CHAPTER XXII

_ROMAN POTTERY, HISTORICALLY TREATED; ARRETINE WARE_ Roman pottery mentioned by ancient writers—“Samian” ware—Centres of fabric—The pottery of Arretium—Characteristics—Potters’ stamps—Shapes of Arretine vases—Sources of inspiration for decoration—“Italian Megarian bowls”—Subjects—Distribution of Arretine wares. In the present chapter we propose to discuss the origin and character of the finer Roman pottery, or red glazed ware with designs in relief, which is usually known to modern writers under the convenient designation of _terra sigillata_, a phrase which has already been explained (p. 434). Not only in clay and glaze but in decoration these wares are characteristically Roman; but the question as to the actual centre or centres of their manufacture still admits of some discussion. Relying principally upon the testimony of Pliny, Martial, and other ancient writers, archaeologists have been accustomed to classify the red ware with reliefs, on a rough system of distinction according to artistic merit, as Arretine, Samian, and “false Samian.” The latter term “Samian” has indeed acquired such popularity that it has passed into the language as a conventional term of almost every-day use; but to the scientific investigator it has long been apparent that in point of accuracy it almost stands on a level with that of “Etruscan vase.” That of “false Samian” has usually been applied to a certain class of provincial wares, technically inferior to the “Samian.” But though both terms may still retain currency in popular language for the sake of convenience, it must not be supposed that they are impressed with the hall-mark of scientific terminology. Before however we attempt to distinguish the different fabrics on the basis of recent researches, it may be as well to investigate the statements of the classical writers and weigh the evidence which they afford on the various kinds of pottery in use in Italy under the Roman Empire. The most valuable information is found in the pages of Pliny, supplemented by Isidorus of Seville, who, writing in the seventh century, probably gives merely second-hand information. The former[3331] says: “The majority of mankind use earthenware vessels. Samian ware is commended even at the present day for dinner services; this reputation is also kept up by Arretium in Italy, and for drinking-cups by Surrentum, Hasta, Pollentia, Saguntum in Spain, and Pergamum in Asia. Tralles is also a centre for pottery, and Mutina in Italy ... and exportation from the celebrated potteries goes on all over the world.” Isidorus, who largely quotes from Pliny, gives the tradition that Samos was the seat of the original invention of pottery, “whence too came Samian vases.”[3332] He goes on to say that “Arretine vases are so called from Arretium, a town in Italy where they are made, for they are red.” But in regard to “Samian ware” he admits that there is another explanation of the term, namely that it is a corruption of Samnia. Herein he is possibly not far from the truth, for we have already seen that the adjacent region of Campania was in the last few centuries of the Republic famous as a centre for relief-wares, and it is possible that the manufacture of such pottery was carried on in the district, as for instance at Puteoli, long afterwards. We also know that Allifae in Samnium was a seat of this industry,[3333] and that a special class of pottery was made at Ocriculum and at Mevania in Umbria about 200 B.C. (see below, p. 490). On the other hand there is no doubt that Samos had a reputation for its pottery for many centuries, as is implied by the tradition which Isidorus quotes and by the words of Pliny: “even at the present day it is commended.” In a previous chapter it has been suggested that the so-called Megarian bowls, which undoubtedly are a prototype of the Roman wares, represent the Samian pottery of the Hellenistic period; but whether this is so or not, the most probable conclusion is that the term “Samian” connotes in the first instance a Greek, not a Roman, fabric; that this Greek ware was imported into Italy; and that it became so popular that the term really came into use for native products, just as now-a-days we are able to speak of “China” which has travelled no further than from Worcester, Sèvres, or Dresden. It may thus have become a generic name for table-ware. Plautus mentions Samian ware more than once (see above, p. 456), usually with reference to its brittleness, as in the _Menaechmi_,[3334] where Menaechmus says, “Knock gently!” to which the parasite Peniculus replies: “I suppose you are afraid the doors are Samian.” Again in the _Bacchides_,[3335] with a jesting allusion to Samos as the home of one of the two heroines: “Take care, please, that no one handles her carelessly; you know how easily a Samian vase gets broken.” In another passage he speaks of a _Samiolum poterium_.[3336] And Tertullian, speaking of Numa’s times, says that only Samian vases were as yet in use.[3337] Pliny also mentions Pergamum and Tralles as centres of fabrics, and speaks of the _firmitas_ or toughness of that of Kos, but of these we know nothing further. It has been pointed out by Dragendorff that there was some manufacture of _terra sigillata_ in Asia Minor under the Empire,[3338] probably an imitation of the Italian ware, as the examples known present the same characteristics as the provincial wares of Central Europe, and the forms are also those of the Arretine vases. The same writer has shown that there were also manufactures of _terra sigillata_ in Greece itself, in Egypt, and in Southern Russia, which were of similar character. To return to Italy and its local fabrics. It is not to be supposed that there was any one principal centre, for different towns excelled in their respective wares, and these were imported from one to the other, and especially into Rome. This city was of course originally supplied with earthenware by the Etruscans, whose mantle fell on the town of Arretium, but it cannot be doubted that the manufacture of pottery must have been carried on to some extent in Rome itself after the absorption of the Etruscan people. We read that even in Numa’s time there was a Guild of Potters (see p. 372), but it never appears to have excelled in any of the finer wares, and is ignored by Pliny, though we have evidence from other sources. Thus Martial speaks of _cadi Vaticani_,[3339] and Juvenal of fragile dishes from the Vatican hill.