ns2

Mythological Group Portraits in Antonine Rome: The Performance of Myth Author(s): Rachel Kousser Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 111, No. 4 (Oct., 2007), pp. 673-691 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40025268 Accessed: 11-09-2017 04:14 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40025268?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://about.jstor.org/terms

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Mythological Group Portraits in Antonine Rome: The Performance of Myth

RACHEL KOUSSER

Abstract

This article reexamines a series of Antonine mythologi- cal group portraits frequently identified as imperial com- missions. Drawing on new archaeological evidence as well as sources for their findspots and restoration histories, I argue that they were private portraits suitable for the com- memoration of married couples in house and tomb. The sculptures juxtaposed idealized divine bodies based on Greek statue types of Ares and Aphrodite with descriptive portrait heads of Antonine elite couples. In so doing, they offered patrons an unusual yet compelling means by which to represent the affective qualities of Roman marriage through reference to Greek myth and art. My analysis of the monumental groups in Mars-Venus format comple- ments recent scholarship on single-figure mythological portraits to offer a fuller picture of the transformation of classical Greek imagery in Roman private art.*

INTRODUCTION

Sculpted groups of Roman couples in the guise of Mars and Venus offer a rare but illuminating example of the use of monumental mythological portraiture for the representation of married love (fig. I).1 The groups, which date to the Antonine period, juxtaposed idealized divine bodies based on Greek statue types with descriptive portrait heads of Roman couples. In

this way, the sculptures used allusions to classical art and Greek myths of Ares and Aphrodite in order to celebrate the conjugal affection of husband and wife. Recent scholarship has focused on single-figure myth- ological portraits, while monumental groups such as those in Mars-Venus format have received little notice.2

This article thus complements previous research to of- fer a fuller understanding of the adaptation of classical

sculpture and Greek myth in Roman private art. I analyze the sculpted groups in Mars-Venus format

within their original context of Antonine private art in Rome and its environs. Scholars have traditionally iden-

tified the sculptures as Antonine imperial portraits and have connected them with cults of concordia celebrating

the marital harmony of the dynasty's imperial couples.3 Yet the portrait heads do not closely resemble the widely disseminated and easily identifiable imperial types.4 Nor

is the action presented here comparable to more cer- tain representations of concordia, shown on coins by a restrained handclasp.5 My reexamination of the groups, drawing on new evidence concerning the sculptures' findspots and restoration histories, identifies them in- stead as private portraits suitable for the commemora- tion of married couples in house and tomb.6

* It gives me great pleasure to thank the following scholars for their advice while I was researching and writing this article: R. Brilliant, E. D'Ambra, E. Harrison, K. Herrmann Fiore, N. Kampen, E. Lissi Caronna, N. Pagliardi, A. Pasquier, L. Unga- ro, K. Welch, P. Zanker, Editor-in-Chief NaomiJ. Norman, and the anonymous reviewers of the A] A. I would also like to thank the Institute of Fine Arts at New York University, Columbia University, Brooklyn College, and the Mellon Foundation for providing support for my research, and audiences at the an- nual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America and at Harvard University, where material for this article was first presented. All translations are mine unless otherwise noted, and all errors remain my own.

1 Life-sized statue groups: Rome, Musei dei Fori Imperiali, inv. no. 2563; Rome, Museo Capitolino, inv. no. 652; Paris, Mu- see du Louvre MA 1009; Rome, Museo Nazionale delle Terme, inv. nos. 108522, 338732. A group in Florence (Museo degli Uffizi, inv. no. 4) appears to be a modern pastiche of two an- cient statues, but carving marks on the Venus' drapery suggest that she may also have formed part of a group.

2 See Halle tt (2005a) , concentrating predominantly on male portraits, which are the bulk of the evidence, and D'Ambra (1996, 2000) for female portraits.

3 On the groups as imperial portraits, see Moretti 1920, 65-6;

FellettiMaj 1953, 1 19-20; Schmidt 1968, 89-91 ; Calza 1977, 18- 20; Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 69-70; Giuliano 1985, 220; de Kersauson 1996, 146. On their use to represent imperial concor- dia, see Helbig4 3:30-1; Aymard 1934, 182-92; Bergmann 1978, 8; Wrede 1981, 268-69; Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 69-70.

4Wegner 1939, 103; Kleiner 1981; Wrede 1981, 268-70. 5 E.g., BMC 4:lxxxi, nos. 298-300, 1236-40, 1786, 1787; cf.

the survey in Zanzarri 1997, 59-60, 107. 6 The recent full publication of the fragmentary group

from the Forum Augustum (Rome, Musei dei Fori Imperiali, inv. no. 2563) and a newly excavated version associated with a Late Antique domus in Rome demonstrate that the sculp- tures had a broader and more enduring popularity than was previously thought. For the publication of the Forum Augus- tum fragment, see Ungaro and Milella 1995, 48. The Late An- tique group, now in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme (inv. no. 338372), was recently excavated from a domestic context in the area of the via dei Maroniti, vicolo dei Maroniti, and the

via in Arcione on the Quirinal Hill in Rome. On the house, see LTUR 2:105-6, s.v. "Domus C. Fulvii Plautiani"; Lissi Caronna 1985. New archival research has also clarified the restoration

history of the much-debated Louvre group (Kalveram 1995, 210-11).

American Journal of Archaeology 111 (2007) 673-91 673

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

674 RACHEL KOUSSER [AJA 111

Fig. 1. Late Antononine portrait group of Mars and Venus (Moretti 1920, fig. 11).

The first section examines archaeological and vi- sual evidence for the groups in order to reconstruct, to the extent possible, their original contexts. The second section uses the insights gained from the first to analyze the groups in Mars-Venus format as char- acteristic examples of private patrons' self-represen- tation through classical statue types and Greek myth. Although the sculptures are unusually large-scale, high-quality works, their use of Greek forms to com- memorate Roman married love finds parallels on other media such as sarcophagi and mosaics. The final section sets the sculptures within the broader context of the performative culture of the Antonine era. While text-based studies of this period (often referred to as the Second Sophistic) have burgeoned in recent years, there has been insufficient attention paid to concur- rent and related trends in visual and popular culture.7

This article examines mythological portraiture as one means by which Roman elite patrons brought the Greek past to life and took on roles within it. At the same time, I highlight the importance of the Roman theater - above all, the wildly popular pantomime re- enactments of mythological narratives - in condition- ing viewers' responses to Greek myths as they were presented in art. Taken together, the discussion suggests the heuris- tic value of the groups in Mars-Venus format for an understanding of the Roman reception of Greek cul- ture. Scholars of Roman art have tended to stress the

critical role played by Augustus in the appropriation and transformation of the classical Greek heritage in Rome.8 The Mars-Venus portraits call attention instead to the role of private patrons, particularly those of the High Empire. While Augustus' Greek-inspired monu- ments were political in nature, esoteric in their refer- ences, and of a novel, experimental character at the time, those of Antonine patrons were more varied in their functions, more accessible, and more thoroughly integrated into the visual culture of their day.9 They thus serve as a useful case study in the incorporation of Greek forms and styles within Roman art.

In addition, these groups illuminate the rarely ex- amined world of Antonine elite culture in Rome and,

in particular, its role in the revitalization of Hellenic tradition. They yoked together chronologically dispa- rate statue types, added portrait heads, and selectively adapted, for the depiction of married love, an image of Greek mythology's most famous adulterers. In this way, they testify both to the attraction of Greek myth and classical sculpture for contemporary Roman pa- trons and the thoroughness with which the Romans transformed Greek culture for their own purposes.

THE MARS- VENUS PORTRAITS! CONTEXT,

CHRONOLOGY, PATRONAGE

The contexts of the Mars-Venus portraits merit con- sideration first. As noted above, scholars have tradi-

tionally identified the sculptures as imperial portraits, set up in temples to commemorate the concordia of the Antonine dynasty.10 While Kleiner has correctly challenged this theory, it nonetheless persists and continues to influence interpretation of the portrait groups.11 The following discussion reviews briefly the problems with an imperial identification for the Anto-

7 The recent literature on the Second Sophistic is exten- sive; among major studies, see esp. Bowersock 1969; Anderson 1990; Gleason 1995; Bowie 2000. For a rare discussion of visual culture, see Eisner 1998, esp. 167-97, "Art and the Past: Anti- quarian Eclecticism."

<s Above all Zanker 1988; cf. the caveats in Wallace-Hadrill

1989; Galinsky 1996, 8. 9Cf. the comments of Holscher (1984) on the forums of Au-

gustus and Trajan compared. 10 Supra n. 3. 11 Kleiner 1981; cf.de Kersauson (1996, 144-47), who main-

tains that the Louvre group is imperial.

