similar to that of the sculpture. In the earliest times it appears that
painting was rare in comparison with the decorative works of beaten
metal plate, and that the little there was followed Phœnician and
Egyptian models, in so far, at least, as may be judged from the few
utensils which have been found in the so-called Grotto dell’ Iside in
Vulci. These are ornamented partly with painting, partly with colored
enamel. This decorative and dependent period lasted at least until the
beginning of the sixth century; and the Oriental tendency towards
decoration was by no means lost with its transition into the independent
monumental and realistic style, as is proved by the pictures of the
Campana tomb at Veii, with their attenuated animal figures. But the
obtrusive archaistic ornament upon the human figures began already to
show the native realistic tendency, which obtained complete mastery in
the two tombs of Corneto, called the Tomba del Morto, and Tomba delle
Inscrizioni, of about the same date. A painting upon slabs of
terra-cotta from Cære (_Fig._ 262) is perhaps still older. In the former
examples, though known to be antique, the treatment was more archaistic
than archaic, and the monstrous decorative style of Asia was apparent,
like that upon ancient vase-paintings. But in the Cære slabs the
fundamental principle was realistic imitation of the life. The influence
of Hellenic art, increasing because of the importation of Greek vases,
is first evident upon a number of clay figures from Cære. There is
little unity in the subjects: they appear to be devotional and
ceremonial rather than mythological, the demoniacal and funereal
elements predominating. The colors are sombre, with no decided blue,
red, or green; only brown, yellow, reddish brown, gray, and black were
employed upon a white ground. No trace of shading is perceptible, and
the drawing, with exception of the outline, is limited to the indication
of the almond-shaped eyes, and to slight suggestions of the knees,
elbows, and nails. The forms are heavy and without dignity, the motions
stiff, and the step as though climbing, with the arms thrown violently
upward, as if running in the greatest haste. Still, they give evidence
of great observation of nature, with the avoidance of a systematic
uniformity in drawing, motion, and gesture; but the imitation is hardly
successful, though in the reclining figures, for which a living model
was most easily obtained, there is a certain degree of truthfulness. In
the picture from Cære the many-colored altar, with its peculiar top
reminding one of the profiles of Castel d’Asso, is very characteristic.
The wall-paintings in the older tombs of Corneto, already mentioned, are
somewhat more advanced in regard to understanding of form and
truthfulness in the expression of the heads; also in the soles of the
feet being no longer so flatly set. At the same time, Grecian influence
is very distinctly visible. One of these, the Tomba del Morto,
represents a death-bed and its surroundings, with a group of dancers and
drinkers; the other, the Tomba delle Inscrizioni, shows racing, boxing,
wrestling, and preparations for a feast. A third sepulchre at Corneto,
the so-called Tomba del Barone, is, perhaps, still further developed,
with the strictness of the archaic Hellenic vase-painting. Youthful
riders, men and women with bowls, and finely modelled garments are
separated by small trees.
This archaic hardness was again modified in the next later group of four
tombs: the Grotto delle Bighe, the Grotto del Citharedo, the Grotto
Marzi, or del Triclinio, and the Grotto Querciola, mostly named from
some chief motive of the representation within. The garments allow the
outlines of the figure to be seen: the forms have become more slender,
the position of the limbs, step, and action more correct; while the
color, from the use of red and green, is brighter. Although the archaic
tendency still prevails, as may be seen from the more marked Hellenic
influence, a decided effort to develop the native realism is evident in
the contemporary paintings from Chiusi, of the Tomba Ciaja, the Tomba di
1833, and the Tomba François. These certainly do not show the fine
modulation and clearness of the Corneto paintings, but, instead, a
greater variety, originality, and truth. In the Tomba di 1833, for
example, the eye appears drawn in profile. These works are the
perfection of the second period, the time of independent realistic
development, dating from the fifth to the fourth century B.C.