[3340] Cato says _dolia_ are best bought in Rome, tiles at Venafrum.[3341] And the evidence of a pottery in the third and second centuries B.C. on the Esquiline which is given by the find of lamps described in Chapter XX. is supported by Festus.[3342] Pliny, as we have seen, mentions Arretium, Hasta and Pollentia, Mutina and Surrentum with commendation; he also couples the pottery of Hadria with that of Kos for _firmitas_.[3343] He further implies that Arretium kept up the old pre-eminence of the Samian ware, and this is borne out, not only by what we gather from Martial and other writers, but still more by modern discoveries, of which we shall shortly speak in detail. Of the other potteries less is known, but remains have been found at Hasta and Pollentia (Asti and Pollenza in Piedmont)[3344] and the _figlinae_ of Velleia in the same region were also well known in antiquity.[3345] At Mutina (Modena) remains of a pottery were found (see Vol. I. p. 71), together with vases of Arretine type, and the potter Fortis, whose name so often occurs on lamps (p. 426), appears to have had his workshop here.[3346] His stamps are also found on tiles and on pottery of all kinds, even Arretine. Here, too, were found vases of black ware, of “Graeco-Campanian” style, sometimes with stamps impressed from gems, and unglazed red plates stamped with small palmettes like the Greek black-glazed wares (Vol. I. p. 212). Livy mentions that in 176 B.C. a great destruction took place here of “all kinds of vases, made more for use than for ornament.”[3347] In their general results the pottery-finds are instructive as showing the transition from black to red wares, which may also be observed in the vases of Popilius and the early Arretine fabrics (see below).[3348] Campania in general seems to have maintained the traditions of the Calene and Etrusco-Campanian fabrics of the third century (Chapter XI.), and there is evidence of manufacture and export in the first century B.C. Horace’s table was supplied with _Campana supellex_.[3349] Surrentum ware is mentioned by Martial[3350] as well as Pliny, and, as indicated in the preceding chapter (p. 462), supplied amphorae of local wine to Pompeii.[3351] The pottery of Cumae, which place was at an earlier date an important centre for painted vases (Vol. I. p. 80), is mentioned by Martial[3352] It would also seem to have supplied clay for the vases made at the neighbouring Puteoli, which had no local clay suitable for the purpose, and is not mentioned by ancient writers. The latter has however yielded large numbers of vases of a type closely resembling the Arretine, and a pottery was discovered in 1874, with moulds.[3353] Some of the vases have Arretine stamps,[3354] which imply importations during the first century B.C., but names of local potters are also known, chief of whom is Numerius Naevius Hilarus, who employed eleven slaves. Q. Pomponius Serenus and L. Valerius Titus are also found here and elsewhere in Southern Italy and at Nismes.[3355] Some fragments of this Puteoli ware from various sources are in the British Museum.[3356] Horace speaks of pottery from Allifae in Samnium,[3357] and Pliny mentions the popularity of that made at Rhegium and Cumac[3358]; this exhausts the list of sites known to us from ancient writers. In the provinces the only place which had any fame was Saguntum, alluded to by Pliny and more than once by Martial, who speaks of cups (_pocula_ and _cymbia_) fashioned from Saguntine clay[3359]; also of a _synthesis septenaria_ or nest of seven cups, “polished by the potter’s coarse tool, of clay turned on the Spanish wheel.”[3360] But modern researches on the site have not thrown any light on the character of the local fabric (p. 540)[3361]; it is only at Tarragona that _terra sigillata_ has been found. The pottery of Arretium is more than once referred to by Martial, who notes that it compared unfavourably with the splendour of crystal vessels, but at the same time begs his hearer not to regard it altogether with contempt, for Porsena was well served with his Tuscan earthenware[3362]: Arretina nimis ne spernas vasa monemus; Lautus erat Tuscis Porsena fictilibus. An epigram in the Latin Anthology (259) says: Arretine calix, mensis decor ante paternis, Ante manus medici quam bene sanus eras.[3363] Other allusions are less direct.[3364] Coming down to more modern times, we actually find mention of the pottery in a manuscript written by Sig. Ristori of Arezzo in 1282, and by C. Villani in his _History of the World_, written in the fourteenth century. Subsequently Alessi, who lived in the time of Leo X., described the discovery of red ware about a mile from the city, and Vasari tells us that in 1484 his grandfather found in the neighbourhood three vaults of an ancient furnace. Further allusions are found in the writings of Gori (1734) and Rossi (1796); and in 1841 Fabroni published a history of Arretine ware,[3365] in which the above facts are recorded. He tells us that in 1779 potteries were unearthed at Cincelli or Centum Cellae, which contained, besides various implements, part of a potter’s wheel, resembling those in vogue at the present day. It was composed of two circular slabs placed round one pivot at an interval from one another, their diameter not being the same. The wheel actually found was of terracotta, about 11 inches in diameter by 3 inches in thickness, with a groove round the edge. It was bound with a leaden tyre, held in place by six cylinders of the same metal, and appears to have been the upper of the two slabs, the “table” on which the clay was placed.