already been made (pp. 396, 398), such as those on the New Year lamps:
ANNVM NOVVM FAVSTVM FELICEM MIHI HIC (or TIBI, or to some person whose
name is given); occasionally this is varied by formulae such as
FIILICTII (for FELICITAS?), “Happiness (to you)!”[3012] OB CIVES
SERV(_atos_), “For the preservation of the state”[3013]; G · P · R · F,
_Genio populi Romani feliciter_[3014]; EX·S·C, “By the decree of the
senate”[3015]; FIDES PVBLICA, “The public trust,”[3016] and the
SAECVLI, SAECVLO, SAECVLARES group of inscriptions,[3017] which may in
a few cases refer to the Ludi Saeculares, but more probably are of
similar import to the SAEC(_ulum_) AV(_reum_) DOM(_ini_), “The golden
age of our lord,“ on a lamp from Antium.[3018] The last-named formula,
it should be noted, is found both above and below the lamps.
LVCER(_na_) PV(_b_)LICA probably refers to the use of the lamp in some
public illuminations (see p. 396).[3019] A lamp in the Trier
Museum[3020] has the names of the consuls for the year 235 (Severus and
Quintianus). Among names of deities for whose sanctuaries the lamps
were intended are Venus (SACRVM VENERI, with a figure of the
goddess),[3021] and the Ephesian Artemis ([ΑΡΤΕΜΙΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ]).[3022]
Among the inscriptions relating to the subjects on the lamps are
several which have already been mentioned, such as DIOGENES and
TITVRVS, and also GA(_ny_)MEDES over a figure of the same.[3023] On a
lamp representing the flight of Aeneas from Troy are the names
AEN(_eas_), ANC(_hises_), ASC(_anius_), and the exclamation REX PIE,
alluding to the former.[3024] On another, which represents the fight of
Eteokles and Polyneikes and the death of Jocasta, subjects taken from
the _Phoenissae_ of Euripides, occur not only the letters PVL for
Polyneikes, but also PHO(_e_)NISS(_ae_), leaving no doubt as to the
source whence the scenes are taken.[3025] Another in the form of Eros
or a Genius with the club and lion-skin of Herakles, lying asleep, has
on it the curious inscription AIA STLACIA TVRA DORMIT, STERNIT SIR
...,[3026] the import of which is not quite clear. Similar inscriptions
often occur in scenes from the circus or amphitheatre, giving the names
of gladiators, as Afer, Helenus, Popillius, or Sabinus,[3027] or of
charioteers in the circus-races, as C. Annius Lacerta and the horse
Corax, which won him a race for the white faction at the Secular
Games[3028]; another lamp has the name of a horse or his driver,
INCITATVS, and a third the exhortation VIG(_i_)LA PRASINE,[3029] which
may allude to a driver of the green faction. Over the figure of a
warrior on a lamp from Carthage is PLVS FECISSES SI PLVS LICERET, “You
would have done more if you had had the chance.”[3030] In other cases
there seems to be a revival of the old Greek fashion of apostrophising
the figures as _Kalos_—_e.g._ AQVILO CALOS, AXOLMVS (_c_)ALOS.[3031]
There are also inscriptions put into the mouths of figures, as in the
subject of Cupids with the club of Herakles, one of whom cries
ADIV(_v_)ATE SODALES, “Help, comrades!”[3032] or the funerary Genius
weeping over an urn and saying, LVGEO, “I mourn.”[3033]
To the third class belong such expressions as HAVE, “Hail!”[3034];
VIVAS or VALEAS, “Long life!”; VTERE, “Use this”[3035]; AVE ET VALE,
“Greeting and farewell,” on a lamp from Cologne[3036]; and on another
from the same site, HAVE · MACENA · VILLIS · HAVE · LASCIBA ·
VALE,[3037] which seems to have a somewhat coarse significance. Others
allude to the future purchaser, as EME ME, “Buy me”[3038]; QVI FECERIT
VIVAT ET Q(_ui_) EMERIT, “May the potter and purchaser flourish”; EMITE
LVCERNAS AB ASSE COLATAS, “Buy lamps for an ass”[3039]; BONO QVI
EME(_rit_), “May it be for his good who shall buy it.”[3040] The latter
class are chiefly found in North Africa. Mention has already been made
of the inscriptions on the Esquiline lamps, such as PONE FVR; these are
not found on lamps of imperial times, and appear to be peculiar to the
early fabrics. Μὴ ἅπτου has been found on a lamp at Athens.[3041] On a
lamp from Spain is inscribed G · IVLIVS · ARTEMIDOR ... LVCERNAS · II ·
D D, “C. Julius Artemidorus makes a present of two lamps.”[3042] A very
curious inscription is found written in ink on a lamp at Rome, to this
effect: “Helenus delivers his name to the nether world; he carries down
with him coins, a New Year’s gift, and his lamp; let no one deliver him
except us who have made them.”[3043]
* * * * *
Potters’ signatures are almost invariably to be found on the under side
of the lamp, where they are arranged on the diameter at right angles to
the axis of the lamp; sometimes they are placed in a panel or tablet,
or within the outline of a foot. In rare instances they are found on
the handle, or on the top.[3044] Greek lamps which are not of Roman
origin are never signed, nor are those of Christian origin; the oldest
signatures are to be found on the Esquiline lamps, but they rarely
appear before imperial times, when they become fairly general. Among
these earlier instances are PRAESE(_ntis_)[3045] and FL(_a_)BIA
(_Flavia_), the latter found at Carthage.[3046] More frequently, lamps
of this kind have a single letter or monogram by way of stamp[3047]; a
“delphiniform” lamp in the Musée Alaoui has a monogram of Α and Π. A
single letter sometimes occurs above or below the inscription, which
may be regarded as a sort of trade-mark indicating the potter
(_figulus_), the full name being that of the _officinator_ or master;
on a lamp in the British Museum from Knidos (No. 132) the name
ROMANE(_n_)SIS is accompanied by the letter X; on another, FORTIS by
the letter N. On the lamps signed by L · HOS · CRI, a Gaulish potter,
are found the letters G, I, L, M, P, S, T, V, N, Z, and other
signs.[3048] These trade-marks are not confined to letters; Fortis uses
a wreath and palm-branch, as in Fig. 210; L. Caecilius Saevus a
palm-branch or a foot-shaped stamp; L. Fabricius Masculus the letters H
and X, a wheel, or a star.[3049] Other lamps have no name underneath,
but some simple pattern, such as five circles in _quincunx_ form, or
the favourite device of the foot-shaped stamp (cf. p. 333). These
varieties of marks were probably intended to distinguish different
series in the products of a single pottery.
[Illustration: FIG. 210. UNDER SIDE OF LAMP WITH SIGNATURE OF FORTIS
(BRIT. MUS.).]
The signatures are usually abbreviated, the full form being _ex
officina_ (_officinatoris_), the name being consequently in the
genitive. On a lamp from Rome is EX · OF · AIACIS, _ex officina
Aiacis_.[3050] Sometimes, but rarely under the Empire, the nominative
is used: _A.B. fecit_, or more commonly _A.B.f._ Thus we have AVGENDI,
ATIMETI, C . IVLI NICEPHORI, or ASPRENAS, FELIX, TROPHIMVS. But where a
single name occurs it is rarely full enough to show the case. On a lamp
at Dresden the potter Diomedes calls himself LVCERNARIVS.[3051] From
the second century down to the time of Augustus the name may be either
in the nominative or genitive, either the _praenomen_ and _nomen_, or
the _nomen_ or _cognomen_ only; these signatures were all incised while
the clay was moist. In the period represented by the third class (see
p. 401) nearly all the signatures are _cognomina_ simply, as ATIMETI,
COMMVNIS, FORTLS, STROBILI, all in the genitive. In the fourth class,
or lamps of the second century, the nominative is very rare; the names
are usually abbreviated, and one (_cognomen_), two (_nomen_ and
_cognomen_), or three may be found. Potteries were, as we have seen,
often owned by women, hence female names are not uncommon.
Abbreviations of a particular name vary considerably; for instance, L.
Caecilius Saevus appears as L · CAEC · SAE, L · CAE · SAE, L · CA · SAE
(see below, p. 428); L. Fabricius Masculus as L · FABRIC · MASC, L ·
FABRIC · MAS, L · FABR · MASC, FABRIC · MAS, and so on.[3052] Or the
_praenomen_ may vary, and for C · OPPI · RES we find L · OPPI · RES;
or, again, the _cognomen_, as in the case of C. Junius, where it may be
Alexis, Bitus, or Draco,[3053] or of L. Munatius, found with Adjectus,
Restitutus, Successus, Threptus, and Philemo.[3054] The variations in
the names may denote potteries in connection, or successive holders of
one business. In one instance the name of a workman PVLCHER occurs with
that of Fabricius Masculus, in another that of PRIMVS with C. Oppius
Restitutus.[3055] Greek names, where they occur, seem to imply that the
potters were freedmen, as in the case of Dionysius, Phoetaspus, and
others.
The following list gives the names most frequently found, with the
localities in which they occur[3056]:—
_Annius Serapiodorus_ (ANNI · SER): Rome, Ostia.
_C. Atilius Vestalis_ (C · ATILI · VEST): Rome, Italy, Gaul, Britain.
_Atimetus_: Italy, Gallia Narbonensis, Pannonia.
_L. Caecilius Saevus_ (L · CAE · SAE): Rome, Southern Italy, Sicily,
Sardinia, Gallia Narbonensis, Britain.
_Clodius Heliodorus_ (CLO · HEL): Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul.
_C. Clodius Successus_ (C · CLO · SVC): Rome, Gaul, Sardinia, Africa.
_Communis_: Rome, Pompeii, Gallia Cisalpina, Pannonia.
_Crescens_: Gaul, Pannonia.
_L. Fabricius Masculus_ (L · FABR · MASC): Rome, Gallia Cisalpina,
Africa.
_Florentius_ (FLORENT): Rome, Italy, Sicily, Tunis, Gaul, Germany,
Britain.
_Fortis_: Rome, Italy, Sicily, Dalmatia, Germany, Gaul, Britain.
_Gabinia_: Italy, Sardinia, Africa, Gaul.
_L. Hospidius Crispus_ (L · HOS · CRI): Gaul.
_C. Julius Nicephorus_ (C · IVLI · NICEP): Italy, Gaul.
_C. Junius Alexis_: Rome, Campania, Sicily, Sardinia, Africa.
_C. Junius Bito_: Italy, Sicily, Gaul.
_C. Junius Draco_: Rome, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Africa, Gallia
Narbonensis.
_L. Mar. Mi._: Rome, Campania, Sicily, Spain, Gallia Cisalpina.
_L. Munatius_ (with various _cognomina_): Rome, Africa.
_N. Naevius Luc._ (N · NAEV · LVC): Italy, Sardinia, Spain, Gaul.
_M. Novius Justus_ (M · NOV · IVST): Rome, Naples, Sicily, Sardinia,
Africa, Gallia Narbonensis.
_C. Oppius Restitutus_ (C · OPPI · RES): Rome, Italy, Sicily,
Sardinia, Africa, Gallia Narbonensis, Cyprus.
_Passenus Augurinus_ (PAS · AVG): Italy, Gaul.
_Phoetaspus_: Italy, Gaul, Pannonia.
_Strobilus_: Rome, Italy, Africa, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Gaul, Britain.
_Vibianus_: Gaul, Pannonia.
_C. Viciri Agathopus_ (C · VICIRI · AGAT): Italy, Sardinia, Gallia
Cisalpina.
It will be noted that nearly all are found at Rome, but that the others
fall into geographical groups; the same name is seldom found both in
the north and south of the Empire. Thus Fortis is not found in Africa,
Oppius Restitutus only rarely in Gaul. Certain names are entirely
localised, as Annius Serapiodorus at Rome and Ostia, L. Hos. Cri. and
Marcellus in Gaul, Q. Mem. Kar. and Pudens in Sardinia. The name of
Vindex, a maker of terracotta figures at Cologne (see above, p. 383),
is found on lamps at Trier and Nimeguen.[3057]
The distribution of the Fortis lamps in particular is remarkable. They
have been found in several places in Gallia Cisalpina, such as
Aquileia[3058]; at Lyons, Aix, Orange, and elsewhere in France[3059];
at Nimeguen in Holland[3060]; at Trier, Cologne, Mainz, and Louisendorf
in Germany[3061]; in London[3062]; in Spain[3063]; and over the region
of Dacia, Pannonia, and Dalmatia,[3064] as well as in Rome and
Italy.[3065] The most natural conclusion to be drawn from these results
is that the majority of the lamps seem to have been made in Italy, and
it has been thought probable that there were three principal centres of
fabric whence exportation went on in different directions—Rome and its
environs, Campania for the lamps found in Southern Italy, Africa, and
the Mediterranean, and Gallia Cisalpina for those found in Central
Europe.[3066] It has also been suggested that the last-named fabric
centred in Mutina (Modena) and that this was the place where the lamps
of Class III. (see p. 401) were chiefly made.[3067] Outside Italy there
may well have been manufactures in North Africa, where lamps are so
plentiful, and in Gallia Narbonensis, to which region some signatures
are peculiar. Evidence of a lamp-manufacturer in Africa seems to be
afforded by the mention of _praedia Pullaenorum_ in an inscription from
Tunis,[3068] the lamps of Pullaenus occurring in Sardinia and Africa.
Local fabrics of very poor lamps were doubtless numerous.
A certain number of Roman lamps have Greek signatures, not differing in
character but only in alphabet from the Latin inscriptions. The most
curious instance is that of [ΚΕΛΣΕΙ] [ΠΟΜΠΕΕΙ] for _Celsi Pompeii_,
which is found on lamps in Southern Italy[3069]; Πομπιλίου is also
found at Naples, and even Ἀβασκάντου and Πρείμου, which are usually
associated with lamps made in Greece (see Vol. I. p. 108), occur on
some found in Italy.[3070] In Sicily we find the signatures of
Apollophanes of Tyre ([ΑΠΟΛΛΟΦΑΝ] [ΤΥΡΙΟ]) at Himera and Proklos
Agyrios ([ΠΡΟΚΛ ΑΓΥΡ]) at Gela and Catania[3071]; Ῥήγλου for Regulus
occurs at Tarentum.[3072] Greek names are often found in Cyprus,[3073]
and conversely a large number of lamps found at Knidos by Sir Charles
Newton bore the signature ROMANE(_n_) [ROMANE(n)SIS], in Latin letters
with the S reversed, apparently suggesting that the lamps were made by
a Roman abroad.[3074] Greek signatures are even found in Gaul and
Germany.[3075]
Mention must also be made here of the recent researches of Herr
Fink[3076] with the object of ascertaining the chronological succession
and general distribution of the signatures on lamps of the Imperial
period. Starting with the four main classes of forms which have already
been laid down as the basis[3077] (the distinction resting mainly on
the various forms of the nozzle), he has obtained, by comparison
chiefly of the lamps in the British Museum, Berlin, and Munich
collections, the following interesting results.
Certain stamps appear to be peculiar, or almost peculiar, to each
class: thus, in Class I. only, we find P. Cessius Felix and L. Munatius
Successus; in Class II. only, L. Fabricius Masculus; in Class III.
only, Atimetus, Fortis, Phoetaspus, and other single _cognomina_; in
Class IV., which contains by far the larger number of stamps, Clodius
Helvidius, C. Junius Bitus,[3078] L. Munatius Threptus, and C.
