Content area
Full text
Abstract. Flexible combinations of 'old' and 'new' methodologies are probably the best way to interpret the eclectic nature of Roman sculpture. An analysis of three pieces of Roman sculpture-the 'Pseudo-Athlete' from Delos, the Prima Porta Augustus and the fourth-century donatio relief from the Arch of Constantine-demonstrates the value of older methods in the face of commanding theories produced by more recent methodology.
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
In contrast to traditional, formal treatments, recent books on Roman art, often informed by perspectives gleaned from such disciplines as anthropology and sociology, are marked by a fundamental interest in social context, rituals and relationships.1 This evolution in methodology has been quite successful in exposing some of the unquestioned assumptions and shortcomings of earlier scholarship. It is difficult not to think in terms of 'old' and 'new', given the way that books have been marketed and reviewed, but a certain mix of formal and social interests has probably always existed, so that the change perceived in recent years perhaps boils down to a change in the mix.2 Nevertheless, even if the situation is one of evolution rather than revolution, there are points to be made in the interests of balance. The formal and the social appear to be complementary rather than competitive. The basic aim of this paper is to suggest that the best way to understand the eclectic nature of Roman sculpture is to employ combinations of the old and new methodologies. For the purpose I have selected three well-known works of Roman sculpture which can be discussed in terms of combinations of influences and the value of older methods of analysis: the 'Pseudo-Athlete' from Delos, the Augustus from Prima Porta, and the fourth-century donatio relief from the Arch of Constantine.
Traditional scholarship in this field has often been preoccupied with the basic question of identification: how are we to distinguish 'Roman' art when so much of it looks 'Greek' and is the product of Greek workshops and traditions?3 Indeed, it took a long time before a majority of scholars even accepted the existence of a distinctly 'Roman' art that was not merely a continuation of the history of Greek art. In the eighteenth century it was no less a figure than the 'father'...