, Venus and Adonis Aelius Donatus, 146 Aesop, 146 Africa, 13, 133–35, 161, 162, 185–90, 213, 221, 232 Agen, 67 Agricola, 89 Aizanoi, public statuary at, 224 Alaric, 26–27, 166, 201, 209, 225 Alcibiades, 215–16 Alexander, 215–16 Alexander Severus, 222 Alexandria, 100, 133, 135, 156, 162, 219, 226 Allegory, 22, 26–28, 87, 141, 178, 189, 207, 210 Amazon, 186 Ambrose, 159, 166 Ammianus Marcellinus, 136, 166, 221 Amor, 24, 30, 36, 69, 70, 186–87, 216. See also Cupid; Eros Amphitrite, 211 Amphora, 11, 132–35 Anadyomene. See Aphrodite Anastasius I, 132

Angel, 98, 100, 102, 116–18, 127, 130–32, 136, 229 Antinoös, 167, 169 Antioch, 13, 175, 219 head of Apollo, 100 Antoninus Pius, 204, 210, 221 Aphrodisias Aphrodite of, 23, 104, 106, 120, 122, 208–9, 215–16, 225–26 Atrium House, 23, 122, 150, 215–16, 220, 223, 225–27 coinage, 43 compared to works at Chiragan, 9, 52, 56–58 compared to works at Valdetorres de Jarama, 179, 181, 185 figural pilaster capitals, 121–22, 216–17, 220, 224 head of Helios, 118–19, 121, 136, 214 Muse, 2, 175, 215 North Byzantine House, 23, 109, 121, 216, 225 North Temenos House, 121, 216–17, 220–21, 225 paganism at, 224–27 portraits, 111, 119–20, 136, 150, 214, 217 priest holding statuette, 106, 120, 122 fig. 55, 136, 215–16, 225–26 satyrs, 97, 120, 123

307

Index 308 Aphrodisias (continued ) sculptors in Rome, 7, 11, 57, 122–25, 130 sculptor’s workshop, 8, 10, 119–20, 135–36, 214, 220 sculptural tradition, 10, 92, 119–25, 128–29, 136–37, 229 statuette of Asklepios, 23, 121, 123 fig. 56, 131, 180 statuette of Cybele, 23, 109, 121, 123 fig. 56, 125 statuette of priestess, 212, 217 tondi of philosophers, 57, 150, 215–16, 223, 226 Aphrodite Anadyomene, 30, 40, 45, 76, 97, 108, 115, 122, 171, 174, 215, 245n. 171, 270n. 41 of Aphrodisias, 23, 104, 106, 120, 122, 208–9, 215–16, 225–26 armed, 211 in baths, 22, 157, 162, 175 inscriptional reference, 217 of Knidos, 121, 139, 148, 154, 216 patron of marriage, 144–45 statuettes from Dokimeion/Side, 126–27, 131 in villas, 208, 211–12, 219 See also Venus Apollo Cherchel, 20, 188–89 Lycaeus, 174 Musagetes, 32 on pilaster capital, 216–17 in poetry, 145 Sauroktonos, 175 statue, 26, 171, 174, 188, 212 statuette, 32, 178, 181, 197, 219 Apollonius, 215 Apostles, 100, 111, 117, 129 Aquae Tarbellicae, bronze statuettes at, 84–85 Aquileia, statuette of maenad, 175 Aquitania mosaic schools in, 49, 63–64, 78, 92, 133 prosperity of, 136

rhetorical schools in, 143, 163 trade contacts, 132–33 villas in, 29–90, 231 Arabia, 133 Arcadius, 18, 53, 82, 134, 161 Ares Borghese, 33. See also SaintGeorges-de-Montagne Ariadne, 54 Aristotle, 215 Arles diademed head, 73, 74 fig. 38, 102, 108, 113, 118 maenad, 74 fig. 34, 75, 87, 97, 102–3, 106, 109, 118 sarcophagus production in, 10, 92, 115 sculpture from, 6, 29 theater, 74–75 as trade center, 11, 132–33 Artemis, 144, 199, 204–5, 213 of Versailles, 86, 120, 217, 220, 232 See also Diana; Saint-Georges-deMontagne Asia Minor, 9, 10, 13, 43, 45, 92, 108, 117–30, 132–37, 143, 181, 229 Asklepiodotos, 216 Asklepios Aphrodisias, 120–21, 131, 180, 212, 216–17 bronze, 84 diptych, 180 Greece, 199, 201, 204–5, 208–10 Nea Paphos, 212 popular in East, 13, 210, 216, 223, 232 Stobi, 199 Valdetorres de Jarama, 179 votive relief, 201, 208 votive statuary, 2, 23, 195–96 Aspasia, 196–97 Assyria, 133 Athanasius, 135 Athena Epidauros, 2 of Lindos, 213 of Myron, 59–60 Parthenos, 109, 209