Cornelius Ursus. The lamps of the Gaulish potter L. Hospidius Crispus
are all of one peculiar form, a transition between Fink’s I. and
IV.[3079] Cross-instances are very rare, but C. Junius Draco is found
in Classes I. and IV., C. Oppius Restitutus in Classes II. and IV.,
Florentius and Celsus Pompeius in Classes III. and IV. It is also
interesting to note that there are lamps in Class IV. with the
Christian monogram and the figure of the Good Shepherd. In Class I.,
generally speaking, signatures are very rare; in Class III. they are
almost invariable, but the total number of lamps is relatively small.
Another curious result is that certain signatures, such as L. Caecilius
Saevus, Bassus, Cerialis, Sextus Egnatius Aprilis, and Romanensis, are
not confined to one type of lamp, but in these cases it is to be noted
that each type has a variation of signature: thus, in Class I.,
L·CAEC·SAE; in II., L·CAE·SAE; in III., L·CA·SAE; while in IV.,
L·CAE·SAE occurs no less than 140 times.
His conclusions are that one workshop did not necessarily set itself to
produce only one form, but that the differences in form are merely due
to changes of fashion. In Class I. Greek technical instincts are still
strong as regards form and choice of subjects, but in ornament the
taste of Southern Italy prevails; the subjects are mainly mythological.
In Class II. the typically Roman motives appear: gladiators, combats,
and hunting-scenes; this form, according to Fink, is more developed
than Class I. Evidence which has been obtained from Regensburg shows
that Class III. belongs to the time from Augustus to Hadrian, and, as
we have seen, it is chiefly confined to the north of the Apennines.
Where provincial potteries can be traced, as at Westerndorf and at
Westheim in Bavaria, the lamps are usually of this form, but it was
doubtless imitated in Italy. Form IV. is essentially Italian, but is
also found in Central Europe, and is evidently of late date.
-----
Footnote 2721:
See Macrobius, _Sat._ vi. 4, 18. Lucilius uses this word and
_lucerna_ in the same line.
Footnote 2722:
_L.L._ v. 119.
Footnote 2723:
_Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1880, p. 265 ff.: see below, p. 399.
Footnote 2724:
Cf. Dressel in _C.I.L._ xv. p. 784.
Footnote 2725:
Pliny, _H.N._ xxviii. 163.
Footnote 2726:
The corresponding Greek word was μύξα.
Footnote 2727:
Petronius, _Sat._ 30 (Teubner edn. p. 21); Orelli, _Inscr._ 3678.
Footnote 2728:
xiv. 41.
Footnote 2729:
Pliny, _H.N._ xxv. 121.
Footnote 2730:
_Moretum_, 11; Pliny, _H.N._ xix. 17, xxviii. 168, xxxv. 175.
Footnote 2731:
La Blanchère and Gauckler, _Mus. Alaoui_, p. 193, Nos. 487-88; _Ant.
di Ercolano_, viii. pl. 52.
Footnote 2732:
Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Lucerna, p. 1335, fig. 4605.
Footnote 2733:
No. 393 and _Cat. of Terracottas_, C 421 (Plate IV. fig. 4); _Mus.
Alaoui_, No. 484.
Footnote 2734:
B.M. Nos. 2, 393.
Footnote 2735:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6609-10; Daremberg and Saglio, fig. 4607; _Ant. di
Ercol._ viii. pl. 12: see also p. 387.
Footnote 2736:
_Epigr._ xiv. 39; _Moretum._ 10 ff.
Footnote 2737:
Plutarch, _Ant._ 26; Suetonius, _Vit. Caes._ 37; Dio Cass. 63, 4.
Footnote 2738:
Suet. _Calig._ 18; _Domit._ 4.
Footnote 2739:
Lampridius, _Vit._ 24.
Footnote 2740:
_Apol._ 35: cf. _ad uxorem_, ii. 6.
Footnote 2741:
xii. 92.
Footnote 2742:
Cf. _C.I.L._ xv. 6221; and B.M. Nos. 476, 506, 507, 534, 535.
Footnote 2743:
Θεῷ ὑψίστῳ λύχνον εὐχήν, Boeckh, _C.I.Gr._ iii. p. 1169, No. 4380
_n_^2.
Footnote 2744:
_Notizie degli Scavi_, 1894, p. 205.
Footnote 2745:
_Mélanges de l’École franç. de Rome_, xii. (1892), p. 116 ff.
Footnote 2746:
Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ i. pl. 44, p. 123.
Footnote 2747:
Cf. Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 111, and _C.I.L._ vi. pt. 4,
No. 30102 (_semper vigilet lucerna nardo_).
Footnote 2748:
Ellis, _Townley Gallery_, ii. p. 250.
Footnote 2749:
Orelli, 4416.
Footnote 2750:
_C.I.L._ x. 633 (from Salerno).
Footnote 2751:
_Ibid._ ii. 2102.
Footnote 2752:
_Sat._ 111 (Teubner ed. p. 77).
Footnote 2753:
See _Athen. Mitth._ 1902, p. 257 ff.; and cf. _Amer. Journ. of Arch._
1903, p. 344.
Footnote 2754:
Virg. _Georg._ i. 390; Apul. _Metam._ ii. 28.
Footnote 2755:
_Homil. in Ep. ad Cor._ i. 12 (Pusey’s _Library of the Fathers_, p.
164).
Footnote 2756:
Cf. _C.I.L._ ii. 4969, 3; x. 8053, 5; xv. 6196-210: see also pp. 413,
420, and Plate LXIV. fig. 5.
Footnote 2757:
_Ibid._ xv. p. 785.
Footnote 2758:
_Cat._ p. 47, No. 26.
Footnote 2759:
Cf. _C.I.L._ ix. 6081, 1.
Footnote 2760:
See also the lamps from the altar of Saturnus Balcaranensis
(Daremberg and Saglio, iii. p. 1339).
Footnote 2761:
B.M. 27-30, 67, 68; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1880, pl. O; _Mus. Alaoui_,
pl. 34, Nos. 6-12, pp. 147-48.
Footnote 2762:
See _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1880, p. 275.
Footnote 2763:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6631, 6900 ff.; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1880, p. 315.
Footnote 2764:
B.M. 25-26; _C.I.L._ xv. part 2, plate, No. 2; Daremberg and Saglio,
_s.v._ _Lucerna_, p. 1323.
Footnote 2765:
Cf. _Mus. Alaoui_, pl. 34, p. 149, Nos. 17-8: see also B.M. 69-82.
Footnote 2766:
See Dressel in _C.I.L._ xv. p. 782 ff.; Toutain in Daremberg and
Saglio, _art._ Lucerna; Fink, _Formen u. Stempel röm. Thonlampen, in
Sitzungsberichte d. Münchener Akad._ 1900, p. 685 ff.
Footnote 2767:
On the evidence yielded by the potters’ signatures see also below, p.
428.
Footnote 2768:
See the examples given on Plates LXIV.-LXV.
Footnote 2769:
I am inclined to agree with Dr. Dressel in placing this type earlier
than Fink’s Class I. It seems to be intermediate in form between the
delphiniform and other types with blunt nozzles, and the type given
in Fig. 204. Cf. _C.I.L._ xv. pl. 3.
Footnote 2770:
Cf. _C.I.L._ xv. pl. 2, No. 5 = Fig. 206, and Dressel, _ad loc._, p.
783.
Footnote 2771:
Cf. _C.I.L._ v. 8114.
Footnote 2772:
See Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ p. 1011, fig. 4381.
Footnote 2773:
Cf. for bronze examples, _B.M. Cat._ 2514 ff.
Footnote 2774:
B.M. 3, 13.
Footnote 2775:
Plate IV. fig. 4.
Footnote 2776:
_C.I.L._ xi. 6699, 5.
Footnote 2777:
In the Louvre.
Footnote 2778:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6701.
Footnote 2779:
_Ibid._ xv. 6513; Kenner, _Ant. Thonlampen_, No. 431.
Footnote 2780:
B.M. 9-12: see also _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 49, No. 50, for negro’s
head combined with camel’s.
Footnote 2781:
B.M. 18-21 (bulls’ heads); 22 (eagle); _Mus. Borb._ xiv. 38; C.I.L.
xv. 6739, 6334, 6393; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 27; Kenner, 437, 437a;
_Mus. Alaoni_, pl. 36, No. 485.
Footnote 2782:
B.M. 14-17; _C.I.L._ xv. 6287; Kenner, 434-35.
Footnote 2783:
Greek and Roman Department, from Cologne; British and Mediaeval
Department, from Britain; others in Guildhall Museum, and _C.I.L._
xv. 6450.
Footnote 2784:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6387, 6627; _ibid._ 6393 (artichoke); B.M. 24 (walnut);
_Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 5.
Footnote 2785:
_Metam._ xi. 245.
Footnote 2786:
No. 1 = _Cab. Durand_, 1777: cf. Lafaye, _Culte des Divinités
d’Alexandrie_, pp. 122, 303, No. 132; also Vol. I. pp. 209, 216.
Footnote 2787:
See for examples in B.M., Nos. 58-66.
Footnote 2788:
Cf. _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 170, and B.M. Nos. 90, 91.
Footnote 2789:
See Dalton, _B. M. Cat. of Early Christian Antiqs._ pl. 32, p. 148.
Footnote 2790:
xiv. 114.
Footnote 2791:
See on the subject Daremberg and Saglio, iii. p. 1334; Blümner,
_Technologie_, ii. pp. 71, 108.
Footnote 2792:
_Cat. of Terracottas_, E 81-83: see Fig. 209.
Footnote 2793:
_Mus. Alaoui_, p. 253, Nos. 396-97 (Christian).
Footnote 2794:
_Cat._ p. 51, Nos. 117-18 (from London Wall).
Footnote 2795:
See also p. 395 above.
Footnote 2796:
Cf. Avolio, _Fatture di argille in Sicilia_, p. 123.
Footnote 2797:
Cf. _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 86; _Mus. Alaoui_, p. 148, No. 13.
Footnote 2798:
_Mus. Alaoui_, p. 156, Nos. 74-81: cf. the Roman lamps of the same
date (_C.I.L._ xv. p. 782).
Footnote 2799:
The numbers given in the following notes are those of the forthcoming
Catalogue of Roman lamps in the Department of Greek and Roman
Antiquities.
Footnote 2800:
See also _C.I.L._ xv. 6195-751 for mention of many interesting
subjects.
Footnote 2801:
_Röm. Mitth._ 1892, p. 144 ff.
Footnote 2802:
_Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, Nachrichten_, 1870, p. 174: cf.
Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. London_, p. 111.
Footnote 2803:
B.M. 511; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 1.
Footnote 2804:
_Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1394; B.M. 604 = Plate IV. fig. 1.
Footnote 2805:
B.M. 270, 315, 330, 331, 394, 472-475: cf. also Roach-Smith, _Ill.
Rom. Lond._ pl. 30, 1; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 1; Bartoli, ii. 4;
Kenner, _Antike Thonlampen_, Nos. 4-6.
Footnote 2806:
_Göttinger Nachrichten_, p. 177, No. 18; Kenner, Nos. 227, 228, 425.
Footnote 2807:
B.M. 605; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1866, pl. G.
Footnote 2808:
Kenner, No. 7: cf. _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1385-86.
Footnote 2809:
Kenner, No. 8; B.M. 358 (handle).
Footnote 2810:
B.M. 395; 360-363 on handle.
Footnote 2811:
Kenner, No. 137.
Footnote 2812:
No. 679 = _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 93.
Footnote 2813:
B.M. 307, 402, 466, 573: see also p. 415, note 2935.
Footnote 2814:
Kenner, No. 10.
Footnote 2815:
B.M. 607-609, 681, 707; _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1384.
Footnote 2816:
B.M. 271, 398, 571; _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1356.
Footnote 2817:
Kenner, Nos. 17-22; Bartoli, ii. 32-3; B.M. 332, 512, 680.
Footnote 2818:
Kenner, No. 230; _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 48, No. 43 (from Royal
Exchange).
Footnote 2819:
B.M. 572; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 151.
Footnote 2820:
Kenner, No. 229.
Footnote 2821:
_Mus. Alaoui_, No. 115.
Footnote 2822:
B.M. 94; with Sphinx, _ibid._ 574.
Footnote 2823:
_Mus. Alaoui_, No. 142.
Footnote 2824:
B.M. 69.
Footnote 2825:
B.M. 554, 614; Kenner, No. 28.
Footnote 2826:
B.M. 174.
Footnote 2827:
B.M. 175, 176, 333, 411-413; Kenner, No. 26; Bartoli, ii. 17.
Footnote 2828:
B.M. 432, 433; Kenner, Nos. 231-2; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 32.
Footnote 2829:
Kenner, No. 23.
Footnote 2830:
Masner, _Wiener Vasensamml._ No. 684: cf. _Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 27.
Footnote 2831:
B.M. 575; Kenner, Nos. 24-5; _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 48, No. 46;
_Mus. Alaoui_, No. 181.
Footnote 2832:
_Mus. Alaoui_, No. 180.
Footnote 2833:
B.M. 70: cf. Clarac, _Musée de Sculpt._ iii. 343, 1399; _B.M.
Terracottas_, D 286.
Footnote 2834:
See Kenner, Nos. 37-57.
Footnote 2835:
B.M. 410, 477.
Footnote 2836:
B.M. 172; Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ pl. 30, 6 (Brit. and
Mediaeval Dept.).
Footnote 2837:
B.M. 516, 610, 611, 405, 515, 364, 553.
Footnote 2838:
B.M. 407-409, 461, 479, 612, 654.
Footnote 2839:
B.M. 478, 406.
Footnote 2840:
_Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 168.
Footnote 2841:
B.M. 308, 97.
Footnote 2842:
B.M. 170, 171.
Footnote 2843:
_Göttinger Nachrichten_, p. 179, No. 43.
Footnote 2844:
_Anzeiger_, _loc. cit._
Footnote 2845:
B.M. 92, 613; 98; 95, 96, 156; 403, 404.
Footnote 2846:
B.M. 272; Bartoli, i. 7.
Footnote 2847:
B.M. 173, 89, 576; Bartoli, ii. 25.
Footnote 2848:
_Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 168: cf. _C.I.L._ xv. 6230.
Footnote 2849:
B.M. 517, 577; Bartoli, ii. 20.
Footnote 2850:
B.M. 78.
Footnote 2851:
B.M. 273, 499.
Footnote 2852:
B.M. 616, 709.
Footnote 2853:
_Arch. Zeit._ 1852, pl. 39 (in Berlin).
Footnote 2854:
_Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 169.
Footnote 2855:
Kenner, No. 36.
Footnote 2856:
B.M. 481: cf. 316, 519.
Footnote 2857:
B.M. 102, 180, 579; 183; Kenner, No. 34.
Footnote 2858:
B.M. 101, 182; Kenner, No. 33.
Footnote 2859:
B.M. 518.
Footnote 2860:
B.M. 184, 274, 275, 326, 462, 500; Kenner, No. 35.
Footnote 2861:
B.M. 181.
Footnote 2862:
B.M. 58, 99, 578; 178, 179, 480, 618; _Bull. Comm. Arch._ 1887, p.
366, No. 8: cf. Hauser, _Neuattische Reliefs_, p. 154, Nos. 25-32.
Footnote 2863:
B.M. 100, 582.
Footnote 2864:
B.M. 476.
Footnote 2865:
B.M. 514.
Footnote 2866:
B.M. 513; Bartoli, ii. 13.
Footnote 2867:
B.M. 83, 334, 399, 400, 157, 606; Masner, _Wiener Vasens_. 695;
Bartoli, ii. 11.