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

2007] MYTHOLOGICAL GROUP PORTRAITS IN ANTONINE ROME 675

nine groups and suggests possible alternative contexts and commissioners for these sculptures. Although the focus here is on the nonimperial con-

texts of the monumental Antonine portrait groups, it should be noted that some related artworks did indeed

have imperial patrons. Most prominent originally was a sculpted group from the Forum Augustum, unfor- tunately preserved only in very fragmentary form; this is examined in the following section as a possible model for the Antonine groups.12 In addition, a series of coins - a rare single issue of dupondii - documents the use of the same type in the imperial mints during the Antonine era (fig. 2).13

The Augustan group and Antonine coins demon- strate that imperial patrons could, upon occasion, use the Mars-Venus format for official monuments. This

has encouraged scholars to identify the over-life-sized portrait groups as imperial also and to connect them to sculptures and cults of concordia. Dio Cassius de- scribed one such cult, including an altar of concordia and silver statues that honored Marcus Aurelius and

Faustina Minor in the Temple of Venus and Roma in Rome.14 An inscription also documents a similar al- tar in Ostia, celebrating Antoninus Pius and Faustina Maior for their concordia, and directing prospective couples to make offerings there.15

A series of coins contemporary with the Ostia decree likely commemorated this cult and provides the best evidence for the visual format of the sculptures. The coins depicted Antoninus and Faustina in contempo- rary dress, clasping hands, with the legend "Concor- diae" forming an arch above them (fig. 3, right).16 In some coins from the series, the emperor and empress stood on bases and were thus clearly identified as stat- ues. They carried attributes referring to the cult and to their public roles - a statuette of concordia for An- toninus, a scepter for Faustina.

The concordia coins - with their protagonists in con- temporary dress, their restrained and formal gestures, and their prosaic rendering of Roman religious prac- tices - highlighted the public and official character of Roman marriage,17 offering a representation of mar- ried love very different from that of the mythologi- cal portraits. Thus, the groups in Mars-Venus format

Fig. 2. Coin showing Dupondius of Faustina Minor with Mars- Venus group, ca. 162-175 C.E. Obverse: portrait of Faustina. Reverse: Mars-Venus group (courtesy American Numismatic Society, inv. no. 1944.100.49546).

Fig. 3. Coin showing concordia of Antoninus Pius and Faustina the Elder, ca. 140 C.E. Obverse: portrait of Faustina Maior. Reverse: concordia of Antoninus and Faustina (courtesy Amer- ican Numismatic Society, inv. no. 1944.100.4833).

should not be associated with statues celebrating the Antonine dynasty's concordia, for which a different iconography was appropriate.

Just as the sculptures' connection to imperial cults of concordia is problematic, so, too, is the identification

of the portraits with members of the Antonine dynasty. As Kleiner has noted, the portrait heads resemble but do not accurately replicate imperial types. It is not necessary to review all Kleiner's arguments here, but a brief examination of a group now in the Louvre of- fers a useful example of the problems involved with

12L'Orange 1973, 103-6; Zanker 1984, 19-20; 1988, 197- 98; Ungaro and Milella 1995, 48.

13 £MC4:543-44, nos. 999-1001, 1005; RIC 3:347, no. 1680. The coins are categorized as "rare" ("occurs rarely in major collections") in RIC There are also a few preserved medallions contemporary with the coins (Gnecchi 1912, 1:39, fig. 67.8; Toynbee 1944, 207). On the dating of the coins and medal- lions on the basis of the hairstyle of Faustina Minor, see Fitt- schen 1982, 37, 43.

14DioCass. 72.31.

15 CIL 14 5326. The decree should date to shortly after Faus- tina's death in 141 C.E., since she is described as "Diva" on it.

16 BMC 4:198, nos. 1236-40. The coins date to between 139 and 140 C.E., since Antoninus Pius is described as "Cos II." He was elected as consul for the second time in 139 C.E. and for

the third time in 140 C.E. (OCD\ s.v. "Antoninus Pius"). 17 See Treggiari 1991, esp. 323-434, "Paterfamilias and

Materfamilias."

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

676 RACHEL KOUSSER [AJA 111

an imperial identification. In this case, the difficulties are particularly acute because the portraits resemble imperial family members from different reigns: Faus- tina Minor for the woman, Hadrian for the man (fig. 4).18 The face of the female portrait deviates sharply from the idealized rendering given to Faustina (figs. 5, 6). While the delicate and finely detailed waves of hair framing the face echo the hairstyle of the young princess ca. 140-150 C.E., the puffy cheeks, strong lines between nose and mouth, and prominent chin in no way resemble Faustina's portraits from this pe- riod.19 Likewise, the rendering of the man's hairstyle is different from that of the emperor: it shows the deep drilling and light/ dark contrasts characteristic of later An tonine portraiture, and the face is longer and more oval (figs. 7, 8) .2() Furthermore, in order to iden- tify the portraits as imperial, one has also to assume that a group of Hadrian and Sabina was altered, at a later date, through the substitution of a later empress' head.21 The woman's head has indeed been broken

off and reattached, yet in carving technique it is very similar to the man's: the drilled pupils, the rather heavily carved eyebrows, and the carefully delineated strands of hair.22 A date in the 140s C.E. would do for

both; the husband's hairstyle would then look back to the recently deceased emperor Hadrian, while the woman's, in more up-to-date fashion, emulated that of the princess Faustina. In this way, the Louvre sculp- ture serves as a useful reminder that private portraits do not uniformly follow the hairstyles of the reigning imperial family; the "Zeitgesicht," as Smith has argued, is above all a "default setting."23

As this brief review of the evidence has suggested, the Mars-Venus portrait groups should not be identi- fied as imperial commissions. Rather, the sculptures likely depicted wealthy private couples who looked to imperial models for the overall visual format of their statues (and sometimes for their hairstyles) but also adapted them, for instance, in their selection of more descriptive, less idealizing portraits. Evidence for the statues' findspots supports this conclusion, as does an analysis of related works of art in Mars-Venus format;

Fig. 4. Portrait group of Mars and Venus, ca. 140-150 C.E. Paris, Musee du Louvre MA 1009 (courtesy Art Resource, Paris).

taken together, this information helps to suggest more plausible contexts for the monumental sculptures.

One appropriate context is indicated by the ar- chaeological evidence for two sculpted portrait groups from Ostia. The findspot of a group now in the Capito- line Museum, uncovered in 1750, was within the Isola

Sacra necropolis (fig. 9).24 As Schmidt has noted, this provenance does not necessarily rule out an imperial

18 On this group, see Wegner 1956, 45-6; Kleiner 1981, 538-39; Wrede 1981, 268-70; de Kersauson 1996, 144-47.

19 The large bun at the back of the head, which appears clos- er to hairstyles somewhat later (ca. 1 62 C.E. onward) , is not an- cient, and its evidence must therefore be discounted. On the restorations to the statue, see Kalveram 1995, 210.

20 Most comparable in appearance is the "Rollockenfrisur type" (type 3) portrait, shown here as comparanda (see figs. 7, 8), but the techniques of drilling seen in the hair, beard, and eyes give the group portrait a very different effect from that of the emperor. On the portraiture of Hadrian, see

Wegner 1956. 21 de Kersauson (1996, 146-47) makes this argument but

suggests Lucilla, about whose portraiture even less is known. 22 In addition, the marble on each side of the break fits

together very closely, with complex contours and few bits of "filler"; this is technically different from most newly worked heads, which have straight-cut necks to simplify the process of attachment.

23Smithl998,59. 24Schmidtl968,85.

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

2007] MYTHOLOGICAL GROUP PORTRAITS IN ANTONINE ROME 677

Fig. 5. Portrait head (detail) of a woman from Mars-Venus group, ca. 140-150 C.E. (courtesy Musee du Louvre/M. and P. Chuzeville).

identification, but in my view it makes a connection with private funerary sculpture more probable.25 A similar setting is likely for a group now in the Terme Museum, which was also excavated in Ostia, but not

in situ (see fig. I).26 It was discovered in 1918 within an Early Christian church but had clearly been moved there after being damaged, since in its complete state it was too large to fit through the church door.27 A fu- nerary cippus was also found in the church, making a tomb context likely.28 And as Kleiner has argued, third-century C.E. sarcophagi replicating the group in Mars-Venus format demonstrate that these images were indeed used in the funerary realm (fig. 10). 29

A distinctive though rarely noted feature of the sarcophagi is that the Mars-Venus groups are shown with pedestals; they are thus clearly to be identified as reproductions of statues. Due to this feature, the

Fig. 6. Portrait of Faustina Minor, ca. 147-148 C.E. Rome, Museo Capitolino, inv. no. 449 (courtesy Forschungsarchiv fur An tike Plastik, Koln) .

images on the sarcophagi can best be interpreted as small-scale adaptations of the monumental funerary groups for patrons who desired a similar form of self- representation, on a more modest budget.

Mythological funerary portraits similar to the Mars- Venus groups are a well-attested phenomenon of the High Empire.30 Statius, for instance, described the late first-century C.E. tomb of Priscilla, wife of an imperial freedman, which contained statues of the deceased as Ceres, Diana, Maia, and Venus.31 A similar tomb, dat-

ing to the 130s C.E., has been excavated from the Via Appia and included an inscription describing the por- traits "in formam deorum" of the dead liberta Claudia

Semne as Fortuna, Spes, and Venus.32 Wrede's cata- logue of the extensive visual evidence for mythological portraits demonstrates that they were widely popular and featured an extensive range of divinities.33 They

25 Schmidt 1968.

26 On the excavation, see Moretti 1920. 27Moretti 1920, 59-60. 28Morettil920,60. 29 Kleiner 1981, 540. 30 See above all Wrede 1981. Kleiner (1981) focuses on

statue groups of Mars and Venus, as well as on reliefs showing the woman as Venus juxtaposed with a man in contemporary

dress. D'Ambra (1989, 1996) offers other examples of funer- ary portraits with Venus. Kampen (1996) and Zanker (1999) discuss the iconography and meaning of an unusual portrait of a Roman woman as Omphale in the Vatican Museum.

"StaL&Yv. 5.1.232-33.

