The Art Bulletin

ISSN: 0004-3079 (Print) 1559-6478 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcab20

Book Review

Stella G. Miller

To cite this article: Stella G. Miller (1989) Book Review, The Art Bulletin, 71:3, 510-515, DOI:
10.1080/00043079.1989.10788520

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00043079.1989.10788520

Published online: 14 Aug 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcab20
Book Reviews
J.J. POLLITT, Art in the Hellenistic Age, Cambridge, Lon-
don, and New York, Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Pp. 329; 300 black-and-white ills. $34.50; $24.95 paper.
"Hellenistic" art, it is generally agreed, encompasses artistic pro-
duction during the period from the death of Alexander the Great,
in 323, to approximately 31 B.C., when the Romans emerged vic-
torious at the Battle of Actium. Study of the art of this period
has tended to be neglected and indeed denigrated for reasons hing-
ing partly on matters of taste. But the neglect is also caused in
no small part by the sheer difficulty of comprehending the period
in any systematic way. There are many uncertainties connected
with identification, with style, with attribution, with chronology,
with factors of uneven geographical representation - in short,
with virtually every aspect of normal scholarly inquiry. Pollitt,
in Art in the Hellenistic Age, has taken a great step forward in
setting a new foundation for the study of this field. The uncer-
tainties have not been removed, but many themes have been pulled
together and many problem areas sensibly isolated and well de-
fined in the light of modern scholarship. This is a much needed
book and the scholarly field will remain much indebted to its
eminently qualified author. It is also timely, as there is currently
great interest in this field, as manifested in museum exhibitions,
symposia, and publications.'
The author's expressed aims (preface, p. ix) are to create "some-
thing like a cultural portrait of the period with particular emphasis
on art," while presenting "a selective history of the formal de-
velopment of this art organized around those genres, schools, or
styles which seem to me to have been of particular importance.'?
He attempts in each chapter "to emphasize what was original, or
when not original at least distinctive, about the art of the Hel-
lenistic period." He has concentrated "on areas where Hellenistic
artists went beyond, or modified, or, in the end, revived the
achievements of their Archaic and Classical predecessors." Sub-
jective judgments, particularly in matters of chronology, are un-
avoidable, and recognition of the very slim evidence provided by
the few fixed chronological points is repeatedly emphasized
i Exhibitions in 1988 include the "Alexander to Cleopatra" show at the
Walters Art Gallery. and one entitled "Egypt in the Age of Cleopatra" at
the Brooklyn Museum, each with an excellent catalogue with significant
essays. Hellenistic symposia were held during the same year at the Uni-
versity of California at Berkeley: "Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition
in the Hellenistic World"; at Brown University: "The Age of Pyrrhus": at
the University of Texas at Austin: "Hellenistic History and Culture"; and
at the Walters Art Gallery: "From Alexander to Cleopatra: Greek Art of
the Hellenistic Age," Others in planning stages include a conference on
Macedonian history. culture, and art at Columbia University and the Fifth
Symposium on "Ancient Macedonia" at Thessaloniki, both in 1989. The
XIII International Congress for Classical Archaeology, held in Berlin. in
1988, also focused on the Hellenistic period.
2Pollitt's skill at describing the historical and cultural milieu of Greek art
production. combining written and visual sources, has been well dem-
onstrated in his thoughtful and useful earlier books: The Art of Greece.
1400-31 B.C.: Sources and Documents. Englewood Cliffs, Nj. 1965; The
Art of Rome. 753 B.C.-337 A.D.: Sources and Documents, Englewood
Cliffs. N]. 1966; Art and Experience in Classical Greece. Cambridge. 1972;
and The A,zcient View of Greek Art: Criticislll. History, ami Terminology,
New Haven, 1974.
3 Relevant bibliographic additions to the works cited by Pollitt - mainly
from more recent publications - will be given in this and following foot-
notes. Additions to the historical and cultural background of the age in-
clude The Cambridge Ancient History. VII. pt. 1: The Hellenistic World.
throughout the book and well summarized in the highly useful
first appendix.