Index 309 statue of, 167, 171, 205 statue reused as doorsill, 204–5 statuette of, 2, 204, 208 See also Castelculier; Minerva Athens, 13, 17, 83, 104, 175, 198–210, 217, 223, 224–27, 232 Areopagus houses, 13, 21, 24, 25, 200, 204–7, 220, 225–27 Building Chi (so-called House of Proclus), 20, 23, 200–204, 202 fig. 64, 203 fig. 65, 207, 209–10, 224–27 Palace of the Giants, 21, 206–7, 210, 225 portraits in, 25, 204–6, 208, 210 Atrium, 37, 45, 48, 52, 61, 73, 77, 80, 166, 225 Attis, 60, 183 Augustine, 12, 145, 148, 230, 261n. 11 Augustus, 60 Ausonius catalogue of rhetors, 134, 143 classicizing style, 147 collecting books, 146 and education, 12, 138–40, 142, 163–64 Epicedion, 151–52 poetry about art, 76, 87, 139–40, 148–49 rhetor, 1–2, 142, 145, 155–56, 200 Autun, 143 Bacchus, 73, 167, 188, 191, 193–95. See also Dionysos Baïse, River, 64 Bakiröy, relief from, 127 Bapteste, villa at, 70, 243n. 145, 245n. 172 Barachus, 149 Basilical hall, 21, 51, 53, 63, 70–71, 195, 211, 231, 245n. 173 Bathhouse of Aphrodite, 157 Baths of Caracalla, 14, 166, 224 Chiragan, 48, 52–53, 61 expensive decoration in, 21, 76, 78, 227 in houses, 166, 208, 211

mosaic decoration of, 83, 150 of Scholastikia, 218, 224 statuary decoration in, 22, 26, 90, 150, 161–62, 175 in Theodosian Code, 78, 161–62 on Via Ariosto, 124 in villas, 30, 39, 64, 67, 81–82, 173, 175, 195, 219 of Zeuxippos, 128, 154, 213, 224 Bellerophon, 144, 193 Bethlehem, 134 Beyazit, head of emperor, 98, 110, 111 fig. 52, 127, 130 Béziers, villa near, 86–87 Bishop, 12, 76, 134–35, 141, 146 Bordeaux, 6, 29, 49, 86–87, 98, 132–34 female head, 73, 74 fig. 37, 82, 98, 100, 114, 118, 130, 143, 229 Boston, statuette of satyr and maenad in, 100, 104, 109, 121, 253n. 62, 257n. 136 Brescia, diptychs at 107 Britain, 13, 132, 190–95 Bryaxis, 219 Byblos, statuettes from, 104, 113 Caesarea, public statuary at, 224 Capitoline Museum, portrait of priestess in, 98, 116, 130 Caracalla Baths of, 14, 166, 224 portrait of, 60 Carrara marble, 10, 57, 115, 118, 123, 132, 181, 193, 273n. 118 Carthage, 2–3, 25, 107, 133, 136, 185–87, 266n. 113 Ganymede and the eagle, 2–3, 7–8, 8 fig. 2, 10, 66, 98, 102–14, 118, 121, 125, 127, 129, 181, 185, 188–90, 205, 216, 243n. 150, 248n. 261, 251n. 6, 258n. 149 Maison de la Cachette, 21, 23–24, 185–87, 189, 221 Casa del Mitra, 184 Casilla de la Lámpara, 184, 220 Castelculier imported marble at, 78

Index 310 Castelculier (continued) Minerva, 67–68, 68 fig. 33, 79, 163 portraits, 68–69, 89, 189 size of villa, 70 villa at, 6, 16, 29, 67–69, 71, 262n. 21 Cento, 146, 150, 206 Ceres, 170, 184, 186. See also Demeter Cernunnos, 85 Cherchel, 20, 187–89, 197 Chimera, 167 Chiragan, 6, 29, 49–62, 50 fig. 22, 51 fig. 23, 55 fig. 24, 81, 223 Aphrodisian sculpture at, 9, 56–59, 223, 245n. 174 architectural decoration, 83, 229 Bacchus, 54–55, 58 fig. 27, 59 fig. 28, 87, 100, 214 diademed head, 54–55, 57 fig. 26, 73, 81, 98, 100, 114, 130 head of Ariadne, 54–56, 87 Hercules panels, 8, 56–61, 81, 175 late antique portraits, 60–61, 71, 220 nymphaeum, 52, 54 old fisherman, 56, 58 opus sectile flooring, 51, 71, 133 portraits, 52, 60–61, 71, 79, 88–89, 150 size of villa, 70 sleeping Ariadne, 54, 56 fig. 25, 87, 97, 141 tondi of gods, 52, 56–60, 81–82 Chi-Rho, 26, 27 Christ, 111, 115–17, 129, 207 seated statuette of, 98, 100 fig. 47, 114, 117–18, 130, 177 Church, 25, 98, 127, 174, 193, 266n. 113 Cicero, 12, 140, 142, 146, 230 Classicizing style in literature, 147–48, 230 in sculpture, 3, 26, 110–12, 138, 142, 147–48, 163 Claudian, 82, 144, 206, 262n. 21 Clermont-Ferrand, lararium at, 20, 84, 145 Coins, 46–48, 53, 73, 92, 176, 193, 195–96, 199, 209, 224

