procession of A.D. 12, in the course of which, as Suetonius tells us, Tiberius stepped down from his car and did homage to his stepfather. In the lower zone we find loosely composed groups of captives and Roman soldiers, some of whom are setting up a trophy.
But the supreme triumph of imperial jewelry is attained in the Great Cameo of the Bibliothèque Nationale. This is an Indian sardonyx cut in five layers, the largest extant example of its class. There is a marked advance on the Vienna cameo in composition; the lower zone is reduced to the proportions of an exergue, whilst heaven and earth are kept clearly apart in the main subject, yet at the same time united in a single picture. In the centre are the living members of the Julio-Claudian house—Tiberius and Livia enthroned, together with Germanicus, his mother, and the rising generation—while above them hovers the deified Augustus, together with other deceased members of the family and an ideal figure in Phrygian garb bearing a globe, probably Iulus (Ascanius), or even Aeneas himself. The moment depicted is the departure of Germanicus for the East in A.D. 17, and amongst the figures of the central group we note the muse of history, bearing a scroll upon which to record the hero's deeds, and a personification of Armenia.
Engraved gems are not the only examples of Roman work in precious materials. Amongst the portraits of the first dynasty none is finer than a small head of Agrippina the younger (recently acquired by the British Museum) in plasma (root-of-emerald), a material much used by Roman gem-cutters. Vases, again, were carved in precious stones, such as the famous onyx vase at Brunswick (Furtwängler, Die antiken Gemmen, figs. 185-88), adorned with reliefs relating to the mysteries of Eleusis. A smaller, but finer, onyx vase in the Berlin Museum (Furtwängler, op. cit., figs. 183, 184) represents the infancy of a prince of the Julian line—a rock surmounted by a small temple recalls the sculptures of the Ara Pacis, and the work seems to be of Augustan date.
It was mentioned above that coloured glass was used as a substitute for gems, and it is to the school which produced the cameos of the early Empire that we owe the exquisite vases in white and blue glass of which the Portland vase is the most famous example.[1] Pompeii furnishes a second in the amphora, decorated with vintage scenes, in the Naples Museum.
We must also class amongst the fine arts that of the die-sinker. Not only are the imperial portraits found on coins worthy of a place beside the works of the sculptor, but in the "medallions" of the 2nd century A.D. we find figure-subjects, often recalling those of contemporary reliefs, treated with the utmost delicacy and finish.
Of the purely industrial arts it is unnecessary to speak at length. The finds made in Gaul, Germany and Britain have enabled archaeologists to trace their history—particularly that of pottery—in some detail; but the chief importance of these discoveries lies in the fact that they prove the gradual diffusion of artistic talent throughout the provinces. In the last century of the republic a flourishing manufacture of red glazed pottery was established with its chief centre at Arretium (Arezzo); the signatures of the vases enable us to distinguish a number of workshops owned by Romans who employed Greek or Oriental workmen. The repertory of decorative types used by these humble artists reflects the cross-currents of classicism and naturalism which were contending in the decadence of Hellenistic art; but, if we cannot set a high substantive value on their works, it is important to note that in the 1st century A.D. the Italian fabrics were gradually driven out of the market by those of Gaul, where the industry took root in the Cevennes and the valleys of the Rhone and the Allier; and before long north-eastern Gaul and the Rhineland became centres of production in the various minor arts,[2] which continued to flourish until the breakdown of the imperial system in the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D.
(6) Summary: the Place of Roman Art in History.—Just as the establishment of the Roman Empire gave a political unity to the ancient world, and the acceptance of Christianity by its rulers assured the triumph of a universal religion, so the growth of a Graeco-Roman nationality, due to the freedom of intercourse between the subjects of the emperors, led to a unity of culture which found expression in the art of the time. Yet no sooner was the fusion of the elements which contributed to the new culture complete than the process of disruption began, which issued in the final separation of the Eastern from the Western Empire. In the first, the oriental factors, which produced a gradual transformation in Graeco-Roman art, definitely triumphed; and the result is seen in Byzantine art. But in the West it was otherwise. The realism native to Italy remained alive in spite of the conventions imposed upon it; the human interest asserted itself against the decorative. The Christian art of the West, therefore, is the true heir of the Roman, and, through the Roman, of the classical tradition. The mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore, already referred to, show how strongly this tradition was at work in the 1st century of the Christian Empire; and monuments of the 5th century A.D., such as the consular diptychs of ivory and the carved doors of S. Sabina at Rome, tell the same tale. As we have seen, Roman art in its specific quality was an historical art; and it was for this reason eminently fitted for the service of an historical religion. The earliest Christian art whose remains are preserved is that of the catacombs; and this is not only devoid of technical merit, but is also dominated by a single idea, which governs the selection of subjects—that of deliverance from the grave and its terrors, whether this be conveyed by scriptural types or by representations of Paradise and its dwellers.[3] Not until the church's triumph was complete could she command the services of the highest art and unfold her sacred story on the walls of her basilicas; but, when the time came, the monumental art created by the demands of imperial pride was ready to minister ad majorem gloriam Dei.
Bibliography.—F. Wickhoff's Roman Art (1900), translated by Mrs Strong from the author's Wiener Genesis, is well illustrated and indispensable to the student. A. Riegl's Spätrömische Kunstindustrie in Österreich-Ungarn (1901) also repays close study. The views of Strzygowski are expressed in a large number of monographs and essays; the most important are Orient oder Rom (1901), Kleinasien, ein Neuland der Kunstgeschichte (1903), "Mschatta" (Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 1904), Der Dom zu Aachen und seine Entstellung (1904), and articles in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Byzantinische Denkmäler, and other periodicals. A summary of the debate raised by these writers will be found in the Quarterly Review, January 1906 (Stuart Jones). The controversy carried on by Furtwängler and Studniczka as to the date of the Trophy of Adam-Klissi is instructive. Furtwängler's articles appeared in the Transactions of the Munich Academy for 1903-4, Studniczka's ("Tropaeum Trajani") in Abhandlungen der Sächs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, xxii. (1904).
Of Roman sculpture Mrs Strong's handbook (Roman Sculpture, 1907), which has a great number of excellent illustrations, gives a general survey. Special branches are treated by E. Courbaud (Le Bas-relief romain à réprésentations historiques, 1899), W. Altmann (Die römischen Grabaltäre der Kaiserzeit, 1905), A. J. Wace ("The Evolution of Art in Roman Portraiture," Transactions of the British and American Archaeological Society of Rome, 1906). There has been much recent discussion of historical monuments in Rome in the Papers of the British School at Rome, the Römische Mitteilungen of the German Archaeological Institute, the Jahreshefte of the Austrian Archaeological Institute, and the Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie. Important publications of single monuments are: O. Benndorf (and others), Das Tropaion von Adamklissi (1895); E. Petersen, Ara Pacis Augustae (1903; further discoveries since this date are discussed by the author in Jahreshefte des österreichischen arch. Instituts (1906), 298 ff., and Sieveking in the same journal (1907), 175 ff.); C. Cichorius, Die Reliefs der Trajanssäule (1896-1900), criticized by E. Petersen, Trajans dakische Kriege
- ↑ The tradition that this was found in the well-known sarcophagus of the early 3rd century now in the Capitoline Museum, formerly supposed to contain the ashes of Severus Alexander, is without foundation.
- ↑ For bronze-work see Willers in Rheinisches Museum (1907), pp. 133 ff.
- ↑ This principle is consistently applied by von Sybel, Christliche Antike (Marburg, 1907).