In his introduction, Pollitt discusses Hellenistic art against the
background of the age.:' After a well-summarized description of
the new, rapidly changing world in which the Greeks found them-
selves following the death of Alexander, he singles out five atti-
tudes or states of mind that to him characterize the period and
form the backdrop for the art produced over the roughly three
centuries involved: an obsession with fortune; a theatrical men-
tality; individualism; a cosmopolitan outlook; and a scholarly
mentality. Under these subheadings he adroitly sketches literary
and philosophical concepts (often with excerpted pertinent quo-
tations), highlights events involving individuals or groups, and
selects specific works of art to illustrate trends. These five atti-
tudes then form a leitmotif throughout the book. The author's
well-defined approach and aims inevitably necessitate selectivity,
even in a book that seeks to present a balanced view of this un-
wieldy material. Still, since so much of our understanding of Hel-
lenistic art necessarily relies on Roman copies, the absence of a
number of important Greek originals that otherwise have entered
the scholarly repertoire comes as something of a surprise.'
The introduction is followed by twelve chapters ordered along
a tripartite chronological division of the entire era (as outlined in
the prologue). These subdivisions, the author emphasizes, are not
"air-tight compartments" (p. 17) but must be considered flexible
with regard both to chronology and to the subject matter assigned
to them. The first three chapters fall in the "Age of the Diadochoi"
(ca. 323-275 B.C.) and deal, respectively, with royal iconography,
Lysippan sculpture, and Hellenistic portraiture. 'The Age of the
Hellenistic Kingdoms" (ca. 275-150 B.C.) is represented in the next
three chapters, in turn, by the sculpture of Pergamon, the Hel-
lenistic baroque, and a style characterized by rococo, realistic,
and exotic traits. Historical background to the "Craeco-Roman
Phase" (ca. 150-31 B.C.) is introduced in chapter seven, which is
followed by a chapter on neoclassicism and archaism. These eight
chapters are all concerned with the medium of sculpture, a focus
Pollitt justifies by the observation that this is the only medium
with sufficient extant examples to permit an analysis of stylistic
development. Chapters nine and ten deal, respectively, with Hel-
2nd ed.. ed. EW. Walbank, A.E. Astin, M.W. Frederiksen, and R.M.
Ogilvie, Cambridge, 1984; E.S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the
Coming of Rome. Berkeley,1984; I. Boardman, j. Griffin. and O. Murray,
The Oxford History of the Classical World. Oxford, 1986, esp. 315-530;
L.H. Martin, Hellenistic Religions. An Introduction. Oxford. 1987; and
N.G.L. Hammond and EW. Walbank, A History of Macedonia, 336-167
B.C.. Ill, Oxford. 1988.
4 Among the originals that one might have expected to find are the smaller
bronze Artemis from Piraeus (e. Houser, Greek Monumental Bronze
Sculpture. New York. 1983, 66-69); the bronze portrait head (of a phi-
losopher?) from Antikythera tibid., 100-101); the marble standing, draped
philosopher-type from Delphi (G.M.A. Richter. The Portraits of the
Greeks, abridged and revd. by R.R.R. Smith. Ithaca, NY. 1984. 45-46);
the 4th-century pedimental sculptures from the Temple of Apollo at Del-
phi (E Croissant, "LesFrontons du temple du IVesiecle a Delphes: Esquisse
d'une restitution," in Archaisclze und klassisclze griecliische Plastik. Sym-
posiwn, 1985. Athens and Mainz. 1986, II. 187-196); the sculptures of the
Athena Temple at Priene (j.e. Carter, The Sculpture of the Sanctuary of
Atllena Polias at Priene, London. 1983; note that the architecture of this
temple is discussed by Pollitt. 243-244); the bronze boxer's head from
Olympia (Houser. 36-37); the upper part of a bronze female from the sea
off Smyrna. (l. Charbonneaux. "Sculpture," in j. Charbonneaux, R. Mar-
tin. and F. Villard. Hellenistic Art. New York, 1973, 244. fig. 261); the
Getty's bronze Victor (Houser, 110-115); or one of the marble. draped
little girls from Brauron and elsewhere (Charbonneau». 227, fig. 239),

lenistic painting and mosaics, which are treated as separate en-
uties and quite differently from each other. Architecture appears
in chapter eleven, where its adaptive rather than innovative fea-
tures are discussed. The final chapter focuses on Ptolemaic Egypt
.ind the peculiar flavor of its mainly elusive art. Appendixes in-
clude one, already noted, on the chronology of Hellenistic sculp-
ture; a second on the ruler cult and its imagery; a third on aspects
of royal patronage; a fourth on Bactria and India;' and a final
appendix on the tomb at Belevi.