The last phase of Etruscan painting, when the Hellenic influence
predominated as largely as in the sculptural works of the third and
second centuries B.C., commenced with the extensive adoption of the
Greek myths, previously but seldom employed. This epoch is illustrated
by coins, occasionally found in tombs, which still show the native
naturalistic traits, and a certain quaint sobriety not overcome by the
exaggeration of gesture. The effect is far more picturesque than that of
the older works, from a very moderate but still appreciative use of
light and shade. The close of the period is marked by a novelty of
subject, the introduction of Italian legends, such as the
half-historical personifications of Mastarna (or Servius Tullius) and
Cælius Vibenna. The art, which, more or less substantially, outlived the
independence of its narrow home, thus acquired a Roman character.
* * * * *
Numerous and varied products testify to the Etruscan industry in
artistic manufactures; the bronze utensils in the tombs, with
_sgraffiti_, or engraved drawings, bore the same historical relation to
ancient paintings that copper-plate engraving does to the modern. Of the
thousand hand-mirrors known, only a few belong to the earlier period;
but in the subjects of the more developed archaic examples, Greek
character predominates. The frequently recurring representations of
Bacchus and Eros and of the Judgment of Paris remind one of the festival
and morning toilets; Ariadne and the female deities suggest womanly
customs. A great portion of the Greek mythology is illustrated upon the
mirrors of the third period, which show extreme Hellenic influence. Most
of these productions are naturally mere handiwork, and artistically
valueless; but single specimens, from their extraordinary beauty, might
pass for Grecian work did not the inscriptions and accessories,
specifically Etruscan, like the bullæ, prevent this assumption. For
example, the unequalled mirror, in which Semele embraces the youthful
Dionysos in so charming a manner, represents the heroine in such noble
proportions that it may, without hesitation, be reckoned among the most
beautiful results of artistic industry. Similar in character are the
engraved cistas, cylindrical toilet-cases, which illustrated Grecian
myths, like those of Perseus and Prometheus, the Judgment of Paris, and
the rites over the body of Patroclos, in a careful manner and with
vigorous drawing, but not without the hardness peculiar to Etruscan
composition. Italian myths also appear, like that of Æneas; and Latin
inscriptions, as those upon the magnificent cista of Ficoroni,
ornamented with illustrations of the legend of the Argonauts, show that
this process of engraving was also employed with success by the early
Romans.
A consideration of Etruscan art is important, because, without it, an
understanding of Roman art is not possible, at least in the fields of
architecture and sculpture. Up to a certain point of time, Roman art was
entirely developed from Etruscan art, or, perhaps, went hand in hand
with it, as will be more particularly shown in the following section.
The subject should be more closely investigated, especially in the
province of painting, with the hope that, from analogous illustrations,
much which still remains dark in primitive Hellenic art may also be made
clear.
[Illustration: Fig. 263.--Janus Quadrifrons in the Forum Boarium.]
ROME.
It has been remarked in the preceding section that the term “Etruscan
art” admits, in many respects, of no definite restriction. The southern
boundaries of the country between the Po and the Gulf of Tarention had
early been colonized by the Greeks, but its artistic industry was, in
the primitive historical ages, chiefly in the hands of the Etruscans,
and their name alone has on this account been applied to the
architecture, sculpture, and painting of all Central Italy. But
neighboring races, notably the Umbrians, Latins, and Sabines, also took
part in the development of this artistic civilization--advancing, in
great measure, from common starting-points, and with like results. The
migrations and commerce of the nations inhabiting the Italian peninsula
were not less extended and active than were those of the people
occupying the Peloponnesos and the islands of the Ægean Sea: the
relations to the Orient, through the medium of Phœnician traders,
were much the same in both cases, and it is not strange that similar
phases of advance are noticeable, though restricted in rapidity and
degree, among tribes dwelling in the regions more remote from the sea.
[Illustration: Fig. 264.--Gate of the Walls of Norba.]
