Review: [untitled]

Author(s): Thomas F. C. Blagg

Reviewed work(s):
The Architectural Ornament of Diocletian's Palace at Split by Sheila McNally
Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 104, No. 1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 148-149
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/506816
Accessed: 29/05/2009 03:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
148 BOOK REVIEWS
Busts, Bass-Relieves, Cinerary Urns, and otherAncient Marbles
and Paintings at Ince (Liverpool 1803), and Engravings and
Etchings of the Principal Statues, Busts, Bass-Reliefs, Sepulchral
Monuments, Cinerary Urns etc., in the Collectionof Henry Blun-
dell, Esq., at Ince 1-2 (Liverpool 1809-1810). These unique
personal records and commentaries, based in part on the
scholarship of Ennio Quirino Visconti, serve as important
documents to elucidate our understanding of his views on
ancient sculpture.
Although Blundell was probably more aware of the
roguish behavior of the restorers, copyists, and dealers in
Rome than most of his contemporaries, his own observa-
tions need to be taken with a grain of salt: some of his prov-
enances are suspect, since dealers may have made up the
findspots in order to sell the items more easily; and his
identification of heads, while often correct, was sometimes
mistaken because having a statue with a name attached to
it made it seem more worthy. Fejfer describes the pastiches
that are characteristic of Blundell's collection in this way:
"Mere fragments were restored into whole busts, modern
heads were restored on ancient busts, modern busts were
restored with ancient heads, ancient heads were combined
with alien, ancient busts and statues, and copies, fakes, or
pieces inspired by the antique were made as counterparts
to ancient pieces" (8). As for forgeries, Fejfer points out
the tricks of the trade, including the carving of shallow
grooves that look like ancient breaks (cat. 55).
The most prolific restorer of the day was the Roman
sculptor Bartolomeo Cavaceppi. Fejfer discusses his sources,
including numismatic portraits, and shows how he worked.
She identifies typical features, such as the carving of details
of hair and a particular manner of making bases, which is
convincingly shown in photographs of busts from the back.
The author points out that a good copy by a modern sculp-
tor working "after the antique" was considered more desir-
able than a mediocre original. In 1776, for example, Blun-
dell commissioned Carlo Albacini, a pupil of Cavaceppi, to
copy a colossal head of Lucius Verus, when he still could
buy fine examples of ancient sculpture on the market.
The catalogue itself consists of 58 entries, ranging from
full length togati to herms to heads, and includes 18th-
century copies and fakes. Fejfer clarifies what is original,
restored, overworked, or cleaned, and provides a full history
of each piece with accounts from Blundell's own records as
well as an overview of earlier and modern scholarship. Her
knowledge of Roman sculpture, combined with acute ob-
servations on the history of each work and its place as a
record of 18th-century taste, makes for fascinating reading.
Each work is illustrated with five views, usually showing the
front, back, two profile views, and a close-up or overall view,
as appropriate. The photography, by David Flower, is su-
perb and especially successful because the author spent
months working with the photographer to get the most de-
scriptive pictorial analysis. In addition, the catalogue is pep-
pered with Blundell's engravings, as well as modern draw-
ings that show which parts are restored. A full bibliography
and several indices, including comparanda and prove-
nances, add to the usefulness of the volume. A somewhat
dense section in the introduction discusses research on of-
ficial Roman portraiture since Visconti. Other than that,
this beautifully written and illustrated book is highly acces-
[AJA 104
sible to a wide audience and of great importance for the
study of Roman sculpture and its modern afterlife.
NANCY H. RAMAGE
ART HISTORY DEPARTMENT
ITHACA COLLEGE
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
RAMAGE@ITHACA.EDU
THE ARCHITECTURAL ORNAMENT OF DIOCLETIAN'S
PALACEAT SPLIT, by Sheila McNally. (BAR-IS 639.)
Pp. viii + 77, figs. 99, drawings 14. Tempus Rep-
aratum, Oxford 1996. ?28.00. ISBN 0-86054-
823-6 (paper).