32 Wrede 1981, 77; see also Wrede 1971. 33 Wrede 1981, esp. 159-60 for discussion of differing pat-

terns of commemoration for men and women.

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

678 RACHEL KOUSSER [AJA 111

Fig. 7. Portrait head (detail) of a man from Mars-Venus group, ca. 140-150 C.E. (courtesy Musee du Louvre/M. and P. Chuzeville).

Fig. 8. Portrait of Hadrian, ca. 130 C.E. Rome, Museo Capi- tolino, inv. no. 193 (courtesy Forschungsarchiv fur Antike Plastik, Koln).

were used allegorically to express the virtues of the deceased, or to allude to the profession of the per- son commemorated; the latter option is especially characteristic for men, as, for instance, when a doc-

tor is represented by an image of Aesculapius.34 The monumental portrait groups in Mars-Venus format should thus likely be understood against this broader background of mythological self-representation in funerary contexts.

While the tomb seems the most plausible context for the Antonine Mars-Venus portraits, there is some evi- dence for use of the groups in domestic settings also. Most significantly, a variant version of the groups - with the same female statue type juxtaposed with a

cuirassed male instead of the usual nude Ares - was

recently excavated from the area of a small but richly furnished Late Antique house in central Rome.35 In addition, the monumental group in the Louvre (see fig. 4) may have been created for an elite home, since it was found near Sta. Maria Maggiore on the Esquiline Hill in Rome, the site of many luxurious dwellings of the aristocracy; alternatively, it could have served a fu-

nerary purpose if its findspot lay outside the city walls.36

A series of unprovenanced statuettes from Rome are most plausibly interpreted as domestic decor, given their scale (< 1 m high) and middling level of crafts- manship.37 Such mythological sculptures were popu- lar in elite homes, serving as symbols of luxury and

34Wrede 1981, 160. 35 Rome, Museo Nazionale delle Terme, inv. no. 338372;

supra n. 6. 3bOn the statue's provenance, see Kalveram 1995, 210. On

the topography of the area, see Coarelli 1994, 231-32. s7 Rome, Museo Borghese, inv. no. 627 (ht. from head to

foot 0.85 m); Vatican City, MuseiVaticani, Galleria Chiaramon- ti, inv. no. 2125 (preserved ht. of male torso 0.41 m); Leiden, Museum of Archaeology, inv. no. 31 (preserved ht. of male tor-

so 0.42 m) . A fragmentary statuette of a Venus group (ht. from just above the feet to the waist ca. 0.30 m), now in the collec- tion of New York University, is most plausibly interpreted as once belonging to a Mars-Venus group; although no traces of the male figure remain, the breakage on the left knee resem- bles that of several groups where Mars' hand rested on Venus' knee. The likely provenance (Rome) and sensuous presenta- tion of the goddess also seem appropriate for an erotic group.

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

2007] MYTHOLOGICAL GROUP PORTRAITS IN ANTONINE ROME 679

prestige, as Neudecker has argued.38 They could also have a special meaning for the villa owner; Neudecker sees Trimalchio's marble statue of Venus, described in

the Satyricon, as a fitting deity for this nouveau riche patron because he rose to power by serving as the deli- ciae of both master and mistress.39 A sculptural group in Mars-Venus format could perhaps have a similarly personal meaning, representing the love of the cou- ple who owned the house and connecting them with the elevated world of Greek mythology and art.40 The home thus remains a possible alternative setting for the monumental portrait groups, although it seems less likely than the tomb; the provenance is less secure, and the scale of the Antonine groups (> 2 m high and commensurately wide) would make them unsuitable for display in all but the largest homes. The hypothesis that the Antonine portrait groups

came from private funerary and/or domestic con- texts fits well with what we know about the statues and

about High Imperial image-making more broadly. It thus serves as the basis for my analysis of the portrait groups in Mars-Venus format and their use of classical sculpture and Greek myth.

MYTHOLOGICAL SELF- REPRESENTATION AND

MARRIED LOVE IN THE MARS- VENUS PORTRAITS

The over-life-sized groups - with their idealized classicizing bodies and their finely detailed male and female portrait heads - can best be interpreted as visually impressive, if somewhat unorthodox, com- memorations of married couples. This section consid- ers their models, their overall visual effect, and their

reception by viewers. The groups' relation to classical Greek art should

first be considered. Traditionally, scholars have seen the bodies of the groups as based on classical proto- types, while their portrait heads were a Roman in- novation.41 In recent years, Romanists have rightly challenged the assumption that all familiar Roman statue types copy Greek models; moreover, scholars have cast particular doubt on the connection between

Fig. 9. Portrait group of Mars and Venus, ca. 140-150 C.E. Rome, Museo Capitolino, inv. no. 652 (courtesy Forschungs- archiv fur Antike Plastik, Koln).

the Mars-Venus groups and classical originals.42 While these revisionist scholars are fully justified in question-

ing the assumptions upon which earlier approaches to Roman art were based, too absolute a skepticism re- garding Greek models can be as misleading as previous credulity. So, in the case of the Mars-Venus groups, the new scholarship tends to stress the Roman resonances of the statue types and to insist upon the sculptures'

38Neudecker 1988, 122. 39Petron. Sat 29; Neudecker 1988, 31-2. 40 The Mars-Venus gems - small personal objects with an

intimate connection to the wearer's body - might also have had an autobiographical significance for their owners. In ad- dition to a gem from the legionary camp at Xanten (infra n. 57) , the Mars-Venus type is seen on two later imperial works: a carnelian in Florence's Museo Archeologico (inv. no. 14722) , and a gem in red jasper now in the British Museum (inv. no. 72.6-4.1367) . The latter is particularly interesting in that it in- cludes a figure of Amor holding a lighted torch and bears an inscription restored as "M[ar]cia et C[aiu]s ERSS"; both the torch and the inscription have been interpreted by Richter

(1968-1971, 2:37-8, fig. 124) as references to a marriage. The ring might then have served as a wedding present, praising the bride and groom by comparing them to Mars and Venus.

41 This interpretation has its origins in 19th-century scholar- ship (e.g., Overbeck 1858, 258-59) , and received its canonical treatment in Furtwangler 1895, 384-85. It has subsequently been adopted by most scholars; supra n. 3.

42 For the challenge to scholarly assumptions about "Roman copying" generally, see Marvin 1989, 1997; Ridgway 1984; and the essays collected in Gazda 2002. On the problems associ- ated with Greek precedents for the Mars, see Hartswick 1990. On the groups, see Perry 2005, 128-49.

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

680 RACHEL KOUSSER [AJA 111

Fig. 10. Sarcophagus with Mars-Venus group from Rome, ca. 200-250 C.E. Munich, Kunstlerhaus (courtesy DAI Rome).

status as emulative yet creative works of art.43 This unduly limits the range and depth of resonance that these works had for viewers.44 While not denying the Roman aspects of the portrait groups, I would at the same time emphasize that their "Greekness" - in typol- ogy, style, and mythological reference - was a critical part of their appeal for patrons.45 One clear signal of the Greekness of the groups was their combination of two familiar statue types, known as the Ares Borghese and Aphrodite of Capua (figs. 11,12). The latter has well-documented origins in the Greek period, with a visual format that can be observed in the Venus de Milo (albeit with altered arms and a more sensuous Hellenistic style) and in a series of small-scale Hellenistic terracottas from Corinth.46 The

style, body type, and pose of the Ares Borghese find good parallels in works by the followers of Polykleitos,

although the type itself does not appear in preserved artworks prior to the Neronian era.47

Just as the sculptures looked back to Greek art in terms of their iconography, they also recalled it in their

styles. Both the male and female figures were rendered in classicizing styles, although from chronologically disparate periods: the male figure looked back to the late fifth century B.C.E., the female to ca. 350-300 B.C.E.48 Both types thus came from the highly valued Classical era, and their heroic nudity (or in the case of Aphrodite, half-nudity) , their naturalistic yet ideal-

ized features, and their elegant and graceful postures made them characteristic examples of the achieve- ments of Greek art.

Not surprisingly, the Ares and Aphrodite statue types were enthusiastically adopted by Roman artists, either separately or together. The Aphrodite of Capua

43This is the approach taken, above all, by Perry 2005, 128- 49.

44Cf.Varner2006.

45 This argument is developed further in Kousser (forth- coming) .

46 Venus de Milo: Musee du Louvre MA 399; on the statue and its relation to classical Greek art, see Kousser 2005, esp.

237-39. Corinthian terracottas: Corinth, Archaeological Mu- seum, inv. nos. MF 8596, 3973, T 93-TC 19; on the terracottas, see Broneer 1930, fig. 30; Davidson 1952, pl. 18.222.

47Hartswick 1990, 230 (Roman copies), 250-52 (parallels with works by the followers of Polykleitos) .

