Notes

1. The ancient controversy between Petersen and Mau about prospect and panel shall not be renewed here. A good summary of the development towards the emergence of a central panel picture framed by an aedicula is given by Dawson 62ff. See also Beyen II 435f.

2. Doubtless the role of the colors must be considered as well. Casa di Livia and Farnesina still show one basic color for each room: red, black or white. In Boscotcrecase only the Black Room follows this concept. The Red Room contrasts the red walls with the white central panels, the room with the mythological paintings sets off the bluish green panels against the light area that surrounds them [according to Della Corte's report p. 475] and against the red wings. The effect must have been different: a light and gay appearance was given to the Red Room while the other cubiculum was of a heavier, more sombre and hence more mysterious character. Precisely these two opposite moods occur again and again in later examples of landscape pictures on Pompeian walls.

3. The evidence has been collected frequently, very well by Raoul-Rochette, Peintures antiques inédites [1836] 298ff.; within the horizon of Roman civilization perhaps best by FriedlÉnder, Sittengeschichcte Roms III [192310] 50ff. For more recent literature: G. Rodenwaldt, JdI. 55, 1940, 12ff. Dawson 50ff. Dawson's summary is particularly good, compare also his seventh chapter with literature.

4. For instance the picture of the Conquest of Carthage exhibited and interpreted by L. Hostilius Mancinus in 146/45 [Plin. n. h. 35. 23].

5. Cic. Sest. 93. Pers. sat. 6, 32ff. are examples of the evidence for such use.

6. For an early triumphal procession with such pictocrial reports see Appian. Lib. 66 who mentions [Greek text . . . . ] in the triumph of Scipio Africanus in 201. See also Liv. 37, 59, 3 for the triumph of L. Scipio in 188 and Plin. n. h, 35, 22 for the same Scipio's tabula victoriae suae Asiaticae, references to later triumphs abound.

7. In the picture of L. Hostilius Mancinus cited above, note 83.

8. As evidence for the luxuruious life of Lucullus the tribunus plebis A. Gabinius showed the people a painting of his villa [Cic. Sest. 93].

9. One may, for example, try to imagine the actual form of that painting which Livy describes so eloquently in 24, 16, 16ff.: the Banquet in Tarentum in 214 commissioned by T. Sempronius Gracchus for the Temple of Liberty.

10. For a discussion of various forms of perspective in the first century B.C. see Lehmann 149ff. The gallant and convincing defense of the "mistakes" in the perspective in the murals of the cubiculum of Boscoreale should not conceal the fact that there is a decisvie difference between a conscious levity in applying "realistic" perspective on the one hand and the intentional application of a non-realistic, bird's eye perspective on the other. The former is the case in the Boscoreale murals generally, the latter in the Yellow Panel inserted in its rear wall.

11. See Beyen I 163ff. Recently Beyen discussed this problem again [II 302-316]. His conclusions based on the reliefs of Tlos and Pinara seem to me unconvincing. These reliefs appear to reflect oriental influences rather than an undercurrent of bird's eye view in Greek representations of settings. I agree, however, with his interpretation of illustrated maps [p. 311f.], but I cannot understand how these should have had any relations to landscape such as the Odyssey Frieze, as Beyen believes. For the significance for Greek art of low eye level perspective see H. Kenner, Das Theater und der Realismus in der griechischen Kunst [1954] 153€.

12. Diod. 31, 18, 2. Val. Max. 5, 1, 1. Dawson 51€. Beyen I 170. Pfuhl, MuZ. II [1923] 828, 884. H. Kenner 1. c. 166. The sole Hellenistic example of a bird's-eye view derives, in my opinion, from a topography; it is on a Homeric bowl from Tanagra in Athens, Nat. Mus. 2104, C. Robert, 50, BWPr. 1890, 46ff. fig. K. K. Weitzmann, Ancient Book Illumination [1959] 43 fig. 48. Between groups representing Theseus, Peirithous and Helen on their way to Corinth and Athens both these cities appear in bird's -eye view and in incongruous scale. Verses as well as the names of the cities are added. Weiltzmann has shown the groups to reflect illustrations of a scroll manuscript of the Cypria. U. Hausmann, Hellenistische Reliefbecher aus attischen und bûotischen WerkstÉtten [1959] 19-58, agreed [p. 42ff] with Weiltzmann as to the source of the representational decoration of the Homeric bowls and established their dependence upon Alexandrinian silver cups, but he suggested a later date [p. 45f.], as did K. Parlasca, JdI. 70, 1955, 151ff. and L. Byvanck-Quarles van Ufford, BAntBeschav. 29, 1954, 35ff. In HausmannÍs list [p. 52ff.] the Theseus bowl [no. 14] is dated 160 B.C. Its Alexandrian model may have been but a little earlier [see p. 45f.]. That brings us very close to the date of Demetrius. I do not doubt that representations of cities such as appear on this bowl must be traced back ultimately to Alexandrian topographies where they originated. Whenever necessary they were imitated by the Alexandrian painters of illuminated scrolls, to be adapted by Alexandrian silversmiths whose work was then copied by Boeotian potters.

13. Liv. 41, 28, 8-10: insulae forma et in ea simulacra pugnarum picta, there was added a report on Gracchus' exploits and triumph.