Constantine, 14, 58, 77, 124, 128, 154, 158, 178, 196, 207, 213 coin of, 53, 92, 224 Constantinople court style at, 127–29, 137 imports to, 132 sculptural workshops in, 9–10, 127–29, 137 statuary decoration in, 14, 100, 150, 207, 213–14, 224, 229 travel to, 134–35 Constantius II, 47–48, 214 Corinth, 17, 150, 154, 199 Cosa, 249n. 267 Court of honor, 37, 45, 52–53, 61, 80, 81–82 Cupid, 78, 104, 108, 121, 140, 144, 149, 218 and Psyche, 167, 191–92 See also Amor; Eros Cybele Aphrodisias, 23, 109, 121, 125, 212, 216 Athens, 24, 200–202, 208–10, 227, 232, 278n. 201 Mediana, 274n. 134 popular in the East, 60, 184, 223 relief of, 198–99, 201–2, 208–10, 227 syncretism with local goddess, 197 in Western collections, 60, 184–85, 223 worship of, 200, 210, 227 Cyprian, 145 Cyprus, 131, 210–13 Danube River, 13, 195–99 Daphne, 2, 219 Dardanian goddess, 196–97 Dax, bronze statuettes at, 84–85 Delphi, 199 Demeter, 19, 186, 212. See also Ceres Demosthenes portrait of, 60, 89 works of, 230 Desenzano, villa at, 13, 175–77, 176 fig. 60, 178 fig. 61, 205

Index 311 Diana, 14, 85–86, 170–71, 184, 190–91, 212, 220, 232. See also Artemis; Saint-Georges-de-Montagne, Diana Diatrete glass, 86 Dijon, head of woman, 6, 73 Diocletian, 124 Dionysiac themes, 81, 83, 85, 87, 123, 140, 169, 171, 174, 182, 218–20 Dionysos herm of, 183, 204 popular subject, 22, 232 relief of, 199, 205, 227 in silverware, 85 statue of, 26, 59, 120, 167–68, 177, 184, 196, 212, 278 statuette of, 23, 36, 105, 131, 180, 192, 198, 208, 218 trapezophoros of, 235n. 40 See also Bacchus; Chiragan Dioskouros, 204 Diptych, 2, 60–61, 96, 103, 107, 131, 175, 180, 248n. 243, 253n. 50 Divination, 158–60, 230 Djemila, houses at, 20, 272n. 105 Dokimeion, 119, 126–27, 129, 193, 255n. 81, 273n. 118 Eauze, 77, 82, 134 Ecphrasis, 139 Education, 11, 86–87, 138–46, 156, 189–90, 205–6, 216, 226–28, 230 Christian, 145 Egeria, 134 Egypt, 84, 132–34, 144, 154, 156, 160, 196, 216, 229, 235n. 40 El Ruedo, villa at, 13, 182–85 Els Antigons, villa at, 184–85, 223 Els Munts, villa at, 271n. 65 Elusa, 77, 82, 134 Ennodius, 12, 76, 78–79, 86, 88, 141 Ephesos Artemis of, 257n. 118 Baths of Scholastikia, 150, 218, 224 mythological statuary, 126, 229, 233 portraits, 111, 125–26, 136 quarries of, 118

sculpted temple doors, 207 sculptural tradition of, 10, 92, 119, 125–26, 129, 136–37 terrace houses, 218, 235n. 17 trade from, 132 Epidauros, 2, 210 Epirus, 134 Epithalamium, 144–45 Erichthonius, 109 Eros, 172, 184, 202, 217. See also Amor; Cupid Esquiline group, 7–9, 58–59, 119, 123–25, 129, 214, 223, 234n. 8, 258n. 149 Eudocia, 145–46, 150, 200, 206–7 Europa, 119–20, 136, 193, 196–97 Eusebius, 207, 224 Eutropius (historian), 134, 247n. 219 Eutropius (praetorian prefect), 82, 221 Eutropius of Aquitaine, 147 Faltonia Betitia Proba, 146, 150 Fianello Sabino, villa at, 25, 174, 251n. 6 Flavius Andronicus, 123 Flavius Chryseros, 123 Flavius Gerontius, 92 Flavius Zeno, 123–24 Fortuna, 85, 197 Fortuna Annonaria, 19, 170 Fountain, 14, 79, 131, 166, 175, 218, 224 Funerary relief, 20, 36, 198, 201, 203, 227 Galatia, 132 Gallienus, 47, 167–68 Gamzigrad, palace at, 51 Ganymede, 179, 181, 253n. 62. See also Carthage, Ganymede and the eagle Garden, 19, 37, 39, 52, 61, 76, 79–80, 86, 90, 108, 169, 177, 227 Garonne River, 49, 52, 132 Gaudentius, House of, 167, 169 Gaul, schools of rhetoric 143, 163 Gaza, 133

