Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:56:59.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studius and the Beginnings of Roman Landscape Painting*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Roger Ling
Roger Ling
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Non fraudando et Studio divi Augusti aetate, qui primus instituit amoenissimam parietum picturam, villas et porticus (portus?) ac topiaria opera, lucos, nemora, colles, piscinas, euripos, amnes, litora, qualia quis optaret, varias ibi obambulantium species aut navigantium terraque villas adeuntium asellis aut vehiculis, iam piscantes, aucupantes aut venantes aut etiam vindemiantes. Sunt in eius exemplaribus nobiles palustri accessu villae, succollatis sponsione mulieribus labantes trepidis quae feruntur, plurimae praeterea tales argutiae facetissimi salis. Idem subdialibus maritimas urbes pingere instituit, blandissimo aspectu minimoque inpendio.

(Pliny, NH xxxv, 116–17)

Studius too, of the period of the Divine Augustus, must not be cheated of his due. He first introduced the most attractive fashion of painting walls with villas, porticoes (harbours?), and landscape gardens, groves, woods, hills, fish-pools, canals, rivers, coasts—whatever one could wish, and in them various representations of people strolling about, people sailing, people travelling overland to villas on donkey back or in carriages, and in addition people fishing, fowling, hunting, or even gathering the vintage. His pictures include noble villas reached across marshes, men tottering along with women, trembling burdens, on their shoulders, carried for a wager, and very many such lively and witty subjects besides. It was the same man who introduced the practice of painting seaside cities in open terraces, producing a charming effect with minimal expense.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 67 , November 1977 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Roger Ling 1977. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The text follows the Codex Bambergensis, except that I prefer ‘porticus’ to ‘portus’ since an architectural feature provides a slightly better balance with ‘villas’ and gives us three man-made items at the head of the list, while ‘portus’ would make ‘litora’ somewhat pleonastic. ‘Portus’ is a natural scribe's error for ‘porticus’. The opening clause is a gerundival ablative absolute, tacked on loosely to a preceding main clause: Pliny seems to be contrasting the ancient painter Marcus Plautius with the modern (Augustan) Studius. For Pliny's use of this construction cf. XVI, 170: ‘hinc erant armamenta ad inclutos cantus, non silendo et reliquo curae miraculo’; XXXVI, 106: ‘non omittendo memorabili exemplo…’; see Önnerfors, A., Pliniana (1956), 113Google Scholar.

2 Blanckenhagen 1962, 60, n. III.

3 Rostovtzeff.

4 Pollitt, J. J., The Art of Rome (1966), 115, n. 44. CfGoogle Scholar. Urlichs, L., Chrestomathia Pliniana (1857), 367Google Scholar. ‘S.’ would presumably be a scribal corruption for the normal abbreviations for Sextus (Urlichs) or Spurius (Pollitt).

5 CIL IX, 4884, 4887, 4921. Cf. x, 8043 (65) (Cora).

6 CIL IX, 1430; Rossi, G. B. de and others, Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae n.s. III (1956), 6574Google Scholar. There is also a female name ‘Studium’ at Aesernai (Isernia): CIL IX, 2720.

7 Toynbee, J. M. C., Some Notes on Artists in the Roman World (1951), 40Google Scholar. The context shows that ‘non-Roman’ means, more generally, ‘non-Italian’.

8 Kajanto, I., The Latin Cognomina (1965), 116, 259Google Scholar.

9 Toynbee, op. cit., passim.

10 Pliny, NH xxxv, 120. The other two painters are Turpilius and Titedius Labeo, who are mentioned primarily because of their high social status: xxxv, 20. Q. Pedius, who died before maturity, is a similar case (xxxv, 21).

11 Odyssey landscapes: Blanckenhagen 1963; Gallina, A., Le pitture con paesaggi dell' Odissea dall' Esquilino (1961)Google Scholar; Beyen II, 260–350, figs. 102–6. Tableaux: Dawson; von Blanckenhagen, , ‘Daedalus and Icarus on Pompeian walls’, Röm. Mitt. LXXV (1968), 106 f.Google Scholar, pls. 27–47.