[3366] The Arretine ware must be regarded as _the_ Roman pottery _par excellence_. The term was used anciently in an extended sense for all vases of a certain technique without regard to the place of manufacture, as a piece of evidence from Spain tends to show. Pottery has been found at Tarragona with the inscription, A TITII FIGVL ARRE, _A. Titii figul(i) Arre(tini_),[3367] which has generally been taken to mean a maker of Arretine ware living on the spot, just as now-a-days Wilton or Brussels carpets may be made at Kidderminster. The general characteristics of the Arretine ware are: (1) the fine local red clay, carefully worked up and baked very hard to a rich coral-colour, or like sealing-wax; (2) the fine red glaze, composed chiefly of silica, iron oxide, and an alkaline substance, which, as we have seen (p. 437), was perhaps borax; (3) the great variety of forms employed, which show in a marked degree the influence of metal-work; (4) the stamps with potter’s names, which are almost invariably found. The duration of this pottery seems to have been from about 150 B.C. to the end of the first century of the Empire, at which time pottery in Italy had reached a very degenerate stage, and the height of its success and popularity was during the first century B.C. Analyses of the vases show that practically the same results as to their composition are obtained from different periods. During the last century these vases have been found in large numbers at Arezzo, and there is now a considerable quantity of them collected in the public museum of that city, as well as in private collections and the museums of other countries. The official record of Italian excavations contains an account of finds made in 1883, 1884, 1890, 1894, and 1896 on various sites in the city and immediate neighbourhood,[3368] and gives the locality of the different potteries,[3369] as well as the names of their owners. The first potter’s name recorded was that of Calidius Strigo by Alessi; it was found in 1492 in the presence of Giovanni de’ Medici, afterwards Leo X. Others were given by Gori, and fuller lists (up to date) by Fabroni in 1841, Gamurrini in 1859, and Marini in 1884.[3370] At the present day the most complete information on this head may be found in the recently published volume of the _Corpus_ of Latin inscriptions dealing with Etruria,[3371] in which the results of the most recent excavations are incorporated. A large number have also been found at Rome, the names being identical with those found at Arezzo, and the ware consequently imported.[3372] It must be distinguished from the inferior relief wares either of local fabric (see p. 492) or imported from Gaul, Northern Italy, and elsewhere. Names of Arretine potters are also found in large numbers at Modena, Rimini, and other places in Northern Italy, in France, Spain, and elsewhere. The stamps range in date from the second century B.C. down to the Christian era, but not beyond the first century of the Empire. The oldest of all, it is interesting to note, are found on black-glazed wares similar in character to those from the Esquiline.[3373] The red-glazed ware probably came in about 100 B.C., and the two methods appear to have been for a time contemporaneous. The initials Q A · F and C · V which occur on early red Arretine wares[3374] are also found on the Esquiline lamps. Next comes the red ware with quadrangular stamps repeated four or five times on the bottom, followed by single quadrangular stamps and those of varying form, especially some in the shape of a foot, which are not found in the best period at Arretium, and seem to belong only to the time of the Empire. This form of stamp is very common on lamps and plain pottery, and there are many examples of bronze stamps in this shape extant.[3375] Those vases which have stamps on the exterior in the midst of the design represent the middle or Augustan period. The older stamps are more deeply impressed in the surface of the vase than the later. On the whole, the palaeographical evidence of the stamps is very slight, and we can only roughly date them between 100 B.C. and 100 A.D.[3376] Dragendorff has, however, noted that the slaves’ names are mostly Greek, a detail which helps to establish a _terminus post quem_, placing them later than 146 B.C. The Calidius Strigo of whom we have already spoken was a potter of some importance, employing twenty slaves, of whom the names of Protus and Synistor occur most frequently. But he only seems to have made plain table wares without reliefs, examples of which are found in Rome and elsewhere. A potter named Domitius had a workshop on the same spot, but only employed a few slaves. A more important name is that of Publius Cornelius, first found by Ferdinando Rossi in the eighteenth century at Cincelli, together with remains of his workshop; many additional examples were found in 1883 and 1892. He employed no less than forty slaves, of whom the best known are Antioc(h)us, Faustus, Heraclides, Primus, and Rodo. One vase by the last-named has medallions with the head of Augustus and the inscription, AVGVSTVS, which gives the date of the fabric.[3377] Previous to the discovery of this in 1893 Gamurrini had supposed that Cornelius was one of the colonists placed at Arezzo by Sulla. Many of his vases are found at Rome, and also in Spain and Southern Italy. The vases with CORNELI in a foot-shaped stamp are probably not his. He appears to have acquired the business of two other potters—C. Tellius and C. Cispius. Among all the potters’ stamps few are commoner than that of M. Perennius, and his wares certainly take the highest rank for their artistic merit. All his relief designs are copied from the best Greek models, as will be seen later. Few of his vases seem to have been exported to Rome, but they are found in Spain and Southern Gaul. The form of the name on the stamps varies greatly,[3378] the commonest being M. PERENNI; M. PEREN., M. PERE., and M. PER. are also found, and even M. PE. with the letters joined in a monogram. He employed seventeen slaves, of whom the best known is Tigranes. His name appears as TIGRAN, TIGRA, or TIGR, and always in conjunction with that of Perennius. These two are found on a vase with Achilles and Diomede fighting against Hector,[3379] and on three Arretine moulds in the British Museum, the subjects of which are a dance of Maenads, masks of Maenads and Satyrs, and a banquet scene (Plate LXVI. figs. 4, 6). The name of Tigranes appears alone on a fine vase in the Louvre with the apotheosis of Herakles.