Index 312 Genius, 85, 107, 273n. 118, 275n. 145 Geta, portrait of, 89 Giant, 36, 88, 179, 181, 206–7, 210, 214, 277n. 185 Gigantomachy, 162, 206–7, 214 Gilding, 109, 172, 187, 198, 216 Gold glass, 167 Good Shepherd, 175, 177 Gorgoneion, 67–68, 109, 163 Graces, 94–95, 112, 117, 140, 144 Gratian, 47, 139–40, 153, 155, 159, 175, 223 Grave, 17, 80 Greece, 13, 134, 199–210 Gregory of Nyssa, 213 Gregory of Tours, 134 Hadrian, portrait of, 167, 208, 221, 245n. 171 Hagia Sophia, 132 Halicarnassos, house at, 217–18 Harpocrates, 60, 88, 168, 209, 219 Hekate, 120. See also Sidon, Hekate Helen, 144 Helena, 32 Helios, 118–19, 121, 123, 136, 204, 214 Helios-Serapis, 45, 84 Hera, 19. See also Juno Herakles, 17, 104, 204–5, 213, 215. See also Hercules Herculaneum, 75 Hercules bronze, 82 Farnese, 60, 171, 270n. 41 herm of, 218 at Piazza Armerina, 21, 74 relief of, 178 reliefs at Chiragan, 8, 56–61, 81, 175 statue of, 123, 177, 196, 199, 212 See also Herakles Herm, 2, 19, 56, 95, 153–54, 166, 183–84, 187, 204, 218, 223, 245n. 171 Hermaphrodite, 182–83 Hermes, 199, 204–5. See also Mercury Hesperid base, 104, 107

Hilary, 142 Hippodrome, 128, 224 Homer, 89, 140, 146, 154, 230 Honorius, 18, 133, 144, 161, 262n. 21 Horace, 147–48 Hunting, 41, 84–87, 121, 131, 141, 143, 184, 219 Hygieia, 23, 69–70, 82, 102, 126, 196–97, 208–10, 219, 223 Hypatia, 226 Hyperechius, 142 Hypnos, 182–84 Icarius, 134 Isis, 15, 24, 60, 88, 156, 168, 186, 201–2, 208–9, 212, 224–25, 266n. 113 Isthmia, 199 Italy, 13, 60, 85, 133, 140, 146, 173–78, 192 Iulius Ausonius, 151 Ivory, carved, 85, 181, 229, 231 Jerome, 134, 142, 145–46, 230 Juba II, 188–89, 197 Julia Anicia, church of, 98, 127 Julia Maesa, 167 Julian, 78, 80, 135, 186, 200, 210, 226, 229 Julius Caesar, 154 Junius Bassus, 104, 117 Juno, 170. See also Hera Jupiter, 82, 88, 156, 186–89, 268n. 7. See also Zeus Jupiter-giant statue, 36, 88, 155, 197, 206 Jupiter-Serapis, 85 Justinian, 125, 205 Kairos, 148, 155, 183 Kaiseraugst, 2 Kélibia, villa at, 187, 189, 205, 221 Kenchreai, 154 Khirbat-al-Mafjar, head of Minerva, 102, 253n. 62 Knossos, 199–200

Index 313 Krakow, statuette of Phrygian youth, 97 fig. 43, 98, 102, 105, 113, 116, 248n. 261 Kunstkreis, 9, 129, 250n. 4, 251n. 6, 256n. 93, 269n. 27, 281n. 1 La-Garenne-de-Nérac. See Nérac Lalonquette, villa at, 48–49 Lamp, 133, 167, 176, 186, 202 Lar, 149, 197–98 Lararium, 20, 85, 168, 197–98, 222 Lausos, 149, 154–55, 162, 214, 224 Leptis Magna, house at, 131, 188–89 Libanius, 12, 134, 156, 159, 200, 226 Liber Pater, 76, 87, 140, 148 Library, 79, 247n. 218 Livy, 146 Loupiac, villa at, 83 Lucaniacus, Villa, 148 Lucius Verus, portrait of, 166, 221 Lugdunum Convenarum, trophy at, 88 Lullingstone, villa at, 20, 23, 192–93, 235n. 27 Lyons, 132 Lysippos, 172 Macrobius, 140 Mactar, 102 Maenad, 33, 71, 75, 100, 104, 106, 121, 175 Magi, 61 Magnus, 85 Maiden Castle, base of statuette, 105, 107, 190, 194–95 Marcus Aurelius portrait of, 60, 66–68, 81, 89, 186–87, 189, 221–22, 231 reign of, 211 Maria, 144 Marina, 162 Marinus, 150, 200–202, 210 Mars, 85, 219. See also Saint-Georgesde-Montagne, Mars Marseille, 10, 11, 89, 92, 115, 132 Marsyas, 60, 215, 220, 279n. 252 Martial, 140

Martin, Saint, 1, 13, 155–56 Martres-Tolosane, villa at, 240n. 92 Mateille, shipwreck at, 134 Maternus Cynegius, 156, 160 Maxentius, 52, 59, 124 Maximian, 52, 174 Mediana, villa at, 23, 50, 195–97, 205 Melania, 26, 149–50, 166, 169, 173, 246n. 202, 247n. 212 Meleager, 34, 36, 86, 191–92, 219, 249n. 261. See also Milan, Meleager-Helios Memphis, 156, 186 Menander, 140 Menander Rhetor, 143–44 Menas, 133, 135 Menelaus, 144 Mensa Matelica, villa at, 178 Mercury, 84–85, 154–55. See also Hermes Merovingian period, 133, 135, 240n. 87 Mézin, villa at, 82, 88 Microstruts, 40–41, 45, 55, 68, 91, 93, 115, 181 Milan, 76, 102, 121, 130, 134, 155, 165, 175 Meleager-Helios, 101 fig. 50, 102, 113, 118, 143, 175, 237n. 19 Mildenhall treasure, 33, 102 Milreu, villa at, 185 Minerva, 36, 66–68, 79, 81, 84, 102, 156, 163. See also Athena Mishnah, 22, 157 Missorium. See Theodosius Mithraeum, 9, 19, 23, 109, 113, 168–69, 184, 225. See also Sidon; Walbrook Mithras, 24, 184, 225. See also Sidon Monk, 156 Montcaret, villa at, 70, 245nn. 172–73 Montmaurin bronze statuary at, 45, 84 coins at, 46–49, 53 findspots of statuary, 17, 20, 37, 39, 45, 78–81, 166 nymphaeum, 39, 48, 80 portraits, 37, 45, 80, 88 sculptural assemblage, 37–49