48 These are the periods in which the Ares Borghese and Aphrodite of Capua types were likely created. For a discus-

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

2007] MYTHOLOGICAL GROUP PORTRAITS IN ANTONINE ROME 681

Fig. 1 1 . Aphrodite of Capua. Roman copy of a fourth-century B.C.E. Greek original. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologi- co, inv. no. 6017 (courtesy DAI Rome).

type was used both as a sensuous Venus decorating Roman leisure buildings such as baths and as a more martial Victoria on imperial victory monuments such as the Trajan and Marcus Aurelius columns.49 The Ares Borghese appeared in single-figure honorific portraits, including one of Hadrian, and also as a god in temple decoration; one version of the type, dating to the An- tonine period, was uncovered within the round Largo Argentina temple in Rome.50 In addition to the classical originals and contempo-

rary Roman images based on them, the portrait groups had a more direct precedent in a sculpture from the Forum Augustum (fig. 13) . Although this sculpture is now difficult to interpret due to its poor state of pres- ervation and limited excavation history, it deserves some commentary. The sculpture preserves part of

Fig. 12. Ares Borghese. Roman copy of a late fifth-century B.C.E. Greek original. Paris, Musee du Louvre, inv. no. 866 (courtesy Art Resource) .

the neck and upper chest of a male figure (nude ex- cept for a sword belt over the right shoulder) and the left hand and arm of another figure around his neck. These details are sufficient to indicate that the statue

belongs to the series of groups in Mars-Venus format, as has been recognized since the fragment's publica- tion by L'Orange in 1932.51

There is little scholarly consensus on the date and original function of this fragmentary Mars-Venus group. It was found during the large-scale excava- tions of the Forum Augustum in the late 1920s, and no precise record of its discovery is known.52 It has been proposed that the group was created around the mid second century C.E. on analogy with the better- preserved Antonine portrait statues and coins.53 It would then be a retrospective work meant to recall,

sion of the origins of the Ares Borghese, see Harrison 2005, 123-24. On the Aphrodite of Capua, see Kousser 2001, 12-16; (forthcoming) .

49 On the uses of the Aphrodite of Capua type in Roman art, see Kousser 2001, 2006; Perry 2005, 143-44.

50 On the Roman versions of the Ares Borghese, see LIMC 2:512-13, s.v. "Ares/Mars."

51 Republished in L'Orange 1973, 103-6. 52L'Oranffe 1973, 105. 53Giuliano 1985, 220.

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

682 RACHEL KOUSSER [AJA 111

Fig. 13. Fragment of Mars-Venus group from the Forum of Augustus/ Augustan. Rome, Musei dei Fori Imperiali, inv. no. 2563 (courtesy Direzione dei Musei Capitolini).

through the context and the divinities closely identi- fied with Augustus, the first princeps and the golden age associated with his reign.54 There is, however, bet- ter evidence for an Augustan date for the fragment. The expert sculptural technique and monumental scale (the preserved dimensions are 0.32 x 0.39 x 0.25 m, commensurate with those of the life-sized

groups) are appropriate for the forum complex, a major building project of the new Augustan regime. And as L' Orange recognized, the work was perhaps described by Ovid as standing within the Temple of Mars Ultor.55 The passage forms part of a catalogue of Roman sites observed by a female viewer:56

Venerit in magni templum, tua munera, Martis, stat Venus Ultori iuncta, vir ante fores. . . .

Should she come into that temple of great Mars, your own gift,

Venus stands joined to the Avenger, her husband before the doors. . . .

In addition, the type is replicated on a fragmentary carnelian gem with a secure terminus ante quern of 70 C.E., demonstrating that it was familiar well before the second century.57 The totality of the evidence thus sug- gests that the sculpture dates to the late first century B.C.E. or early first century C.E. and originally formed part of the decoration of the Temple of Mars Ultor. As an over-life-sized sculpture set up in a prominent public location, it offered an authoritative rendering of two gods central to Augustus' propaganda.

While the poor state of preservation of the sculpture obscures many details of its appearance, some signifi- cant evidence can be extracted from visual analysis of the fragment. Most notably, it is clear that an innova- tive formal aspect of the groups - their reworking via gesture and pose to link the two, initially separate, statues - was already present in the Augustan monu- ment. As the remains of Venus' hand on Mars' neck

demonstrate, the single-figure Aphrodite of classical Greece was adapted by the Augustan sculptor to em- brace her consort; the gesture was one of intimacy

54 According to the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, repairs were made to the Forum Augustum in the Hadrianic period, pro- viding a possible occasion for the addition of a new work of sculpture (Scriptores Historiae Augustae Hadr. 19). It should be noted, however, that the Scriptores Historiae Augustae is not al- ways a reliable source, and that no archaeological evidence has been found to suggest a large-scale restoration of the forum in

the second century C.E. (see LTUR 2:289-95, s.v. "Forum Au- gustum"; Platner-Ashby, 220-23, s.v. "Forum Augustum").

55L'Orange 1973, 106. 56 Ov. Tr. 2.295-96.

57 Xanten, Rheinisches Landesmuseum, inv. no. XAV2760, L 22. On the gem, see Platz-Horster 1987, 4-5, pl. 15.

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

2007] MYTHOLOGICAL GROUP PORTRAITS IN ANTONINE ROME 683

and affection. To judge from the Antonine sculptures, Ares' slight downward gaze and the orientation of his body toward the right were accentuated in the groups to highlight his responsiveness to his partner; and his muscular nudity was emphasized through the contrast with the goddess' softer flesh and his weapons. The result was a majestic, retrospective work of art, based on Greek prototypes but thoughtfully combined in new ways.

Within the Forum Augustum, the monumental statues visibly embodied the authoritative yet attrac- tive qualities of the new regime. To begin with, the sculpture's Greek visual format was appropriate to the classicizing and eclectic taste of the period. It fit well within the forum complex as a whole, complementing the evocation of the classical past represented by the copies of the Erechtheum caryatids.58 And the allusion to Greek mythology served here, as in the treatment of the Aeneas legend within the forum, to insert the Romans within a well-known literary tradition.59 Fur- thermore, the group expressed a common theme of the princeps' propaganda: Augustus' establishment of peace, represented allegorically by Venus, ancestress of the Iulii, disarming Mars, ancestor of the populus Romani via Romulus.60

The princeps' use of Mars and Venus formed part of a broader attempt to represent the new imperial order as divinely sanctioned and Augustus himself as uniquely qualified to rule because of his descent from Venus and from the new divus, Julius Caesar.61 The cult

group in the Temple of Mars Ultor has been convinc- ingly reconstructed as depicting Venus receiving the sword of Mars, with Divus Iulius standing nearby; the two gods also appeared together on the temple pedi- ment and as statues in the round, with Julius Caesar again, in the Pantheon of Agrippa.62 Juxtaposed with their mortal descendents, the gods were celebrated above all as parents and tutelary divinities of the Ro- man state.

Yet the sexual content of the imagery should not be overlooked. In the fragmentary Mars-Venus group,

for instance, the figures' nudity and physical intimacy would have reminded viewers of their fame as the most

passionate lovers in the Olympian pantheon. This was a well-known myth, and one frequently alluded to in lit- erature of the Greek and Roman periods. As recounted in its canonical form by the bard Demodokhos in Hom- er's Odyssey, the myth told how the goddess of love was unfaithful to her husband, the ill-favored Hephaistos, preferring instead the youthful, handsome god of war; the adulterous lovers were eventually caught inflagrante

by the angry husband and publicly shamed (Horn. Od. 8.266-366) . Given the myth's exalted literary ancestry, it is not surprising that it was familiar to the Romans also. At the time the Forum Augustum sculpture was created, it had recently been highlighted by Lucretius in the invocation to Venus in book 1 of his De Rerum

Natura, where the poet describes Mars:63

in gremium qui saepe tuum se reiicit aeterno devictus vulnere amoris

atque ita, suspiciens tereti cervice reposta, pascit amore avidos, inhians in te, dea, visus eque tuo pendet resupini spiritus ore.

who often in your lap reclines, conquered by the eternal wound of love and thus looking up, with well-turned neck thrown

back, feeds his desirous gaze with love, gaping at you,

goddess, and his breath as he lies back hangs upon your lips.

This emphasis on the gods' romantic relationship and their adultery might be seen as potentially dif- ficult to square with the Augustan program of moral renewal. And, indeed, Ovid's Tristia 2 suggests that the statues were liable to mischievous misinterpretation.64 This description of the group formed part of a larger catalogue of innocuous images that suggested not-so- innocent thoughts, with Ovid concluding that:65

omnia perversas possunt corrumpere mentes; stant tamen ilia suis omnia tuta locis.

58 For the best visual documentation of the architectural

and sculptural program of the forum, see Ungaro and Milella 1995.

59 Supra nn. 15, 16. C.f., e.g., the programmatic message of the cult statue

group in the same temple (Zanker 1988, 196). 61 Holscher 1988, 356-59; Zanker 1988, esp. 167-238, "The

Mythical Foundations of the New Rome." A Julian connec- tion with Mars is also possible. Julius Caesar, e.g., was honored by the citizens of Ephesos as the son of Ares and Aphrodite (Syll.3 347).

62 A relief now in Algiers likely preserves the visual format

of the cult group, juxtaposing Venus and the half-nude Di- vus Iulius with a cuirassed statue of Mars Ultor, identified as

such through gems bearing both the name and an inscription (Zanker 1984, 18-19; 1988, 198-200; Kleiner 1992, 99-102, fig. 84) . The pedimental sculpture is shown on a Claudian histori- cal relief, now in the Villa Medici, depicting a sacrifice before the temple (Zanker 1988, 196; Kleiner 1992, fig. 120) . The stat- ues in the Pantheon are described in Dio Cassius (53.27) .

63 Lucr. De Rerum Natura 1.33-7.

64 On Tristia 2 and its social and intellectual background, see Nugent 1988; Barchiesi 2002.

65Ov. Tr. 2.301-2.

