No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Fragments of Roman Historical Reliefs in the Lateran and Vatican Museums
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2013
Extract
The views expressed by Wickhoff upon Roman Art have been widely accepted, as far as concerns monuments whose Roman origin was undoubted. Riegl has approved the ‘shadow theory’ and explained it in his own peculiar art dialect. Petersen alone has combated it; and with such effect as practically to destroy all belief in this theory, which is Wickhoff's main principle in the appreciation of Roman reliefs, especially those of the Flavian period. Since the relief fragments to be discussed in this paper are attributed to the Flavian period, it is necessary to state Wickhoff's views, and their refutation.
Wickhoff remarks that the artist of the Ara Pacis who, he considers, broke with Greek tradition and made a new departure in relief style, ‘allowed the figures in high relief of the front row [of the procession] to cast their shadows on a back row of figures, which were worked so flat on the ground that they could no longer cast any shadows, but stood like silhouettes against the sky.’ …‘When the shadows of the front row of figures fell on them and they themselves cast no shadow, the illusion was created that their shadow fell on the earth behind them, and thus the background vanished behind them.’
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © British School at Rome 1906
References
page 275 note 1 I would refer throughout this paper to the following works: Wickhoff, Roman Art, especially chapters II. and III.; Riegl, Spätrömische Kunstindustrie, chapter II. I desire also to express my hearty thanks to Mr. Stuart Jones: it is hard to say how much this paper owes to his kind help and encouragement.
page 275 note 2 Ara Pacis Augustae, p. 157, 2.
page 275 note 3 Op. cit. pp. 74, 78.
page 277 note 1 v. page 261.
page 277 note 2 Wickhoff, op. cit. Figs. 29, 30.
page 280 note 1 Wickhoff, op. cit., Fig. A.
page 280 note 2 v. Cichorius, Trajansäule, Plates XI, XVII, XVIII, XXXIII, LXI, LXII, LXXVII.
page 280 note 3 Wickhoff, op. cit., Figs. 35–40.
page 281 note 1 Helbig2, 562.
page 281 note 2 Helbig2, 564, 565.
page 282 note 1 Richter, Topogr. d. Stadt Rom. p. 177.
page 290 note 1 J.H.S. 1900, p. 31, Pls. I., II., III.
page 291 note 1 Cf. for hairdress the unbroken Flavian bust in the Capitol, Sala delle Colombe 95, the Flavian group at Chatsworth, Furtwängler, J.H.S. 1901, p. 221, Pl. XV, and the silver bust from Boscoreale (from a phiale) in the British Museum, inscribed Antonia, wife of Drusus, mother of Germanicus, and assigned by de Villefosse, Héron to the Neronian period, Mon. Piot. v. p. 46Google Scholar, Figs. 8, 9.
page 291 note 2 Benndorf-Schoene, 343, 345; Helbig2, 694, 695.
page 293 note 1 Cohen2, 530.
page 293 note 2 For this and the other dates of Domitian's reign v. Gsell, Essal sur le règne de Domitien, pp. 184, 198, 226–228, etc. This relief might also have come from a monument celebrating the end of the Suevic-Sarmatian war in 93 A.D.: v. supra, p. 261, cf. a coin dated 95, Cohen2, 531 (Pl. XXIX, 2).
page 293 note 3 Cohen2 672.
page 294 note 1 v. pp. 299 seqq.; Pls. XXI–XXII.