Index 314 Montmaurin (continued ) size of villa, 70 Venus and Adonis, 20, 37, 39–45, 44 figs. 17–19, 46, 66, 69, 80–81, 86, 97, 105, 108, 115, 118, 125, 141, 163, 180, 257n. 136 Venus Victory, 17, 39–40, 40 fig. 12, 41 fig. 13, 42 figs. 14–15, 45–46, 79, 87–88, 103, 110 villa at, 6, 29, 37–49, 38 fig. 11, 85, 147, 179 wall painting, 83, 209 Mosaic Africa, 185, 187–88, 189 Aquitanian schools of, 49, 63–64, 78, 92, 133 Asia Minor, 216, 218 chronology of, 49, 82, 218 fruit basket, 63–64, 69, 71, 83 Greece, 201, 203, 208 in houses, 73, 167, 169, 197, 199, 203, 213, 216 interacting with statuary decor, 83–84, 189, 192, 211–12 Italy, 175, 177 as luxury decoration, 169, 182, 185, 227 mythological themes in, 1, 11, 83, 189–90, 192–93, 207–8, 211–12, 218, 220 Piazza Armerina, 174–75, 207 vegetal, 63–64, 69–70 Moselle River, 132 Munich, diptych in, 131 Muse, 2, 78–79, 173, 175, 213, 215, 226 Myra, 43 Myron, 59, 139, 148–49 Myrrha, coinage of, 41, 43 Nabeul, house in, 188 Naiad, 54 Naissus, 23, 195–97 Narbonne, 29, 75, 78, 132–33 Narbonnensis, 140, 143 Naucellius, 78–79, 87, 151–53, 173 Nazarius, 77 Nea Paphos, 13, 175, 210–13

Neck strut, 10, 36, 43, 68, 91, 108, 110, 116–18, 119, 125, 136, 249n. 261 Nemesis, 204, 212 Neoplatonism, 200, 202, 224, 226 Nepos, 146 Neptune, 83 Nérac base with Pan, 64–66, 67 fig. 32, 104–6, 253n. 47 bronze statuary, 66, 84 diademed head, 19, 66 fig. 31, 81, 102, 113 findspots of statuary, 64, 66–67, 79, 81 mosaics at, 62–64, 83 nymphaeum, 64, 67, 81 opus sectile ₅ooring, 64, 67, 71, 133 portraits, 66–67, 89 scandal concerning, 6, 62–63 sculptural assemblage, 6, 64, 67, 86, 174, 189 size of villa, 70 Victory, 64, 65 fig. 30, 81, 87, 102, 128 villa at, 6, 29, 62–64, 63 fig. 29 Nereid, 83, 128 Nicomachus, 131, 146 Nicosia, 213 Nike, 100, 109, 164, 204, 280n. 257 Niobid, 179, 181 Nubian, 179 Nymph, 182, 211–12, 227 Nymphaeum Chiragan, 52, 54 Mediana, 195 Montmaurin, 39, 48, 80 Nérac, 64, 67, 81 Ostia, 169, 171–72 Rome, 15, 19, 168 Silahtaraga, 8, 206, 214 Spain, 179, 182–84, 206 Nymphius, 147, 150 Obelisk. See Theodosius Occasio, 139 Oceanus, 83, 84 Odysseus, 81 Old fisherman, 56, 58, 215

Index 315 Olympiodorus, 166 Olympos, 163 Opus sectile, 22, 51, 64, 67, 71, 75, 133, 167, 169, 171, 190–91, 231 Orpheus, 175, 190, 192 Osrhoene, temple in, 159 Ostia, 75, 79, 130, 150, 169–73, 188, 224 House of Cupid and Psyche 172 House of Fortuna Annonaria, 19, 169–71, 170 figs. 57–58, 172, 269n. 31 Ovid, 147 Oxyrhynchus, statuette of Ganymede, 253n. 62 Pacatus, 142–43, 207 Paideia, 11–12, 26, 87, 143–46, 160, 175, 210, 213, 230 Painting on statuary, 108–9, 186, 193 wall, 37, 39, 78, 83, 183, 186, 190, 193, 208–9, 211, 218, 220, 231 Palazzo Pignano, villa at, 177 Palestine, 132, 135 Palladas, 162–63 Pan, 65–66, 104, 167, 182, 198, 208 Pankrates, 201 Panther, 36, 105, 167, 180, 184, 195 Pantheus, 148 Paris, statuette of empress, 104, 110, 112 fig. 53, 120, 130, 213 Parthenon, 278n. 201 Patras, villa near, 199 Paulinus of Nola, 144–46, 266n. 112 Paulinus of Pella, 86, 134, 140 Paulinus of Trier, 135 Pavia, 141 Penthesilea, 104, 113 Peristyle, 45–46, 52, 171, 175, 177, 182, 184, 195, 199, 204, 211, 225, 227 Persephone, 212 Perseus, 183, 214 Peter, Saint, 117, 167, 255n. 85 Pheidias, 78, 148–49, 214 Philosophy, school of, 200, 204, 210, 224, 226–27