Between the Tiber and Garigliano, as well as between the Arno and Tiber,
there exist extensive remains of Cyclopean masonry, as well as walls of
hewn and squared stones. The former were predominant in the mountainous
interior, as at Alatrium, Arpinum, Aurunca, Cora, Cures, Ecetræ,
Ferentinum, Medullia, Norba, Præneste, Signia, Sora, Tibur, Verulæ,
etc.; the latter in the low rolling land between the Apennines and the
Tyrrhenian Sea, as at Æsernia, Antium, Ardea, Aricia, Aufidena,
Lavinium, Politorium or Apiolæ, Satricum, Scaptia, Tellenæ, Tusculum,
and Rome. They frequently occur in contemporary works, as, for example,
in the well-preserved polygonal ruins of Norba and Signia (the present
Norma and Segni) and the horizontal courses of the Servian
fortification, both of which constructions date from the period of the
later kings. The age of these works can usually be roughly estimated:
the Cyclopean walls of Olevano, of enormous unhewn boulders, like the
fortifications of Tiryns, are evidently of greater antiquity than the
carefully fitted polygonal masonry of Norba and Signia (_Fig._ 264),
where the separate stones are tooled to plane faces and sides; while the
irregular horizontal courses of unequal thickness, which form the older
Latin ramparts, precede, in point of time, the exactly jointed blocks of
the Servian walls of Rome. A more exact classification or chronological
determination is not possible.
[Illustration: Fig. 265.--Remains of the Servian Wall upon the
Aventine.]
Among all the remains of primitive walls in Italy, those of Rome are
naturally the most interesting. It unfortunately cannot be definitely
proved that a part of a rampart upon the western corner of the Palatine,
excavated thirty years ago from the rubbish and brick revetment of the
imperial period, appertained to the fortifications which surrounded the
city of Romulus. But this masonry, though not perhaps attributable to
the eighth century, is certainly of an early age of Roman history. It is
formed of oblong stones, exactly hewn, and laid in courses of stretchers
and headers, without the use of mortar, the careful jointing showing a
high degree of technical perfection. The better-authenticated remains of
the circuit wall of Servius Tullius are similar in character. They have
been best preserved upon the southern slope of the Aventine, east of the
Via di S. Prisca, where they attain a height of 10 m., with a length of
30 m. (_Fig._ 265.) The arrangement of the jointing, however, is not so
well considered as that in the former example, the vertical interstices
of adjoining courses being frequently continuous.
The passage formed a small vestibule or chamber in the thickness of the
wall, which required inner and outer portals, like those of the Temple
of Janus upon the Velabrum, which, long after the ruin of the Servian
fortifications, and even down to the time of the empire, were sacredly
preserved as relics. A similar arrangement existed in Etruria even more
frequently than in the Latin cities.
The Roman gates were so doubled as to form two passages side by
side--one for entrance, the other for exit; a comparatively narrow
opening could thus provide ample space for those moving only in the same
direction. It is not certainly known how these Roman gates were covered.
The oldest vestiges of masonry in Latium show no traces of vaulting,
while other means of accomplishing the connection have been preserved
almost intact, such as the heavy lintels upon vertical or inclined
jambs, as at Segni, Circello, Alatri, and Olevano; or the gradual
projection of the horizontal courses beyond those beneath them, as at
Arpino. The primitive houses for springs, and the so-called Mamertine
Prison, show that vaulting was not practised in Rome or the neighboring
Latin cities during the early ages; the Prison, probably built in the
time of Servius Tullius, appears to have been somewhat similar in
construction to the Greek tholos. A further example of this kind is the
chamber for a fountain in Tusculum, where the stone slabs of the ceiling
lean so as to form a sort of continuous gable.
Rome owed more to the last fifty years of its hated kings than to the
two following centuries. From the royal period dates one of the most
important monuments of vaulted construction, the Cloaca Maxima of Rome,
built in the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, and probably under the
direction of engineers from his native Etruria. To this gigantic work,
admired even in the time of the magnificent Roman empire, is undoubtedly
owing the preservation of the Eternal City, which it has secured from
the swamping that has befallen its neighboring plains. Its quarried
stones are still visible beneath the later brick arches in the vicinity
of S. Giorgio in Velabro. (_Fig._ 266.) The building of drains naturally
led to extensive works upon the banks of the river, which protected the
thickly populated city; it was forgotten that, in earlier ages, it had
often been necessary to traverse the Velabrum in boats, and that the
spring freshets had extended a sheet of water between the Palatine and
Capitoline hills.
[Illustration: Fig. 266.--Cloaca Maxima.]
All these structures were emphatically works of engineering; the
building of walls, gateways, drains, and vaulted roofs presented nothing
to elevate them into independent and artistic monuments of architecture.
