1. ROMAN STATUES AND STATUETTES

In the earlier ages of Rome the laws and institutions, based without doubt on the sentiments of the people, were unfavourable to art. Numa was said to have prohibited the representation of the deity in human form,[2602] and the statues of great men were not allowed to exceed three Roman feet. To women the privilege of having statues was not conceded until much later. Pliny constantly compares the luxury of his own day with the simplicity of early times, to the disadvantage of the former, dwelling fondly on the times when men could be content with plain terracotta images, and it was not necessary or possible to make a display of silver and gold. Most of the ancient statues of the Romans were of terracotta, a fact to which constant allusion is made by their writers. Juvenal speaks of “a fictile Jove, not spoiled by gold”[2603] and Propertius speaks of the early days of the golden temples, when their gods were only of clay.[2604] Similarly Pliny expresses his surprise that, since statuary in Italy goes back to such a remote period, statues of clay should even in his day still be preferred in the temples.[2605] Vitruvius alludes to the favourite Tuscan fashion of ornamenting pediments with _signa fictilia_,[2606] examples of which, he says, may be seen in the temple of Ceres in the Circus Maximus (see below), and the temple of Hercules at Pompeii. Cicero speaks of a statue of Summanus on the pediment of the Capitoline temple “which at that time was of terracotta,”[2607] and Livy[2608] tells how in 211 B.C. a figure of Victory on the apex of the pediment of the temple of Concord was struck by lightning and fell, but was caught on the antefixal ornaments, also figures of Victory, and there stuck fast. Though not stated to be of terracotta, these figures would hardly be of any other material at that period. Other allusions may be found in Ovid and Seneca.[2609] In the early days of the Republic art was clearly at a very low ebb—in fact, Roman art can hardly be said to have existed—and everything was either borrowed from the Etruscans or imported from Greece. Hence the statues of terracotta which adorned their temples are spoken of as _signa Tuscanica_. The most celebrated works in ancient Rome were made by artists of Veii or the Volscian Fregellae, such as the famous quadriga on the pediment of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, and the statue of the god himself, described elsewhere (p. 314), which were made by Veientine artists in the time of Tarquinius Priscus. Numa, ever attentive to Roman arts and institutions, is said to have founded a corporation or guild of potters.[2610] In 493 B.C. Gorgasos and Damophilos, natives of Himera in Sicily, ornamented with terracotta reliefs and figures the temple of Ceres at Rome (now Santa Maria in Cosmedin).[2611] Their work, which is alluded to by Vitruvius in the passage referred to above, was probably Greek rather than Etruscan in style, as we have seen to be the case generally with the archaic terracotta relief-work of Italy (p. 317). In the reign of Augustus the temple was restored, and so great was the esteem in which the works of these old masters were held that they were taken out of the walls and framed in wood. Coming down to later times, Possis, “who made fruit and bunches of grapes,” and Arkesilaos are cited by Pliny,[2612] on the authority of Varro, as modellers in clay. The latter made for Julius Caesar a statue of Venus, which, although unfinished, was highly prized. Pliny also mentions a terracotta figure of _Felicitas_ made by order of Lucullus.[2613] It seems probable that the extensive use of terracotta was mainly due to the absence of white marble in Italy, none being discovered till imperial times. The siege of Corinth, which unfolded to the eyes of the Romans an entirely new school of art in the quantities of Greek masterpieces carried by Mummius to Rome, as also the conquest of Magna Graecia and other parts of Greece, caused the old fashion of sculpture in terracotta to fall into contempt and neglect. Henceforth the temples of the gods and houses of the nobility became enriched and beautified with the spoils of Greek art in all materials. Even at an earlier period (195 B.C.) Cato in vain protested against the invading flood of luxury, and especially against the new taste in sculpture. “Hateful, believe me,” says he, “are the statues brought from Syracuse into this city. Already do I hear too many who praise and admire the ornaments of Corinth and Athens, and deride the terracotta antefixes of the Roman gods. For my part I prefer these propitious gods, and hope they will continue to be so, if we allow them to remain in their places.”