Diocletian might be gratified to learn that the palace
that he built for his retirement, near Salona in Dalmatia, is
now a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The major restora-
tions that are intended to celebrate its 1700th anniversary
in 2005 have served as the occasion for the work pub-
lished in this volume. For its preparation, both the author
and the Croatian colleagues who assisted her deserve par-
ticular congratulations, especially in the face of the diffi-
cult circumstances of recent years in the territories of the
former Yugoslavia.
"No other Roman monument has a comparable amount
of carved ornament from a single building campaign still
in place" (3): a large claim, but the last seven words pro-
vide the justifying factors. In the context of the book,
"monument" might be qualified as "integrated complex of
monuments," since an important feature of this study is
the variety of treatment it gives to different component
structures within the palace complex. This is not simply, or
even primarily, a stylistic analysis. As stated, the book aims
to consider the functions of the ornament in its structural
context and to examine what ornament has to say about
the ways in which men worked together in this clearly de-
fined time period at the beginning of the fourth century.
After an introduction that reviews scholarship on the or-
nament at Split, starting with Alois Riegl's Stilfragen (Berlin
1893), the book is arranged in two main sections. First,
there are chapters on the palace and the roles of ornament
within it, on the local vocabulary of architectural orna-
ment (three charts show the different combinations of
what was used where), and on the decoration in context.
There follows a register describing the architectural orna-
ment of the different parts of the palace, with photographs
and appendices on the frieze inside the mausoleum and
on the vault coffers of the Temple ofJupiter.
The study of the ornament still in its original position il-
lustrates its variety of visual significance for the spectator.
The seaward side was intended to be viewed from a dis-
tance: the upper floor was given unity by a continuous ar-
cade with engaged columns, which was saved from monot-
ony by larger, triple openings with a central arcuated lintel,
one in the center and two beside the corner towers. The
lack of ornamentation of the central door, which interrupts
the otherwise blank wall of the lower floor, implies that no
one was expected to enter there in style. That contrasts
with the main gates; in the Porta Aurea the arches over the
2000] BOOK REVIEWS
niches at the upper level have plain moldings, the column
capitals and stringcourse below the arches have acanthus
and spiral foliage, and the richest decoration comes lower
down in the consoles that carry the columns, the arch over
the gate, and the sills of the niches to either side. The orna-
ment emphasizes the gate's purpose for ceremonial entrance
by the hierarchy of its arrangement.
The interior of the residence of the palace has relatively
little carved ornament; decoration may have been colorful
and two-dimensional (mosaic, marble veneer, and opus
sectile), but there is little evidence of it. The palace was en-
tered through one of Split's familiar features: the tetrastyle
facade with a centrally arcuated pediment at one end of a
peristyle courtyard. The most magnificent profusion of ar-
chitectural carving in Split was reserved for the two monu-
ments on each side of the peristyle. McNally's study of
their ornament in relation to their function is of particular
importance.
The identification of the octagonal eastern building,
now the cathedral, as Diocletian's mausoleum, and of the
rectangular vaulted building opposite as a temple of Jupi-
ter, is widely accepted. As her detailed discussion (30-4)
shows, the sources on which these identifications are based
are by no means conclusive. It is accepted that Diocletian
died and was buried at Split, but where is unknown. Several
medieval sources equated the Temple ofJupiter, rather than
the octagonal eastern building, with the cathedral. McNally
shows, however, that the internal ornament of the present
cathedral is entirely in keeping with an original purpose as
a mausoleum, with winged erotes racing, hunting, and
holding garlands under masks. These subjects all occur fre-
quently on sarcophagi but have no relevance to the cult of
Jupiter. The decoration of the vaulted building lacks such
specific references but is equally profuse. The cornice over
the door has a sima decorated with luxuriant palmettes,
supported on consoles carrying heads with leafy beards, and
the door itself is framed by three different bands of vine-
scrolls or volutes. Though eagles and victories decorate
some of the consoles, there is no specific commemoration
of Diocletian's historical achievements. The profusion of na-
ture would seem instead to symbolize the prosperity of Te-
trarchic rule more generally. McNally cites similar ornament
from Galerius's complexes at Thessalonike and Gamzigrad
as comparisons.
The vaulted structure's association with Jupiter remains
uncertain, but it seems clearly to be a Roman temple, one
of the last to be built. The coffering of the vault illustrates a
feature of Split's architectural decoration that scholars have
found both puzzling and unsatisfactory: its disparities. All 64
coffers are ornamented, with much variety in choice of mo-
tif and execution, and with no apparent system in the distri-
bution pattern of the boss motifs (mainly heads or rosettes).
McNally interprets it as a positive reflection of the di-
verse origins and careers of the workmen, although previ-
ous scholars have criticized this variety as the result of care-
lessness or lack of refinement: "the decorators brought (the
complex's) parts to life, and gave them personality with
their boisterously hybrid forms" (39). Inconsistencies were
an intentional part of being nonclassical. To identify where
the men came from, however, remains problematic: Procon-
nesos, Nicomedia, Miletos, and Side are among sites that
149
have produced comparanda for some (but only some) fea-
tures, and multiple origins seem probable. A detailed study
of the stylistic variants of specific motifs, which in previous
scholarship has indicated such links, may no longer be ap-
propriate in identifying a workshop's practice if consis-
tency was not the aim of late Roman architectural orna-
ment. In her study of this unique body of evidence at Split,
McNally has set herself more profitable aims.
THOMASF.C. BLAGG
SCHOOL OF EUROPEAN CULTURE AND LANGUAGES
UNIVERSITY OF KENT AT CANTERBURY
CANTERBURY, KENT CT2 7NF
UNITED KINGDOM
T.F.C.BLAGG@UKC.AC.UK
MARBLE STUDIES: ROMAN PALESTINE AND THE MAR-
BLE TRADE, by Moshe L. Fischer, with contributions
by Ze'ev Pearl and Tziona Grossmark. (Xenia 40.)
Pp. 323, pls. 224, b&w photographs 13, drawings
9, graphs 6. Universitatsverlag Konstanz, Konstanz
1998. DM 158. ISBN 3-87940-547-6 (paper).
"Marble studies are currently fashionable." So states
Moshe Fischer at the beginning of his useful book on how
marble was imported and employed in the Roman prov-
ince of Palestine. A spate of recent scholarship has shown
how the use of marble for architectural and sculptural dec-
oration in the Roman empire symbolized the very essence
and success of a region's aspiration to be "Roman." The ar-
tistic and economic consequences of a "Marmorstil" had
long-lasting influence throughout the Roman empire, even
in a lesser province such as Palestine. However, little re-
search has been done on the marble trade's economic con-
sequences in any particular province, and even less in Roman
Palestine. Historically, it was not one of the more important
areas of the Graeco-Roman world. Indeed, as Fischer spec-
ulates, if it were not for Roman interest in the area due to
the Jewish wars of the late first and early second centuries
A.D., little might be known about it at all. This study of the
province's use of marble is part of a larger research project
currently underway by the author concerning types of
architectural decoration used in Israel during the Helle-
nistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods.
Palestine has no native marble sources. All was imported,
a striking fact that underlies this examination of white mar-
ble artifacts in the context of Roman Palestine's sociopolit-
ical development and increasing economic involvement in
the imperial marble trade. While this study concentrates
mainly on the west coast of Palestine, four sections concern
related subjects: a chapter on the more limited use of mar-
ble in the neighboring provinces; a chapter on marble and
marble workers in late Roman and Byzantine Palestine (there
was a marked revival of its use in the fifth and sixth centu-
ries A.D.); an appendix by Grossmark on "Shayish" (marble)
in rabbinic literature; and another appendix, coauthored
with Pearl, on the scientific analyses of the objects catalogued
in this book.
Palestine did not begin to use marble in any substantive
way until the second and third centuries A.D. While monu-