Among the Roman temples of this period only two appear to have been of
importance for the history of art--the national shrine of Diana upon the
Aventine, and the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus; both built by the last
three kings, Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius, and Tarquinius
Superbus. The first of these structures has been compared to the
Artemesion at Ephesos, the national sanctuary of the Ionians; but it
would be wrong to draw from this a conclusion in regard to the style of
the Latin temple of the same goddess, which was most probably Tuscan, as
that of the Temple of Jupiter is known to have been, from descriptions
given by ancient writers as well as from the recent excavations of
Jordan. According to Dionysios of Halicarnassos, the substructure of
this latter building--eight hundred Roman feet in circumference--was
only fifteen feet greater in length than in width; these dimensions
agree well with the proportion of five to six given by Vitruvius for the
temple architecture of the Etruscans. The cella of the Capitoline temple
was divided into three ædiculæ, another peculiarity assigned by the
Roman writer to the sacred edifices of Etruria; it had three ranges of
columns, of six each, before the cella, which provided a portico equal
in depth to half the entire length of the building. The ornamentation,
which will be treated more fully in the section upon Roman sculpture,
was wholly the work of the Etruscans. This race had, indeed, settled in
Rome between the Capitol and the Palatine, where the name of Vicus
Tuscus preserved, until late historical times, the memory of their
settlement and of the considerable part taken by them in the peopling of
ancient Rome. It is even stated by Pliny (xxxv. 12, 45, and 154) that,
for seventeen years after the expulsion of the kings--namely, until the
building of the Temple of Ceres upon the Circus--all the sanctuaries of
Rome were Etruscan; that is to say, were not only built in the Tuscan
style, which might more properly be called the ancient Italian, but were
erected by Etruscan artificers, or, at least, under the direction of
Etruscan artists.
Even the Temple of Ceres appears to have been Tuscan in general
disposition, its cella having been triply divided and its
intercolumniations excessively great, as may be seen by the remains of a
later restoration still existing in S. Maria in Cosmedin. In this
temple, however, the influence of Greek architecture, introduced through
the Hellenic colonies of Magna Græcia, had already begun to gain ground
in the arrangement and the details, though the ancient Italian
traditions were too deeply rooted to permit it essentially to alter the
original distribution. The structure remained nearly square, being
equally divided between the portico and the cella. This is illustrated
by the Temple of Concord, erected by Camillus upon the Forum at the foot
of the Capitol in 367 B.C. The limited area, defined by the neighboring
buildings and by the steep slope of the hill against which it stood,
prevented even later restorations from elongating its plan. The extended
oblong of the Hellenic temple was naturally adopted, in place of the
heavy proportions of the Tuscan temples, as soon as the execution of the
entablature in stone rendered the excessively wide intercolumniations
impossible, and placed insurmountable difficulties in the way of the
broad front. Still, the Etruscan or ancient Italian division of the
building was retained, inasmuch as the columns were usually restricted
to a pronaos of great depth, such as is shown by the ruins of four
temples in the Forum Romanum. The Roman prostylos, as Vitruvius terms a
temple thus planned, may be regarded as the first compromise effected
between the ancient Italian and the Hellenic disposition. (_Figs._ 267
and 271.)
[Illustration: Fig. 267.--Temple of Fortuna Virilis.]
[Illustration: Fig. 268.--Temple of Antoninus and Faustina.]
The early Italian manner of abutting the undeveloped back of the
building upon the circuit wall of the temenos, or against a cliff, seems
to have long remained in practice; but, in cases where this was
impossible, the bare sides and rear of the cella appeared intolerable
when compared with the outstanding wings of the Greek peripteros.