[2614] Yet up to the close of the Republic, and even later, great works continued to be executed in terracotta, and were much esteemed.[2615] The statue made for Lucullus is an instance, and existing statues in this material, which we shall shortly discuss, are probably of early Imperial date. Few statues of any size in this material have escaped the ravages of time, but there are some specimens to be seen in our museums. In the Vatican is a figure of Mercury about life-size,[2616] and in the British Museum a colossal torso,[2617] to which the head and limbs had been mortised separately. A head of a youth from a large statue, found on the Esquiline, was exhibited in 1888 at the Burlington Fine Arts Club.[2618] A series of female figures, including a seated Athena, ranging from two to four feet in height, was found in a well near the Porta Latina at Rome in 1767.[2619] They were purchased by the sculptor Nollekens, who restored them and sold them to Mr. Towneley, from whom they were acquired for the British Museum. They are made of the same clay as the mural reliefs already described, and are supposed to have decorated a garden. Some of them have been identified, on somewhat slight authority, as the Muses Ourania, Calliope, and Thaleia; there are also two terminal busts of the bearded Indian Bacchus, which show some traces of conventional archaism in their style. Other large figures have been found at Nemi and Ardea in Latium, the latter being now in the Louvre.[2620] At Pompeii in 1766 three pieces of colossal sculpture in terracotta were found in the temple of Aesculapius, representing a male and female deity and a bust of Minerva with her shield. The two former used to be identified as Aesculapius and Hygieia, but it is more probable that they are Jupiter and Juno, making, with the bust, the triad of Capitoline deities,[2621] a subject found on lamps at Pompeii. The execution is careful, and they seem to date from the latter half of the first century B.C. They formed the cult-statues of the temple. Other statues appear to have been employed for adorning gardens, or for niches in private houses, among which are a portrait of a seated physician of great originality,[2622] a nude boy, and two actors.[2623] A figure of Eros appears to have been attached to a wall as an ornament[2624]; a fragment of a colossal Minerva found in a niche near the Porta Marina is an excellent example of sculpture of the first century B.C. Figures were also employed as architectural members, such as the Atlantes supporting the entablature in the _tepidarium_ of the Thermae in the Forum,[2625] dating from the Augustan period; the former seem to be copied from originals in tufa. Of later date is a Caryatid figure, probably of the Neronian epoch.[2626] These sculptures are all of great importance for the history of art at the end of the first century B.C., and as showing the continued popularity of terracotta; the fashion, however, did not outlive the reign of Nero, and all those in Pompeii must be anterior to the earthquake of A.D. 63. Sculptors sometimes made preliminary models in clay of the statues which they intended to execute in bronze and marble. This was not a common practice with the Greeks, and the first sculptor who made use of it, according to Pliny,[2627] was Lysistratos, the brother of Lysippos. But at Rome in the time of Augustus it became much more frequent; Pasiteles is said by Pliny[2628] never to have made a statue except in this manner. These models, known as _proplasmata_, were much sought after, as exhibiting the artist’s style and powers of conception in the most free and unfettered manner, and those of Arkesilaos, another artist of the period, fetched a high price.[2629] * * * * * =Terracotta statuettes=, similar in proportions and subjects to those of Greece, are found in houses and tombs of the Roman period, and also as votive objects on sacred sites. They were known to the Romans as _sigilla_, and were employed as toys and presents, or placed in the _lararia_ or domestic shrines; the same subjects are found applied to all these uses. Thus in the _lararia_ were placed not only figures of deities, such as Venus, Mercury, or Bacchus, but masks, busts of children, and so on.[2630] Sometimes they served to decorate the walls, as in the house of Julia Felix at Pompeii, where in the wall surrounding the garden were eighteen niches, containing alternately marble terms and terracotta figures, one of the latter representing a woman feeding a prisoner with her own milk.