[3380] Another slave, Cerdo, made a vase with the nine Muses, their names being inscribed over them in Greek.[3381] A third slave who produced vases of more than average merit was Bargates, whose name is found on a fine vase in the Boston Museum (Fig. 218),[3382] the subject of which is the fall of Phaëthon, who lies shattered in pieces on the ground, with Tethys coming to his rescue. Zeus with his thunderbolt and Artemis with her bow have brought about his downfall. Helios is seen collecting his terrified steeds; and the rest of the design is occupied with the transformation of the Heliades into poplars. [Illustration: From _Philologus_. FIG. 218. ARRETINE BOWL WITH DEATH OF PHAËTHON (BOSTON MUSEUM). ] The site of Perennius’ principal workshop appears to have been in the city itself, close to the church of Sta. Maria in Gradi; but he may also have had a branch manufactory at Cincelli or Centum Cellae. Signor Pasqui[3383] notes that his name occurs alone on the interior of plain bowls and dishes. Next to these come the copies of Greek models by Cerdo, Pilades, Pilemo, and Nicephorus, followed by Tigranes, and then by Bargates, who also worked for Tigranes when he became a freedman (the stamps being in the form BARGATE / M · TIGR); lastly occur the names of Crescens and Saturninus. Three Annii had a pottery near the church of San Francesco, and employed over twenty slaves, with both Greek and Roman names; the most important of the three is C. Annius, who made vases with reliefs, as did Lucius, but Sextus only made plain wares. There are also vases stamped ANNI only; they probably belong to the first century B.C. Aulus Titius is found frequently at Arezzo and Rimini, at Lillebonne in France, and, as we have seen, in Spain; his wares also penetrated to Africa and all parts of Italy. He has no names of slaves coupled with his, and his signature appears in the various forms, _A. Titi_, _A. Titi figul._, _A. Titi figul. Arret_. He was succeeded by C. Titius Nepos, who had fifteen slaves, and there is also a L. Titius. C. and L. Tettius occur at Rome, but only the latter at Arezzo[3384]; the word SAMIA, which occurs on his stamps, is more likely to be a proper name than to have any reference to Samian ware. The name of Rasinius, which is associated with more names of slaves than any except P. Cornelius, is found more often at Rome than at Arezzo[3385]; it also occurs at Pompeii,[3386] and at Neuss in Germany, which facts point to the time of Augustus and A.D. 79 as the limits of date. Of the numerous slaves, some were afterwards employed by C. Memmius. There appear to have been at least two representatives of the name, C. Rasinius in the Augustan period, and L. Rasinius Pisanus in the Flavian. The latter Déchelette has shown to be a degenerate Arretine, making imitations of Gaulish ware.[3387] L. and C. Petronius are found at Arezzo, together with remains of their potteries, and C. Gavius, who belongs to the Republican period, at Cincelli. Numerous other potters who are probably Arretine may be found in Ihm’s lists[3388]; on the other hand, there are stamps found at Rome and in Etruria which cannot have originated from Arretium. Such are _Atenio circitor refi(ciendum) curavit_,[3389] and _Faustus Salinator Seriae_[3390]; those with OF(_ficina_), such as OF · FELICIS, which are found at Rome, but are probably Gaulish[3391]; those with _fecit_ or _epoei_ (ἐποίει),[3392] with the exception of _Venicius fecit hec_, from Arezzo[3393]; and _Atrane_, a name found at Vulci, Chiusi, and many other sites in Etruria, but not at Arezzo.[3394] The name usually given in the signatures on the stamps is that of the maker only; sometimes a slave’s name is added, either above or below the maker’s, or on a separate stamp. The maker’s name usually gives the _nomen_ and _praenomen_, implying a freedman, and when given in full is seen to be in the genitive; the slave’s name is usually in the nominative. Four typical varieties are given by the following stamps from the pottery of P. Cornelius, with the name of the slave Potus: POTVS P·CORN POTI P·CORN P·COR POTVS P·CORN POTI A difficulty sometimes arises in regard to these two-line stamps when the slave’s name occurs _below_ that of the master, on account of the frequent abbreviations; for instance, it is not easy to say whether such stamps as A·VIBI or P·CORNELI DIOM ANTHVS denote one name or two, for there are certain instances where the master has three names.[3395] It is always possible that the name denotes a slave become a freedman, as A. Vibius Diomedes or P. Cornelius Anthus, and in Dr. Dressel’s opinion[3396] this is the most probable explanation; but the alternative has much in its favour. There are, moreover, stamps such as P·MESEINI or P·CORNELI AMPLIO S(_ervus_) FIRMVS F(_ecit_) which, of course, leave no room for doubt. In later examples the _praenomen_ is often omitted, and occasionally the _praenomen_ and _cognomen_ are found without the gentile name[3397]; there are also a few instances of female names.[3398] An exceptional form of signature is given by CINNA C·L·TITI(_orum_) S(_ervus_); occasionally also, as in the example from Spain already quoted, FIGVL(_us_) ARRE(_tinus_), or simply ARRETI(_nus_), are found. Sometimes, again, two potters seem to have been in partnership, as Sura and Philologus, L. Gellius and L. Sempronius (L·GELLI L SEMP),[3399] or two firms, as the Umbricii and Vibieni. The simple quadrangular form of stamp is by far the commonest, and, next to this, an outline of a foot; less frequent forms, and of later date, are the circular, oval, or lunate, and other varieties of marks, such as wreaths, stars, or branches. Dr. Dressel gives no less than eighty-seven types from Rome,[3400] of which thirty-three are rectangular with ornamental edges. The forms of the letters are not always an indication of date, but such forms as 15[14]Attic alpha 15[15]alpha for A, 15[12]E for E, and 15[12]F for F betoken an early date. Ligatured letters abound. The names are often written from right to left, or left to right with separate letters reversed or inverted; or the words are broken up as MVS for Docimus, MVS for Romanu(s), DOCI ROM and so on.