Although, in some instances, the prostylos plan was adopted in later
ages, as in the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina (_Fig._ 268) in the
Forum, where the enclosing walls of the cella are treated with
pilasters, this was only in cases where the sanctuary was so crowded by
adjoining buildings that little else than the portico could be seen. In
completely isolated structures the desire of approaching the peripteral
effect led to the application of engaged columns to the side and rear
walls of the cella, thus attaining, in the so-called prostylos
pseudoperipteros, the highest stage of that development of sacred
architecture which was peculiar to Rome. The purely peripteral form was
naturally adopted in later times, primitive cellas being enclosed by
outstanding ranges of columns; but two fundamental peculiarities were
always retained: the pronaos always formed a deep portico, and the naos
always remained a spacious hall, the peripteral columns being fitted to
it, and made of subordinate importance. The dimensions of the cella were
thus not restricted by the pteroma, as was the case in the temples of
Greece, and especially in those of Sicily; for the chief difference
between the architectural tendencies of the Greeks and the Romans was
that the former devoted their attention almost exclusively to the
perfection of external appearance, creating monuments of unequalled
beauty, while the latter held material usefulness to be of the first
importance, assigning to technical excellence a second place, and to
artistic design but a third, thus creating imposing interiors admirably
adapted to their purposes.
[Illustration: Fig. 269.--Engaged Tuscan Column from the Flavian
Amphitheatre]
The details of their architecture were with the Romans purely decorative
and applied. The Doric style, which had predominated in Lower Italy and
Sicily, and must have offered the most numerous models near at hand, was
nevertheless least employed. It would be difficult to decide whether
this is to be ascribed to the similarity of the Tuscan and Doric styles,
and their derivation from a common prototype, or to the development of
the two manners of building in different directions; certain it is that
the channelled shaft was not employed, and the Doric entablature
appeared only in an attenuated and purely ornamental imitation, above
the wide intercolumniations of the ancient Italian façade. The Tuscan
(_Fig._ 269) became somewhat higher in proportion to its diameter, and
was slightly altered in detail. The epistyle was diminished to a narrow
band, and, in the smaller temples, was usually carved from one stone
with the frieze of triglyphs, thus destroying the separate importance of
these two members. The diminutive triglyphs were frequently increased in
number above the intercolumniations; the chamferings were terminated
above by a straight line, while the guttæ were lengthened and had a more
marked conical form. The proportionally small metopes were either
entirely without sculptured ornament, or were provided with rosettes,
disks, and the heads of oxen; which last were introduced as a
reminiscence of the barbaric custom, prevalent in early times, of
affixing the skulls of the sacrificed animals to the wooden entablature.
The corona was usually not inclined like this member in the Doric
cornice; the mutules lost their _guttæ_, and became simplified to plain
consoles. (_Fig._ 270.) In some instances Ionic elements were introduced
into the Doric entablature, as in the sarcophagus--now in the
Vatican--of L. Corn. Scipio Barbatus, who was consul in 298 B.C., where
an Ionic cornice surmounts the frieze of triglyphs, and Ionic spirals
decorate the lid. The Theatre of Marcellus displays a similar
combination; and, in other cases, Doric forms are entirely supplanted by
simplified Ionic members.
[Illustration: Fig. 270.--Temple at Cori.]
[Illustration: Fig. 271.--Temple of Fortuna Virilis.]
Towards the end of the third century B.C. the Ionic style was generally
introduced; yet, according to the nature of Roman architecture, which
did but borrow external features from foreign nations, itself supplying
the general disposition and constructive forms, it became nothing more
than a decorative adjunct: the Grecian _style_ became a Roman _order_.
Attic Ionic influences were naturally more prevalent than those of Asia
Minor. This was particularly fortunate, because a canon of mathematical
rules early took the place of independent development, hardening the
forms into formulas. This mechanical method of design was favored by the
extended application of engaged columns and pilasters which did not
require the complete execution of the elaborate capital, while, in the
decoration of colossal buildings of several stories, the distance from
the eye rendered a simplification of the Ionic helices natural, as well
as more suitable to the coarse and porous stone employed by the Roman
builders. (_Fig._ 271.) The complicated corner capital of the Ionic
style could not, however, be avoided upon the free-standing columns of
the temple fronts, and the execution of this member must have been
exceedingly troublesome to artisans accustomed to work everything after
one model. It is therefore to be regarded as a direct consequence of
the Roman architectural system that a variety of the Ionic capitals
appeared in later times which omitted the rolls and displayed the
spirals upon all four sides. This form, as exemplified by the Temple of
Saturn upon the Clivus Capitolinus, seems to have arisen by repeating
the two outer sides of the corner capital upon those remaining. The
entablature was of great simplicity, perhaps because the comparatively
rare employment of this order left it undeveloped.