Photius, 166 Phrygia, 135 Piazza Armerina, villa at, 20–21, 50, 174–75, 179, 207 Pilaster capitals, figural. See Aphrodisias Pilgrimage, 134–35, 229 Pindar, 215 Pinian, 26, 149, 166 Pisa, 152 Plassac, villa at, 245n. 171 Plato, 154, 204, 210 Plautus, 147 Pliny, 140–41, 150, 223 Poitiers, 142, 155 Polybius, 77 Pompeii, 75, 79–80, 182 Pontius Leontius, 77, 80, 83 Portrait Aphrodisias, 111, 119–20, 136, 214, 217 Athens, 25, 204–6, 208, 210 barbarian, 2, 89, 153 Castelculier, 68–69, 89 Chiragan, 52, 60–61, 88–89 Eastern imports to Rome, 130, 171 in the Eastern Mediterranean, 212, 218, 222–23 Ephesos, 111, 125–26, 136 in Gallic collections, 79–80, 88–89, 139, 231 imperial, 2, 25, 52, 60, 67–68, 71, 81, 89, 104, 110–12, 112 fig. 53, 120, 128–29, 153, 166–67, 175, 183–85, 204–6, 208, 210, 214, 219, 221–22, 231 Montmaurin, 37, 45, 80, 88 late antique, 60–61, 69, 71, 82, 153, 168–69, 175, 206, 210, 214–16, 220, 226 literary references to, 77, 79, 82, 88–89, 148, 150–53, 222 Marcus Aurelius, 60, 66–68, 81, 89, 186–87, 189, 221–22, 231 Narbonne, 75 Nérac, 66–67, 89 painted, 77, 79, 88, 150–51

Index 316 Portrait (continued) philosopher, 2, 56–57, 60, 75, 79, 89, 150, 153–54, 204–5, 210, 213, 215–16, 220, 223, 225–27 Séviac, 69–71, 82, 88, 220, 236n. 41 Spain, 183–85 worship of, 23 Poseidon, 123, 199, 211, 232, 250n. 283. See also Neptune Praxiteles, 60, 78, 139, 148, 154 Priest, pagan, 23, 79, 161, 224 Priestess, 120–21, 125, 205–6, 212, 217. See also Capitoline Museum Proba, 146, 150 Proclus, 200–204, 227 Proconnesus marble, 115, 132 Projecta Casket, 230, 248n. 243, 263n. 51 Proserpine, 60 Prudentius, 145, 148, 151, 157, 162 Psamatia, 129 Psyche, 167, 191–92 Ptolemaic relief, 15, 168 Ptolemy, portrait of, 188 Pyrenees, 37, 57, 83, 115–16, 132 Pythagoras, 215 Querolus, 147, 149 Quintilian, 142 Quodvultdeus, 158 Rabbi, 157 Ravenna, 165, 175, 177–78, 252n. 30 Reception room, 61, 76–77, 82, 177, 184, 192, 227 Remus, 77, 214 Rhetor, 134 Rhetoric, 12, 134, 141–45 Rhetorical handbooks, 139, 143 Rhetorical schools of Aquitaine, 143, 163 Rhodes, 102 Rhône River, 132 River god, 162, 218 Roimetalkes, 196 Roma, statuette of, 199 Romanitas, 142

Rome antiquarian sources, 19 Aphrodisian sculpture in, 7, 122–25, 132 artistic traditions in, 60, 116–17 Aurelianic Wall, 18, 167 character of domestic statuary, 205, 223 Eastern imports in, 130, 171 House of Gaudentius, 167, 169 House of the Valerii, 13, 19, 26–27, 166–67, 220–21, 225, 230 House of Vulcaeus Rufinus, 20, 268n. 12 house under the Via Giovanni Lanza, 15, 16 fig. 3, 19, 23, 168, 225 Minerva Medica, 150, 168 pagan cults at, 159, 224–26, 232 statue walls, 18, 25, 124, 265n. 82 trade center, 133 Via Ariosto baths, 124 wall painting, 83, 209 See also Esquiline group Romulus, 77, 214 Rufinus, 82, 134, 160–61 Rusticus, 79, 151 Rutilius Namatianus, 152, 264n. 63 Rutilus, 147 Sacrifice, 157–63, 201–2, 210, 224, 230 Saint-Béat marble, 57, 115 Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges, 88, 147 Saint-Crique-Villeneuve, villa at, 78, 83 Saint-Emilion, villa at, 249n. 263 Saint-Georges-de-Montagne Apollo head, 32, 34, 35 fig. 8, 36, 98, 100, 114, 118 Apollo legs, 34, 103 Ausonius as possible owner of, 138 Diana, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 30, 31 fig. 4, 32 fig. 5, 33 fig. 6, 36, 45, 64, 66, 75, 86, 91, 95–114, 118–19, 120, 127, 130, 135–36, 143, 148, 180–82, 214, 216, 220, 253n. 47, 258n. 149 Jupiter-giant statue, 36, 88, 155, 197, 206

