My article on Roman wall-painting and social significance (JRA 14, 33-56) provoked two immediate reactions. I would like to show that both scholars misinterpreted my argument and intentions.

Bergmarm's views are compatible in all respects with mine expressed in my article. In two introductory sections (33-42) I drew attention to some major misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the chronological model of Roman wall-painting developed by H. G. Beyen by scholars who have recently focused on paintings in their spatial and social context. B. agrees “that we lose much by neglecting the contributions of 19th- and 20th-c. scholars”. Presumably she took offence at what she calls my “ad hominem recriminations” In order to state my argument clearly, I quoted from several recent studies, mentioning their authors and places of publication. I pointed out as straightforwardly as possible that some of their views expressed are demonstrably untenable or, in some cases, not as innovative as suggested. This was done not to incriminate the authors but to bring some clarity in a discussion which risks becoming embroiled. Unfortunately, Bergmann does not question the validity of any of my specific “recriminations”, limiting herself to some general observations.

She defines as my “main concern (…) that current scholars do not find Beyen's methods (and [my] own) worth emulating”, and prefer to employ other approaches “looking at paintings within larger ensembles and spatial networks” which “might shed some light on the rooms they embellished”. Nothing is less true. I agree with her that scholars understandably “find the search for and understanding of these relationships as appealing as attempting to validate Stufe C of Phase I of Beyen's Second Style” — I would say “far more appealing” That is the reason why I relegated that specific validation to an Appendix (53-56), in spite of the perspectives it opens up for social history (56), and devoted my main section (42-53; discussed neither by Bergmann or Hallett) to the study of wall-painting in its spatial and social dimensions (cf. also JRA 9 [1996] esp. 366-74). Moreover, I stressed that “the basic concepts underlying this [new] line of research are sound and stimulating” (34); that “any comprehensive account of Roman wall-painting should transcend the level of specialists' chronological ‘finger-exercises’ and encompass the synchronic dimension”; that “actually, this is a communis opinio by now, and rightly so” (36); and that the contributions of social historians able “to introduce more appropriate and refined concepts and vocabulary … can only be welcomed” (42). My real concern in sections 1 and 2 was to counter the current trend to ‘throw out the baby with the bath-water’, i.e., the diachronic with the synchronic dimension, since “a sound functional model of Roman wall-painting cannot dispense with careful attention to diachronic developments in both form and style” (36).