12 As suggested by Jex-Blake, K. and Sellers, E., The Elder Pliny's Chapters on the History of Art (1896), 147Google Scholar. Livia's Garden Room: Gabriel, M. M., Livia's Garden Room at Primaporta (1955)Google Scholar. The garden paintings in the House of the Floral Chambers are unpublished apart from a few illustrations: Maiuri, A., La peinture romaine (1953), 124Google Scholar; von Heintze, H., Römische Kunst (1969), fig. 114Google Scholar; Andreae, B., Römische Kunst (1973), fig. 48Google Scholar; Kraus, T. and von Matt, L., Lebendiges Pompeji (1973), pl. 297Google Scholar. For further examples of garden paintings, Grimal, 479–96.

13 ibid, 100–2 (especially 102, n. 2), 229 f., 303, 354, 457.

14 Lehmann, 82–131. In support of inspiration from stage scenery, Beyen I, 141–208; idem, Mnemosyne, ser. IV, 10 (1957), 147 f.; Peters, 15–19. So too, in his various articles, K. Schefold: e.g. in Andreae-Kyrieleis, 54 f., 57. For a compromise interpretation, R. Winkes in Temporini, H. (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt I, 4 (1973), 935–8Google Scholar. The similar painting at the centre of a Second Style wall in Naples (Nat. Mus. 8594; Mau, A., Geschichte der dekorativen Wandmalerei in Pompeji (1882), pl. VII bGoogle Scholar) contains human figures, but is dominated by the architecture (a tholos and the wall of a temple in the background) in a way which ill accords with Pliny's description. It can certainly not be called a ‘landscape’.

15 House of Livia: Rostovtzeff, 6 f., figs. 1, 2; Rizzo 1936 b, 57 f., 60, figs. 37, 38, 42, pl. XI; Peters, 42–5, figs. 33, 34. Room of the Masks: G. Carettoni, BdA XLVI (1961), 194–6, figs. 4–6, 8, ‘12, pl. II b; Beyen, BABesch. XXXIX (1964), 142. These are the ‘sanctuaires rustiques’ which Grimal links with Studius (see above). Similar examples, here with odd human figures, in the Farnesina white cubiculum E: Lessing-Mau, pls. III–IV; Blanckenhagen 1962, 27 f.; Peters, 53. Slightly more elaborate versions appear in the House of the Cryptoportico at Pompeii (Spinazzola, 492; Beyen II, 99) and in the apse of the Aula Isiaca on the Palatine (Rizzo 1936 a, 26–31, pl. VIII; Andreae in Helbig, W., Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom4 II (1966), 874Google Scholar).

16 Yellow Frieze, Farnesina landscapes, Boscotrecase: see below, pp. 8f. and bibl. in nn. 32, 36, 37. Seaside villas: Rostovtzeff, 50–2, 72–7, pls. v (1), VII–IX; Peters, 110f. (passim), 148 f. (passim).

17 Beyen I, 61–88. The landscapes in the atrium of the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii (see below) are thought by Maiuri (198 f.) to be earlier than the remaining decoration of the room and are accordingly ascribed by Beyen (1, 55) to his Phase Ia; but examination of Maiuri's drawing (fig. 83) and of the remains in situ have not convinced me that there is more than one phase of decoration present. Beyen's other suggestions as to possible roles of representational painting in Phase la of the Second Style (see especially Beyen 1, 55 f., 58) remain conjectural.

18 Megalography: Beyen I, 81–3; cf. F. L. Bastet, BABesch. XLIX (1974), 216 f. Villa of the Mysteries: Maiuri, 121–81, pls. G-U, I–XVI; recent bibl. collected by Bastet, art. cit., 240. Boscoreale oecus: Andreae and K. Fittschen, in Andreae-Kyrieleis, 71–100, figs. 59–71. Trojan battles: Spinazzola, 905–70, figs. 901–88. Odyssey landscapes: see above, n. 11.