Footnote 2868:
B.M. 401.
Footnote 2869:
No. 535: cf. also _C.I.L._ xv. 6221, 20.
Footnote 2870:
B.M. 463, 482, 615; _C.I.L._ x. 8053, 157.
Footnote 2871:
_Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 48, No. 40.
Footnote 2872:
B.M. 396, 397; _Göttinger Nachrichten_, 1870, p. 184, Nos. 103-4.
Footnote 2873:
B.M. 523; 191, 591 (bust); Kenner, No. 71; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 164;
_Ant. di Ercol_. viii. 30.
Footnote 2874:
B.M. 167; Masner, 685; Fiedler, _Castra Vetera_, pl. 8, No. 3.
Footnote 2875:
B.M. 465; _Ant. di Ercol_. viii. 11; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 113; _C.I.L._
xii. 5682, 71 (K. adored by a Gallus); Kenner, No. 3, and see No. 23.
Footnote 2876:
Kenner, No. 77.
Footnote 2877:
B.M. 370, 467, 508; 190, 297, 280; Kenner, No. 1; _Ant. di Ercol_.
viii. 2: cf. _B.M. Terracottas_, D 285.
Footnote 2878:
B.M. 337.
Footnote 2879:
B.M. 369; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 134.
Footnote 2880:
Daremberg and Saglio, iii. p. 1011, fig. 4381.
Footnote 2881:
B.M 281.
Footnote 2882:
B.M. 468-470; Bartoli, ii. 42.
Footnote 2883:
B.M. 104, 185(?).
Footnote 2884:
_Mus. Alaoui_, No. 82.
Footnote 2885:
Kenner, Nos. 66-7.
Footnote 2886:
_Ibid._ Nos. 233-4.
Footnote 2887:
_Ibid._ Nos. 72-3.
Footnote 2888:
B.M. 276-278, 348, 484, 510, 586; Kenner, Nos. 58-9; Bartoli, ii. 46.
Footnote 2889:
See generally, _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 6; Bartoli, iii. 3 (with
wreath).
Footnote 2890:
_E.g._ _B.M. Bronzes_, 1510 ff.
Footnote 2891:
B.M. 189 (see p. 420), 335, 367, 520; 336; 103, 187, 188, 483: cf.
Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii. pl. 15.
Footnote 2892:
_Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 229.
Footnote 2893:
B.M. 583; Bartoli, iii. 2; _Arch. Zeit._ 1852, pl. 39.
Footnote 2894:
B.M. 186.
Footnote 2895:
See Marquardt, _Privatalterthümer_, p. 245; _C.I.L._ x. 8053, 5; ii.
4969, 3, and xv. 6196 ff; Ovid, _Fasti_, i. 189 ff. These lamps date
from the time of Augustus and his successors.
Footnote 2896:
B.M. 309, and cf. 368, 584, 585; Bartoli, iii. 5. For a similar
subject on a money-box see above, p. 389.
Footnote 2897:
B.M. 189; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. pl. 6; Bartoli, iii. 4.
Footnote 2898:
_Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 47, No. 26. See for these two p. 398 above,
and p. 420 below.
Footnote 2899:
B.M. 84, 105, 485; Kenner, No. 83; Bartoli, i. 13-14.
Footnote 2900:
_Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 229.
Footnote 2901:
B.M. 710 (archaic _xoanon_).
Footnote 2902:
Kenner, No. 76; _Mus. Alaoui_, Nos. 139-40.
Footnote 2903:
B.M. 415.
Footnote 2904:
B.M. 521.
Footnote 2905:
B.M. 337 (Plate LXIII.), and 486.
Footnote 2906:
_Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 167; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 131.
Footnote 2907:
B.M. 619.
Footnote 2908:
B.M. 192, 587.
Footnote 2909:
_Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1358.
Footnote 2910:
B.M. 416.
Footnote 2911:
B.M. 620; 338, 339; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 4 (in the three latter
only with club and lion’s skin).
Footnote 2912:
_Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1393.
Footnote 2913:
B.M. 506, 566, 588.
Footnote 2914:
B.M. 106, 417.
Footnote 2915:
B.M. 487.
Footnote 2916:
B.M. 621.
Footnote 2917:
B.M. 193; Kenner, No. 81.
Footnote 2918:
Kenner, No. 82; B.M. 107.
Footnote 2919:
_Mus. Alaoui_, Nos. 126-27; _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 229.
Footnote 2920:
_Göttinger Nachrichten_, 1870, p. 182, No. 72.
Footnote 2921:
B.M. 158, 589; Bartoli, ii. 24; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 33; _Guildhall
Mus. Cat._ p. 48, No. 39.
Footnote 2922:
B.M. 108; _Göttinger Nachrichten_, p. 188, Nos. 235-36.
Footnote 2923:
_Mus. Alaoui_, No. 100.
Footnote 2924:
B.M. 194 = _Arch. Zeit._ 1852, pl. 39.
Footnote 2925:
_Mus. Alaoui_, Nos. 153-56.
Footnote 2926:
_Ibid._ No. 123.
Footnote 2927:
Kenner, Nos. 79, 80.
Footnote 2928:
B.M. 371.
Footnote 2929:
B.M. 590 = Roscher, _Lexikon_, iii. p. 2338.
Footnote 2930:
Masner, _Wiener Vasens._ No. 674: cf. _Bull. Arch. Nap._ N.S. iv. pl.
10, fig. 4.
Footnote 2931:
B.M. 555; Von Rohden, _Terracotten von Pompeii_, p. 49: cf. _C.I.L._
xv. 6236.
Footnote 2932:
_Arch. Zeit._ 1865, pl. 194; B.M. 282: cf. 109, 195.
Footnote 2933:
B.M. 319-321; Bartoli, iii. 11.
Footnote 2934:
_Mus. Alaoui_, No. 192.
Footnote 2935:
Masner, No. 676. Cf. a lamp with Athena voting for him, Daremberg and
Saglio, _Dict._ iii. p. 1329, fig. 4601.
Footnote 2936:
B.M. 199, 623.
Footnote 2937:
_C.I.L._ x. 8053, 194.
Footnote 2938:
_Mus. Alaoui_, No. 110; _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 48, No. 41 =
Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii. pl. 15 (from Colchester).
Footnote 2939:
_Mus. Alaoui_, No. 111.
Footnote 2940:
B.M. 196-198, 522, 622.
Footnote 2941:
B.M. 130, 340, 418; Kenner, No. 136: cf. Masner, No. 686.
Footnote 2942:
B.M. 524, 525; _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1351; Kenner, Nos. 68-70.
Footnote 2943:
B.M. 682.
Footnote 2944:
_Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 230.
Footnote 2945:
B.M. 110, 593: see Plutarch, _Vit. Alexandri_, 14.
Footnote 2946:
_Mon. dell’ Inst._ iii. pl. 14, fig. 3; see Bernoulli, _Gr. Ikonogr._
i. p. 56.
Footnote 2947:
B.M. 128(?), 598; Kenner, Nos. 85-6, 88-90.
Footnote 2948:
_Arch. Zeit._ 1861, _Anzeiger_, p. 157; Kenner, No. 87.
Footnote 2949:
_Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 47, Nos. 14-15.
Footnote 2950:
_C.I.L._ xi. 6699, 4.
Footnote 2951:
_Bull. Arch. Nap._ iv. (1856), pl. 10, fig. 3, p. 166; examples also
in B.M. (No. 216 = Plate LXIV. fig. 3) and _C.I.L._ xv. 6240. The
companion lamp given in the _Bull. Arch. Nap._ pl. 10, fig. 4, does
not represent Meliboeus, as there supposed, but Ajax.
Footnote 2952:
B.M. 224; Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ pl. 30, fig. 3; Jahn in
_Mitth. d. ant. Gesellsch. zu Zürich_, xiv. pl. 4, fig. 9; _Göttinger
Nachrichten_, 1870, p. 190, No. 282; and see Daremberg and Saglio,
_s.v._ Lucerna, p. 1326.
Footnote 2953:
B.M. 139: cf. _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1867, p. 35 = _Mitth. d. ant.
Gesellsch. zu Zürich_, xvii. p. 149; in the latter instance a man
weighs an ant against an elephant.
Footnote 2954:
_Coll. H. Hoffmann_ (Paris, 1886), p. 39; and in B.M. (No. 59).
Footnote 2955:
See for example _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 7; _Rev. Arch_, xxxiii.
(1898), p. 230; Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict._, ii., _s.v._ Gladiator,
with the bibliography on p. 1600; also B.M., _passim_. Similar types
occur on the Gaulish _terra sigillata_ (p. 507 below, and Déchelette,
_Vases ornés_, ii. p. 97 ff.).
Footnote 2956:
B.M. 111-114, 341, etc.
Footnote 2957:
B.M. 115-117, 201, etc.
Footnote 2958:
B.M. 121, 159, 160, 207, 285, 317, 342.
Footnote 2959:
_Mus. Alaoui_, No. 222.
Footnote 2960:
_Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 9.
Footnote 2961:
_C.I.L._ xii. 5682, 74.
Footnote 2962:
B.M. 558.
Footnote 2963:
B.M. 318; _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 231, fig. 27.
Footnote 2964:
B.M. 557, and cf. 165; 208, 531; 311 and _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1364. See
under the first-named head, _Zeitschr. für Numism._ xxiv. p. 357, for
an athlete placing a prize vase on his head.
Footnote 2965:
B.M. 507; 122, 211, 422; 209, 210; 125, 213, 214.
Footnote 2966:
B.M. 75, 123, 124, 154, 212, 421.
Footnote 2967:
_C.I.L._ x. 8053, 127.
Footnote 2968:
_Mus. Alaoui_, No. 223 = Daremberg and Saglio, iii. p. 1327, fig.
4590.
Footnote 2969:
Kenner, No. 98; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 200.
Footnote 2970:
_Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1339.
Footnote 2971:
B.M. 328: cf. _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 80, No. 1365.
Footnote 2972:
See B.M. 423, 424, 532, 533, 701; and cf. p. 415, note 2933.
Footnote 2973:
_Mus. Alaoui_, Nos. 233-34; also B.M. 79. Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_,
No. 884.
Footnote 2974:
_Mus. Alaoui_, No. 227; B.M. 625 (hunter only).
Footnote 2975:
B.M. 126, 425; Kenner, Nos. 117-122.
Footnote 2976:
B.M. 79 = Plate LXV. fig. 1; _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 230.
Footnote 2977:
B.M. 217; _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 233; Urlichs, _Verzeichn.
d. Antikens. d. Univ. Würzburg_, p. 39, No. 37.
Footnote 2978:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6718.
Footnote 2979:
Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii. pl. 15.
Footnote 2980:
_Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), pp. 230, 231.
Footnote 2981:
B.M. 534, 218, 219: cf. Kenner, Nos. 123-24.
Footnote 2982:
Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ pl. 30, fig. 4: cf. the well-known
_graffito_ at Pompeii, and _Collect. Antiq._ iv. pl. 11.
Footnote 2983:
B.M. 27; 222; 127; 74.
Footnote 2984:
B.M. 215, 489; _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 230.
Footnote 2985:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6221, 24.
Footnote 2986:
_Ibid._ x. 8053, 126 and 192.
Footnote 2987:
_Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 169.
Footnote 2988:
Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. London_, pl. 30, 2.
Footnote 2989:
_Göttinger Nachrichten_, 1870, p. 186, No. 182.
Footnote 2990:
B.M., _passim_; Kenner, No. 139 ff.
Footnote 2991:
_Mus. Alaoui_, No. 278.
Footnote 2992:
B.M. 441, 494, 501; Masner, _Wiener Vasens._ No. 694; _Cyprus Mus.
Cat._ 1379.
Footnote 2993:
Kenner, No. 181.
Footnote 2994:
_Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 23.
Footnote 2995:
B.M. 560, 226, 561.
Footnote 2996:
B.M. 562.
Footnote 2997:
Fiedler, _Castra Vetera_, pl. 7, No. 2.
Footnote 2998:
B.M. 544.
Footnote 2999:
B.M. 135, 291, 563; _C.I.L._ x. 8053, 127.
Footnote 3000:
B.M. 230, 493; _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 49, No. 57; _Cyprus Mus.
Cat._ 1341.
Footnote 3001:
_Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 232.
Footnote 3002:
B.M. 234, 293, 439, 545; Kenner, Nos. 163-166.
Footnote 3003:
B.M. 238-241, 296, 443, 444; Masner, No. 693.
Footnote 3004:
_Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 5.
Footnote 3005:
_Rev. Arch_. xxxiii. (1898), p. 232.
Footnote 3006:
_Ibid._; B.M. 242, 295, 626.
Footnote 3007:
B.M. 76, 82; Masner, Nos. 654-59.
Footnote 3008:
B.M. 77: cf. 145.
Footnote 3009:
Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. London_, p. 110.
Footnote 3010:
See generally Dalton, _B.M. Cat. of Early Christian Antiqs._ p. 139
ff.; Daremberg and Saglio, iii. p. 1328; _Mus. Alaoui_, Nos. 497 ff.;
_Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 45-7; De Rossi, _Roma Sotterr._ ii. p. 498
ff.; Delattre, in _Revue de l’Art Chrétien_, 1889-93, etc. (Carthage).
Footnote 3011:
_C.I.L._ x. 8053, 36, 143, 193; B.M. 201, 310, from Pozzuoli.
Footnote 3012:
_Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 47, No. 26.
Footnote 3013:
See B.M. 189 and _C.I.L._ xv. 6211-18; these all date from the time
of Augustus: cf. his coins and those of his successors.
Footnote 3014:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6195.
Footnote 3015:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6219.
Footnote 3016:
_Ibid._ 6222.
Footnote 3017:
See _ibid._ 6221; B.M. 164, etc.
Footnote 3018:
_Ibid._ x. 8053, 4.
Footnote 3019:
_Ibid._ xv. 6223.
Footnote 3020:
_Ibid._ xiii. 10001, 4.
Footnote 3021:
_Ibid._ xiii. 10001, 2.
Footnote 3022:
_Inscr. Gr._ xiv. 2405, 6. This and the preceding are bronze lamps.
Footnote 3023:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6239 = _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1866, pl. G.
Footnote 3024:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6236.
Footnote 3025:
_Ibid._ xi. 6699, 4.
Footnote 3026:
_Ibid._ 6699, 5.
Footnote 3027:
_Ibid._ xv. 6241-49.
Footnote 3028:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6250: cf. Pliny, _H.N._ viii. 160.
Footnote 3029:
_Ibid._ 6257, 6261.
Footnote 3030:
Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict._, _s.v._ Lucerna, p. 1330.
Footnote 3031:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6254-55.
Footnote 3032:
_Ibid._ x. 8053, 8; xv. 6230: see above, p. 411.
Footnote 3033:
_Ibid._ xv. 6234.
Footnote 3034:
_Ibid._ x. 8053, 6.
Footnote 3035:
_Ibid._ xi. 6699, 8-10.
Footnote 3036:
_Ibid._ xiii. 10001, 14.
Footnote 3037:
_Ibid._ 10001, 20.
Footnote 3038:
_Ibid._ xv. 6232.
Footnote 3039:
_Ibid._ viii. 10478, 1; xiii. 10001, 19. The meaning of _colatas_ is
doubtful. Mr. F. H. Marshall suggests “well-made,” _lit._ “sifted,”
referring to the quality of the clay.
Footnote 3040:
_Ibid._ xv. 6752; xi. 6699, 7.