14. G. Gullini, I mosaici di Palestrina [1956] with a lucid discussion of the problem of topography and cartographic representation; compare for the various and extensive restorations of the mosaic: S. Aurigemma, RendPontAcc. 30/31, 1957/9, 41ff. A genuine chorography has survived in the late mosaic of Madala: A. Jacobi, Das Geographische Mosaik von Madala [1905]. F. M. Biebel in: Gerasa [1938] 341ff.

15. Beyen I 169. Dawson 51€.

16. Tacitus' record [ann. 14, 17] of what happened, reads almost like an abbreviated description of the painting. The fresco must have been painted shortly after the event 59/60; now Naples, Nat. Mus. 112222 from Pompei I 3, 23: Elia No. 101 fig. 20. Rizzo, La pittura ellenistico-romana [1929] pl. 198, 2. v. Blanckenhagen, AJA, 61, 1957 pl. 32.

17. Maiuri, La Villa dei Misteri [1931] 157ff. fig. 83. Beyen I 55.

18. An entirely different interpretation of sources, development, and character of landscape painting has been suggested by Schefold: 1952 in his book on Pompeian painting, more recently in two articles AM. 71, 1956, 211ff, and ArtB. 42, 1960, 87ff. A full discussion of his views would require a lengthy disquisition which, though necessary, cannot be given here but must be postponed for another occasion. For Beyen's recent opinions see notes 36. 56. 90.

19. In modern times we have watched a similar development in photography, especially the cinema.

20. Farnesina: white cubiculum E, white ambulatory F and G; black corridor. Boscotrecase: Red Room, frames of panels.

21. Farnesina: black corridor. Boscotrecase: Red Room, dado.

22. Farnesina: white ambulatory F and G. Boscotrecase: Mythological Room.

23. Farnesina: white ambulatory F and G. Boscotrecase: Mythological Room.

24. Farnesina: stucco ceiling. Boscotrecase: Black Room, Mythological Room, room 22.

25. Farnesina: black corridor, stucco ceiling. Boscotrecase: Mythological Room.

26. The shepherd RM. 26, 1911 pl. 4 may be compared with those in the Red Room panels. Unfortunately the frieze in the white ambulatory of the Farnesina is not yet completely published. Many more similarities could be cited, if sufficient photographs were available.

27. The overall unity of the decoration notwithstanding, there seemed to me to exist stylistically older and stylistically younger parts, which may be explained by two sets of painters. Surely the walls with slender columns and flat dados, with decorations emphasizing the solidity of the surface of the wall are farther removed from the conventional Second Style than are the other walls. The younger are the ones where landscape painting dominates. The stucco ceiling belongs to these stylistically.

28. O. Brendel, RM. 50, 1935, 231ff.

29. Beyen in: Studia Vollgraff 3ff.; among the earlier identifications the most persuasive was the one suggested by G. Lugli, Mél. 55, 1938, 5ff. [tentatively accepted by Grimal 120f.] who held the Farnesina to have been Clodia's villa; the identification was based partly on the dating of the construction of the walls. But the decorations are later than the walls, the lapse of time has been well explained by Beyen 1.c.

30. The pyramid of Cestius, the earliest dated example of Third Style decoration, contains an inscription that names Agrippa as the heir [WIrth, DLZ. 59, 1938, 163].

31. See Della Corte 476.

32. Is he that famous enigmatic Studius that Plin. n. h. 35, 116 mentions? With respect to importance and quality he certainly has a better claim to fame than any other landscape painter of Augustus' time. Grimal 100ff. explains well the often debated problem of how to reconcile Vitruvius with Pliny, but the Boscotcrecase paintings do not show villas and porticos as particularly important elements for which Studius is supposed to have become famous. I should prefer to connect Studius rather with the Farnesina, as does Grimal, the Boscotrecase painter being perhaps his pupil. Compare also E. Aletti, Lo stile di Ludio [1948].

33. In his choice of the Polyphemus theme there may be seen still another reference to the Imperial family: from the Casa di Livia, thought to be Augustus' house, he took the inspiration for the theme of one of the mythological landscapes.

34. cf. for the stylistic differences between the various species of Roman art, especially between official and private art: v. Blanckenhagen in: Das neue Bild der Antike II [1942] 310ff.

35. Compare the excellent recent study by H. Drerup on the Roman use of and approach to nature through planned vistas and their relation to Roman architecture, specifically to Roman villas, in RM, 66, 1959, 147ff.

36. Longus, Pastoralia 1, 1: . . . [Greek text . . . ]

37. That is not to deny that there does exist a certain relation between the Hellenistic and Roman mystic and bacchic moods or tastes on the one hand and representations of landscape on the other. Grimal 337ff. investigated these aspects and concluded p. 350 that landscape is the "milieu par excellence du thiase". Schefold in his publiclations cited above [p. 57 note 97], particularly in his articles in AM. and ArtB, has connected landscape painting specifically with the religious realm of Isis. There is evidence for a certain affinity, for instance in the grandiose panels in the temple of Isis in Pompei, but I find it difficult to explain origin, character, development and popularity of Roman landscapes largely in religious terms. At times landscapes may express allusions to the general longing for a happy life thereafter, at times they please by evoking simply the happiness of a bucolic life or the interesting vistas of exotic countries with ships, buildings, and people. The common denominator may be a certain romanticism that often finds suitable motives in mysterious Egypt. Grimal 356ff. describes the role of Egypt and its place in landscape paintings that illustrate to the Romans a "paradis perdu". His summary p. 358. 373f. 377ff. seems to me a true and fair characterization.