[3401] The stamps were probably of wood, but some are taken from seal-rings. * * * * * The forms of Arretine vases are all, without exception, borrowed from metal originals, and in their contours display the same tendency. But, as compared with the Hellenistic forms they show great simplicity, and almost, as it were, a return to archaism. The vases are for the most part of small size, and indeed the dimensions of the furnaces at Arezzo seem to indicate that larger vases could not have been baked in them. They are principally cups, bowls, and dishes, the former of hemispherical or cylindrical form and devoid of handles—a characteristic which usually distinguishes Roman from Greek pottery. Some of the moulds for Arretine ware in the British Museum collection appear to have been used for a deep cup with flat base and spreading lip (Plate LXVI. fig. 5), of a type which finds no parallel in Greek shapes, but the hemispherical bowl on a low foot is the prevailing form. Other shapes are extremely rare, a notable exception being the beautiful krater in the British Museum with figures of the Seasons (Fig. 219), which, although found at Capua, is certainly Arretine in style and technique. The technical methods employed we have already described in the preceding chapter,[3402] and there do not appear to have been any variations peculiar to this fabric. Fabroni (p. 37) states that cinerary urns, tiles, lamps, and reliefs were also made in the potteries at Arretium. [Illustration: FIG. 219. ARRETINE KRATER WITH THE FOUR SEASONS (BRITISH MUSEUM).] The prototypes of the forms we have seen to be the Hellenistic vases of chased metal, for which Alexandria was the principal centre. But, apart from form, it is doubtful whether the Alexandrine toreutic work exercised much influence on the potters of Arretium. For the decoration and subjects they undoubtedly drew their inspiration chiefly from the New-Attic reliefs[3403] and the art of Asia Minor, as has been pointed out by more than one recent writer,[3404] who have urged that the influence of Alexandria on Roman art has been greatly over-estimated.[3405] Dragendorff points out that all the famous chasers known to us were natives of Asia Minor,[3406] and thinks that Rhodes was probably the centre of this art. It must also be borne in mind that the second century was the era of collecting works of art in Greece and Asia Minor and conveying them to Rome, so that the examples which were most prominently before the eyes of Italian artists under the later Republic were just these products of Greece and Asia Minor in the Hellenistic Age. Moreover, the Rhodian and Pergamene schools of art were still living when that of Alexandria was dying out under the later Ptolemies. The mixed style of art of the first century B.C. is essentially Roman, produced under the influence of the Greek works then collected in Rome, and does not extend beyond Italy. But it is also conceivable that its predecessors in the line of ceramic development contributed to produce the ware of Arretium. It recalls in some respects the different Greek relief-wares discussed in Chapter XI., the Calene phialae of the third century, and the so-called Megarian or Homeric bowls, in which some have seen the real “Samian” ware of the Roman writers, dating from the same period. To these succeeded in Hellenic lands the fabrics of Athens, Southern Russia, and Asia Minor, to which allusion has already been made, and which often present similar characteristics to the Arretine fabrics. Nor must it be forgotten that the earliest Arretine pottery was covered with a black glaze, which may indeed represent a desire to reproduce the effect of metal, but is much more likely to be a direct heritage from the late Greek pottery, which in this respect carried on the tradition of the painted wares. At all events, two main characteristics of Hellenistic pottery have plainly left their mark on Roman fabrics: the disappearance of painting under the influence of relief decoration imitated from metal, and the cessation of the exclusive use of a black varnish. The transition seems to be partially effected by a small group of vases which have been styled “Italian Megarian bowls” or “Vases of Popilius,” after the potter C. Popilius, whose name occurs on many of them.[3407] They form a distinct class, dating apparently from the third century B.C., on the testimony of the inscriptions; the form is that of a hemispherical bowl without handle or foot, with very thin walls, and covered with a slip of varying colour—yellow, brown, or black. These bowls, too, are a close imitation of metal-work, especially in the arrangement of the reliefs. The ornament usually consists of long leaves and scrolls radiating from a rosette on the foot and bordered above by bands of wave- or tongue-pattern, scrolls, or garlands; the ground is filled in with stars, shields, and other devices. In the finer examples a frieze of figures is added, with such motives as Erotes, masks, dolphins, and ox-skulls repeated. The bowl of Popilius published by Hartwig is the only one with a definite subject: a fight between Greeks and Barbarians, which is an undoubted reminiscence of the famous mosaic at Pompeii with Alexander at the Issus. Eleven bowls by Popilius are known, two by L. Appius (see Fig. 220), and one each by L. Atinius and L. Quintius. The first-named potter seems to have lived partly at Ocriculum, partly at Mevania in Umbria; both he and Appius also made “Calene” ware. These potters were freedmen, as the use of the two names indicates. Their work does not show the fine glaze of the Calene and Arretine fabrics, but is decorative in its effect; each ornamental motive is produced from a separate stamp, and the potter’s marks are put on _en barbotine_ (see p. 442). [Illustration: FIG. 220. “ITALIAN MEGARIAN” BOWL BY L. APPIUS (BRITISH MUSEUM).] To sum up with Dragendorff,[3408] it is clear that a careful study of Hellenistic pottery is necessary for a correct estimate of the Italian and Roman. As in the case of other arts, it proves that the Romans were merely receptive, at best only developing what they received. This development began with the importation of Greek relief-wares with black varnish, especially from Asia Minor, and their imitation at Cales. Then, as in Greece, so in Italy, the search for new forms, colouring, and decoration began and brought about a degeneration of technique. What the Calene vases are to those of Asia Minor, so are the vases of Popilius to the “Megarian” bowls. Finally, the finds in Southern Russia show that even the technique of the red-glazed ware is not an Arretine invention, but was already known to the Greeks, although first brought to perfection in Italy. * * * * * We must now return to the Arretine vases and turn our attention to their subjects and decoration, and their place in artistic development. Dragendorff[3409] divides them into two classes, including with them the vases of Puteoli, which bear Arretine stamps, and probably only represent a mere off-shoot of the latter potteries, merely differing in the quality of the design and in the absence of many of the best types. These were mostly discovered in 1874, and it is possible that the krater from Capua (p. 488) may also be reckoned as originating from this source. His first class includes the vases of M. Perennius, which form such a large proportion of the signed Arretine wares. They are characterised by friezes of figures repeated, or of groups of figures all of the same size, sometimes divided by pillars or terminal figures. Ground-ornaments are rare, and the ground under the figures is not indicated as elsewhere. The subjects include Dionysiac scenes, such as dancing Maenads, sacrifices, drinking-scenes, the vintage, or Dionysos in a chariot; Cupids, Muses, and Seasons; Victory sacrificing a bull; Nereids with the weapons of Achilles; Hieroduli or priestesses dancing, with wicker head-dresses; banqueting, erotic, and hunting-scenes. Examples of the latter classes are given on Plate LXVI. The types of the figures, as in the case of the dancing Maenads, are largely derived from the New-Attic reliefs (see above). In the second class, to which belong the vases of P. Cornelius and those found at Puteoli, a large use of ornament is the most conspicuous feature. The figures are little more than decorative, or form motives of a sculpturesque character, and are not, as in the first class, isocephalous. Naturalistic motives, such as wreaths, are very frequent. Among the types we have figures like those in the Nile-scenes on the terracotta mural reliefs (p. 371) and Centaurs derived from Hellenic prototypes. ------------------------------------------------------ PLATE LXVI [Illustration: MOULDS AND STAMP OF ARRETINE WARE, WITH CASTS FROM THE FORMER (BRITISH MUSEUM). ] ------------------------------------------------------ Throughout there is a remarkable variety, not only of subjects, but of ornaments and methods of composition, features in which the Greek vase-painters at all periods allowed themselves little freedom. The ornamentation, which usually borders the figures above and below, or still oftener occupies the whole surface available for decoration, includes such motives as conventional wreaths and festoons, scrolls of foliage, and egg-and-tongue pattern; a favourite device is the use of columns with spiral shafts, often surmounted by masks, between the figures. But it is often naturalistic as well as conventional, at least in detail, and only in the general effect is it purely ornamental rather than a reproduction of nature. In the figures derived from the New-Attic reliefs and similar sources, such as metal reliefs on bases, candelabra, etc., the copyist usually shows a strong tendency to archaism; the attitudes of the figures are graceful, but somewhat affected. They seldom represent any particular action or story, but even human figures are merely decorative. Groups of dancing figures are especially favoured, such as Satyrs and Maenads, or the Hieroduli or dancing priestesses, who wear a curious headdress of wicker-work (_calathus_)[3410]; or we see Genii and Cupids crowning altars and lamp-stands, or playing on musical instruments. Throughout the parallelism with the Roman mural reliefs (p. 367 ff.) is most remarkable, whether in the archaising style, the decorative treatment of human figures, or in the choice of themes: the dancing Maenads and Satyrs, the Hieroduli, Victory sacrificing a bull, or the figures of Seasons. Of the last-named a fine instance is the beautiful krater from Capua, now in the British Museum (Fig. 219), the figures on which are most delicately modelled. A stamp in the same collection from Arezzo has a figure of Spring, which repeats the type of the Capua vase (Plate LXVI. fig. 2: see p. 439). A somewhat later development, corresponding to the second class described above, seems to draw its inspiration rather from the Hellenistic reliefs of naturalistic style, such as Schreiber has published, dating from the third century B.C.[3411] The figures are no longer stiff, but free and vigorous, and elaborate compositions are attempted, some being perhaps excerpts from large Hellenistic compositions. Realistic landscapes in the Hellenistic style, with rocks and trees, are largely favoured, and the repertory of subjects includes Dionysiac sacrifices and processions, combats of Centaurs and Lapiths, and hunting-scenes. A fragmentary mould in the British Museum is a good example of the latter, only that here the scene is definitely characterised as Alexander the Great at a lion-hunt (Plate LXVI. figs. 1, 3). The king is just slaying a lion, which stands over a man whom it has felled, and Krateros advances to his assistance with an axe. A wreath which adorns the beast’s neck seems to indicate that it was an animal specially kept in the royal park for hunting.