Footnote 3041:
_Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1868, p. 59: see Vol. I. p. 107.
Footnote 3042:
_C.I.L._ ii. 4969, 1.
Footnote 3043:
_Ibid._ xv. 6265: see _Arch. Zeit._ 1861, p. 167.
Footnote 3044:
_Mélanges de l’École Franc. de Rome_, xii. (1892), p. 118, Nos. 31-3,
pl. 4, No. 5; _C.I.L._ xv. 6520; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 369; and see
above, p. 420, for examples on Campanian lamps.
Footnote 3045:
_Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1880, p. 291.
Footnote 3046:
Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict._, _s.v._ Lucerna, p. 1330.
Footnote 3047:
_E.g._ A, B, C, H, I, R: _C.I.L._ x. 8053, 209-14; xii. 5682, 131;
xv. 6266, 6334, 6342.
Footnote 3048:
_C.I.L._ xii. 5682, 57.
Footnote 3049:
See Fink in _Münchener Sitzungsberichte_, 1900, p. 690, for examples.
Footnote 3050:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6282.
Footnote 3051:
_Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 170 = _C.I.L._ xv. 6263.
Footnote 3052:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6350, 6433.
Footnote 3053:
_Ibid._ 6501-03.
Footnote 3054:
_Ibid._ 6560-65.
Footnote 3055:
_Ibid._ 6434, 6593.
Footnote 3056:
See Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Lucerna, p. 1331; also the lists
given by Fink in _Sitzungsb. d. Münch. Akad._ 1900, pp. 689, 692 ff.,
and the various volumes of the _Corpus_ under Instrumentum
Domesticum, especially vol. xv.
Footnote 3057:
Blanchet, _Mélanges Gallo-romaines_, ii. p. 112.
Footnote 3058:
_C.I.L._ v. 8114, 54.
Footnote 3059:
_Ibid._ xiii. 10001, 136; xii. 5682, 50; B.M. 383, 391.
Footnote 3060:
_C.I.L._ xiii. 10001, 136.
Footnote 3061:
_Ibid._: also Steiner, _Cod. Inscr. Rom. Danub. et Rheni_, i. p. 185,
ii. p. 238.
Footnote 3062:
_C.I.L._ vii. 1330, 15; Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. London_, p. 112;
_Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 47, Nos. 27-8.
Footnote 3063:
_C.I.L._ ii. p. 665, No. 24.
Footnote 3064:
_Ibid._ iii. 3215, 7; _ibid._ Suppl. 1, 8076, 16.
Footnote 3065:
_C.I.L._ ix. 6081, 33; x. 8053, 83; xi. 6699, 89; xv. 6450.
Footnote 3066:
Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ p. 1332: cf. _C.I.L._ xv. p. 783.
Footnote 3067:
From vol. v. of the _Corpus_ it may be seen how common the signatures
peculiar to this class are in this region; _e.g._ 8114, 11, 28, 54,
126, 137.
Footnote 3068:
Carton, _Découvertes_, p. 254: cf. _C.I.L._ viii. 10478, 33-4.
Footnote 3069:
_C.I.L._ x. 8053, 46; _Inscr. Graec._ xiv. 2405, 18. Cf. _Proc. Soc.
Antiqs._ xx. (1904), p. 96.
Footnote 3070:
_C.I.L._ xv. 6869, 6886.
Footnote 3071:
Boeckh, _C.I.Gr._ iii. p. 660, No. 5685; _Inscr. Graec._ xiv. 24053,
34; and B.M. 303.
Footnote 3072:
_Inscr. Gr._ xiv. 2405, 35.
Footnote 3073:
Cf. Cesnola, _Salaminia_, p. 284.
Footnote 3074:
See _C.I.L._ iii. Suppl. 1, 7310, and Vol. I. p. 108. He also occurs
in Africa (_C.I.L._ viii. 10478, 37) and elsewhere.
Footnote 3075:
_Inscr. Graec._ xiv. 2574.
Footnote 3076:
_Münchener Sitzungsberichte_, 1900, p. 685 ff. On p. 692 a table of
signatures on the British Museum lamps is given.
Footnote 3077:
See above, p. 400.
Footnote 3078:
The names of this and other potters in Class IV. also occur on
terracotta money-boxes (see above, p. 389).
Footnote 3079:
See _C.I.L._ xv. pt. 2, pl. 3, No. 15.
CHAPTER XXI
_ROMAN POTTERY: TECHNICAL PROCESSES, SHAPES, AND USES_
Introductory—Geographical and historical limits—Clay and
glaze—Technical processes—Stamps and moulds—_Barbotine_ and
other methods—Kilns found in Britain, Gaul, and Germany—Use
of earthenware among the Romans—Echea—Dolia and
Amphorae—Inscriptions on amphorae—Cadus, Ampulla, and
Lagena—Drinking-cups—Dishes—Sacrificial vases—Identification
of names.
1. INTRODUCTORY
Roman vases are far inferior in nearly all respects to Greek; the
shapes are less artistic, and the decoration, though not without merits
of its own, bears the same relation to that of Greek vases that all
Roman art does to Greek art. Strictly speaking, a comparison of the two
is not possible, as in the one case we are dealing with painted vases,
in the other with ornamentation in relief. But from the point of view
of style they may still be regarded as commensurable. Roman vases, in a
word, require only the skill of the potter for their completion, and
the processes employed are largely mechanical, whereas Greek vases
called in the aid of a higher branch of industry, and one which gave
scope for great artistic achievements—namely, that of painting.
It may perhaps be advisable to attempt some definition of the subject,
and lay down as far as possible historical and geographical limits
within which Roman pottery as a distinct phase of ancient art may be
said to be comprised. The line which distinguishes it from Greek
pottery is, however, one of artistic evolution rather than of
chronology, one of political circumstances rather than of geographical
demarcation. In other words, it will be found that during a certain
period the ceramic art had reached the same stage of evolution
throughout all the Mediterranean countries; in Greece and Asia Minor,
in the Crimea and in North Africa, in Southern Italy and in Etruria, a
point of development had been reached at which the same kind of
pottery, of very similar artistic merit, was being made in all parts
alike. In Greece and other regions which had up to the end of the
fourth century, or even later, been famous for their painted pottery,
this art had lost its popularity and was dying or dead; in other parts,
as in Etruria, it had never obtained a very firm foothold, and the
local traditions of relief-ware imitating metal were revived. Not the
least remarkable feature of the art of the Hellenistic Age is the great
impetus given to working in metal, as has already been indicated in a
previous chapter (Vol. I. p. 498). The toreutic products of Alexandria
and of the famous chasers of Asia Minor, whose names Pliny
records,[3080] became renowned throughout the Greek world, and the old
passion for painted pottery was entirely ousted by the new passion for
chased vases of metal.
But in spite of increased habits of luxury, it is obvious that the
replacing of earthenware by metal could never have become universal.
For ordinary household purposes pottery was still essential, and
besides that, there were many to whom services of plate and gold or
silver vessels for use or ornament were a luxury unattainable. Hence it
was natural that there should follow a general tendency to imitate in
the humbler material what was beyond reach in the more precious, and
the practice arose, not only of adorning vessels of clay with reliefs
in imitation of the chased vases, but even of covering them with some
preparation to give them the appearance of metal. Instances of these
tendencies have been given in Chapter XI., and no better example could
be adduced than that of the silver phialae of Èze and their terracotta
replicas in the British Museum (Vol. I. p. 502).
In the same chapter we saw that Southern Italy, in particular, was the
home of the relief and moulded wares in the Hellenistic period. This
was a time when there were close artistic relations between that region
and Etruria, and we have already seen that this method of decoration
had long been familiar in the latter district (see p. 292 ff.). Hence
it is not surprising that we find springing up in the Etruscan region
of Italy an important centre of pottery manufacture which proved itself
to be the heir of more than one line of artistic traditions. The era of
Roman pottery is generally assumed to begin with the establishment at
Arretium, within the area of Roman domination, of a great manufactory
in the hands of Roman masters and workmen. Evidence points to the
second century B.C. as the time when Arretium sprang into importance as
a pottery-centre; and thenceforward for many years its fabrics filled
the markets and set the fashion to the rest of the Roman world.
The lower limit of the subject is, from lack of evidence, not much
easier to define; but after the second century of the Empire, pottery,
like other branches of working in clay, sank very much into the
background, and the spread of Christianity after the time of Diocletian
practically gave the death-blow to all Pagan art. M. Déchelette, in his
account of the important potteries at Lezoux in Gaul, brings forward
evidence to show that they practically came to an end about the time of
Gallienus (A.D. 260-268)[3081]; but it is probable that the manufacture
of degenerate _sigillata_ wares went on for about a century longer in
Germany at any rate, if not in Gaul. Much of the pottery found in
Germany and Britain is of an exceedingly debased and barbaric character.
In discussing the geographical distribution of Roman pottery we are met
first with the difficulty, which has already been hinted at, of
defining where Greek ends and Roman begins. But we must have regard to
the fact that in most if not all Greek lands pottery, painted or
moulded, was in a moribund condition, whereas in Italy the latter
branch was rejuvenescent. It seems, therefore, more satisfactory on the
whole to exclude the Eastern Mediterranean entirely from the present
survey, and to consider that with the concluding words of Chapter XI.
the history of pottery in that part of the ancient world came to an
end. That is to say, that all later fabrics found in Greece or Asia
Minor, even though they are sometimes of Roman date, belong to the
lingering traces of a purely Hellenic development, and have no bearing
on our present investigation.
The latter must therefore be limited to the countries of Western
Europe, embracing—besides Italy—France, Germany, Britain, and Spain.
The pottery found in these regions during the period of the Roman
Empire is homogeneous in character, though greatly varying in merit,
and so far as it can be traced to the victorious occupiers of those
countries rather than to purely native workmanship, represents what we
may call Roman pottery, as opposed to Greek or Graeco-Roman on the one
hand and Celtic or Gaulish on the other.
2. TECHNICAL PROCESSES
Roman pottery, regarded from its purely technical aspect, is in some
ways better known to us than Greek, chiefly owing to the extensive
discoveries of kilns, furnaces, and potters’ apparatus, such as moulds
and tools, in various parts of Western Europe. On the other hand, its
classification is a much more difficult matter, although it has for so
long been the subject of study, for reasons which will subsequently
appear. This is perhaps partly due to the overwhelming interest which
the discoveries of recent years have evoked in the study of Greek
vases; and partly, of course, to the artistic superiority and more
varied interest of the latter; but the mass of material now collected
in the Museums of Italy and Central Europe is gradually impelling
Continental scholars to bring to bear on Roman pottery the scientific
methods now universally pursued in other directions. Of their work we
shall speak more in detail in another chapter; for the present we must
confine ourselves to the technical aspect of the subject.
The Romans, who used metal vases to a far greater extent than the
Greeks—at least under the late Republic and Empire—did not hold the art
of pottery in very high estimation, and their vases, like their tiles
and lamps, were produced by slaves and freedmen, whereas at Athens the
potter usually held at least the position of a resident alien. These
were content to produce useful, but not as a rule fine or beautiful,
vases, for the most part only adapted to the necessities of life. There
was, so far as we know, no manufacture of vases set apart for religious
purposes, either for funerary use or as votive offerings, and for the
adornment of the house metal had the preference. It is not, therefore,
surprising that we should find them making use of a less fine and
compact paste for the greater proportion of their vases. With the
exception of the fine red wares with reliefs, which are now generally
known to archaeologists as _terra sigillata_,[3082] and which answered
in public estimation to our porcelain, they made only common
earthenware, and this was generally left unglazed.
All kinds of clays are used, varying with the different regions in
which the pottery was made, and ranging in hue from black to grey,
drab, yellow, brown, and red. In quality, too, the clay varies to a
considerable extent, some being of a coarse, pebbly character. The red
clay of the Allier district in France, where most of the Gaulish
pottery was manufactured, is of a ferruginous nature; its natural
colour is modified by baking, though it never becomes white.[3083] The
pottery of St. Rémy-en-Rollat in that neighbourhood is made of the same
white clay as the terracotta figures (p. 382).[3084] In Italy, as a
rule, careful attention seems to have been paid to the preparing and
mixing of the clay, and in the glazed red wares it is uniformly good.
In fact, the remarkable similarity in technique and appearance of this
ware throughout the Roman Empire has led to the view that there can
only have been one centre from which it was exported. Against this,
however, must be urged the undeniably provincial and almost barbarous
character of the decoration on much of the pottery found in Central and
Northern Europe; and therefore, without denying that exportation went
on, as it undoubtedly did, we should prefer to suppose that this red
glaze was produced in some special artificial manner, such as by using
red ochre or iron oxide (see below), the knowledge of which became
common property. As Semper said forty years ago[3085]: “Not only did
barbarians, Gauls, Britons, and Germans, learn to know and use Roman
technique, but also Egypt, Asia, and the Greeks, already immortalised
by their own pottery, dropped their local processes, and voluntarily
adopted Roman forms and technique.” Clay and glaze, form and technical
method, are in all parts the same; it is only the decoration that
varies and reflects the spirit and taste of the locality.
Formerly it was thought that the red glaze was obtained in the baking,
after careful polishing of the surface, and that special means were
adopted to this end. In the kilns of Castor (see below) Artis thought
that he detected contrivances for this purpose; but it is now generally
agreed that the glaze is artificial, not natural. In ordinary wares and
in the lamps a red glaze is produced by a mere polishing of the
surface, and this varies in tone and lustre with the proportion of
oxide of iron in the paste, and the degree of heat employed in the
baking. But in the _terra sigillata_ the red glaze reaches a high and
uniform state of perfection. This seems to have been produced by a kind
of varnish, the elements of which are not absolutely certain; but it
would appear that the substance added to produce the effect was of an
essentially alkaloid nature. This has been deduced by Dragendorff[3086]
from a series of analyses made from fragments of different wares, both
without and with the glaze; in the latter case the alkaloid
constituents show a marked increase in quantity, whereas the proportion
of the iron oxide and other elements remain constant. These
investigations were made by Dr. Lilienthal, of Dorpat, on five
fragments: (1) from a vase of the Republican period found at Corneto;
(2) from a bowl of fine _terra sigillata_ of the first century after
Christ; (3) from a deep cup of the same style; (4) from late provincial
ware of the second or third century; (5) from a degenerate fabric with
rough clay and inferior glaze, the results being as follows:—
1. Without glaze[3087]:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Silica 55·08 52·87 52·054 54·75 66·70
Clay earth 23·10 23·95 — 18·82 21·01
Iron oxide 14·13 4·78 13·966 14·48 5·89
Carbonate of lime 5·22 13·80 — 5·30 3·20
Magnesia 0·75 2·35 1·850 3·38 1·26
Potash 0·79 0·89 1·852 1·55 1·02
Carbonate of sodium 0·28 0·45 0·523 0·53 0·57
2. With glaze[3088]:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Silica 54·18 — 51·924 53·70 —
Clay 21·31 — — 16·93 —
Iron 15·00 — 12·168 14·70 —
Carbonate of lime 6·01 — — 5·82 —
Magnesia 1·94 3·12 2·201 5·72 2·05
Potash 0·95 1·06 2·210 1·82 1·27
Carbonate of sodium 0·37 0·49 0·921 0·62 0·69
It must be borne in mind that, although the final effect is due to the
alkaloids, the red colour of the vases is produced by the iron oxide
which was inherent in the composition of the clay, none being added
with the varnish, as the quantities show. All the fragments also showed
traces of manganese and sulphuric acid. Previously analyses had been
given by Brongniart and Blümner,[3089] with results approximately
similar, but not so definite. Fabroni had thought that the iron oxide
was combined with a vitreous paste,[3090] and Keller, by practical
experiments, essayed to show that borax was employed to provide the
required appearance,[3091] and further maintained that the furnace at
Castor already alluded to was used for dissolving that substance. He
was not far from the truth, but the results obtained by Dragendorff
seem to militate against his conclusions.