There is much in Pollitt's book that deserves comment and,
obviously, only a few of the issues can be highlighted even within
a lengthy review. Art in the Hellenistic Age will serve as an im-
portant resource for scholars and, best of all, it is a general work
on Hellenistic art that can at last be safely put in the hands of
students at both graduate and undergraduate levels. In terms of
format, the book is well laid-out and easy to read. The copious
illustrations are well interspersed within the two-column text; they
are of good size and, for the most part, clear despite a degree of
paper translucency. Two useful maps illustrating the Western and
Eastern Hellenistic worlds appear at the front. Abbreviations,
bibliography (arranged by chapters and not always easy to search
out despite a certain amount of cross-referencing), notes (also ar-
ranged by chapters), a list of illustrations, and an adequate though
not complete index are at the back. In a book this size, biblio-
graphical references are necessarily limited to major works, but
the reader is adequately led to further sources. The cost of the
volume fortunately has been kept low, to stay within the student's
budget.
Pollitt's first chapter deals with the fascinating subject of royal
iconography. This has, more recently, been considered in detail
in R.R.R. Smith's monograph of 1988, which the reader will wish
to consult.> The subject is enormously complex and much will
continue to be debated. Hellenistic artists were faced in the new
order of the era with the creation of royal imagery for propa-
gandistic purposes. As the first monument that sets this tone, Pol-
litt offers Alexander's magnificent funeral carriage, known from
a long literary description. I believe a strong case could be made
for having started, instead, with the Philippeion at Olympia,
which, with its portrait statues of Philip's family, was surely a
totally politically motivated monument, constructed by Philip to
promote acceptance of Macedonia's rule over Greece. 7 Alexander,
after all, learned rulership at the knees of a proven master. Putting
aside the absurd but convenient notion that Hellenistic art was
5 Bibliographical references that could be added for this area include C.
Rapin. "La Tresorerie hellenistique d'Ai Khanoum." Revue archeologique,
1987, 41-70, with bibliography; V. Sarianidi, Bactrian Gold, Leningrad,
1985; L'Archeologie de la Bactriane ancienne, Symposium, 1982, Paris,
1985,253-283; and The Cambridge Ancient History. VII, pt. 1: The Hel-
lenistic World to the Coming of the Romans, 2nd ed.. plate vol.. ed. R.
Ling, Cambridge, 1984, 25-32.
C R.R.R. Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford, 1988.
. See S.C. Miller, 'The Philippeion and Macedonian Hellenistic Archi-
tecture," Athenische Mitteilungen. LXXXVllI, 1973, 189-218; and F. Seiler,
Die griechische Tholos. Mainz. 1986, 89-103.
, To Pollitt's discussion of the Eastern and Western elements embodied in
this carriage, one could add its structual similarity to both Macedonian
tombs and certain Eastern funerary hearses (see S.C. Miller, "Alexander's
Funeral Cart." Ancient Macedonia. Symposium IV, 1983. Thessaloniki,
1986, 401-411).