Index 317 Mars, 33, 35 fig. 10, 36–37, 114, 116 Meleager, 34, 36, 86, 248n. 260 plaque of Minerva, 36, 102 Scheitelzopf head, 32–33, 35 fig. 9, 36, 54, 73, 84, 100, 113–14 sculptural assemblage, 9, 30–37, 86, 129, 129 size of villa, 70 Venus, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 30–31, 34 fig. 7, 45, 54, 73, 76, 91, 95–101, 104–14, 116, 120– 22, 126–27, 130, 136, 144, 177, 216, 258n. 149 villa at, 6, 16, 29–30, 235n. 11, 245n. 171 Saint-Loup-de-Comminges, 85 Saint-Médard-d’Eyrans, 133, 135 Saint-Rustice, villa at, 84 Saint Seurin, church of, 133 Saint-Sever, inscription from, 147 Salamis (on Cyprus), 213, 249n. 261 Sallust, 140 Salvian, 132, 135, 136 Sanctuary, 13, 156, 199, 231. See also Temple Saône River, 132 Sarcophagus Christian subjects on, 131, 255n. 88, 258n. 154 of Junius Bassus, 104, 117 late antique, 36, 96, 104 Lateran 174, 117, 130 workshops in Dokimeion, 129 workshops in Gaul, 10, 115–16, 116 fig. 54, 132 workshops in Rome, 130 Sarigüzel, 100, 102, 117–18, 127, 130, 132, 136, 229 technique similar to statuettes, 104, 108 Saturn, 23, 186 Satyr bronze, 84–85, 184, 197–98 ivory, 85 statue, 120, 123, 168, 196, 212, 218, 224 statuette, 102, 199, 208 See also Boston; Wellen

Scheitelzopf, 32–33, 35 fig. 9, 36, 54, 73, 84, 100, 113–14 Scholastikia, 125, 150, 218, 224 Selene, 214 Sempeserre, villa at, 244n. 171 Septimius Acindynus, 151 Septimius Severus, 60, 211 Serapeum, 156 Serapis, 15, 56, 60, 88, 168, 198 Serena (wife of Nymphius), 147, 150 Serena (wife of Stilicho), 60, 103, 144, 149–50, 169, 175, 262n. 21 Servius, 146, 238n. 37 Severinus, 134 Séviac bronze statuary, 69, 84 coins at, 48, 53 findspots of statuary, 69, 82 late antique portrait, 69, 71, 82, 220, 236n. 41 limestone hand at, 69, 82, 88 nonsculptural decoration, 69, 83, 86 portraits, 69–71, 79, 82, 88, 166, 220, 236n. 41, 238n. 45 sculptural assemblage, 6, 69–70, 253n. 47 size of villa, 70 villa at, 29, 71, 134 Sevso treasure, 102–3, 237n. 10 Side, 119, 126–27, 129, 131 Sidi Bishr, Aphrodite, 100, 101 fig. 49, 104, 108, 109, 219 Sidi Ghrib, villa at, 185 Sidon Aion-Kronos, 92, 95–105, 96 fig. 42, 113 Aphrodite, 100, 101 fig. 48, 109, 114, 118, 127, 130 Hekate, 92, 94–105, 94 fig. 41, 112–13, 177, 255n. 88 mithraeum, 9–10, 91–92, 112–13, 129, 136, 169, 229 Mithras, 92–103, 93 fig. 40, 105, 113, 118, 121 Sidonius, 12, 76–79, 83–84, 89, 144–46, 151, 261n. 13

Index 318 Silahtaraga, nymphaeum at, 8, 9, 129, 179, 206, 214, 220, 258n. 149, 259n. 162 Silenus, 78, 87, 109, 179, 186, 204, 212 Silverware, 1, 11, 27, 33, 77, 85–87, 96, 211 Christian, 26, 166, 225, 230–31 Sirmium, villa at, 195 Skopas, 78, 248n. 260 Socrates, 56, 60, 89, 140, 215 Sophocles, 89, 200 Sousse, house at, 272n. 105 Spain, 13, 133–34, 161, 178–85, 192, 195, 229 Sperlonga, villa at, 81, 173 Spoonley Wood, villa at, 195 Statuary bronze, 20, 45, 66, 69–70, 78, 81–85, 134, 182, 197–99, 221, 231, 268n. 153 cult, 24, 186, 209, 219, 224 destruction of, 1, 4, 13, 18, 24–25, 139, 156–58, 162, 174, 187, 205, 213 fallen from place, 20, 188, 192 hidden, 4, 24–25, 183–87 limestone, 36, 69, 82, 85, 88 oversize, 21, 36, 60, 66–69, 81–82, 86, 174, 206 painted, 108–9, 186, 193 possessed by demons, 155, 158, 162 relocation of, 149, 166, 223–24 silver, 2, 85 worship of, 4, 13, 22–25, 27, 88, 158–63, 186, 192–93, 216–17, 227, 230 Stilicho, 60, 144, 262n. 21 Stobi House of Peristerias, 20, 26, 195 statuary in, 23, 195, 197–99, 210 Stone tables, 104, 131, 211, 213 Struts, 30–31, 40, 45, 55, 64, 68, 71, 73, 105, 107–8, 110, 136, 217, 228 Subtle style, 110, 130, 131 Sucellus, 85 Sulpicius Severus, 155–56