In any case the glaze is very perfect, of so bright a red as to
resemble coral, and serving, as Blümner says, to enhance the ground
colour where a modern glaze would only conceal its imperfect tone. It
is so fine and so carefully laid on that it does not interfere with any
outlines or details, in this again evincing its superiority to modern
glaze. It seems to have been applied not with the brush, but by dipping
the vase into the liquid.[3092] Black glaze, such as occurs on the
earlier Italian fabrics (p. 481), was produced from an alkaline
silicate.[3093]
The ordinary unglazed wares were classified by Brongniart under four
heads[3094]: (1) pale yellow; (2) red (dark red to red-brown; first
century of Empire); (3) grey or ash-coloured (down to the end of the
Western Empire); (4) black (mainly provincial). This distribution was
in its general lines adopted by subsequent writers, such as
Buckman[3095] and Birch, but was felt to be inadequate, and some slight
modifications were adopted. For practical purposes, however, it will be
found to work fairly well as a convenient method of grouping the
commoner wares. None of them as a rule have any decoration. They will
be considered in fuller detail in a subsequent chapter.
* * * * *
In the manufacture of vases the Romans used the same processes as the
Greeks. They were made on the wheel (_rota figularis_ or
_orbis_),[3096] to which allusion is not infrequently made by the Latin
poets, as in the well-known line of Horace[3097]:—
Amphora cepit
Institui; currente rota cur urceus exit?
And, again, in the phrase _totus, teres, atque rotundus_[3098] he is
doubtless referring to a vase just turned off the wheel. Tibullus
speaks of “slippery clay fashioned on the wheel of Cumae”[3099]; and
there are also allusions in Plautus and other writers.[3100] The simile
has also been drawn upon by English poets.[3101] Specimens of potters’
wheels have been found at Arezzo and at Nancy; these are made of
terracotta, pierced in the centre for the axis of the pivot, and
furnished at the circumference with small cylinders of lead, to give
purchase for the hand and steadiness to the whirling wheel.[3102]
Another from Lezoux, now in the Museum at Roanne, is figured by M.
Déchelette.[3103] Most of the common wares were made by this process,
except the _dolia_, or large casks, which were built up on a frame like
the Greek pithos (Vol. I. p. 152).
But for the ornamented vases with reliefs an additional process was
necessary in order to produce the raised ornament, and they were in
nearly all cases produced from moulds, like the lamps or terracotta
figures and reliefs.[3104] The vases were still fashioned on the wheel,
but this was done in the mould from which the reliefs were obtained.
Occasionally the reliefs were modelled by hand or with the aid of
tools, or even produced with a brush full of thick slip (_en
barbotine_), but moulding was the general rule. This method entailed
three distinct stages, of which the first alone required artistic
capacity; the other two were purely mechanical, requiring only a
certain technical dexterity. The first was that of making the stamps
from which the designs were impressed; the second, the making of the
moulds; the third, impressing the clay in the mould.
The stamps were made of clay, gypsum, wood, or metal, and had a handle
at the back for holding while pressing them into the mould; they were
used not only for figures and ornamental designs, but also for the
potter’s signature (see below). Only clay examples, however, have been
preserved, but some of these are admirable specimens. Frequently the
subjects on the Arretine vases were taken, like those on lamps and
mural reliefs, from existing works of art, especially from the “new
Attic” reliefs to which allusion has already been made (p. 368), and
the stamps are directly copied from these sources. An instance of this
is a stamp from Arezzo in the British Museum, with a beautiful figure
of Spring (Plate LXVI. fig. 2), which finds its counterpart on a
complete vase from Capua (Fig. 219), and also on a mural relief (B.M. D
583). Another good example in the same collection represents a slave
bending over a vessel on a fire, and shielding his face from the heat
with one hand. From the same site are two others representing
respectively a boar and a lion. A fourth stamp found at Arezzo, with a
tragic mask, is given in Fig. 211.[3105] The stamps must have been
articles of commerce, and handed down from one potter to another, as
the subjects are found repeated in different places; the majority were
probably made at Arezzo and other important places in Italy.
Among examples from the provinces may be mentioned one in the British
Museum (Romano-British collection), with the figure of a youth,
inscribed OFFI(_cina_) LIBERTI; it is of fine terracotta, and was found
at Mainz. A stamp with the figure of Paris or Atys is in the museum of
the Philosophical Society at York.[3106] Other stamps in the form of a
hare and a lion in the Sèvres Museum are inscribed with the name of
Cerialis, a well-known German potter, whose name also occurs on a mould
for a large bowl with a frieze of combatants in the British Museum, and
in the former museum are six others, including one of a wolf, with the
name of a Gaulish potter, Cobnertus.[3107] Von Hefner mentions one
found at Rheinzabern with a figure of a gladiator at each end,
inscribed P · ATTI · CLINI · O(_fficina_), and others from Westerndorf
with a lion and a horse.[3108] Dies for stamping the potters’ names
have been found at Lezoux in Auvergne, and in Luxemburg, with the names
of Auster (AVSTRI · OF) and Cobnertus, and Roach-Smith possessed one
with the latter name[3109]; in the Sèvres Museum is also a stamp for
making rows of pattern (see below),[3110] and at Rheinzabern one for an
egg-and-tongue moulding was found.[3111] Specimens of these stamps are
given in Fig. 211.
[Illustration: FIG. 211. STAMPS USED BY ROMAN POTTERS.]
The moulds were made of a somewhat lighter clay than that of the vases,
but it was essential that the material should be sufficiently porous to
absorb the moisture of the pressed-in clay of the vase; sometimes holes
for the water to escape through are visible. They were made on the
wheel, and had a ridge on the exterior for convenience in handling;
they were made whole, not in halves, but sometimes the vase was first
made plain, and the figures were then attached from separate moulds, or
rather made separately, as in the case of the “Megarian” bowls (Vol. I.
p. 499).[3112] Vases have been found in the Rhone valley ornamented
with large _appliqué_ medallions, and the separate moulds for these
also exist; they seem to have been made at Vienne.[3113] The figures
and ornaments were impressed into the moulds from the stamps while the
paste was still soft, leaving hollow impressions to receive the clay of
the vases. Similarly, continuous patterns, such as rows of beads or
dots, were traced in the mould with a roller or wheel-like instrument
on which the pattern was cut in relief.[3114] Any defects or careless
arrangement in the completed vase would of course be due to a careless
insertion of the stamps in the mould.
There are large numbers of moulds for Roman and provincial vases in
existence,[3115] and the British Museum has a fine though fragmentary
series from Arezzo, intended for some of the finest specimens of the
local ware; of these more will be said in the following chapter. Many
of these moulds have been found on sites of potteries in Gaul,
especially in the Auvergne and Bourbonnais districts, and are collected
in the Moulins, Roanne, St. Germain, and other museums. Lezoux was an
important centre in this respect, and here also were found moulds for
patterns and ornaments.[3116] In the British Museum (Romano-British
collection) there is part of a mould for a shallow bowl, found at
Rheinzabern, with stamped designs of a lion, boar, and hare pursuing
one another; it is similar to the mould with Cerialis’ name already
described. These _matrices_ are usually of fine bright red clay,
unglazed; they are very porous, rapidly absorbing moisture, and easily
allowing the potter to withdraw the vessel from the mould. The
importance of the discovery of moulds can hardly be overrated for the
evidence they afford as to the site of potteries and centres of
fabrics[3117]; it is obvious that where they are found, and only in
such places, the vases must have been made; and that the discovery of a
potter’s name on any mould establishes his workshop at the place where
it was found. Various tools for working the moulds, or touching up
details or damaged parts of bronze and ivory, have been found on the
sites of ancient potteries,[3118] as at Arezzo, but their use cannot be
accurately determined.
The method of decoration known as _en barbotine_, which is a sort of
cross between painting and relief, was achieved by the laying on of a
semi-liquid clay slip with a brush, a spatula, or a small tube. The
pattern was probably first lightly indicated, and the viscous paste was
then laid on in thick lines or masses, producing a sort of low relief.
The process was, as a rule, only employed for simple ornamentation,
such as leaves, sprays, and garlands; but on the provincial black wares
it finds a freer scope. On vases found in Britain and the adjoining
parts of the Continent (p. 544) figures of animals are rendered in this
manner, and on another class peculiar to Germany (p. 537) inscriptions
are painted in a thick white slip. The colour of the slip did not
necessarily correspond to the clay of the vase, and was, in fact,
usually white. These vases are, however, technically poor, and the
reliefs heavy and irregular. The process has been aptly compared to the
sugar ornamentation on cakes.[3119]
Painted decoration is almost unknown in Roman pottery, and is, in fact,
confined to the POCOLOM series described in Chapter XI. It occurs in a
rough and primitive form on some of the provincial fabrics, such as the
Castor and Rhenish vases (see pp. 537, 544), but its place is really
taken by the _barbotine_ method.
Engraved or incised decoration is exceedingly rare, and practically
confined to provincial wares, which sometimes have incisions or
undulations made over the surface with the fingernail in the moist
clay.[3120] In the north of England, as at York, pottery is commonly
found with wreaths and fan-patterns cut in _intaglio_ in the clay while
moist. Others have patterns of four leaves 20[19]four-leaf cut in the
soft clay, or continuous ornaments round the vase made with the toothed
roller-like instrument of which we have already spoken. Some of this
ornamentation may be in imitation of contemporary glass vases. M.
Déchelette has traced this fabric to Lezoux,[3121] and the specimens
found in Britain are doubtless imported. A Gaulish example from the
Morel Collection in the British Museum is given on Plate LXIX. fig. 4.
The feet and rims of the vases were made separately, and attached after
their removal from the wheel, as were also the handles when required;
but the rarity of handles in Roman pottery is remarkable. It is perhaps
due to the difficulty of packing them safely for export. The next
process was the preparation of the glaze, for those vases to which it
was applied, followed by the baking.
3. ROMAN POTTERY-FURNACES
The remains of pottery-kilns and furnaces discovered in various parts
of Europe have furnished a considerable amount of valuable information
on the system employed in baking the vases. On this particular point,
indeed, we know far more in regard to Roman pottery than to Greek,
although, as we have seen in Chapter V., the painted vases themselves
sometimes yield information on the appearance and arrangement of the
furnaces. But remains of actual furnaces have been found in many places
in Western Europe, notably in Germany, France, and Britain, in a more
or less complete state, as also in Italy, at Pompeii, Modena, and
Marzabotto.[3122] A complete list of those known in 1863 has been given
by Von Hefner,[3123] supplemented by Blanchet’s lists of furnaces found
in France (1898 and 1902).[3124] In Gaul the best examples are at
Lezoux, near Clermont, at Châtelet in Haute-Marne,[3125] and at
Belle-Vue, near Agen, in the Department of Lot-et-Garonne.[3126] The
latter was circular in form, below the level of the soil. In Germany
important remains have been found at Heiligenberg in Baden, Heddernheim
near Frankfort, Rheinzabern near Karlsruhe, and Westerndorf.[3127] All
these in general arrangement differ little from those in use at the
present day; the Heddernheim furnace (Fig. 212) was found in the most
perfect preservation, but was subsequently destroyed, not, however,
before satisfactory plans and drawings had been made.[3128] In Britain
by far the most important discoveries have been made at Castor,
Chesterton, and Wansford in Northants, where the remains extend for
some distance along the Nene valley.[3129] They were first explored by
Artis in 1821-27, who published a magnificent series of plates in
illustration, entitled _Durobrivae_; these he supplemented by a full
description in the _Journal_ of the British Archaeological
Association.[3130] Castor and Chesterton (the latter in Hunts) are both
on the site of Roman towns, and were the centres of a special local
ware, described in a succeeding chapter. The potteries, being so
numerous, are probably not all of the same age.
[Illustration: FIG. 212. ROMAN KILN FOUND AT HEDDERNHEIM, GERMANY.]
In 1677 four Roman kilns were discovered in digging under St. Paul’s
Cathedral for the foundation of Sir C. Wren’s building, at a depth of
26 feet. They were made of loam, which had been converted into brick by
the action of the fires, and were full of coarse pots and dishes; they
measured 5 feet each way. A drawing made at the time is preserved among
the Sloane MSS. in the British Museum.[3131] In the kilns was found
pottery of the kind typical of London and the neighbourhood. In 1898
two kilns, one of large size, with pottery bearing the name CASTVS
FECIT, were found near Radlett in Herts,[3132] and another was
excavated in 1895 by Mr. C. H. Read at Shoeburyness.[3133] In Norfolk a
kiln of somewhat curious form was found in the Roman settlement of
Caistor by Norwich; the shape is that of a shallow concave depression
with partitions, and it contained vases placed ready for baking.[3134]
Another found between Buxton and Brampton was recorded by Sir Thomas
Browne,[3135] and a third at Weybourne.[3136] In the South of England
kilns have been found in the New Forest, where there was a manufacture
of local pottery[3137]; in Alice Holt Forest near Petersfield, Hants;
at Shepton Mallet in Somerset; and a potter’s workshop at Milton Abbas,
Dorset.[3138] The British Museum contains a model of a kiln unearthed
at Worcester about forty years ago, on the site of the modern porcelain
works. Finally, discoveries of kilns and pottery were made in 1819 at
Colchester, and again in 1878, when five kilns, all of different forms,
with local pottery, came to light.[3139]
To describe all these different types of furnaces in detail would of
course be impossible, but much may be learnt from the very full, though
now somewhat antiquated, descriptions of the Castor kilns given by
Artis.[3140] It will be found more satisfactory to describe the
generally-prevailing arrangements, noting the more important variations
where they occur. It may further be laid down that the system was
practically the same for terracotta figures and tiles as for pottery,
and that in many cases both were made in the same furnace. But this was
not invariably the case, and at Rheinzabern, for instance, the kilns
for tiles were quadrangular, those for pottery circular.
The kilns were constructed partly of burnt, partly of unburnt brick,
the interior, floor, and outside of the roofs being covered with a
strong layer of cement. They consisted of two main portions, the
fire-chamber with its adjuncts, and the vaulted chamber above, in which
the objects to be baked are placed. The fire-chamber was usually
circular, with a projection in front, the _praefurnium_[3141] which had
either a vaulted roof, as at Castor and Heiligenberg, or a gabled roof
formed of pairs of tiles, as at Rheinzabern. Through this the fuel was
introduced, consisting chiefly, as charcoal remains show, of pine-wood.