[2631] In the Via Holconia forty-three terracotta figures from a workshop were found, showing that there was a local manufacture at Pompeii; the types were the same as in the houses.[2632] It is noteworthy that the terracottas, of which some two hundred have been found, were nearly all from the lower parts of the city and the inferior houses, or in the domestic quarters of the large houses. This implies that the richer Romans preferred bronze statuettes for their shrines and household decoration. Comparatively few were found in tombs. A few notices relating to terracotta figures are found in Roman authors. Martial speaks of a statuette of Hercules, which he calls _sigillum_[2633]; he also alludes to a caricature of a man which was so repulsive that Prometheus could only have made it when intoxicated at the Saturnalia, and to a grotesque mask of a Batavian.[2634] In another epigram he refers to the imitation of a well-known statue of a boy in terracotta.[2635] Persius speaks of clay dolls (_pupae_) dedicated by a maiden to Venus,[2636] and Achilles Tatius of clay figures of Marsyas made by _coroplathi_.[2637] Elagabalus, by way of a jest, used to place viands made of earthenware before his parasitical guests, and force them to enjoy a Barmecide feast.[2638] There is also an interesting passage in the _Satires_ of Macrobius relating to the festival of the Sigillaria,[2639] at which large numbers of terracotta masks and figures were in demand. This festival took place on the twelfth to the tenth days before the Kalends of January, forming the fifth to seventh days of the Saturnalia, and corresponding to the 21st to 23rd of December. Ausonius says that the festival was so named from the _sigilla_ or figurines,[2640] and Macrobius more explicitly states that it was added to the Saturnalia to extend the religious festival and time of public relaxation.[2641] Subsequently he diverges into an excursus on the origin of the feast, more curious than convincing. Epicadus is quoted by him as referring it to the story of Hercules on his return from slaying Geryon, when he threw into the river from the Pons Sublicius images of men which represented his lost travelling-companions, in order that they might be carried by the sea to their native shores.[2642] His own view is that they represent expiatory offerings (_piacula_) to Saturn, each man offering an _oscillum_ or mask on his own behalf in the chapel of that god. Hence, he says, _sigilla_ were made by the potter and put on sale at the Saturnalia.[2643] Elsewhere he states that clay _oscilla_ were given to children as playthings at this season even before they had learned to walk.[2644] The festival was indulged in by all classes of society, who vied in making presents of statuettes and figures to one another[2645]; and we are told that Hadrian exchanged gifts with others, and even sent them to those who did not expect to receive them.[2646] Similarly, Caracalla, when a child, gave to his tutors and clients, as a mark of condescension, those which he had received from his parents.[2647] [Illustration: FIG. 197. MASK OF SATYR, WITH NAME OF Q. VELIUS PRIMUS (BRIT. MUS.). ] From the use of this word _sigilla_ (a diminutive of _signum_), for terracotta figures, the makers came to be known as _sigillarii_, or _figuli sigillatores_,[2648] and a street in which they lived was known as the _Via Sigillaria_.[2649] There was also a market for the sale of _sigilla_ for the feast near the Pantheon.[2650] Although the names of makers are constantly found on Roman lamps and pottery, as well as the tiles, they are very seldom found on statuettes, with the exception mentioned below of those found in Gaul. But the name of Q. Velius Primus, in a sort of mixture of Greek and Latin, is found in raised letters on a mask of a Satyr in the British Museum (D 177 = Fig. 197), and other names are occasionally found on the moulds. The social condition of the Roman potter seems to have been much lower than that of the Greek, who was often a person of respectable position; but this may be partly due to the fact that his _clientèle_ was drawn mainly from the poorer classes. He was generally a slave, sometimes a barbarian, and even the masters of the potteries were only freedmen. As we saw in the case of the tile-makers, the potters often worked on the estates of wealthy or influential people, from which their clay was obtained. More details of Roman potters will be found in the sections dealing with tiles and lamps. On the technical aspect of Roman terracotta figures little need be said. The processes were practically the same as those described in