Smith (as in n. 6), 62. by contrast, has a welcome and pithy paragraph
(In killing off this "archaeological chimera." But it continues to be ac-
(epted: e.g.. P. Moreno, Vita e arte di Lisippo. Milan, 1987,92-96; and
C. Rolley, Die griechischen Bromell. Munich. 1984, 157. On the subject
eel' also B. Hundsalz. "Alexander mit der Lanze." Damaszener Mitteillllz-
BOOK REVIEWS 511
born on Alexander's deathbed, Pollitt's point that the funeral car-
riage may perhaps be considered the "first work of Hellenistic art"
through its deliberate combination of Greek and Oriental ele-
ments is well taken: the favorable reaction to the carriage during
its long eastward journey could have been an ancient ad man's
dream come true."
The first part of chapter one (pp. 20-31), concerning portraiture
of Alexander, begins, inevitably, with literary descriptions of Ly-
sippos's image-making statuary, featuring poised necks, melting
glances, and generally leonine qualities. All scholars who have
dealt with either portraiture or the Lysippan style have wrestled
with these passages and sought to pair them with extant monu-
ments, large and small. Pollitt gives a very lucid discussion of the
issues and modern scholarship, but the reader should proceed with
caution. Some of the old, stock monuments are retained, although
there is often little if any factual evidence to support them: for
example, the supposedly Lysippan statuette, in the Louvre, of
"Alexander with the Lance" (fig. 8),9 or the Pompeian painting
of the supposed "Alexander-as-Zeus" (fig. 9), usually associated
with Apelles' painting of the subject. In the end, Lysippos's por-
traits of Alexander remain as elusive as ever. Rather than dis-
cussing, as Pollitt does, the Nesios gem in Leningrad (fig. 10) for
its supposed relationship to the fanciful imagery of Apelles and
Lysippos ("certainly this must be Alexander as Zeus," p. 23), I
would have thought it more pertinent to cite the magnificent por-
trait head on a gem in the Ashmolean'? for its relationship to
Alexander's coin portraits. The likenesses on coins surely come
as close to reproducing the true appearance of Alexander as we
are ever likely to see, even though, to be sure, the study of numis-
matic images is filled with problems of its own. In conjunction
with royal portraiture, I would have expected some discussion of
the miniature ivory portrait heads from Vergina Tomb Il.!' One
of these heads, rightly or wrongly, has been identified by the ex-
cavator as Alexander.'? The ongoing debate surrounding Alex-
ander's portraiture is hampered by problems of long standing: the
lack of firm dating for extant pieces; the recognition that an ideal-
ized, stock type was repeated through many centuries; and the
realization that the Alexander type came to be assimilated with
many different figures over the passage of time.!'
Pollitt's comments in chapter two concerning Lysippos and his
school>' repeat certain of his observations made about Alex-
ander's portraiture. First of all, Pollitt provides a clear and well-
written discussion of the subject along fairly traditional lines. He
gen. II, 1985, 107-121.
10 J. Boardman and M.-L. Vollenweider, Catalogue of the Engraved Gems
and Finger Rings. Ashmolean Museum. I: Greek and Etruscan, Oxford,
1978, no.280.
II The tomb itself is considered, and illustrated, in conjunction with its
facade painting (Pollitt, 40, 192, 194, fig. 205). Pollitt maintains a very
cautious position on the matter of its date and attribution (Philip II or
later?) .
12 M. Andronikos, Vergirza: The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City. Ath-
ens, 1984, 129-130and figs. 76-78. See now Smith (as in n. 6), 62-63, who
doubts the identification of the "Alexander" head.
13 See a good discussion by Smith (as in n. 61, 58-62. Ptolemaic iconog-
raphy (Pollitt, 34, and under "Alexandria," 250-2551 remains controver-
sial. despite careful and critical studies. R.R.R. Smith refers to it as a "bog-
like area" (Smith, as in n. 6, 150. See also Smith's discussion of Ptolemaic
iconography, 86-981. The Ptolemaic portraits selected by Pollitt for dis-
cussion, however, are among the more universally accepted examples (see,
in general. Smith; and Cleopatra's Egypt. exh. cat., Mainz, 1988).
" To the Lysippan bibliography, add now Moreno (as in n. 9).