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

684 RACHEL KOUSSER [AJA 111

All things are able to corrupt perverse minds; All things however are safe in their proper place.

Ovid stressed the potentially adulterous resonances of the image, with Venus joined to Mars with her hus- band immediately outside the door. This is a typically Ovidian interpretation of the work, which fits the po- et's polemical purpose: to argue that his poems, like Augustus' religious donations, were in fact innocent and corrupted only those with impure minds. Else- where in Tristia 2, Ovid ostensibly rejects a lascivious reading of a major work of art, while at the same time indicating that such a reading was in fact common, perhaps even inevitable.66 The sculpture has appeared unduly lascivious for the Forum Augustum to many modern scholars, as well as to Ovid. It can best be understood as an experimen- tal work, created at a time of flux and innovation in Ro-

man art.67 For modern art historians, Augustan works of art often appear to be canonical - monuments that set the standard for later imperial art. But this perspec-

tive is available only in retrospect. To contemporary viewers, the commissions of the new princeps would have looked rather different. They broke with estab- lished traditions of divine representation in Roman art and drew instead on a richer but less familiar com-

bination of models: classical Greek statuary, Homeric mythology, and Hellenistic/Republican art from the private sphere.68 The Forum Augustum group should be seen as an illuminating if not entirely successful at- tempt on the part of its sculptor to synthesize these models into a new tradition of divine imagery.

The Antonine portrait groups retained, so far as we can judge, much of the overall visual form of their Greek and Augustan prototypes; the alterations are, however, significant. Most importantly, the groups personalized their models through the use of portrait heads; the goddess of love and the god of war (classi- cal Greek deities, adulterous lovers, divine ancestors

of Rome) were here deployed to exalt, by association, contemporary - and clearly mortal - individuals. The descriptive, often homely, portrait heads, with their crow's feet and prominent chins, their thin lips and bulging eyes, can seem to modern viewers to sit rath- er awkwardly on the perfect divine bodies to which they were joined. But for their Roman patrons, these features were in no way problematic; rather, they

had an essential role to play in linking the beautiful marble statues with the everyday lives of those they commemorated. In this way, they brought their com- missioners a little closer to the exalted world of Greek

myth and art. Further adaptations that can be observed in the

costumes and attributes of the protagonists likewise helped to make the imagery appropriate for contem- porary patrons. For example, the female figure often wore a high-belted chiton with buttoned sleeves in addition to the mantle draped about her hips; this al- teration served to tone down the sensuality of the origi-

nally half-nude statue type (see figs. 4, 9, 1 1 ) . The male

figure, while remaining mostly nude, was outfitted as if in recompense by a veritable panoply of weapons. While the Greek prototype likely showed Ares simply wearing a helmet and holding a spear in his right hand, the later versions all added a discarded cuirass

as a support; the Capitoline statue wore, in addition, the characteristic Roman military cloak, while the Lou- vre and Terme figures each had instead a sword belt and lavishly ornamented sword (see figs. 1, 4, 9) . The Late Antique version of the group dispensed entirely with the nude Ares type to feature a cuirassed figure with all these military accoutrements: cloak, sword and sword belt, spear, and a helmet serving as a support. When compared with the Greek model, the later Mars sculptures thus conveyed a heightened appearance of martial valor; at the same time, they seemed more pacific and tender, due to the interaction with an af- fectionate, Venus-like female figure.

The Antonine portrait groups, then, departed from their Greek and imperial prototypes in terms of visual form; they also served very different functions. After all, the Greek originals likely had a public and religious function, as did the Augustan group.69 By contrast, the

Antonine statues were privately commissioned works of art for a decorative or funerary purpose. This trans-

formation is worth stressing both because it is, on the face of it, so peculiar (who would think of adapting a Greek religious statue into a portrait of oneself?) and because it is so thoroughly characteristic of Roman pri- vate art. In their homes and gardens, Roman patrons lived surrounded by Greek-inspired images: classi- cal statue types that had been miniaturized, mirror- reversed, or recombined to create works of art suitable

for private display.70 And by the period of the High

66Nugent 1988, 243. 67Galinskyl996,8. 68 It is only in the visual culture of the private sphere (pre-

served, above all, in Pompeii) that we see images of Mars and Venus as lovers; see, e.g., the silver drinking cups from the House of the Menander at Pompeii, described in Maiuri 1932,

1:321-26; 2:pls. 31-6. 69 The Forum Augustum group had, of course, a strong po-

litical charge, but if it was indeed set up within the Temple of Mars Ultor, it would have served a religious function as part of the temple's decoration.

70 For classical statue types adapted in Roman homes, see

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

2007] MYTHOLOGICAL GROUP PORTRAITS IN ANTONINE ROME 685

Empire, the same was true of their tombs, which were filled with portrait statues like those examined here, or mythological paintings, mosaics, or sarcophagi.71 Greek art was incorporated into Roman daily life in a more creative, more thorough-going, and above all more personal manner than was possible via imperi- ally commissioned public monuments.

As the visual format and function of the statues be-

came more personal, so, too, did their meaning for the audience. While the Greek originals were likely inter- preted by viewers within a civic and religious frame- work and the Augustan group within a political and allegorical one, the Antonine portrait groups were insistently private and personal in nature; they told visitors to house or tomb about the love of the married

couple portrayed. They consequently formed part of the richly varied Roman visual culture focused on the representation of married love.

To understand the connotations of the Mars-Venus

portrait groups for contemporary viewers, it is useful to compare them briefly with other depictions of male-

female relationships in Roman art. Among the most familiar are the scenes of Roman couples in contem- porary dress on biographical sarcophagi (fig. 14). 72 These clarify how husbands and wives were expected to be represented in a daily-life setting, in contemporary costume and with the actions and gestures appropri- ate to a particular event, the Roman wedding. As the protagonists clasped hands to signal the ratification of the dotal contract, the sculptures stressed the public and ceremonial character of Roman marriage.73

In contrast to the biographical sarcophagi, the Mars- Venus portrait groups and related images on mytho- logical sarcophagi and mosaics highlighted instead the affective qualities of marriage. They offered a range of options for the representation of the couple's emo- tional experience, from desperate sorrow at the death of one partner - highlighted, for instance, by images of Achilles and Penthesilea or Admetus and Alcestis - to

the pleasures and sensuous delights of reciprocal af- fection (as shown by the extremely popular images of Dionysos and Ariadne) .74 In their overall visual effect, these mythological images were very different from the wedding contract scenes, as they made use of ex- travagant gestures and facial expressions to convey

a strong emotional charge, while adapting familiar classical types for an impressive appearance. Within this range of options, the groups in Mars-Venus for- mat are notable for their emphasis on the virtus and military prowess of the husband, metaphorically sug- gested through his identification with Mars; and the wife's connection to Venus praised her beauty and desirability, while her action signaled her love for her husband, as she gazed at and embraced him.

As with other mythological couples, such as Achilles and Penthesilea or Admetus and Alcestis, the divine

figures of Mars and Venus may seem a perplexing choice for self-representation, at least to modern schol- ars. Yet, since these mythological self-representations did occur - indeed, they permeated Antonine private art - we must try to understand their attraction for Ro-

man patrons. In this regard, it is important to note first

the value placed on the affective qualities of marriage in Roman culture; literary and epigraphic texts testify to a romantic ideal of marriage, which was intended to be emotionally satisfying for both partners.75 While a few contemporary-dress portraits sought to depict this ideal, it was more effectively shown through mythologi-

cal self-representations. In these, patrons, freed from the constraints of real-life decorum, could take on

new roles in a fantasy world of romantic passion. Thus,

Greek-inspired images served to express certain impor- tant aspects of Roman marriage more fully than could works of art of a more purely "Roman" character.

In addition, it must be stressed that these Greek

mythological images were interpreted selectively by Roman patrons and viewers. For modern scholars, con- ditioned by long training to accept the information de- rived from written texts as fixed and authoritative, this

can be difficult to appreciate. But for Romans living in a more oral, less text-based culture, myths were fluid in their significance and lent themselves to frequent reinterpretation. The Mars-Venus portrait groups are a particularly striking example of this process of selec- tive interpretation; but they are not alone. A useful comparison might be the sarcophagi with Achilles and Penthesilea, which spoke to the husband's sorrow at his wife's death but not his responsibility for it.

To sum up, the Mars-Venus portrait groups of- fered their commissioners a very powerful and attrac-

esp. Neudecker 1988; cf. the comments in Bartman 1991, 1992, 2002; Zanker 1998, 16-19.

71 For the mythological portraits, see esp. Wrede 1981; D'Ambra 1996. For paintings and mosaics, see Toynbee 1996, 138-45 (Isola Sacra and Vatican necropoleis). For sarcopha- gi, see D'Ambra 1989; Zanker and Ewald 2004.

72 On the biographical sarcophagi generally, see Kampen 1981.

73 On the handclasp as a signal of the ratification of the do- tal contract, see Treggiari 1991, 164-65.

74 For sarcophagi, the most comprehensive introduction re- mains Koch and Sichtermann 1982; see also Zanker and Ewald (2004) for a more up-to-date and theoretical approach. On mosaics, see esp. Muth 1998.

75Treggiari 1991, 229-61, "Coniugalis amor."

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

686 RACHEL KOUSSER [AJA 111

Fig. 14. Sarcophagus showing a wedding, mid second century C.E. Mantua, Palazzo Ducale (courtesy Forschungsarchiv fur Antike Plastik, Koln).

tive means to depict the private, romantic aspects of their conjugal relationship. They were a complement and alternative to contemporary-dress portraits, with their stress on the formal, public qualities of Roman marriage.