19 Rostovtzeff, 130–45. Among writers to have accepted Rostovtzeff's, differentiation are Rizzo, La pittura ellenistico-romana (1929), 72 f.Google Scholar; Grimal, 100–2; Dawson, 78; Schefold, , Pompejanische Malerei (1952), 79 fGoogle Scholar. (cf. La peinture pompéienne (1972), 117–19Google Scholar); Blanckenhagen 1963, 134. Others, by linking Studius specifically with villa paintings, imply a similar acceptance: Beyen 1, 170 and n. 3; Peters, 118 f. Becatti, G., Arte e gusto negli scrittori latini (1951), 136 f., 230 f.Google Scholar, links Studius with villa paintings but does not regard these as totally separate from the type of landscape described by Vitruvius. Cf. Pfuhl, E., Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen (1923), 884 f.Google Scholar, 888. Aletti, E., Lo stile di Ludio (1948)Google Scholar, seems to regard Studius's originality as lying in his development of a vital, impressionistic style.

20 Villa landscapes: Rostovtzeff, 50–2, 72–7, figs. 42–4, pls. V (1), VI–IX; Peters, 110f. (passim), 148 f. (passim); cf. Rostovtzeff, , ‘Pompeianische Landschaften und römische Villen’, JdI XIX (1904), 103–26Google Scholar, pls. 5–7. For their beginning in the late Third Style cf. Blanckenhagen in Gnomon XXXIX (1967), 182. The earliest examples are the paintings Naples 9406: Curtius, L., Die Wandmalerei Pompejis (1929)Google Scholar. figs. 209, 210; for their date Schefold, Die Wände Pompejis (1957), 345Google Scholar.

21 See e.g. Schefold, , Vergessenes Pompeji (1962), 104Google Scholar. Cf. von Salis, A., Antike und Renaissance (1947), 205–7Google Scholar.

22 Dawson, 78; Blanckenhagen 1962, 60, n. III; Blanckenhagen 1963, 134.

23 Peters (118) aptly comments, ‘The large variety in the action of the figures and the witty note Pliny further refers to apply better to the Second Style sacral-idyllic landscapes than to the pictures of villae from the Third and Fourth Style known to us.’

24 Maiuri, 197–9, fig. 83; Beyen 1, 55; Peters, 7–9. The dating of the paintings discussed in the text generally follows the scheme established by Beyen. For a convenient catalogue of early landscapes (all types) see Blanckenhagen 1962, 24 f. Cf. (monochromes) M. and A. De Vos, in Meded. XXXVII (1975), 73, 76, 82 (n. 81).

25 Blanckenhagen 1962, 56 f.

26 Gullini, G., I mosaici di Palestrina (1956)Google Scholar, pls. 1, XIII–XXVIII.

27 Rostovtzeff, 30 f. and fig. 9; Beyen I, 310, figs. 86 a, b; Lehmann, 15 f., 161, figs. 12, 13; Peters, 10 f.

28 Beyen 1, 309 f.; Lehmann, 118, 161 f., 205 f., pl. xxv; Blanckenhagen 1962, pl. 47(1); Peters, 13 f.

29 Lehmann, 118, 161 f., 205 f. Cf. Peters, 13 f.

30 cf. Andreae in Andreae-Kyrieleis, 83 and n. 49.

31 Unpublished. On the dating, Schefold in Ant. K. XIX (1976), 118.

32 On Augustus's Palatine property see Degrassi, N., Rend. Pont. Acc. XXXIX (1966–1967), 77 f.Google Scholar On the Yellow Frieze, Rostovtzeff, 12–22, pls. I–III; Rizzo 1936 b, 43–51, fig. 33, pls. v–x; Peters, 35–42, figs 26–32.