512 THE ART BUllETIN SEPTEMBER j 0 80 VOLUME LXXI NUMBER 3
starts with the relatively copious ancient sources and discusses
them in conjunction with the familiar Roman copies that have
long been thought to reflect the lost originals. Lysipposs long and
distinguished career is assessed for the indubitably important con-
tributions he made to the development of sculpture in the 4th
century and beyond. Pollitt sees innovations in Lysippos's con-
cern with the effect of his work on viewers, his theatricality and
ability to startle, his development of emotional expression, and
his propensity for allegory, symbolism, and personification. Be-
cause Lysippan scholarship is of necessity focused on literary
sources and Roman copies, Pollitt's decision to omit discussion
of the Agias from the Daochos Monument, at Delphi." seems
odd, even in light of the stated focus of the chapter on Lysippos's
later career (p. 306, n. 4). The relationship of the Agias to the
master's hand is, to be sure, debatable, but it is generally rec-
ognized, at the very least, that the statue is a 4th-century original
of the 330's, and that it shows Lysippan influence. Some scholars
would even allow the possibility that it is a direct copy of Ly-
sippos's bronze original." Testimonia suggest that Lysippan in-
novations were carried forward with succeeding generations, but
the modern scholar is hard-pressed to associate copies with spe-
cific literary references; here, Pollitt is appropriately cautious.
The next chapter concerns personality and psychology in por-
traiture, effects achieved by a combination of facial expression
and "body language." Pollitt places the invention of psychological
portraiture in early 3rd-century Athens, beginning with the post-
humous portrait (known in two Roman copies) of Demosthenes
by Polyeuktos. In early Hellenistic times the psychological por-
trait coexisted with the heroic type, presumably represented by
Lysippan portraits of Alexander. Pollitt traces the art of portrai-
ture to the beginning of the Roman Republic, when a distinctive,
characteristically "Republican portrait" emerged, probably cre-
ated by Greek sculptors and possibly at Delos. It apparently co-
existed with the Hellenistic psychological type down to the time
of Augustus, who encouraged development of the neoclassical
portrait.
The fourth chapter, dealing with Pergamene sculpture, starts
with a detailed and very useful Pergamene history, outlining the
founding and growth of that kingdom into the mighty, influential
cultural and political power that it became in the course of the
3rd and 2nd centuries B.C.l 7 A good discussion of Attalid pa-
tronage appears in appendix III.6. Of the Attalid monuments (at
Pergamon, Athens, and Delos) there are no certifiable originals,
15 On the Agias, see now Moreno (as in n. 9), 34-43.
16 Another 4th-century bronze often brought into discussion of Lysippos's
work (and seen by some as his own) is the Getty Victor (Houser, as in
n. 4, 110-115; J. Frel, The Getty Bronze, Malibu,1978; and Moreno, as in
n. 9, 141-152).
17Add to the Pergamene bibliography: W. Radt. Pergamon. Geschichte
lmd Bmlten, Funde und Erjorschung einer antiken Metropole. Cologne,
1988; and H.-J. Schalles, Untersuchungen zur Kulturpolitik der perga-
me'lischen Herrscher im dritten [alirhundert l'or Christus tlstanbuler For-
schungen. XXXVI), 1985.
18 Add to the bibliography on the Capitoline Gaul and this group: M.
Mattei, II galata capitoline, Rome, 1987.
10 In the case of the Athens group, even the dating and exact location
remain uncertain. Add to the bibliography on the "Lesser Attalids": T.
Holscher, "Die Geschlagenenund Ausgelieferten in der Kunst des Hellen-
ismus." Antike Kunst. XXVIII, 1985, 120-136.
20 To the bibliography on the Altar of Zeus, add: M. Kunze, "Der Altar
von Pergamon." in Fiihrer durcli die Ausstel1!mgen des Pergamolllnu-
selm!s. Antikensammllll!g. II, East Berlin, 1985.19-66; and H.-J. Schalles,
but there exist a number of Roman copies, in three groupings that
have been much discussed and shifted around in different com-
binations. Of all the candidates for the several monuments, it is
generally agreed that only the Gaul with his wife, in the Terrne,
and the Dying Gaul, in the Capitoline, 18 should be associated with
one or another of the three suitable bases extant at Pergamon
itself. Otherwise, matters of reconstruction and attribution con-
tinue to be disputed. 19 Despite such problems, most scholars would
agree with Pollitt that a pervasive and distinctive "baroque" style
emerges as one of the chief hallmarks of Pergamene art.