To understand how Greek myths and images took on so central a role in Roman self-representation, it is useful to consider when and under what circumstances

Romans of the Antonine era encountered these aspects of Hellenic tradition. They had many opportunities; Roman viewers could draw on literary texts (possibly with illustrations) , oral accounts, or visual representa- tions decorating major sanctuaries. One alternative that has been insufficiently explored, however, is the- atrical performance.76 In Rome and its environs - and indeed, in cities throughout the empire - the theater

played a central role in civic life during the Imperial period.77 It offered frequent performances (associat- ed with religious festivals, imperial cult, and military triumphs), which attracted a broad and enthusiastic cross-section of the urban population.78

Given the popularity of theatrical performances, it is all the more significant that their content was by the Antonine period based primarily on Greek myths. As literary and epigraphic texts demonstrate, the domi- nant genre of the era was pantomime: the representa- tion through dance and acting of a Greek mythological narrative. Pantomime thus offered an opportunity for Romans of all social levels to experience the Greek mythological past as a vivid and significant part of their own culture. This has, I argue, important implications for our understanding of Roman art.79

7(1 Some very insightful treatments do exist for "fatal cha- rades" in the Roman amphitheater (esp. Coleman 1990). But in understanding the attractions of Greek myth for Roman mythological self-representation, these staged executions of criminals are less relevant than the pantomime performances examined here.

77 On the Roman theater generally, see Scodel 1993; Slater and Csapo 1995.

78 On appropriate occasions for theatrical spectacles, see

Blansdorf 2004, 120-27; on the (ever-increasing) number of days set aside for them, see Slater and Csapo 1995, 209. On the performative and theatrical qualities of central Roman cere- monies such as the triumph, see Beard 2003.

79 A few scholars have drawn attention to the importance of theater for an understanding of Roman art; see, e.g., Varner (2000) on Senecan tragedy and fourth-style wall painting, and Huskinson (2002-2003) on performance and theatrical mosa- ics in An tioch.

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

2007] MYTHOLOGICAL GROUP PORTRAITS IN ANTONINE ROME 687

GREEK MYTHOLOGICAL NARRATIVES IN THE

ROMAN THEATER

In the Antonine era, pantomime performances (already popular from the age of Augustus onward80) attained a new degree of prominence and social accep- tance.81 These song and dance spectacles increasingly replaced earlier forms such as comedy and tragedy in the roster of performances offered on major holidays; they were for the first time admitted into the dramatic competitions at the international sacred festivals.82 Scholars have often seen this as clear proof of the de- generacy of High Imperial theater, as the impressive literary tradition preserved in Plautus and Terence was replaced by performances whose highlight was mi- metic dancing.83 Nonetheless, this development merits close scrutiny because of the widespread popularity of pantomime and its concern with mythological narra- tive, the broader subject of this article. This section ex- amines the basic components of pantomime spectacle (the performer, plot, action) and its reception by the audience. While I do not intend to suggest that panto- mime was the only means by which Romans encoun- tered Greek myth, I do argue for the significance of this underestimated genre for High Imperial private art.

While variations existed, the genre of pantomime had by the Antonine period attained a clear and ca- nonical form.84 It normally involved one central (male) performer who danced and acted out a narrative to the accompaniment of music and a chorus.85 He wore an elegant, loose-fitting silken costume and a series of masks; unlike those of comedy and tragedy, the mouths in pantomime masks were closed, to signal the performer's silence.86 By switching masks, he played all

or nearly all roles in the pantomime, though he was occasionally assisted by a supporting actor.87 His aim

was to convey character and action through movement alone, and to choose appropriate movements for par- ticular characters.88

Lucian's On the Dance, which includes our only ex- tensive preserved description of a pantomime specta- cle, provides very useful information about the effect of such a performer. Lucian relates that the perform- er "by himself danced the adultery of Aphrodite and Ares, Helios revealing the secret, Hephaistos plotting and catching the two, Aphrodite and Ares, in a net, and the gods coming in, each individually, and Aph- rodite being ashamed, and Ares cowering and asking for mercy, and all that belongs to this story."89 His performance was, according to Lucian, so thoroughly convincing that a Cynic philosopher in attendance shouted, "I hear the story that you are acting, man, I do not just see it; you seem to me to be talking with your very hands!"90

This account, apocryphal or not, highlights several important aspects of pantomime performance. It sug- gests, first, the titillating combination of high culture and eroticism that often seems to have characterized

pantomime; the subject matter referenced the famous song of Demodokhos in Homer's Odyssey but also ex- plored fully the sexual and voyeuristic aspects of the myth of Ares and Aphrodite.91 This choice of plot was not unusual, since pantomime drew above all on erotic narratives familiar from literary texts. Most prominent

were myths told in Homer, Hesiod, and classical trage- dy, although later authors such as Virgil might be used also.92 And we have occasional references to historical

figures such as Cleopatra.93 Nonetheless, the emphasis was above all on Greek myth, and especially on myths concerning male-female relations; Lucian describes the ideal performer as someone who "before all else . . . will know the stories of [the gods'] loves, and those

80 On Augustan pantomime, seejory 1981, 2003. 81 For a discussion of changes in the Antonine period, see

Robert 1930, 121; Barnes 1996, 167-68. For the prominence of the performers as attested in inscriptions, see Blansdorf 2004, 108-13.

82 Robert 1930.

83 For the historiography of imperial theater, see Jones 1993, 39-40.

84 For a discussion of both the canonical form of panto- mime and the difficulties inherent in generalization, see Slat- er and Csapo 1995, 369-70.

85 Lib. Or. 64.57, 64.87-89, 64.97; Lucian Salt. 2, 30; cf. Apul. Met. 10.29-34, which suggests that more elaborate spectacles with multiple performers were also possible; the preponder- ance of the evidence, however, is for single "stars."

86 Lib. Or. 64.52; Lucian Salt. 2, 29. For images of pantomime performers in the visual arts, see Kokolakis 1959, 36-40; Jory 1996.

87 Jory 2003, 187-88. On supporting actors, see Kokolakis

1959,44-51. 88LucianM£.67.

89 Lucian Salt. 63: "ambq eq> eoroxoi) cbpxr|oaxo xrjv A(ppooixr|<;

mi 'Apeoq jioi%eiav, "Htaov jaJivoovxa mi "Hcpoaaxov empo- vtauovxa mi xoT<; 5ea|aoT(; a^cpoxepcnx;, xr|v xe Acppo8ixr|v mi xov 'Apr|, aayrivevovToc, KOCl Tcy^ ecpeaxcoxaq Oeoix; emaxov ocoxcov, mi ai5oi)|jivr|v |iev xr|v A(ppo8ixr|v, \)7io5e8oiK6xa 5e mi iKexetJovxa xov 'Apr|, mi oooc xfj iaxopia xoruxri rcpoaeaxiv."

90 Lucian Salt. 63 (Harmon 1913-1967, 267): "Akodco, avGpome, a %o\£\q • ox>% opco jjxSvov, aXka jioi 5ok£i<; xalq %£paiv amaic XaXeiv"

91 On eroticism as characteristic of pantomime, see Lu- cian Salt. 2-3; Seneca QNat. 7.32.3; Lada-Richards 2003. This brought on attacks by the church fathers (Puchner 2002) .

92 On this, seeMontiglio 1999, 265; cf. TrGF 1, 344 ad 14a (in- scription from Tivoli, 199 C.E., with a list of roles based largely on Euripidean plots) . For Roman plots, see Suet. Nero 54.

93 Lucian Salt. 37.

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

688 RACHEL KOUSSER [AJA 111

of Zeus himself, and all the forms into which he chan-

ged himself, and also all the tragedies in Hades."94 These myths of love and passion were represented in spectacles that drew upon the performer's ability to communicate and provoke a strong emotional re- sponse from the audience. Indeed, stories about "bar- barians" who viewed pantomime and comprehended the action perfectly demonstrate the high value put on the performer's capacity to convey the myth through purely visual means;95 the musical accompaniment was intended to enhance the effect, but no more. As

the Cynic philosopher's comment in Lucian demon- strates, the greatest praise for such a performer was to suggest, metaphorically, his "speaking" power; he was expected, though silent, to communicate all the more effectively through gesture.96 His abilities were particularly appropriate to the society in which he performed: the diverse, heterogeneous world of major cities during the High Empire, where Italian provin- cial governors might rub shoulders in the audience with Athenian aristocrats and sophists from Africa, Gaul, or Syria.