[3412] The mould bears the name of M. Perennius. Dragendorff, in a valuable and illuminating estimate of the Arretine wares,[3413] points out that they are an example of the tendency, so constantly occurring in classic art, to imitate one substance in another. He is further of opinion that they largely reproduce contemporary originals which illustrate the eclectic art of the Augustan period, instituting a reaction against Hellenistic art and forming in their simple shapes a contrast to the _baroque_ forms of later Hellenistic pottery. The art of the Augustan Age was followed, as Wickhoff has pointed out,[3414] by a period of impressionism or illusionist style derived from painting, which is, however, completely absent from Arretine and all other pottery of the Roman period. It may, therefore, be fairly assumed that when the impressionist style came into vogue, the art of the Arretine potter had had its day. All subsequent wares with reliefs are essentially provincial, and the origin of their style is uncertain, but it is at all events not derived from any of the contemporary phases of Roman art. The vases of the types which we have been describing are not, as has been hinted already, found exclusively at Arezzo. In Italy they are found in all parts,[3415] and the stamps of known Arretine potters occur in large numbers in Rome, as also at Cervetri, Chiusi, Vulci, and elsewhere in Etruria,[3416] and at Mutina (Modena).[3417] They are also found all over Campania, at Capua, Cumae, Pompeii, and Pozzuoli. North of the Alps they occur but rarely, and almost exclusively in Gallia Narbonensis,[3418] but we have seen that they are found in Spain, and instances are also recorded from Sardinia, Africa, Greece,[3419] Asia Minor, and Cyprus.[3420] From these details two conclusions may be drawn, either that there were various centres scattered over the Empire for the manufacture of what was currently known as “Arretine ware,” or that an extensive system of exportation went on from one centre, which would naturally be Arretium. Certainly there is no difference either technically or artistically between the Arezzo vases and some of those found in other places, such as Modena or Capua. Either view has something in its favour, and it is doubtful whether the question is yet ripe for solution. * * * * * The Arretine ware, as we have seen, steadily degenerated during the first century of the Empire, and at the close of that period had practically come to an end. The question then arises, What took its place in Italy? For it will be seen in the following pages that in discussing the remaining examples of _terra sigillata_ which Roman potters have left us, we have to deal almost entirely with provincial wares, made in Gaul and Germany, and exported largely even into Central and Southern Italy. Not the least striking feature in the history of Roman pottery is the rapid rise of these provincial fabrics, and the reputation which they so speedily acquired even in the more central and more civilised parts of the empire. Yet the manufacture of pottery in Italy cannot have died out entirely by the end of the first century. The plain and unglazed wares for domestic or other ordinary uses, such as the _dolia_ and wine amphorae, of course continued to be made in Italy as elsewhere, and the list of centres given by Pliny, which we have already discussed, clearly shows that in the Flavian epoch several places still preserved a reputation for the manufacture of pottery. On the other hand, we have no evidence that the pottery made in these centres had any other than utilitarian merit, or that it represents what we know as _terra sigillata_, and it is certainly remarkable that all the ornamental wares found in Italy are either of the Arretine type or else importations from Gaul, with very few exceptions. Lamps and tiles, as we have seen in previous chapters, continued to be made throughout the second and third centuries, but both were essentially utilitarian in their purposes, and the latter, at any rate, lay no claim to artistic distinction. The growing use of metal vases by all but the poorer classes, was also not without its effect on the disappearance of moulded wares in Italy, and a reference thereto may perhaps be traced in Martial’s plea for the Arretine pottery (p. 479). It therefore seems safest to assume that as in the fourth century B.C. the manufacture of painted vases ceased at Athens, but entered on a new era of development in Southern Italy with the migration of Athenian artists to the Hellenic centres of that region, so in the first century after Christ the manufacture of _terra sigillata_ in Italy—as distinguished from plain pottery and other objects such as lamps—gradually died out, owing to the migration of artists and transference of artistic traditions to the rising centres of a new civilisation in the country bordering on the Rhone and the Rhine. It will be our object in the succeeding pages to collect the evidence for the existence and importance of the potteries in these regions, and to show, in short, that they for some time supplied to the whole Roman world all that its representatives were then capable of in the way of artistic and decorative work in pottery. In the following chapter will also be more conveniently discussed the vases of Ateius, Aco, and other potters which represent the transition from the Arretine to the Gaulish fabrics. ----- Footnote 3331: _H.N._ xxxv. 160 ff. Footnote 3332: _Etym._ xx. 4, 3. Footnote 3333: Hor. _Sat._ ii. 8, 39. Footnote 3334: i. 2, 65. Footnote 3335: ii. 2, 22. Footnote 3336: _Stich._ v. 4, 12: cf. Mart. iii. 81, 3; Lucil. _ap._ Non. p. 398; Tibull. ii. 3, 47; Cic. _pro Murcna_, 36, 75; Cornif. Rhet. _ad Herenn._ iv. 51. Footnote 3337: _Apol._ 25. Footnote 3338: _Bonner Jahrbücher_, ci. (1897), p. 140: cf. _ibid._ xcvi. p. 25, and Blümner, _Technol._ ii. p. 103. Footnote 3339: i. 19; see above, p. 463. Footnote 3340: vi. 344. Footnote 3341: _Agric._ 135. Footnote 3342: Paul. _ex_ Fest. _ed._ Müller, 344_b_; “in Esquilina regione figulo cum fornax plena vasorum