On the Altar of Zeus'" this "baroque" quality is combined with
deliberate classicizing, another major characteristic of the Per-
garnene style. Controversy still surrounds the Altar's precise
dating" and interpretation. Is its subject, for example, based en-
tirely on Hesiod. as Erika Simon has suggested?" There is no
doubt, in any case, that the altar fits Pollitt's category of "schol-
arly mentality," and that it remains our most important "fixed
point" in the first half of the 2nd century. The subject of these
"baroque" tendencies occupies Pollitt's chapter five, which fea-
tures the material from Sperlonga. This material, surely the most
sensational and revolutionary sculptural discovery of our cen-
tury." has forced a much-needed reevaluation of Hellenistic "ba-
roque" sculpture. Pollitt sketches the early stages of' this devel-
opment, which appear to a surprising degree in early 3rd-century
Tarentine funerary reliefs, well before the baroque heyday as-
sociated with Pergamene developments. The other monuments
that Pollitt examines are major pieces, among the best known of
the period: e.g., the Nike of Samothrace (probably by the Rho-
dian sculpture Pythokritos), the Farnese Bull.v' the Pasquino
Group, and the Laokoon. The Pasquino Group remains trouble-
some; both its subject identification (Menelaos and Patroklos) and
its attribution (to Antigonos of Karystos, late 3rd century B.C.)
are as tenuous as ever." The Laokoon, on the other hand, has,
by near common consent, now been shifted from the 2nd or 1st
century B.C. to the 1st century after Christ, on the basis of the
evidence provided by the Sperlonga sculpture. Pollitt concludes
(rightly, I believe) with regard to the Laokoon and the Sperlonga
Scylla and Polyphemos groups, that they are "new assemblages
designed in the Roman period and composed of free variants
drawn from a variety of Hellenistic originals" (p. 125).
Characteristic of the baroque trend, then, are dramatic effects
carried out both in complicated groupings (with a penchant for
pyramidal shapes) and in expressions of emotional involvement,
Der Pergamon Altar: Zwischen Bewertung und Verwertbarkeit, Frank-
furt. 1986.
21See references in Pollitt, 309, n. 22. I share Pollitt's doubts as to the
validity of attempting to pinpoint the date of the relevant ceramic material.
22 E. Simon, Pergamon und Hesiod, Mainz, 1975. G. Pollitt, 105-109,
where Simon's view is judged to be the most coherent and most in keeping
with Hellenistic literary and philosophical notions.
23Add to the bibliography on Sperlonga: E.E. Rice, "The Date of the
Rhodian Sculptors of the Laocoon and Sperlonga Sculptures," American
Journal of Archaeology, xc. 1986, 209.
2. On the context of the Farnese Bull's discovery, see: M. Marvin, "Free-
standing Sculptures from the Baths of Caracalla." American [ournal of
Archaeology. LXXXVII, 1983, 347-384; and, on the theme of Dirce and the
Bull, see: E.W. Leach, "The Punishment of Dirce: A Newly Discovered
Painting in the Casa di Giulio Polibio and Its Significance within the Vis-
ual Tradition," Roinische Mitteilungen. XCIII, 1986, 157-182.
25Add to the bibliography on the Pasquino Group: U. Hausmann, "Aias
mit dem Leichnam Achilles. Zur Deutung des Originals der Pasquino-
Cruppe." Athenische Mitteilungen. XCIX, 1984, 291-300.