But the talented pantomime performer was not expected simply to communicate a given myth to his audience; rather, he was to act it out so vividly as to arouse their intense emotions. As literary and histori- cal evidence shows, theatrical spectators tended to re- spond strongly to pantomime, whether with applause, acclamation, or ad hominem critiques of unsuccessful performers.97 Occasionally, they rioted, with violent and often fatal results; the pantomime performers of Rome were in consequence regularly banned by irate emperors.98 But the strong emotions stimulated by pantomime could also be viewed positively, as a re- lease from the monotonous tensions of everyday life, a unifying force for the heterogeneous elements of High Imperial society, or as a source of pleasure and edification.99

These positive benefits were the more significant be- cause the theater drew together members of all social classes; it provided a rare opportunity for the general populace directly to encounter the emperor or local

elite. Therefore, pantomime performance helped create a shared frame of reference for all members of

civic society that was grounded in Greek myth and the cultural values articulated therein. The results of this

process are signaled by an illuminating if somewhat tongue-in-cheek passage in Libanius:

As long, then, as the race of the tragic poets flour- ished, they went into the theaters as joint teachers of the people. When they went into decay, only the bet- ter off part of society could share the education in the Museia while most were bereft of it - until a god took pity on the lack of education for the many and intro- duced dancing as a teaching resource of history for the masses. The result is that today the gold smith will not have a bad conversation about the house of Priam or Laios with someone from the schools.100

This brief discussion of pantomime is useful for the analysis of mythological portraiture in several ways. It suggests one way in which Romans of the High Empire might encounter the mythological narrative underlying the group portraits in Mars-Venus format and enhances our understanding of the horizon of ex- pectations viewers brought to the images. While these expectations were also conditioned by other experi- ences - for example, by state-sponsored ceremonies and images celebrating Mars and Venus as progenitors of the Roman people - pantomime performances were particularly effective due to their broad popularity and strong emotional charge. Viewing these statues, Romans of all social levels could recall a myth made vivid by theatrical spectacles and could then evaluate its appropriateness for their own lives as well as for those commemorated. In this way, Roman viewers could experience a more powerful connection to the mythological portraits than would have been possible through, for example, literary texts alone.

The eclecticism and selectivity of pantomime - which encompassed the whole of Graeco-Roman myth-history and constantly reinterpreted its subject matter in new ways - also provides a useful parallel for works such as the Mars-Venus portraits. In both cases,

94 Lucian Salt. 59-60 (Harmon 1913-1967, 263): "Ilpo ttocv- tcov 8e toc 7iepi xox>q epcoTocq ccutcov mi ocmou tov Aibc, mi exc, ogoc eocmov jiexeoKexxxoev eiaexai, mi tt|v ev 'AiSou obtocoocv Tpayq)5iav"; cf. the lists of pantomime plots in RE 18(3) :847- 49, s.v. "Pantomimus"; Kokolakis 1959, 51-4.

95E.g., Lucian Salt. 64. 96Montiglio 1999, 267. 97Montidio 1999, 276-77. 98 E.g., Dio Cass. 57.14.10; Suet. Tib. 37.2; Domit. 7.1; Tac.

Ann. 1.54, 1.77, 6.13, 13.25. For an analysis of the riots, focus- ing on the era of Tiberius, see Tory 1984.

"Release from tension: Lib. Or. 64.57; unifying force: Lu-

cian Salt. 6, 72; Lib. Or. 64.57; source of edification: Lib. Or. 64.1 12; Lucian Salt 6; cf. Haubold and Miles 2004.

100 Lib. Or. 64.112 (Haubold and Miles 2004, 31): "eco<; \ih/ o\iv TivGei to tcov Tpaycp5io7ioicov e9vo<;, Koivoi 8i8damXoi toi<; Stijiok; ei<; toc GeocTpa Ttocpfieaocv eTteiSri 8e oi \ikv 6c7rea(3r|aav, Tfjq Se ev iiovaeioic, naidevoeoaq b'aov e\)8oci|LioveaTepov eKoivcovrjoe, to noXi) Se ecrcepr|To, Becov xxq eXer|oa<; tt]v tcov noXK&v anaibevoiav avTeiariyaye ^v 6p%r|Giv SiSoc%r|v tivoc toT<; TtAriGeoi TtocAmcov Ttpd^ecov, mi vuv 6 %pi)oo%6o<; Tcpoq tov

8k tcov 8i5ocaKocXe{cov ov kockcck; SiaAi^eToci rcepi Tfjt; oixiaq npuVoi) mi Aocun)."

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

2007] MYTHOLOGICAL GROUP PORTRAITS IN ANTONINE ROME 689

models of diverse origins could be combined into a new synthesis, in a manner that has seemed peculiar to modern scholars but was clearly appreciated in an- tiquity. In addition, pantomime performers, like their comrades in the visual arts, worked constantly with familiar mythological subjects but were encouraged to create their own distinctively individualized inter- pretations of them. Both art forms testify to modes of aesthetic evaluation characteristic of Roman culture

and very different from our own. They demonstrate the high value placed by the Romans on works of art that acknowledged their place within a revered tradi- tion, rather than on those that radically broke with established, canonical forms. Such eclectic, classiciz-

ing artworks were appropriate to the society of the High Empire. They drew on - and indeed, helped to create - the common culture shared by the empire's numerous and diverse inhabitants.

CONCLUSIONS

The portraits in Mars-Venus format offer a new perspective on a question that has recently attracted scholarly attention: the Roman replication/ emulation of Greek art.101 This article contributes to the debate

in several ways. First, it complements previous inves- tigations by highlighting the contributions of the un- derstudied Antonine era to the Roman transformation

of Greek models. Without negating the importance of Augustan public art, I would, however, stress that Antonine private monuments, such as the funerary and domestic sculptures examined here, deserve a prominent place in our history of Roman classicism. My comparison of the Mars-Venus group from the Fo- rum Augustum with the later Antonine portraits helps suggest why. If my analysis of the Augustan monument is correct, this innovative artistic creation presented considerable problems of interpretation for its first viewers; its references to the Greek past were too new, too numerous, and too varied to be easily understood. By contrast, the Antonine portrait groups were both more familiar in their visual language - since classiciz- ing sculptures were by this time omnipresent in Roman

public and private art - and more comprehensible as narrative images. They formed part of a broader popular culture characterized by abundant opportu- nities for mythological role-playing, both in the visual arts (e.g., sarcophagi and mosaics as well as statues) and in theatrical spectacles such as pantomime. As Romans of the Antonine era took advantage of these new opportunities to act out roles within the fantasy

world of Greek myth, they experienced a closer and more intimate connection to the Hellenic past than was possible for their Augustan predecessors. In this way, the Antonine period merits investigation within the course of any history of classicism that takes ac- count of the mentalities of Roman viewers.

While complementing earlier studies, this article also poses a challenge to some current scholarly ortho- doxies. Most importantly, it offers a fresh perspective on the vexing question of the originality of "Roman copies." Many scholars have recently argued for orig- inality at the level of visual detail, as artists altered, adapted, and recombined their Greek prototypes for new Roman creations.102 This approach is useful in that it allows for a new appreciation of monuments previously denigrated as eclectic, insufficiently faithful copies. However, it tends concomitantly to devalue the many technically superb and visually impressive works of art that were clearly intended as copies (e.g., the replica series based on Polykleitos' Doryphoros and Myron's Diskobolos). My analysis of the Mars-Venus portrait groups offers a different avenue of approach. While I do discuss some significant changes in the statues' visual format, I have focused particularly on alterations in function and meaning; these seem to me the works' most striking and original aspects. Such an approach - focusing on how Greek myths and images, some six centuries old, were deployed to express con- temporary, thoroughly Roman, values - could fruit- fully be employed more broadly; it highlights one of the central achievements of Roman art.

BROOKLYN COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY

OF NEW YORK

29OO BEDFORD AVENUE BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 1 12 1O- 2 889 [email protected]

101 Supra n. 42. 102 E.g., Perry 2005. See Hallett (2005b) for a critique of

this approach.

Works Cited

Anderson, G. 1990. "The Second Sophistic: Some Problems of Perspective." In Antonine Literature, edited by D.A. Rus- sell, 91-110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Aymard, J. 1934. "Venus et les Imperatrices sous les Derni- ers Antonins." MEFRA 51:178-96.

Barchiesi, A. 2002. "Martial Arts: Mars Ultor in the Forum Augustum: A Verbal Monument with a Vengeance." In Ovid 's Fasti: Historical Readings at Its Bimillennium, ed- ited by G. Herbert-Brown, 1-22. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press.

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

690 RACHEL KOUSSER [AJA 111

Barnes, T.D. 1996. "Christians and the Theater." In Roman Theater and Society, edited by WJ. Slater, 161-80. Ann Ar- bor: University of Michigan Press. Bartman, E. 1991. "Sculptural Collecting and Display in the Private Realm." In Roman Art in the Private Sphere, edited by E. Gazda, 71-88. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition. Leiden: Brill.

man Ideal Sculpture." In The Ancient Art of Emulation, edited by E. Gazda, 249-71. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Beard, M. 2003. "The Triumph of the Absurd: Roman Street Theatre." In Rome the Cosmopolis, edited by C. Ed- wards and G. Woolf, 21-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bergmann, M. 1978. MarcAurel. Frankfurt: Liebieghaus. BlansdorfJ. 2004. "Das romische Theaterwesen der Kaiser- zeitim Spiegel derlnschriften." In Theater, Theaterpraxis, Theaterkritik im kaiserzeitlichen Rom, edited byj. Fugmann, 103-31. Munich: KG. Saur Verlag.

Bowersock, G.W. 1969. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bowie, E. 2000. "Literature and Sophistic." In The Cambridge Ancient History: The High Empire, A.D. 70-92, edited by A. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and D. Rathbone, 898-921. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Broneer, O. 1930. Corinth: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Vol. 4, pt. 2, Terracotta Lamps. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Calza, R. 1977. Scavi di Ostia: I Ritratti. Vol. 9. Rome: Li- breria dello Stato.

Coarelli, F. 1994. Roma. 2nd ed. Rome: Arnoldo Monda- dori Editore.