33 On sacred column, porta sacra and schola see e.g. Peters, 43–5 (with bibl.).

34 Grimal, , ‘Les maisons à tour hellénistiques et romaines’, Mél. Rome LVI (1939), 28 f.Google Scholar (especially, for the Yellow Frieze, 34 f.). Cf. Lehmann, 99 f.; Young, J. H., ‘Studies in south Attica: country estates at Sounion’, Hesperia XXV (1956), 122 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pečírka, J., in Finley, M. I. (ed.), Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne (1973), 123–8Google Scholar (with further bibl.).

35 See e.g. M. Bulard, Mon. Piot XIV (1908), part 1; Spinazzola, 163–242.

36 Beyen, , ‘Les domini de la villa de la Farnésine’, in Studia varia Carolo Guilielmo Vollgraff a discipulis oblata (1948), 3 fGoogle Scholar. I am not entirely convinced by Beyen's arguments. For the Farnesina landscape paintings, Lessing-Mau, pls. 1, IX, XI; Rostovtzeff, 22–5, 31–3, pl. IV; Blanckenhagen 1962, pls. 50, 51 (1). For the stuccoes E. L. Wadsworth, MAAR IV (1924), 25 f., 28 f., 30–2, pls. III, IV (2), v (1), VIII.

37 Blanckenhagen 1962, 9–11. For the landscapes, ibid., 20–37, pls. 32–9, C.

38 So ibid., 11. Contrast Schefold, Vergessenes Pompeji, 59 (A.D. 4–7); Bastet, in Andreae-Kyrieleis, 197 (A.D. 1–20).

39 Spinazzola, 358–63, figs. 408–11; Peters, 32 f., fig. 25. Now almost totally destroyed.

40 Bendinelli, G., Le pitture del colombario di Villa Pamphili (Monumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia III. Roma, V) (1941)Google Scholar, passim; Peters, 55–8.

41 Naples 8593. See Blanckenhagen 1962, 24, 28, pl. 49(1); Peters, 51 f., fig. 42. Its companion-piece (Naples 9413) is a mythological landscape rather than a genre landscape. On their provenance, A. Allroggen Bedel, in Andreae-Kyrieleis, 115 f.

42 Blanckenhagen 1962, 59 (suggests a link between the Farnesina and Boscotrescase workshops).

43 e.g. Rizzo 1936 a, 32 f.; Blanckenhagen 1962, 14, pls. 5, 6; Maiuri, 202 f., fig. 87.

44 e.g. Maiuri, Mem. Linc. 8, VII (1956), 73 and pl. I (I).

45 But chinoiserie was deliberately emphasized, whereas Egyptianizing elements are here used discreetly. Contra Rizzo 1936 b, 45, there is no need to look for the inspiration of our landscapes in Asia Minor or Syria (or in any specific place). For another view on Egyptian elements in Roman landscape, Schefold, Ath. Mitt. LXXI (1956), 216 f.; Röm. Mitt. LXXII (1965), 119–21.

46 Blanckenhagen 1962, 32–4.

47 On perspective in Pompeian painting see e.g. White, J., Perspective in Ancient Drawing and Painting (1956), 43–87Google Scholar. I suspect that vanishing-point perspective was used for stage-painting (scaenographia) and was thence translated, not always successfully, to II Style wall-decorations, but that the principle of applying it to isolated buildings or objects within a representational picture was never fully understood (pace White, op. cit., 82 f.).

48 Levi, D., ASAtene XXIV–XXVI (1946–1948), 243Google Scholar, translates ‘minimo inpendio’ as ‘coi mezzi più. semplici’. For possible deductions from Pliny's phrase see Pfuhl, op. cit. (n. 19), 884 (‘es ist ein Kennzeichen für die tiefere Stufe, auf welcher die Landschaftsmalerei neben der vornehmen Gestalten malerei stand’); Beyen 1, 170, n. 3 (the cheapness of Studius's paintings made them suitable for exposed positions).