The fire-chamber was either divided up, as at Castor, by walls
radiating from a central pillar which supported the roof, or by rows of
pillars in a line with the entrance, as at Rheinzabern and
Heiligenberg. Holes were bored in the roof to allow the heat to
penetrate through, but the arrangement varies; at Heiligenberg each
division of the furnace was vaulted, making grooves along which the
holes were bored. The oven where the pots were placed has been
destroyed in most cases, but we know that it consisted of a floor, a
wall with entrances, and a vaulted dome. The pots were ranged partly on
the floor, partly on terracotta stands over the holes, as at
Rheinzabern and Heiligenberg[3142]; at Lezoux there are remains of
holes in the walls for iron bars to support them. Special arrangements
seem to have been made for baking the finer wares, in order to ensure
the proper spread of heat, and to guard against their being blackened
or otherwise injured. In the Romano-British Room of the British Museum
is a lump of bowls of red ware from Lezoux, fused together in the
baking and cast aside.[3143]
One of the kilns at Castor (Fig. 213) is described by Artis as a
circular hole 3 to 4 feet deep and 4 feet in diameter, walled round to
a height of 2 feet; the _praefurnium_ was about a foot in length. In
the centre of the circular hole was an oval pedestal (with one end
pointing to the furnace-mouth), on which and on the side wall the floor
was supported, being formed of perforated angular bricks meeting in the
centre. The vaulted dome was composed of bricks moulded for the
purpose,[3144] and the sides of the kiln of curved bricks set edgeways
in a thick slip of the same material. Brongniart[3145] compares the
Castor kiln with that at Heiligenberg, near Strasburg, and others in
the Rhine valley in which “Samian” ware was made.
[Illustration: FIG. 213. KILN FOUND AT CASTOR, NORTHANTS.]
Another kiln found in 1844 Artis describes as having been “used for
firing the common blue or slate-coloured pottery, and had been built on
part of the site of one of the same kind, and within a yard and a half
of one that had been constructed for firing pottery of a different
description. The older exhausted kiln ... presented the appearance of
very early work; the bricks had evidently been modelled with the hand,
and not moulded, and the workmanship was altogether inferior to that of
the others, which were also in a very mutilated state; but the
character of the work, the bricks, the mouths of the furnaces, and the
oval pedestals which supported the floors of the kilns, were still
apparent.”
Artis was also of opinion that “the blue and slate-coloured vessels
found here in such abundance were coloured by suffocating the fire of
the kiln, at a time when its contents had acquired a degree of heat
sufficient to ensure uniformity of colour.” Hence he denominated kilns
in which this ware was baked, “smother kilns.” He further notes that
the bricks of this kiln “were made of clay mixed with rye in the chaff,
which being consumed by the fire [_i.e._ in the baking of the bricks]
left cavities in the room of the grains, which might have been intended
to modify expansion and contraction, as well as to assist the gradual
distribution of the colouring vapour. The mouth of the furnace and top
of the kiln were no doubt stopped; thus every part of the kiln was
penetrated with the colouring exhalation.” From experiments made on the
local clays he proved to his own satisfaction that the colour could not
have been produced by any metallic oxide, inherent or applied from
without; and this view was supported by the appearance of the clay
wrappers of the dome of the kiln. But in view of recent researches,
such as those of Blümner, it is doubtful whether Artis’ theories can
now be upheld. As Mr. Haverfield has pointed out,[3146] the dark colour
may be due to the chemical action of the carbonaceous vapour of the
smothered kiln rather than to any “colouring exhalation.”
The process of packing the kiln in order to secure uniform heat in
firing is thus described by the same writer: “The kilns were first
carefully loose-packed with the articles to be fired, up to the height
of the side walls. The circumference of the bulk was then gradually
diminished, and finished in the shape of a dome. As this arrangement
progressed, an attendant seems to have followed the packer, and thinly
covered a layer of pots with coarse hay or grass. He then took some
thin clay, the size of his hand, and laid it flat on the grass upon the
vessels; he then placed more grass on the edge of the clay just laid
on, and then more clay, and so on until he had completed the circle. By
this time the packer would have raised another tier of pots, the
plasterer following as before, hanging the grass over the top edge of
the last layer of plaster, until he had reached the top, in which a
small aperture was left, and the clay nipt round the edge; another
coating would be laid on as before described. Gravel or loam was then
thrown up against the side wall where the clay wrappers were commenced,
probably to secure the bricks and the clay coating. In consequence of
the care taken to place grass between the edges of the wrappers, they
could be unpacked in the same-sized pieces as when laid on in a plastic
state, and thus the danger in breaking the coat to obtain the contents
of the kiln could be obviated.”
In the course of his excavations Artis discovered a singular
furnace,[3147] “of which I have never before or since met with an
example. Over it had been placed two circular earthen fire vessels (or
cauldrons); that next above the furnace was a third less than the
other, which would hold about eight gallons. The fire passed partly
under both of them, the smoke escaping by a smoothly-plastered flue,
from seven to eight inches wide. The vessels were suspended by the rims
fitting into a circular groove or rabbet, formed for the purpose.” He
was strongly of opinion that this furnace was used for producing glazed
wares by means of iron oxide. Whether this is so or not, it is
interesting to note that in the British Museum and Museum of Geology
there are cakes of vitreous matter from Castor, probably used as a
glaze, and consisting of silicates of soda and lime.[3148]
The kiln found at Caistor, in Norfolk, was apparently used for baking
the grey Roman ware, and differed in form from those described, which
were for the black, being only calculated for a slight degree of
baking. It was a regular oval, measuring 6 feet 4 inches in breadth.
The furnace holes were filled in below with burnt earth of a red
colour, and in the upper part with peat; the exterior was formed of
strong blue clay of 6 inches in thickness, and the interior lined with
peat; the kiln was intersected by partitions of blue clay. Some of the
vases were inverted and filled with a core of white sand.[3149]
[Illustration: FIG. 214. PLAN OF KILN AT HEILIGENBERG.]
The furnaces at Heiligenberg and Rheinzabern present the following
further peculiarities.[3150] The former, which were evidently used for
the baking of red wares, had a flue in the form of a long channel with
arched vault, the mouth being over 8 feet from the space where the
flames and heat were concentrated under the oven (Fig. 214). Numerous
pipes of terracotta, of varying diameter, diverged from the upper part
or floor of the oven, to distribute the heat; in the outer wall of the
oven was a series of smaller ones, and twelve or fifteen of larger size
opened under the floor of the oven to distribute the heat and flame
round the pots (Fig. 215). The mouths of the pipes were sometimes
stopped with baked clay stoppers to moderate the heat. The upper part
or dome of the kiln is never found entire, having been generally
destroyed here, as elsewhere, by the superincumbent earth. Walls of
strong masonry separated and protected the space between the mouth of
the flue and the walls of the oven, and the floor of the latter was
made of terracotta tiles.
[Illustration: FIG. 215. SECTION OF KILN AT HEILIGENBERG.]
At Rheinzabern, where excavations were made in 1858, fifteen furnaces
were found, some round and others square, but all constructed on the
same plan. The floor of the oven was over 3 feet below the top of the
walls, and was covered with tiling, the walls being formed of rough
slabs of clay, about 28 by 16 inches in size. The floors of the ovens
were in some cases supported by bricks covered with a coating of clay.
Stands of baked clay in the shape of flattened cylinders supported the
pots in the oven, and these rested on pads of a peculiar form, roughly
modelled in clay.[3151] In all, seventy-seven pottery-kilns and
thirty-six tile-kilns were discovered on this site.[3152]
The following list, though by no means claiming to be exhaustive, gives
the names of the chief potteries where actual furnaces have been
discovered.
1. ITALY
Arezzo See p. 479 ff.
Marzabotto _Mon. Antichi_, i. p. 282.
Modena _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1875, p. 192.
Oria _Ibid._ 1834, p. 56.
Pompeii Mau-Kelsey, _Pompeii_, p. 386.
Pozzuoli _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 54.
2. FRANCE
Dept. Ain St.-Martin-du- Blanchet, _Melanges_, p. 107.
of Mont
Allier Champ-Lary Blanchet, p. 89.
Lubié ” p. 95.
St.-Bonnet ” p. 96.
St.-Didier-en- ” p. 96.
Rollat
St.-Rémy-en- ” p. 96; Déchelette, i.
Rollat p. 41 ff.
Vichy Blanchet, p. 95.
Aube Nogent-sur- ” p. 106.
Seine
Aveyron Graufesenque ” p. 97; Déchelette, i.
p. 64 ff.
Dept. Bouches-du- Arles Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._
of Rhône vii. p. 13.
Auriol Blanchet, p. 98.
Marseilles ” p. 98.
Charente Jarnac ” p. 101.
Chez Ferroux ” p. 102.
Eure-et-Loire Chartres ” p. 104.
Gard Uzès ” p. 99.
Haute-Garonne Vieille- ” p. 101.
Toulouse
Haute-Marne Châtelet Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 439.
Haute-Saône Luxueil Blanchet, p. 107.
Ille-et-Vilaine Redon ” p. 102.
Indre-et-Loire Nouâtre ” p. 104.
Loire Montverdun ” p. 96.
Loire- Herbignac ” p. 102.
Inférieure
Loire-et-Cher Thoré ” p. 104.
Lot Cahors ” p. 100.
Mélines ” p. 101.
Lot-et-Garonne Agen ” p. 101; _Rev. Arch._
xviii. (1868), pl. 23.
Lozère Banassac Blanchet, p. 97; Déchelette, i. p.
117.
Nièvre Chantenay Blanchet, p. 96.
Gravier ” p. 96.
Oise Bois-Ibert ” p. 105.
Compiègne ” p. 104.
(Forest of)
Mont-de-Hermes, ” p. 105.
Beauvais
Sampigny ” p. 105.
Orne Chandai ” p. 103.
Pas-de-Calais Avesnes-le- ” p. 106.
Comte
Puy-de-Dôme Clermont- ” p. 95.
Ferrand
Lezoux ” p. 93; Déchelette, i. p.
141 ff.
Thiers Blanchet, p. 94.
Rhône Lyons ” p. 100.
Sarthe Grand-Lucé ” p. 103.
Seine Paris ” p. 104.
Seine- Incheville ” p. 103.
Inférieure
Somme Amiens Blanchet, p. 106.
Tarn Montans ” p. 97.
Tarn-et-Garonne Castelnau-de- ” p. 97.
Montratier
Muret ” p. 97.
Vendée Trizay ” p. 102.
Yonne Sens ” p. 106.
[See also Blanchet, p. 90 ff. for sites of furnaces for terracotta
figures.]
3. GERMANY
Alttrier, Luxemburg Von Hefner, p. 60.
Bergheim Blanchet, _Mélanges Gallo-rom._ ii. p. 108.
Bonn _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxiv. p. 152; lxxxiv. p.
118.
Cannstadt Von Hefner, p. 61.
Cologne _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxix. p. 178.
Commern _Ibid._ iv. p. 203.
Dalheim, Luxemburg Von Hefner, p. 61.
Dieburg ” p. 61.
Güglingen _Bonner Jahrb._ i. p. 74.
Heddernheim _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1882, p. 183.
Heidelberg _Bonner Jahrb._ lxii. p. 7.
Heiligenberg Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 427; Blanchet,
_Mélanges Gallo-rom._ ii. p. 108.
Heldenbergen _Westd. Zeitschr. für Gesch. u. Kunst_,
xviii. (1899), pl. 4, p. 227.
Herbishofen Von Hefner, p. 61.
Nassenfels ” p. 61.
Petzel, Luxemburg ” p. 61.
Rheinzabern ” p. 61; Brongniart, i. p. 429.
Riegel Von Hefner, p. 61.
Rottenburg _Bonner Jahrb._ iv. p. 141.
Schönbuch, Würtemberg Blanchet, p. 108.
Trier ” p. 108.
Waiblingen Von Hefner, p. 61.
Westheim ” p. 62.
Westerndorf ” p. 62.
4. ENGLAND
Dorset, Milton Abbas Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi.
p. 191.
Essex, Ashdon _Arch. Journ._ x. p. 21.
” Colchester Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii.
p. 38, vii. pls. 1-3, p. 1 ff.;
_Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ xxxiii.
p. 267.
” Shoeburyness _Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ 2nd Ser. xvi.
p. 40.
Hampshire, Alice Holt Forest _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 306.
” New Forest _Ibid._ p. 326.
Hertfordshire, Radlett _Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ 2nd Ser. xvii.
p. 261.
Huntingdon, Sibson and Water Newton _Vict. County Hist. Northants_, i.
p. 175.
Kent, Upchurch Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi.
p. 178; _Archaeologia_, li. p. 467.
Lancashire, Warrington _Reliquary_, 1900, p. 263.
Middlesex, London (St. Paul’s) Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p.
79.
Norfolk, Brampton _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 314.
” Caistor-by-Norwich _Ibid._ p. 291; _Archaeologia_,
xxxvi. p. 413.
” Caistor-by-Yarmouth _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._, xxxvi.
p. 206.
” Weybourne _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 322.
Northants, Castor, Wansford, Bedford _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 166 ff.,
Purlieus 206 ff.
Oxfordshire, Headington _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ vi. p.
60.
” Littlemore _Ibid._ liv. p. 349.
Somerset, Shepton Mallet _Gentleman’s Mag._ 1864, ii. p.
770.
Suffolk, West Stow Heath _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ xxxvii.
p. 152.
Worcester _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 207 (a
model in Brit. Mus.).
[On the subject generally reference may be made to Brongniart,
_Traité_, i. p. 426; De Caumont, _Cours d’ant. Monum._ ii. (for
Heiligenberg); Von Hefner, _Römische Topferei_, in _Oberbayr. Archiv
für vaterl. Gesch._ xxii. (1863), p. 60 (where a complete list of
furnaces up to date is given); _Bonner Jahrbücher_, lxii. 1878, p. 7
ff.; Wolff in _Westdeutsche Zeitschrift für Gesch. u. Kunst_, xviii.
(1899), p. 211 ff.; Blümner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 23 ff.; Smith,
_Dict. of Antiqs._ i. p. 845 (_art._ FICTILE); and for Gaulish sites,
Blanchet, _Mélanges Gallo-romaines_, ii. p. 93 ff.]
4. POTTERY IN LATIN LITERATURE; SHAPES AND USES
Vessels of earthenware were extensively used by the Roman people in the
earlier days of the Republic for all purposes of domestic life,[3153]
and later writers often contrast their use with that of the costly
vases of precious metal then customary. “Gold,” says Persius, “has
driven away the vases of Numa and the brass vessels of Saturn, the urns
of the Vestals and Etruscan earthenware”[3154]; and Juvenal speaks of
those who laughed at “Numa’s black dish and bowl, and fragile saucers
from the Vatican hill.”[3155] Even under the Empire fictile vases
continued to be used by the poorer classes, and the use of the finer
red glazed wares must have been even more general. But Juvenal,
satirising the luxury of Domitian’s time, says that it is considered a
reproach to dine off earthenware.[3156] In Republican times it was the
proud boast of a Curius to prefer his earthenware service to Samnite
gold,[3157] and in 167 B.C. the consul Q. Aclius Tubero was found by
the Aetolian ambassador dining off earthenware[3158]; Seneca also tells
how he, at his entertainment given in the temple of Jupiter, placed
fictile vessels before his guests.[3159] But when Masinissa entertained
the Romans in 148 B.C. the first course was served on silver, the
second in golden baskets, which Ptolemy Euergetes describes
respectively as the Roman and Italian fashions.[3160] Athenaeus says
that up to Macedonian times dinners were served in fictile vessels, but
that subsequently the Romans became more luxurious, and Cleopatra spent
five minae a day on gold and silver wares.[3161] Subsequently
earthenware was replaced by glass as well as metal, especially for
unguent-bottles and drinking-cups, of which large numbers are found in
Roman tombs, where they virtually take the place of pottery. Vases of
immense size were sometimes made under the Empire, and stories are told
of the absurdities perpetrated by some of the Emperors in this respect.