such as pathos, restlessness, and violence. This stands in contrast
to a seemingly reactionary trend usually called "rococo." Pollitt
justifiably complains that this category has become "a kind of
scholars' junk bin" (p. 127) for everything otherwise undatable
or unclassifiable. Attempting to impose order on an otherwise
motley group, he proposes three subdivisions: the rococo (chil-
dren, erotic groups, caricatures, and the like); realism (aged
women, fishermen, and such famous works as the Terme Boxer,
the Belvedere Torso, and the Jockey from Artemisium - the latter
for some reason illustrated, fig. 159, without his horsel.> and the
exotic (rare animals and the "enigmatic" sleeping hermaphrodite).
In most instances, this material proves stubbornly resistant to
interpretation or to firm dating, as the author emphasizes; there
are in fact serious questions with many figures as to whether they
are Roman or Hellenistic. If nothing else, this chapter serves to
underscore how skimpy our knowledge of Hellenistic art remains
in many areas.
A substantial chapter on "Rome as a center of Hellenistic art"
sets the stage for the Graeco-Roman period. It is well known that
Rome developed a new patronage, creating a new art market and
attracting Greek artists to a receptive environment. Pollitt out-
lines the historical circumstances of the 3rd and 2nd centuries that
led to vast plundering episodes. Of these, special emphasis de-
servedly goes to the triumph of Aemilius Paullus over the Ma-
cedonians in 168 B.C., which was immortalized not only by his
fabulous procession of art treasures through Rome (known from
literary sources) but also by the still-surviving monument with a
figured frieze at Delphi, which commemorated the victory and
serves (with the Pergamon Altar) as one of the few "fixed points"
in 2nd-century sculpture.F The Aemilius Paullus Monument is
well illustrated, but it seems a pity that Pollitt did not include one
or more examples of the plentiful, extant Macedonian metalwork
to accompany Plutarch's quoted passage on the victory.
PoIIitt points out how the influx of Greek works of art com-
bined with the immigration of Greek artists to Rome to produce
a profound effect on the course of later Hellenistic art. Second-
century Romans developed their tastes accordingly, and many
became collectors and patrons of the arts. Their demand for "great
works" gave rise to a considerable industry of direct copying that
flourished from the middle of the 2nd century on. 28 Although
there seems to have been a distinct preference for the Greek Clas-
sical style, the highly eclectic nature of the sculptural contents of
the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum indicates broader inter-
ests.> In puIIing together the threads of late Hellenistic stylistic
trends, Pollitt discusses also the "Neo-classicists" who sought to
recreate a Classical style in original works of their own, and the
26 See Houser (as in n. 4). 86-90.
27 Cf. comments by Hammond and Walbank (as in n. 3), 613-617. On
the career of Aemilius Paullus, see now W. Reiter, Aemilius Paullus. COI1-
queror of Greece. London, 1988.
28Add now. to the bibliography on Roman copying techniques, publi-
cation of the plaster casts from Baiae: C. Landwehr, Die antiken Gip-
sabgiisse aus Baiae, Berlin, 1985.
20 See the discussion in Smith (as in n. 6), 70-78.
30For a very theoretical discussion of the Odyssey landscapes. see now
E.W. Leach, Tile Rhetoric of Space. Literary and Artistic Represel1tatiol1s
of Landscape ill Republican al1d Augustal1 Rome. Princeton, 1988, 29-30,
and passim.
31 For paintings from Macedonian tombs, add to the bibliography: An-
dronikos (as in n. 12), passim. An excellent artist's rendering of the facade
painting of Vergina Tomb II is now published as the frontispiece of Ame-
BOOK REVIEWS 513
"nee-Attic" school, which aimed at close imitation of specific
Classical models.
Pollitt's treatment of Hellenistic painting, in the ninth chapter,
involves a quite different approach from what has gone before.