Coleman, KM. 1990. "Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments." JRS 80:44-73.

D'Ambra, E. 1989. "The Cult of Virtues and the Funerary Relief of Ulpia Epigone." Latomus 48:392-400.

Roman Matrons." In Sexuality in Ancient Art, edited by N. Kampen, 219-32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sculpture of the Second Century A.D." In / Claudia II: Women in Roman Art and Society, edited by S. Matheson and D. Kleiner, 101-14. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Davidson, G.R. 1952. Corinth: Results of Excavations Con- ducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Vol. 12, The Minor Objects. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

de Kersauson, K 1996. Catalogue des Portraits Romains.\o\. 2. Paris: Editions de la Reunion des Musees Nationaux.

Eisner, J. 1998. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph. Ox- ford: Oxford University Press.

Felletti Maj, B. 1953. Museo Nazionale Romano: I Ritratti. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato.

Fittschen, K 1982. Die Bildnistypen der Faustina minor und die Fecunditas Augustae. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Fittschen, K, and P. Zanker. 1983. Kaiser- und Prinzenbild- nisse. Vol. 1 , Katalogderromischen Portrdts in den Capitolin- ischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Furtwangler, A. 1895. Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture. Trans- lated by E. Sellars. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Galinsky, K 1996. Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduc- tion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Gazda, E., ed. 2002. The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Giuliano, A. 1 985. Museo Nazionale Romano: Le Sculture. Vol. 1, pt. 8.1. Rome: De Luca Editore.

Gleason, M. 1995. MakingMen: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Gnecchi, F. 1912. 1 Medaglioni Romani. 3 vols. Milan: Ul- rico Hoepli.

Hallett, C. 2005a. The Roman Nude: Heroic Portrait Statuary 200B.C.-A.D. 300. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roman Copying."yRA 18:419-35. Harmon, A.M., trans. 1913-1967. Lucian ofSamosata. Vol. 5. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Harrison, E. 2005. "Athena at Pallene and in the Agora of Athens." In Periklean Athens and Its Legacy: Problems and Perspectives, edited byj. Barringer andj. Hurwit, 1 19-34. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Hartswick, K 1990. "The Ares Borghese Reconsidered. ,RA:227-84.

Haubold, J., and R. Miles. 2004. "Communality and The- atre in Libanius' Oration LXIVIn Defence of the Panto-

mimes." In Culture and Society in Late Roman Antioch, edited by I. Sandwell and J. Huskinson, 24-34. Oxford: Oxbow.

Holscher, T. 1984. Staatsdenkmal und Publikum: Vom Unter- gang derRepublik bis zurFestigung des Kaisertums in Rom. Xenia 9. Konstanz: Universitatsverlag Konstanz.

und die Verlorene Republik, 351-400. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

HuskinsonJ. 2002-2003. "Theatre, Performance and The- atricality in Some Mosaic Pavements from Antioch." £#546:131-61.

Jones, C.P. 1993. "Greek Drama in the Roman Empire." In Theater and Society in the Classical World, edited by R. Scodel, 39-52. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Jory, E J. 1981. "The Literary Evidence for the Beginnings of Imperial Pantomime." BICS 28: 147-61.

Classical, Byzantine and Renaissance Studies for Robert Brown- ing, edited by A. Moffatt, 57-66. Canberra: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies.

an Iconography of Imperial Pantomime." In Roman The- ater and Society, edited by WJ. Slater, 1-27. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

lus." In Theatres of Action: Papers for Chris Dearden, edited byj. Davidson and A. Pomeroy, 187-93. West Harbour, New Zealand: Polygraphia.

Kalveram, K 1995. Die Antikensammlung des Kardinals Scipi- one Borghese. Worms: Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft.

Kampen, N. 1981. "Biographical Narration and Roman Funerary Art." AJA 85 ( 1 ) :47-58.

Sexuality in Ancient Art, edited by N. Kampen, 233-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

2007] MYTHOLOGICAL GROUP PORTRAITS IN ANTONINE ROME 691

Kleiner, D. 1981. "Second-Century Mythological Portrai- ture: Mars and Venus." Latomus 40:512-45.

sity Press. Koch, G., and H. Sichtermann. 1982. Romische Sarkophage.

Munich: C.H. Beck.

Kokolakis, M. 1959. "Pantomimus and the Treatise Peri Or- cheseos (De Saltatione)." Platon 21:3-54.

Kousser, R. 2001. "Sensual Power: A Warrior Aphrodite in Greek and Roman Sculpture." Ph.D. diss., New York University.

Hellenistic Reception of Classical Greece." AJA 109(2): 227-50.

on Imperial and Provincial Monuments." In Representing War in Ancient Rome, edited by K. Welch and S. Dillon, 218-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The Allure of the Classical. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Lada-Richards, 1. 2003. "'A Worthless Feminine Thing?' Lu- cian and the "Optic Intoxication" of Pantomime Danc- ins.91 Helios 3O(l):2l-75.

Lissi Caronna, E. 1985. "Un complesso edilizio traviain Ar- cione, via dei Maroniti e vicolo dei Maroniti." In Roma: Archeolosda nel Centro, 360-65. Rome: De Luca Editore.

L'Orange, H.P. 1973. "Le Statue di Marte e Venere nel Tempio di Marte Ultore sul Foro di Augusto." In Likeness and Icon: Selected Studies in Classical and Early Mediaeval Art, 103-6. Odense: Odense University Press.

Maiuri, A. 1932. La casa delMenandro e il suo tesoro di argen- teria. 2 vols. Rome: La Libreria del Stato.

Marvin, M. 1989. "Copying in Roman Sculpture: The Rep- lica Series." In Retaining the Original, edited by R. Kraus, 29-46. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art.

kleitos: The Sequel." In Sculpture and Its Reproductions, edited by A. Hughes and E. Ranfft, 7-28. London: Reak- tion Books.

Montiglio, S. 1999. "Paroles dansees en silence: L'action signifiante de la pantomime et le moi du danseur." Phoe- nix 53:263-80.

Moretti, G. 1920. "Ostia." NSc 17:41-66. Muth, S. 1998. Erleben von Raum, Leben imRaum: ZurFunk-

tion mythologischerMosaik-bilderin derromisch-kaiserzeitlichen Wohnarchiketur. Vol. 10, Archdologie und Geschichte. Hei- delberg: Verlag Archaologie und Geschichte.

Neudecker, R. 1988. DieSkulpturen-Ausstattungromischer Vil- len in Italien. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Nugent, S.G. 1988. "Tristia 2: Ovid and Augustus." In Be- tween Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, edited by K.A. Raaflaub and M. Toher, 239-57. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Overbeck,J. 1858. Plastik fur Kunstler und Kunstfreunde. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Verlag der J.C. Hinrichs'schen Buch- handlung.

Perry, E.E. 2005. The Aesthetics ofEmulation in the Visual Arts of Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Platz-Horster, G. 1987. DieAntiken Gemmen aus Xanten. Vol. 1. Cologne: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH.

Puchner, W. 2002. "Acting in the Byzantine Theatre: Evi-

dence and Problems." In Greek and Roman Actors, edited by P. Easterling and E. Hall, 304-24. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Richter, G. 1968-1971 . Engraved Gems of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans. 2 vols. New York: Phaidon Press.

Ridgway, B. 1984. Roman Copies of Greek Sculpture: The Prob- lem of the Originals. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Robert, L. 1930. "Pantomimen im griechischen Orient." Hermes 65:106-22.

Schmidt, E. 1968. "Die Mars-Venus Gruppe im Museo Capi- tolino."An£P 8:85-94.

Scodel, R., ed. 1993. Theater and Society in the Classical World. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Slater, W.J., and E. Csapo. 1995. The Context of Ancient Dra- ma. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Smith, R.R.R. 1998. "Cultural Choice and Political Identity in Honorific Portrait Statues in the Greek East in the

Second Century A.D." JftS 98:56-93. ToynbeeJ.M.C. 1944. Roman Medallions. New York: Ameri-

can Numismatic Society.

Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Origi- nal edition, 1971.

Treggiari, S. 1991. Roman Marriage. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Ungaro, L., and M. Milella, eds. 1995. ILuoghi del Consenso Imperiale: II Foro di Augusto, II Foro di Traiano. Rome: Pro- getti Museali Editore.

Varner, E. 2000. Grotesque Vision: Seneca s Tragedies and Neronian Art." In Seneca in Performance, edited by G. Harrison, 119-36. Swansea, Wales: Classical Press of Wales.

Greek Quotations." Art History 29(2) :280-303. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1989. "Rome's Cultural Revolution."

JRS 79:157-64.

Wegner, M. 1939. Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit. Vol. 2, pt. 4, Das romische Herrscherbild. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.

bild. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.

Wrede, H. 1971. "Das Mausoleum der Claudia Semne und die bumerliche Plastik der Kaiserzeit." i?M78:125-66.

personen in der rb'mischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Zanker, P. 1984. Forum Augustum: Das Bildprogram. Tubin- gen: Ernst Wasmuth.

slated by A. Shapiro. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

D.L. Schneider. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

106:119-31.

Zanker, P., and B. Ewald. 2004. MitMythen leben: Die Bilder- welt derromischen Sarkophage. Munich: Hirmer Verlag.

Zanzarri, P. 1997. La Concordia Romana: Politica e Ideologia nella Monetazione dalla Tarda Repubblica ai Seven. Rome: Gangemi Editore.

This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:14:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms