Notes

1. Della Corte 469 fig. 8.

2. Surely not slit windows as Lehmann 190ff.believes.

3. Lehmann 1.c. A distinction must be made between towers and other buildings that appear, like the present example, in the setting of a sacred grove and those that are in a context of other architecture such as porticos and similar elements of towns and villas. In the second context the tower obviously has quite different connotations. It seems, for instance, quite likely that a somehow similar tower on the wing panels of the Boscoreale cubiculum was correctly interpreted by Mrs. Lehmann as a storage house. The difference between this specimen and the towers in sacro-idyllic landscapes are noteworthy, however, the ladder being the most significant item, but no less significant are the differences of the windows and doors [compare Lehmann pl. 32 with our plate].

It seems characteristic that in the Boscoreale wing panels the elements of sacred landscape, column, statue, tree, shrubbery, are restricted to the place in front of the enclosure wall behind which the various buildings rise, thus alluding either to the villa proper or--as cannot be ruled out completely--to a town, but at any rate to a domestic and not to a sacred setting. See also Grimal 275ff. for towers that stood in gardens [diaetae] and also Grimal's previous article in Mél. 56, 1939, 23ff.

4. It is not easy to determine the meaning of these buildings. Rostovtzeff 59ff. 78ff. called them tombs, thought of Egypt as their origin and cited one such specimen, a rectangular structure with porch [62 n. 1.] Grimal 63 discusses the funeral gardens that must have existed, to judge from the numerous inscriptions which enumerate various architectural elements. Indeed no buildings were so frequent in the ancient countryside as tombs. "La campagne hellénistique", Grimal 356 correctly writes, "était peuplée de tombeaux et de sanctuaires". It is therefore not astonishing that both these structures abound in ancient landscape paintings.

5. E. L. Wadsworth, MemAmAc. 4, 1924, pls. 3-9; for more examples see below.

6. Rostovtzeff 5-38.

7. Continuous and broken friezes, little landscapes and single landscape panels, both in the form of prospects and in the form of framed panels. These examples will be listed and discussed below.

8. This seems to be a rule for all panels and even for architectural decorations in ancient wall painting; there are, however, exceptions.

9. On the east wall it is not preserved but can be reconstructed.

10. A very similar one, also with a tree, in the narrative frieze of the black wall of the Farnesina, MonInst. 11 pl. 45.

11. Theocritan shepherds sit "beneath the elm facing Priapus and the springs"; [Greek Text . . . . ] [Theocrit. 1, 21f., compare also Epigram 4]. The painting as well as the vignettes bring to mind an epigram by Leonidas of Tarentum [Anth. Pal. 7, 657].

12. A similar schola but apparently with a row of detached columns at each end in Pompei VII 15, 12: Rostovtzeff 42 fig. 20.

13. Della Corte: "un copricapo conico a larga falda". Pygmies: G. Bendinelli, Le pitture del columbario di Villa Pamphili [1941] text tav. agg. 2.

14. Shepherds and travelers cannot always be told apart, sometimes they may be both, compare Theocrit. 7, where a [Greek text . . . ] is also a [Greek text . . . ].

15. Rather than a stage or any other animal, compare the goats on the north wall landscape. A goat's head, not a stag's, also on the batylos in the panel of the Casa di Livia, together with a boar's and stag's, see Rostovtzeff 6 fig. 2, who describes them as two stags and a boar.

16. Some motives go back much farther: the famous Hellenistic relief in Munich representing a rural sacrifice, shows a holy tree, the trunk of which is decorated with fillets, and two statuettes on a column next to it. A velum is fastened to the tree [Schefold, ArtB. 42, 1960, 90 fig. 7; AM. 71, 1956, 219 with literature]. Other examples from Hellenistic art had already been collected by Rostovtzeff 127ff.

17. The examples Nos. 1.4.7.8.10.12 are discussed by Rostovtzeff. For the dates suggested see Beyen in Studia Vollgraff 11ff., with literature. Schefold, WP. 1ff. Beyen II passim.

18. For the monochromes see A. Mau, Geschichte der decorativen Wandmalerei [1882] 163. 279ff.; RM. 10, 1895, 231. Rostovtzeff 30ff. Schefold, WP. 128. 205, with literature. For Pompei VII 1, 40 see Mau 1.c.210. Schefold, WP. 167f. Beyen II 244. 371; for Pompei VIII 5, 2 see Mau 1.c 213. 282. Schefold, WP. 226. Beyen II 361 n. 4. 371 n. 4

19. Risso, La Casa di Livia 51ff. fig. 35ff. Beyen II fig. 234. 235c.

20. Lehmann pl. 11. 13. 16.

21. For the interpretation of the legend see Schefold in: Studies D. M. Robinson II [1953] 1096ff.

22. MonInst. 12 pl. 23f. Beyen II fig. 243. Now exhibited in the first of the Farnesina rooms in the Museo Nazionale in Rome.

23. This, to be sure, with respect to the decoration of Roman walls. Whether there was or was not genuine sacro-idyllic landscape painting in Hellenistic times is not and probably will never be known for certain. The existence of Hellensitic mythological landscape painting, however, seems certain to the present writer who will try to demonstrate the proof in a paper on the Odyssesy Frieze, which will be shown to be a copy of a Hellenistic frieze. Even a superficial formal analysis of the Odyssey Frieze would make it clear that stylistically it has nothing in common with the sacro-idyllic murals from Boscotrecase. The latest discussion, with literature, of these problems can be found in Beyen II passim, especially 290ff. [development up to the Odyssey Frieze]. 314ff. [idyllic landscape in Hellenistic times]. 320ff. [reconstructions of Hellensitic mythological landscapes]. Beyen does not make essential distinctions betweenthe various species of landscape painting which, to my mind, provide the clue to an understanding of the development, the differences, and the achievements of both Hellenistic and Roman landscape painting. This is not, however, the place for a detailed discussion of his opinions.

24. The exact character of ancient perspective has been discussed frequently and with different results. The evidence, both material and literary, seems to me to agree largely with the opinion held by E. Panofsky, most recently expressed in: Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art [1960] 121ff.: "the principle of foreshortening is applied not only to individual objects . . . . but to the picture space in general: terrain or pavements, walls and ceilings seem to recede into depth, parallel lines not parallel to the picture plane are made to converge, objects seen at a distance shrink in size . . . . but space and things do not coalesce into a unified whole nor does the space seem to extend beyond our range of vision. The size, volume and color of the objects change according to distance and to the action of light and atmosphere; but these changes cannot be expressed in terms of constant relations . . . . the space presupposed and presented in Hellenistic and Roman painting lacks . . . .continuity [hence measurability] and infinity. It was conceived as an aggregate or composite of solids and voids, both finite, and not as a homogeneous system within which every point, regardless of whether it happens to be located in a solid or in a void, is uniquely determined by three co-ordinates perprendicular to each other and extending in infinitum from a given point of origin." - I would differ only in a minor point: the "aggreagete of finite solids and voids" can lead and, in my opinion, has led to pictures that do appear to the naive beholder as something like a unified whole, for example in the Odyssey Frieze. I shall try to demonstrate this in a forthcoming paper [see previous note, meanwhile compare AJA. 61, 1957, 87ff.]. For the vast bibliography on ancient perspective see Panofsky 1. c. 122 n. 1; Early Netherlandish Painting [1953] 362f. n. 3. 12, to be added: Schefold, ArtB. 42, 1960, 90, and P. Sanpaolesi, Raccolta Vinciana 18, 1960, 188ff., a recent article to which E. Panofsky kindly called my attention. See also the selected list in Beyen II5.

25. It may be objected that the Odyssey Frieze and the murals in the Aula Isiaca are mythological landscape paintings whereas the Red Room murals are sacro-idyllic, and that the preceding sacro-idyllic landscapes from Boscoreale to the Farnesina are not in the manner of the Odyssey Frieze either. But this seems no valid objection. What matters is that the Red Room murals are not small decorative ornaments but large scale pictures, compositions of independent weight and as such comparable only to the figural compositions of Second Style walls, and these are realistic like the Odyssey Frieze.

26. Like a similarly seen Schola in the above cited example in Pompei VII 15, 2, see p. 25 and note 30.

27. See for instance the Yellow Panel on the rear wall of the Boscoreale cubiculum and the Yellow Frieze in the Casa di Livia.

28. Latin literature testifies abundantly to such form of country life and use of the villa. Suffice it to recall Statius' famous praise in silv. 1, 3 [particularly 90ff], Cicero's withdrawal to his villa to overcome his sorrows at the death of his daughter and the Younger Pliny's description of his villa [epist. 5, 6] or his other reference to country life in his letters [for instance 1, 3. 6]. Particularly characteristic is epist. 1, 9 contrasting the life in Rome with the life in the country. Compare Grimal 380ff.

29. I know of only one somewhat similar painting, a small panel in the National Museum in Naples, said to be from Herculaneum and reproduced in color in Enc. Arte ant. III [1960] to p. 404. Comparable is the effect of a silhouette suspended in space, but the painting is hardly more than a piece of decoration.

30. Schefold WP. 171

31. Schefold WP. 177; all three: Rostosvtzeff fig. 17. 18. 25. Perhaps as closely related is a panel from Pompei IX 2, 3: Grimal pl. 28, 1.

32. The most beautiful picture in the Hellenisistic tradition is the still unpublished landscape panel in the Villa Imperiale in Pompei [Schefold WP. 291].

33. Maiuri, Le pitture delle case di 'M. Fabius Amandio', del 'Sacerdos Amandus' e di 'P. Cornelio Teges' [1938] 31 fig. 25. Schefold WP. 26. A Rumpf, HdArch. IV 1 [1953] pl. 64, 5.

34. Elia, Le pitture del tempio d'Iside [1942].

35. Naples, Nat. Mus. 9482, Height 56 cm. Rostovtzeff pl. 5n. 1. HBr. 165. Schefold, WP. 347.

36. Rostovtzeff fig. 5 to page 24. Rumpf 1.c. 176 pl. 61, 3. Best reprorduced by Technau, Die Kunst der Römer [1940] 163.