49 For a detailed analysis of the Boscotrecase landscapes, Blanckenhagen 1962, 30–5.

50 The famous harbour painting from Stabiae (Naples, no number: Maiuri, , Peinture romaine, 123Google Scholar) is perhaps a later echo of one of these.

51 Man. Inst. XI (1879–1883), pls. XLIV–XLVIII; Lessing-Mau, pls. IX–XI; Aurigemma, S., The Baths of Diocletian and the Museo Nazionale Romano7 (1974), 141 f.Google Scholar, 144, pls. LXXXII–LXXXVII, XCIII (2).

52 Pliny, NH xxxv, 112.

53 For a good résumé of the different views on this controversial topic, Blanckenhagen 1963, 135–46. R. Bianchi Bandinelli in EAA v (1963), s.v. ‘Paesaggio’, 821–7, favours a Hellenistic origin for Roman landscape painting.

54 Diod. XXXI, 18, 2; Val. Max. v, 1, 1. Cf. Ptol., Geog. I, 5.

55 Pollux IV, 126. But Demetrios may have been a writer rather than a painter: cf. Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (1972) II, 213Google Scholar.

56 Blanckenhagen 1963, 106 (n. 24), 143 f. For a more recent statement of Schefold's view, Röm. Mitt. LXXII (1965), 119 f.

57 cf. Poll, IV, 131.

58 Telephus frieze: Alertümer von Pergamum III, 2; Winnefeld, H., Die Friese des grossen Altars (1910), 155 f.Google Scholar, Beil. 6, 7, pls. XXXI f. Munich relief: Beyen, , ‘Das Münchner Weihrelief’, BABesch. XXVII (1952), 1–12Google Scholar. Archelaus relief: Pinkwart, D., ‘Das Relief des Archelaos von Priene’, Antike Plastik IV (1965), 55–65, pls. 28–35Google Scholar. South-Italian vase-paintings: some of the best examples, including an oinochoe in Malibu showing Callisto, are recent discoveries as yet unpublished (I am grateful to Professor A. D. Trendall for showing me photographs of them). Paestan tomb-paintings: e.g. Napoli, M., Il Museo di Paestum (1969), pl. XXXIGoogle Scholar. Cup in Alexandria: Adriani, A., Divagazioni intorno ad una coppa paesistica del Museo di Alessandria (1959)Google Scholar; and, for alternative views on the dating and interpretation, Matz, F., in Gnomon XXXII (1960), 289–97Google Scholar; C. Picard, in RA (1960) II, 63 f.

59 Blanckenhagen 1963.

60 Curtius, op. cit. (n. 20), 389.

61 But for the differences between the Odyssey frieze and the Yellow Frieze see Blanckenhagen 1963, 143 f.

62 Dawson, 118, 120, 121, 124.

63 ibid., catalogue nos. 37, 58.

64 e.g. Schreiber, T., Die hellenistischen Reliefbilder (1894), pls. LXXIX, LXXXGoogle Scholar. The majority of the reliefs are now generally dated to imperial times. For a convenient catalogue and supplement see J. Sampson, PBSR XLII (1974), 27–45.

65 Paintings: see e.g. Wirth, F., Römische Wandmalerei (1934)Google Scholar, pls. 14, 16–18, 21, 41 a, 48, 51. Recently published landscapes: Mielsch, H., in Affreschi romani dalle raccolte dell'Antiquarium Comunale (1976), 36 f.Google Scholar, pls. c (1), x; Magi, F., Il calendario dipinto sotto Santa Maria Maggiore (Mem. Pont. Acc. XI, 1972), 32–40Google Scholar, pls. 11–IV, VII–XIII, XLIII–XLVIII; cf. Mielsch, , in Gnomon XLVIII (1976), 500 f.Google Scholar Mosaics: e.g. Rostovtzeff, 151–3.