Juvenal, in describing the turbot prepared for Domitian,[3162] says no
dish could be found of sufficient size to cook it in, and Vitellius had
a dish made which from its huge dimensions acquired the name of “the
shield of Minerva.”[3163] Elsewhere it is scoffed at as a “swamp of
dishes” (_patinarum paludes_).[3164] Pliny speaks of terracotta vases
which sold for even more than precious crystal or myrrhine ware,[3165]
and were therefore presumably of great size.
The principal use of earthenware was for the transport and storage of
wine, oil, corn, figs, honey, and other commodities, answering to the
casks of the present day. Martial speaks of a jar (_testa_) reddened
with the blood of tunnies exported from Antipolis (Antibes).[3166] Of
the shapes used for this purpose and their names we shall speak
presently in detail. Vases were also used in religious rites, but metal
was probably more general; Plautus describes a miser who sacrificed to
the Lares in earthenware (_vasis Samiis_) because he was afraid that
they might steal silver vessels.[3167] They were also used for various
operations in agriculture, medicine, and household economy; but above
all for the domestic purposes of the table. Some of the peculiar uses
have already been referred to (p. 387), and another that may be
mentioned is the use of jars as bell-glasses for rearing
vine-sprouts.[3168]
Although the custom of burying vases with the dead was not so general
among the Romans as among the Greeks, they were yet frequently used in
graves in the form of cinerary urns, in the shape of a covered jar
(_olla_ or _obrendarium_[3169]) of coarse ware and globular in form (p.
550). Vases containing ashes have often been found in England, as at
Bartlow and Litlington in Cambridgeshire.[3170] At the latter place a
tomb contained a sort of colander perforated with holes which formed
the letters INDVLCIVS.[3171] Similar finds are recorded from Arnaise in
France. Pliny states that many persons expressed their desire to be
buried in coffins of terracotta.[3172] Roman sarcophagi of terracotta
have been found at Saguntum in Spain, but for these stone and lead were
the ordinary materials. The cinerary urns were often formed from large
dolia or amphorae, the neck being broken off so as to produce a
globular vessel. Examples have been found in England at Chesterford,
Essex,[3173] at Southfleet in Kent,[3174] and in the Bedford Purlieus
near Kingscliffe, Northants (now at Woburn Abbey); another is in the
Cathedral Library at Lincoln.[3175] Roach-Smith also mentions specimens
found in Lothbury, London, and in Kent, the latter being now in the
Maidstone Museum.[3176]
Vitruvius, in his chapter on _Echea_, or vases distributed around the
ancient theatres for acoustic purposes, mentions that they were often
made of earthenware for economical reasons[3177]; but they were usually
of bronze. Seneca, too, alludes to this practice when he speaks of the
voice of a singer falling upon a jar (_dolium_).[3178] It is certain
that the Greeks and Romans often made use of earthenware jars in
architecture, but it is probable that this was more often done with the
object of diminishing weight than for acoustic reasons, or, as some
have thought, for want of better material. The _dolium_, _amphora_, and
_olla_ seem to have been the forms most usually employed. There are
various examples in walls and substructures of the Augustan period, and
they are also found in vaults, where their purpose is undoubtedly to
lighten the weight.[3179] In the circus of Maxentius a number of large
amphorae were found embedded in the vaulting and upper part of the
walls, arranged neck downwards and with their axis inclined obliquely
to the wall.[3180] All are now broken, but they illustrate the
ingenious method in which the upper parts of the arches supporting the
rows of seats were lightened. In the dome of the tomb of St. Helena,
outside the Porta Labicana, rings of pots are embedded for the same
purpose, whence the building is usually known as Torre Pignattara (from
_pignatte_, pots).[3181] An oven found at Pompeii had a vaulted top
formed of _ollae_ fitted into one another, each about a foot in height,
of ordinary red ware; the span of the arch was 5 feet 6 inches, and the
object here was to ensure extreme dryness as well as lightness.[3182] A
similar arrangement occurs in the Stabian Thermae at Pompeii, and also
in the church of San Stefano alla Rotonda at Rome, and the dome of San
Vitale at Ravenna, built by Justinian in the sixth century, is
similarly constructed, with an elaborate system of tubes and
jars.[3183] The practice seems to have been continued during the Middle
Ages, and an example occurs in England, at Fountains Abbey, where the
purpose was acoustic.[3184]
* * * * *
We now proceed to describe in detail the principal shapes of Roman
vases, so far as they can be identified from literary or epigraphical
evidence or from other sources, on the same lines as in our previous
chapter on the shapes of Greek pottery. Some of these shapes, it will
be seen, they had in common with the Greeks, such as the amphora, the
krater, and the phiale or patera, and in several instances (such as the
cyathus and the scyphus) the Greek name is preserved.
Beginning with vases used for storage, whether for liquids, as for wine
and oil, or for solids, as for corn or fruit, which were chiefly kept
in cellars, we take first the _dolium_, a gigantic cask corresponding
to the Greek πίθος (Vol. I. p. 152), which from its general usage gave
rise to the generic term _opus doliare_, for common work in clay. It
was large enough to contain a man, as we know from the story of
Diogenes illustrated on the Roman lamp already given (Plate LXIV. fig.
6); the vessel thereon depicted may serve to give an idea of its
appearance. Columella[3185] speaks of _dolia sesquiculearia_, _i.e._
holding one-and-a-half _culei_ or thirty amphorae. They were buried in
the earth of the cellars, and have been found thus in Italy at Anzi, in
France at Apt, Vaucluse, and near Clermont, and at Tunis.[3186] They
were used for wine, oil, corn, and salted meat, and Juvenal tells us
that _dolia_ were used for new wine, being lined with wax, pitch, or
gypsum.[3187] In 1858 a large number were found at Sarno in Campania,
some being stamped with the makers’ names, as ONESIMVS FECIT, VITALIS
F, L · TITI · T · F · PAP, and M · LVCCEI · QVARTIONIS.[3188] On one
was incised L · XXXIV, or thirty-four _lagenae_ (see p. 446). One of
the prodigies which was supposed to predict the future fortune of the
Emperor Antoninus Pius was the discovery above ground of some _dolia_
which had been sunk in the earth in Etruria.[3189] An old name for the
_dolium_ was _calpar_,[3190] and another smaller variety was the
_seria_,[3191] containing only seven amphorae. A diminutive form of the
latter, _seriola_, is described as a wine-vessel invented in
Syria.[3192]
_Dolia_ were made in separate pieces, the base and other parts being
secured by leaden cramps, and they were also hooped with lead, as we
learn from Cato.[3193] Pliny speaks of repairing casks by fitting on
handles, scraping the hoops, and stopping up cracks.[3194] They are
made both of white and red clay, baked in a slow furnace, great care
being required to moderate the heat aright. Their makers were known as
_doliarii_. Part of a large _dolium_ bound with leaden hoops was found
near Modena, at Palzano; also at Spilamberto, one with the name of T.
Gavelius and the numerals XXX, XIII, another of the capacity of 36
amphorae.[3195] On the mouth of one found in the Villa Peretta at Rome
was the name of L. Calpurnius Eros,[3196] on another the name of T.
Cocceius Fortunatus.[3197] Two good examples of _dolia_ were at one
time preserved in the gardens of the Villa Albani, about 4 feet in
diameter and as many in height, and of a coarse gritty pale red clay.
This kind of vase was often used for sepulchral purposes, bodies having
being found actually buried in them (see above, p. 457).
Next in size and importance to the _dolium_ is the _amphora_,
resembling in form the Greek wine-jar[3198]; it usually has a long
cylindrical body with pointed base, a long narrow neck, and two
straight handles. Hölder[3199] notes several varieties: the Canopic,
the wide-bellied, the cylindrical, the globular, and the spheroidal,
the former of which is a typical early form in the provinces.[3200] It
was often without neck or handle, and was seldom ornamented, not being
used for artistic purposes like its Greek prototype, but only for
strictly utilitarian ends, that is, for the storage and transport of
wine. It is usually of coarse red earthenware, made on the wheel, with
a clay stopper to close the mouth, and the name of the maker in a
rectangular label on the handle, like the _diota_ or wine-amphora of
the Greeks. It was in fact often known as a diota, as in a familiar
line of Horace[3201]:
Deprome quadrimum Sabina,
O Thaliarche, merum diota.
The amphora was pitched internally to preserve the wine[3202]; the
pointed base was of course adapted for fixing it in the ground in the
cellar, but when brought up it was placed in a tripod-stand of metal or
wood (_incitega_).[3203] In Cicero’s time the regulation size was
equivalent to a quadrantal or two _urnae_.[3204] The use of this vase
was very varied and extensive among the Romans; it was employed not
only in cellars and granaries, but also at the table and for many other
purposes of ordinary life, even where nowadays vessels of wood or iron
would be preferred.
D’Agincourt[3205] mentions the discovery at Rome, near the Porta del
Popolo, of a row of amphorae in a cellar in 1789, and at Pompeii a
hundred were found in the house of Arrius Diomedes, a hundred and fifty
in that of the Faun; a hundred and twenty were found in a cellar near
the baths of Titus, and many more at Milan in 1809, and at Turin.
Numbers have been found in London, varying in capacity from four to
twelve gallons, and others at Colchester and Mount Bures in
Essex.[3206] But they are so universal all over the Roman Empire that
to enlarge the list would be tedious. Many, however, evoke a special
interest by reason of their stamps and inscriptions, and a few typical
examples may profitably be given.[3207]
The inscriptions vary in form and character; some amphorae give the
name of the maker in the genitive, _officina_ being understood; others
the consuls for the year in which they were filled; others, again, the
name of the wine or other phrases descriptive of their contents; and
others complimentary inscriptions to their owners. Among names of
makers both single, double, and triple names are found, and among the
former are many of a Gaulish or barbarian character, such as Bellucus,
Dicetus, and Vacasatus, son of Brariatus; the last-named from Nimeguen,
the first-named from London.[3208] Among the triple names, showing that
the potters were Roman citizens or freedmen, are M. Aemilius Rusticus
from Caerleon, and C. Antonius Quintus, also found in Britain.[3209]
Sometimes the name is in the nominative with F for _fecit_, or with the
genitive OF for _officina_ occurs. The stamps are in the form of oblong
rectangular labels on the handle or neck, the letters in relief. One of
the most curious stamps was on an amphora found in the Pontine marshes
near Rome, a square one with a caduceus and other symbols arranged in
twelve compartments; the inscription runs M · PETRON · VETERAN · LEO ·
SER · FECIT, “Leo, the slave of M. Petronius Veteranus, made it.”[3210]
The names of Vespasian and Titus as consuls are found on an amphora
from Pompeii: VESPASIANO III ET FILIO CS, the year being A.D. 74[3211];
that of M. Aurelius (but not necessarily as consul) occurs on an
amphora found at Newington in Kent[3212]; and on one in the British
Museum from Leptis in Africa is L · CASSIO · C · MARIO · COS, the date
being A.D. 107.[3213] On the neck of a fourth amphora, found at
Pompeii, was FVNDAN · CN · LENTVL · M · ASINIO · COSS, “wine of Fundi
in the consulship of Cn. Lentulus and M. Asinius (Agrippa),” of the
year A.D. 26.[3214]
The character or origin of the wine or other commodity stored in the
amphorae is given by such inscriptions as BARCAE, KOR · OPT (“best
Corcyrean”),[3215] RVBR · VET · [=V] · P CII (“old red wine, 102 lbs.
weight”), all from Pompeii, painted in red and black.[3216] MES · AM ·
XVIII, also on an amphora from Pompeii, appears to mean “eighteen
amphorae [not measures] of Mesogitan wine” (from Mesogis in
Lydia[3217]); or, again, we find at Pompeii SVRR · XXI, “twenty-one
amphorae of wine of Surrentum”[3218]; TOSCOLA(_n_)ON (_ex_) OFFICINA
SCAV(_ri_), “Tusculan wine from the manufactory of Scaurus.”[3219] On
the other hand, LIQVAMEN OPTIMVM (“best pickle”), or such expressions
as SCOMBRI (“mackerel”), GARVS (“brine”), etc., imply that the vessel
has been used for conveying pickled fish.[3220]
Among expressions of a complimentary nature are: FABRILES MARCELLAE N ·
AD FELICITATEM, “the workmen of our Marcella to wish her joy”[3221];
(_pr_)OMO(_s_) FAMELIAI DONO(_m_) V(_otum dedit_), or DONO V(_rnam
dat_), “Promus gave (an urn) as a gift and vow to his family” (from
Ardea in Latium).[3222] The list may be concluded with the inscription
on an amphora found in the garden of the Villa Farnese, among the ruins
of the Aurea Domus of Nero, which held eight _congii_; on its neck was
traced in ill-formed letters: L(_iquaminis_) FL(_os_) EXCEL(_lens_) L ·
PVRELLI GEMELLI M(...), “Finest brand of liquor, belonging to L.
Purellus Gemellus.”[3223] An amphora was found at Pompeii with the name
of Septimius or Stertinius Menodotus in Greek letters.[3224] There are
occasional references in the classics to the practice of placing such
stamps on vases, as when Plautus makes the slave say, with reference to
the drinking that went on in his master’s house, “There you may see
epistles written with letters in clay, sealed with pitch; the names are
there in letters a foot and a half long.”[3225] Or, again, another
slave, fearing to be caught with a jar in his possession, reflects,
“This jar is lettered; it proclaims its ownership.”[3226] Juvenal
speaks of wine whose country and brand had been obliterated by old age
through long hanging in the smoke.[3227]
Another vase used much in the same way as the amphora, and particularly
for keeping wine, was the _cadus_, the shape of which is not exactly
known. It held about twelve _congii_, or seventy-two _sextarii_
(pints), and is frequently mentioned by Horace and Martial.[3228] The
former in the _Odes_ refers to his jar of Alban wine nine years old,
and in another passage to one stored in Sulpicius’ cellars[3229]; the
latter speaks of _cadi Vaticani_, which may mean made of clay from the
Vatican hill or containing Vatican wines[3230]; elsewhere he speaks of
taking yellow honey from the ruddy jar (implying an earthenware
vessel), and of the red jar which pours out home-made wine.[3231] We
also learn from him that the _cadus_ was hung in the chimney to give
the wine a mellow flavour.[3232] From other passages we learn that the
_cadus_ was used for oil,[3233] fruit,[3234] and money,[3235] and also
as a measure equivalent to one-and-a-half amphorae or three
urnae.[3236] The _orca_ is described by Isidorus as a kind of amphora,
of which the _urceus_ (see below) was a diminutive.[3237]
The Romans were presumably, like the Greeks, in the habit of mixing
their wine with water, but we only find the _crater_ mentioned rarely,
and that in a poetical manner.[3238] Moreover it was probably made in
metal as a rule, and the rare instances of the _crater_ which occur in
the Arretine ware are obvious imitations of metal prototypes; there is
a fine example in the British Museum from Capua (see Fig. 219). Ovid,
however, speaks of the _rubens crater_,[3239] implying terracotta, as
in the case of the _rubens cadus_ of Martial mentioned above. The
_vinarium_,[3240] the _acratophorum_ (for holding unmixed wine),[3241]
and the _oenophorum_ were probably of the same character, but the
latter was portable, as we know from Horace’s jeer at the man who took
his cooking-stove and wine-jar (_oenophorum_) with him everywhere.[3242]
The _urna_, the equivalent of the Greek _hydria_, was similarly
used for carrying water, and also for casting lots, or as a
voting-urn[3243]; in the latter sense Cicero actually uses the word
_hydria_.[3244] Its size was half that of the amphora. Both the
_urna_ and the hydria are found in connection with funerary usages,
and appear to have held the ashes of the dead.[3245] The _situla_,
or bucket, with its diminutive _sitella_, was also used for water
and for lots,[3246] but was principally of metal. Isidorus says it
is the Greek κάδος (Vol. I. p. 165).[3247] The _cupa_ and the
_cumera_ seem to have been of wood rather than earthenware[3248];
the former was a kind of tub, the latter was used for keeping
grain, and also by brides for conveying their effects to their new
home.[3249] Another large vessel for holding liquids was the
_sinus_, or _sinum_, used both for water and milk.[3250] The
_nasiterna_, so called from its long spout or _nasus_, had three
handles, and was used as a watering-pot.[3251] The _fidelia_
appears to have been a kind of large pail or bucket; Cicero in one
of his letters[3252] cites the proverb, _de eadem fidelia duos
parietes dealbare_, which answers to our “killing two birds with
one stone.” It implies that it would be used for holding paint or
whitewash.