coqueretur.” Footnote 3343: xxxv. 161. Footnote 3344: Cf. Mart. xiv. 157; “solet calices haec dare terra” (of Pollentia). Footnote 3345: See _C.I.L._ xi. 1147; for recent finds, _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1837, p. 10 ff. Footnote 3346: _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1837, _loc. cit._; 1875, p. 192. Footnote 3347: xli. 18. Footnote 3348: See generally _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 53. Footnote 3349: _Sat._ i. 6, 118: cf. _ibid._ ii. 3, 144. Footnote 3350: xiv. 102: “Surrentinae leve toreuma rotae.” Footnote 3351: Cf. _id._ xiii. 110: “Surrentine cups are good enough for Surrentine wine.” Footnote 3352: xiv. 114: cf. Tibull. ii. 3, 48; _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1875, p. 66; Marquardt, _Privatalterthümer_, p. 640, note 2. Footnote 3353: _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 54; _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1875, p. 242. Footnote 3354: _C.I.L._ x. 8056, 229. Footnote 3355: _Ibid._ xii. 5686, 696. Footnote 3356: See also _C.I.L._ x. 8056. Footnote 3357: _Sat._ ii. 8, 39. Footnote 3358: _H.N._ xxxv. 164. Footnote 3359: xiv. 108; viii. 6: cf. Juv. v. 29: “Saguntina Iagena.” Footnote 3360: iv. 46, 15. Footnote 3361: See also _C.I.L._ ii. p. 512 and Suppl. p. 1008; Déchelette, i. pp. 16, 111; also _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1875, p. 250, and _C.I.L._ xv. 2632 for an amphora found on the Monte Testaccio at Rome with the stamp BCM(_a_)TERNI SAGYNTO. Footnote 3362: xiv. 98. Footnote 3363: “O Arretine cup, which decorated my father’s table, how sound you were before the doctor’s hand” (referring to its use for taking medicine). Footnote 3364: Pers. i. 130: see also _C.I.L._ xi. p. 1081. Footnote 3365: _Storia degli ant. Vasi fitt. aretini_, Arezzo, 1841. Footnote 3366: See above, p. 438. Footnote 3367: _C.I.L._ ii. 4970, 519. Footnote 3368: _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1883, p. 265; Nov. 1884, p. 369, pls. 8, 9; 1890, p. 63 ff.; 1894, p. 117 ff.; 1896, p. 453 ff. Footnote 3369: See the map in _C.I.L._ xi. pt. 2, p. 1082. Footnote 3370: _Iscriz. ant. doliari_, p. 421 ff. Footnote 3371: _C.I.L._, _loc. cit._, and No. 6700. Footnote 3372: See _C.I.L._ xv. p. 702, Nos. 4925 ff. Footnote 3373: _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1880, p. 265 ff.: cf. _ibid._ 1872, p. 284 ff. for the Arretine examples; also _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1890, pp. 64, 68. Footnote 3374: _C.I.L._ xi. 6700, 12, 739. Footnote 3375: Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, Nos. 3043, 3068, 3100, etc. Footnote 3376: Some may be referred to Sulla’s time: see _Notizie_, 1883, p. 269 ff.; 1890, p. 71 ff. Footnote 3377: _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1894, p. 49. Footnote 3378: Fifty varieties, with the different slaves’ names, are given in _C.I.L._ xi. 6700, 435. Footnote 3379: _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 70, note 2. Footnote 3380: Rayet and Collignon, p. 357. Footnote 3381: _Inscr. Graec._ xiv. 2406, 28-46; _Notizie_, 1884, pl. 8; _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 70. Footnote 3382: _Philologus_, lviii. (N.F. xii.), pl. 4, p. 482; Roscher, iii. p. 2195: see for this potter, _Notizie_, 1896, p. 457. Footnote 3383: _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1896, p. 464. Footnote 3384: _Bonner Jahrb._ cii. p. 119; also found in Spain (_C.I.L._ ii. 4970, 515). Footnote 3385: _C.I.L._ xv. 5496. Footnote 3386: _Ibid._ x. 8055, 36. Footnote 3387: See _Bonner Jahrb._ cii. p. 119; Déchelette, _Vases de la Gaule Romaine_, i. p. 116. A potter of the same date and character is SEX · M · F, found in Etruria. Footnote 3388: _C.I.L._ xi. 6700; _Bonner Jahrb._ cii. p. 125. Footnote 3389: _C.I.L._ xv. 5016. Footnote 3390: _Ibid._ 5572. Footnote 3391: Cf. Déchelette, i. pp. 81, 272. Footnote 3392: _C.I.L._ xv. 5211, 5398. Footnote 3393: _Op. cit._ xi. 6700, 752. Footnote 3394: See on this _C.I.L._ xi. 6700, 2; _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 40; cii. p. 126. Footnote 3395: _E.g._ _C.I.L._ xv. 5323. No. 5374 _ibid._ has _cognomen_ only. Footnote 3396: _C.I.L._ xv. p. 702. Footnote 3397: _C.I.L._ xv. 4996, 5094. Footnote 3398: _Ibid._ 5515, 5555, 5603. Footnote 3399: _C.I.L._ xi. 6700, 311. Footnote 3400: _C.I.L._ xv. p. 703: see also _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1880, p. 318; _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1890, p. 69. Footnote 3401: _E.g._ _C.I.L._ xv. 5179, 5524. Footnote 3402: See also _Röm. Mitth._ 1897, p. 286. Footnote 3403: See Hauser’s work on the subject, _Neuattische Reliefs_, _passim_. Footnote 3404: Rizzo in _Röm. Mitth._ 1897, p. 291 ff.; Dragendorff in _Bonner Jahrbücher_, ciii. (1898), p. 104. Footnote 3405: _E.g._ by Schreiber, _Alexandr. Toreutik_, p. 401 ff. Footnote 3406: Cf. _Anzeiger_, 1897, p. 127 ff.; Pliny, _H.N._ xxxiii. 154 ff. Footnote 3407: _Röm. Mitth._ 1897, p. 40 (Siebourg); 1898, p. 399 (Hartwig); _Bonner Jahrbücher_, xcvi. p. 37; _Mélanges d’Arch._ 1889, pl. 7, p. 288. Footnote 3408: _Op. cit._ p. 38. Footnote 3409: _Op. cit._ p. 55. Footnote 3410: Cf. _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 58: also a mould in the B.M. (Plate LXVI. fig. 5), and _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Terracottas_, D 646. Footnote 3411: _Hellen. Reliefbilder_, pls. 1, 9, 10, 21, etc. Footnote 3412: See on the subject, _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 73. Footnote 3413: _Ibid._ ciii. p. 103. On the same article the preceding paragraphs are also largely based. Footnote 3414: _Roman Art_, Eng. Trans., p. 18 ff. Footnote 3415: See _C.I.L._ xv. p. 702. Footnote 3416: _E.g_. _C.I.L._ xi. 6700, 2, 308, 688, 762. Footnote 3417: _Ibid._ 6700, 29, 306, 786. Footnote 3418: A fine example has been found at Neuss on the Rhine (_Bonner Jahrb._ ciii. p. 88). Footnote 3419: See Dumont, _Inscrs. Céramiques_, p. 390. Footnote 3420: _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 94, No. 2116, PRINCEPS TITI, from Salamis.