Sultanahmet, relief of angel, 98, 116, 118, 127, 130 Sylvanus, 188–89 Symmachus, 12, 18, 88, 131, 140, 142, 145, 149–50, 152, 166–68, 173 Synesius, 226 Syria, 132, 135, 156 Tacitus, 89 Tarn River, 132 Taron, villa at, 70 Telesphoros, 20, 198 Temple Aphrodisias, 216 Athens, 200 Ephesos, 207 destruction of, 156, 160 as imperial property, 159, 161–62 legislation concerning, 158–63 Montmaurin, 36, 48, 88 Walbrook, 193–94 See also Sanctuary Terence, 140, 146 Tetricus, 62 Textiles, 84, 86–87, 220, 227, 231 Theater, 75 Thebes, 166 Themistius, 222, 278n. 225 Theodosian Code, 13, 18, 53, 78, 80, 82, 135, 139, 158–63, 221, 275n. 145 Theodosius I building projects in Constantinople, 10, 128–29 column of, 98, 99 fig. 46, 127–28, 137 court of, 82, 134, 175 emperor, 150 interest in Antonines, 89, 222, 231, 278n. 225 laws of, 158–59, 161–62 missorium of, 97–98 obelisk of, 10, 98, 99 figs. 44–45, 110, 118, 127–28, 136–37, 204, 214, 229 panegyric to, 142, 207 See also Theodosian Code Theodosius II, 149, 158, 162, 200, 206 Theophrastos, 154

Index 319 Theseus, 211 Thessaloniki, 130, 259n. 161 Thil, silverware from, 85 Til-Châtel, female head from, 6, 73, 100, 114, 130 Titus, 167 Tosefta, 157 Toulouse, 82, 89 Trade, 132–39, 229 Trajan, 60 Transport of marble, 11, 92, 135, 229 Trapezophoros, 167, 235n. 40 Travel, 11, 134–36, 182, 192, 195, 229 Triclinium focus of luxury decoration, 21, 78, 90 statuary in, 23, 26, 167, 195, 227 suitable for statuary, 76, 183 in villas, 52–54, 61, 81–82, 175, 177, 182–84 Trier artwork in, 78, 87, 139–40, 149, 253n. 47, 273n. 110 Ausonius in, 139–40, 149 contact with East, 132, 135 imperial court at, 78, 132, 134, 139–40, 142, 223 St. Martin in, 1, 155 Triton, 30, 122, 215 Trivulzio diptych, 131 Trophy, 39, 88 Troy, inscription from, 17 Tyche, 213, 217–19 Tyndareus, 144 Valdetorres de Jarama, 20, 129, 179–82, 180 fig. 62, 184–85, 206, 214, 220, 223, 229 Valens, 48 Valentine, villa at, 50, 70, 147, 239n. 65, 245n. 172 Valentinian II, 43, 128, 140, 159, 175 Valerian, coin of, 43 Valerius Flaccus, 140 Valerius Severus, 166 Varro, 89, 148, 152 Varvakeion, 109, 209

Vatican, statuette of maenad, 102, 103 fig. 51, 106, 109, 116, 169 Venus of Capua, 40 as decoration in baths, 22, 157, 162, 175 as decoration of fountains, 172, 175, 182 epithalamia, 144–45 in houses, 15, 186–87, 197–98 in literature, 76, 140, 144–45 marine imagery of, 76, 144, 171–72, 218, 220 mosaic of, 185, 187–88, 218 popular statuary type, 59, 156, 220, 232 in silverware, 2, 85, 230 in villas, 177, 182 See also Aphrodite; Montmaurin; Saint-Georges-de-Montagne Vestibule, 21, 63, 71, 77, 81, 85, 206, 221, 227, 268n. 12 Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, 18, 62, 152 Victory, 64, 67, 87, 128 altar of, 88, 166 statuette in the Ashmolean Museum, 40, 42 fig. 16, 88, 105–6, 109, 110, 116, 253n. 62 Villa Lucaniaca, 260n. 1 Vinon, villa at, 140 Virgil, 12, 140–41, 145–47, 154, 230 Virgilius Romanus, 12, 146 Virgilius Vaticanus, 12, 146 Vitruvius, 77, 80 Voconius Pollio, villa of, 220, 270n. 41 Votive inscription, 22–23, 25, 186, 194, 205 Votive stele, 24, 198–99, 201, 204–5, 210, 220, 223, 225, 227 Walbrook mithraeum, 107, 193–94 statuette of Dionysos, 69, 104, 108–9, 131, 190–91, 193–94, 194 fig. 63, 243n. 237 Wall painting. See Painting, wall

Index 320 Wellen satyr, 71–73, 72 figs. 34–36, 87, 97, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 117 villa at, 6, 71 Welschbillig, villa at, 2–3, 89, 153–54, 196–97, 204, 223 Woodchester, villa at, 20, 190–92, 195 Yedikule, relief from, 127

Zeus, 199, 204, 213, 279n. 252 statue of, at Olympia, 149, 154, 214 See also Jupiter Zeuxippos, Baths of, 128, 154, 213, 224 Zeuxis, 142 Zoilos, 78 Zosimus, 149