Of smaller vases for holding liquids, such as jugs, bottles, and
flasks, the principal were the _urceus_ (with its diminutive
_urceolus_), the _ampulla_, and the _lagena_ or _lagona_. The _hirnea_
is also mentioned as a jug which was filled from the jar or
cadus.[3253] The _urceus_ seems to be a small jug, the equivalent of
the Greek οἰνοχόη, having one handle; it was also used as a
measure.[3254] The _ampulla_ was used both as a wine-flask and an
oil-flask, corresponding thus to the Greek λήκυθος, as is seen in its
metaphorical use.[3255] It was used for bringing the wine to table,
like a decanter,[3256] and is described by Apuleius[3257] as lenticular
in form, being therefore like a flat round-bodied flask with two
handles.
[Illustration: FIG. 216. AMPULLA (BRITISH MUSEUM).]
An interesting example of an _ampulla_ of this kind, of red ware with a
coarse reddish-brown glaze was found some years ago near the Hôtel
Dieu, Paris.[3258] It bore two inscriptions round the body, one on
either side, with letters in relief; on one side was OSPITA REPLE
LAGONA CERVESA, “Mine host, fill the flask with beer”; on the other,
COPO CNODI TV ABES EST REPLETA, “Innkeeper, (?), be off, it is full.”
Similar vases have been found in Hainault and at Trier, and are said to
be still made in Spain. Another of the same kind, but with only one
handle, recently acquired by the British Museum from the Morel
collection, has on it the word AMPULLA painted in white (Fig. 216). The
_lagena_ (Greek, λάγυνος) was a jug or bottle with narrow neck, wide
mouth, and handle, and was used as a sign by wine-sellers.[3259] It was
sealed up until required for use,[3260] and being proverbially brittle,
was protected, like a modern Italian wine-flask, by wicker-work.[3261]
It was also used as a travelling-flask, and carried by hunters and
fishermen[3262]; the younger Pliny exhorts Tacitus, when he goes
hunting, to take not only a “sandwich-box and brandy-flask” (_panarium
ac lagunculam_), but also a notebook to jot down ideas.[3263] The Roman
barmaid carried a _lagena_ at her side when serving in the
tavern,[3264] and it was used as a wine-jug at the table.[3265] A jar
found at Saintes in France has engraved on it MARTIALI SOL(_i_)DAM
LAGONAM, “A whole flask to Martialis,”[3266] and gives a clue to the
form associated with this word (see Fig. 217).
[Illustration: FIG. 217. LAGENA FROM FRANCE, INSCRIBED.]
The words in use for a ladle are _cyathus_, corresponding to the Greek
κύαθος (Vol. I. p. 179),[3267] in measure equivalent to one-twelfth of
the sextarius or pint, and _simpulum_ or _simpuvium_. The latter were
chiefly associated with sacrifices, and will be dealt with later (p.
471); the _cyathus_ was regularly used at the table for measuring out
the wine into the drinking-cups. We learn from Martial that in drinking
a toast it was customary to use the number of cyathi that corresponded
to the letters in the name of the recipient, as in the epigram
Laevia sex cyathis, septem Justina bibatur,
Quinque Lycas, Lyde quattuor, Ida tribus.[3268]
Of drinking-cups the Romans had almost as large a variety as the
Greeks, the majority of the ornamented vases preserved to this day
being apparently for this purpose; the number of names recorded in
literature is, however, much less, as many of those given in the long
list on pp. 181-183 of Vol. I. are mere nick-names for ordinary forms.
The generic name for a drinking-cup was _poculum_,[3269] the Greek
ποτήριον, just as _vas_ was the generic name for a larger vessel; it
occurs constantly in the poets, who, indeed, use it somewhat loosely,
and has already been met with in the series of small bowls with Latin
inscriptions described in Chapter XI. (p. 490). Many forms of
drinking-cups used by the Romans were only made in metal, such as the
_cantharus_,[3270] _carchesium_,[3271] and _scyphus_[3272] (see Vol. I.
pp. 184, 187). All these were forms borrowed from the Greeks, as were
the _calix_ (_kylix_), the _cotula_ (chiefly used as a measure =
half-a-pint), and the _scaphium_[3273] and _cymbium_,[3274] which were
boat-shaped vessels. The _ciborium_ (a rare word, but used by
Horace[3275]) was supposed to be made in the form of the leaves or pods
of the _colocasia_, or Egyptian bean.[3276] Its later ecclesiastical
use is well known. Other names of which we hear are the
_batioca_,[3277] the _gaulus_,[3278] the _scutella_ (see below),[3279]
and the _amystis_, or cup drained at one draught (see Vol. I. p.
181).[3280] Like the Greek _kylix_, the _calix_ appears to have been of
all these the one most commonly in use, and is constantly referred to
by poets and prose writers. Those of terracotta could often be
purchased at a very low price, and formed, it is evident, the ordinary
drinking-cups of the Roman citizen; they were also frequently of glass.
Juvenal speaks of “plebeian cups purchased for a few _asses_”[3281];
and Martial describes a man buying two _calices_ for an _as_ and taking
them home with him.[3282] We have no exact information as to its form,
but it must have been something like the Greek _kylix_, only probably
without handles; it was also used for solid food such as herbs.[3283]
Seneca speaks of _calices Tiburtinae_, which seem from the context to
have been of earthenware.[3284] Varieties of the _calix_ are probably
represented by the typical Gaulish forms illustrated in Chapter XXIII.,
Figs. 221-223.
Of dishes and other utensils employed for food at the table, the
largest were the _lanx_ and the _patina_. The former is described by
Horace and Juvenal as large enough to hold a whole boar,[3285] and was
probably of metal; the _patina_ is described as a dish for holding
fish, crabs, or lobsters,[3286] but that it was not necessarily limited
in size is shown by the stories already alluded to of Domitian and
Vitellius (p. 456). The latter, when dragged to his death, was insulted
by the epithet of _patinarius_, or dish-maker.[3287] The patina was
flat, and made of clay, and is also described as a wide and shallow
vessel for cooking.[3288] It is contrasted with the _lagena_ in the
well-known fable of the fox and the stork.[3289] Smaller dishes for
sweetmeats and other dainties were the _catinum_ and _catillum_, and
the _patella_.[3290] The _discus_ and _paropsis_[3291] appear to have
been, like the _lanx_, principally of metal; the former was like a
shield (whence _scutula_ and _scutella_); the latter is mentioned by
Isidorus, who describes it as quadrangular, and by Martial, together
with some obscurely-named dishes[3292]:
Sic implet gabatas paropsidesque
Et leves scutulas cavasque lances.
Martial speaks of the _patella_ as a dish for a turbot, and also as a
vessel of black ware which was used to hold vegetables[3293]; the
_catinus_ (a fictile dish) was large enough to hold a good-sized fish,
such as a tunny,[3294] and the _catillus_ appears to have been a sort
of porringer. Sauces were placed in small dishes or cups, known as
_acetabula_ (the Greek ὀξύβαφον), which were evidently of
earthenware[3295]; the _catellus_ held pepper,[3296] and the _concha_
or shell was used for a salt-cellar, also for unguents.[3297] The
latter was probably a real shell, not of earthenware. Another kind of
dish which is only once mentioned, in Horace’s account of Nasidienus’
banquet, was the _mazonomum_, probably a kind of _lanx_, in metal,
which held on that occasion a sort of _ragoût_ of game.[3298] His own
table, however, he boasts, was adorned only by a _cyathus_ and two
cups, an _echinus_ or rinsing-bowl, a _guttus_, and a _patera_ or
libation bowl.[3299] The _guttus_ seems to have corresponded to the
Greek _lekythos_ or _askos_, and is the general name for an oil-flask
or cruet.[3300] It was either a small, long-necked bottle or a squat
flask with a narrow spout, which allowed the oil to pour slowly.
Roach-Smith published a relief dedicated by Egnatius, a physician, to
the Deae Matres, on which small vases of the first-named form appear,
indicating that he consecrated his medicine bottles to these
divinities.[3301]
Of vessels for cooking, washing, and other common domestic purposes,
the _olla_ was that in most general use[3302]; the word is, in fact, a
generic name for a jar or pot (Gk. χύτρα), as in the play of Plautus,
the _Aulularia_, the name of which embodies an archaic form of the
word, _aula_, _aulula_. Here it was used for hiding a hoard of gold. It
was also, as has been noted, used as a funerary urn, and some inscribed
examples of marble _ollae_ have been found in tombs. The _pelvis_ was
more particularly a washing basin, but Juvenal speaks of it as scented
with Falernian wine.[3303] It is usually identified with the
_mortarium_, a large, shallow, open bowl with a spout, frequently found
in Britain and Central Europe (see below, p. 550); it is of coarse
light-red clay, and often has the potter’s name stamped upon it. That
it was used for pounding substances is shown by the fact that it often
has small pebbles embedded in the surface of the interior. The _scutra_
is mentioned by Cato and Plautus,[3304] and appears to have been used
only in Republican times; its Imperial successor was the
_cacabus_.[3305] The _trua_ or _trulla_[3306] was a saucepan with a
flat handle; numerous examples in bronze, silver, and earthenware have
been preserved, and some have elaborate designs in relief on the
handle.[3307]
A number of obscure and archaic names of vases are recorded by the
etymologists and other writers, especially in regard to those used for
sacrificial purposes and libations. The _capis_ or _capedo_ was
probably a kind of jug (from _capere_, to contain)[3308]; Cicero refers
to the _capedunculae_ which were a legacy from Numa.[3309] The
_praefericulum_[3310] was not, as usually supposed in popular
archaeology, a jug, but a shallow basin of bronze without handles, like
a _patera_. The _lepasta_ or _lepesta_ (cf. Greek λεπάστη) is recorded
as used in Sabine temples,[3311] and the _futile_ was used in the cult
of Vesta for holding water[3473]; the _cuturnium_[3313] is also
mentioned. The _simpulum_[3314] and _simpuvium_[3315] represent similar
utensils, though the words are distinct; they were small-sized ladles
used almost exclusively in religious rites, and sometimes regarded as
old-fashioned. With reference to the size, _fluctus in simpulo
excitare_[3316] became a proverbial expression for “a storm in a
teacup.” They seem to have been usually of metal, but Pliny speaks of
fictile _simpula_[3317]; the _simpuvium_ is represented on coins and
sacrificial reliefs. The _lanx_ appears to have been used for offerings
to Bacchus,[3318] and the _guttus_, _cymbium_, and other forms also
appear in a sacrificial connection[3319]; conversely the _patera_,
which is for the most part exclusively a libation bowl, was sometimes
used for secular purposes[3320]; there is evidence that its use as a
drinking vessel is older than its use for libations. The last-named
corresponds to the Greek φιάλη (Vol. I. p. 191),[3321] and is
constantly referred to or represented; its essential feature was the
hollow knob or _omphalos_ in the centre, and it was either made of
metal or earthenware. The _patella_ was also used for libations or for
offering first-fruits to the household gods.[3322]
Other obscure words referring to vases of secular use are the
_pollubrum_ (Greek, ποδανιπτήρ)[3323] and _malluvium_ (Greek,
χέρνιψ),[3324] meaning respectively basins for washing the feet and
hands; the _aquiminarium_ for washing vessels[3325]; the _galeola_, a
variety of the _sinus_[3326]; the _pultarius_, a vessel used for warm
drinks, for must, for preserving grapes, for coals, for fumigating, and
as a cupping-glass[3327]; and the _obba_, which Persius describes as
_sessilis_, _i.e._ squat and flat-bottomed.[3328] The _culeus_,
_congius_, _hemina_, and _sextarius_ appear to have been measures only,
not vases in general use; the _congius_ was one-eighth of an amphora,
or six _sextarii_, about six English pints.[3329]
In the case of the majority of the names discussed in the foregoing
pages, any attempt at identification with existing forms is hopeless;
we have very few clues in the literature to the shapes of the vases
described, and little evidence from themselves, as is often the case
with Greek shapes; nor is any Roman writer except Isidorus, whose date
is too late to be trustworthy, so explicit as Athenaeus. At present
little has been done in the way of collecting the different forms of
existing vases, but a valuable treatise on the subject was recently
issued by the late O. Hölder, a Würtemberg professor, who collected all
the forms found in Germany and Italy,[3330] and although he did not
attempt to identify them by Latin names, he has done much service in
grouping them together, classified as urns, jars, jugs, and so on, in a
series of twenty-three plates of outline drawings.
There is, in fact, in Roman pottery no clear line of distinction to be
drawn between the various forms of drinking-cups or of jugs or dishes,
as is the case with Greek vases; different forms again are found in
different fabrics, and those typical of ornamented wares are not found
in plain pottery, and so on. Nor must it be forgotten that in Roman
pottery the ornamented wares are the exception rather than the rule.
Where the Greeks used painted vases, the Romans used metal; and apart
from the plain pottery, the forms are almost limited to a few varieties
of cups, bowls, and dishes. Comparisons with the Greek equivalents
illustrated in Chapter IV. may give a probable idea of what the Roman
meant when he spoke of an _urceus_ or an _olla_, but for the rest the
modern investigator can do little beyond attempting to point out what
types of vases were peculiar to different periods or fabrics, and in
most cases any attempt to give specific names can only be regarded as
arbitrary.
-----
Footnote 3080:
_H.N._ xxxiii. 154 ff.: see below, p. 489.
Footnote 3081:
_Vases ornés de la Gaule Romaine_, i. p. 190 ff.
Footnote 3082:
The term is applied to clay suited to receive stamps (_sigilla_) or
impressions.
Footnote 3083:
Déchelette, _Vases ornés de la Gaule Romaine_, ii. p. 335.
Footnote 3084:
_Ibid._ i. p. 41 ff.
Footnote 3085:
_Der Stil_, ii. p. 148.
Footnote 3086:
_Bonner Jahrbücher_, xcvi. p. 20.
Footnote 3087:
In the case of fragment No. 3 the clay and lime could not be
differentiated.
Footnote 3088:
In the case of fragments 2 and 5 no definite general result was
obtained.
Footnote 3089:
Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 421; Blümner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 91.
See also _Handbook to Collection of Pottery in the Museum of
Practical Geology_, 1893, p. 65, for an analysis made on a fragment
of glazed red ware by Dr. Percy:
Silica 54·45
Alumina 22·08
Peroxide of iron 7·31
Lime 9·76
Magnesia 1·67
Potash 3·22
Soda 1·76
———
100·25
======
Footnote 3090:
_Storia degli ant. vast aretini_, p. 65.
Footnote 3091:
_Ueber die rothe Topferwaare_, p. 16.
Footnote 3092:
Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 423; Déchelette, ii. p. 339.