The point of departure is the "Odyssey Landscapes" from the Es-
quiline in Rome, whose illusionistic and narrative antecedents are
explored. The author poses the inevitable question: are they Greek
or Roman'P? Recognizing, as have others, that there is "little in
Classical or early Hellenistic painting which anticipates the art of
the Odyssey landscapes" (p. 192), Pollitt ranges Widely over dif-
ficult territory to find other tiny figures set in landscape settings
and used to narrate a continuous story. The search for precedents
leads him to all manner of media: Greek paintings.J' relief sculp-
ture, mosaics." and, finally, certain mold-made relief bowls and
tablets with Homeric scenes." He treats this material skillfully,
although the reliefs, in particular, remain difficult to date, and
the question of the interrelationships of diverse media is glossed
over. Consequently, Pollitt's conclusions will not convince every-
one. However, his notion that the Odyssey landscapes are truly
Craeco-Roman. an example of the fusion of the two cultures, is
sound (pp. 202-209).
Pollitt's oblique approach to painting permits him great latitude
to draw together disparate material not treated elsewhere and to
introduce many valuable observations. It also allows for consid-
erable subjectivity both in selection and in interpretation. What
it doesn't do is provide an overview and assessment of the state
of painting scholarship in general. Pollitt justifies this treatment
by noting the paucity of surviving monuments as a basis for a
"strict, phase-by-phase developmental history" (p. 18). While
being grateful for Pollitt's insights on many side issues, I would
have found a more traditional approach of considerable value,
particularly in this field whose importance is growing almost daily
with new discoveries in Macedonia. In the alternative approach
one would discuss the literary sources as background to an anal-
ysis of the extant monuments, of which there are many more (in
Macedonia, Thessaly, Thrace. southern Russia, and southern It-
aly) than one would suspect from reading Pollitt's chapter. Other
issues would focus on style and technical matters (which PoIIitt
does consider in connection with a few monuments) and on the
interrelationship of painting to mosaic art (also introduced in both
this chapter and the next). Finally, one could anticipate a sum-
mary of problems with supposed Roman copies of Greek originals
(here, the Odyssey landscapes and the megalographic paintings)
and the relationship in general of Greek to Roman painting."
In contrast to the chapter on painting, the one on mosaics
(chapter 10) is one of Pollitt's more straightforward segments.
tos, Festschrijt M. Andronikos, Thessaloniki, 1986. and reproduced in
the Bulletin de correspol1dal1ce hellenique, CXII, 1988, 651 and fig. 8. To
the bibliography on the Demetrias-Pagasai painted stelai, add: V. von
Graeve, "Zum Zeugniswert der bemalten Grabstelen von Demetrias fur
die griechische Malerei." La Thessalie, Colloquium 1975. Lyon, 1979, 111-
137. On Etruscan tombs. add now: S. Steingraber, ed., Etruskische Wal1d-
malerei. Stuttgart, 1985.
32 On the Nile Mosaic from the Temple of Fortuna Primigenia at Prae-
neste, add: A. Steinrneyer-Schareika. Das Nilmosaik VOI1 Palestrina LlI1d
eine ptolemaische Expedition nach Aethiopien, Bonn, 1978.
33 On "Homeric bowls," add: U. Sinn, Die homerischen Becher. Hellen-
istische Reliefkeramik aus Makedol1iel1 (Athel1ische Mitteilul1gel1. Suppl.
7). 1979; and I.M. Akamatis, Ceramic Pottery Moulds from Pella (in
Greek). Thessaloniki, 1985.
34For a useful summary on Greek antecedents to Roman painting, see
now also A. Barbet, La Peiniure murale romail1e. Paris, 1985, esp. 12-25.
514 THE ART BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 108 0 VOLUME LXXI NUMBER 3
Postulating a long indigenous tradition of mosaic floor-covering
that culminated in figural pebble mosaics during the later 5th cen-
tury, Pollitt turns to the splendid Pella floors. He discusses both
technical and stylistic matters represented in these mosaics, noting
in particular the differences between two contemporaneous ex-
amples (dating around 330-300 B.C.): a flat and linear effect, with
pronounced contour lines, in the Lion Hunt, standing in marked
contrast to the illusionistic effects of depth and mass produced
by subtle shading, in the Stag Hunt. This leads to a discussion of
the different, co-existing traditions that obviously produced them
and to observations concerning the influence of the painting me-
dium. Among major questions of interest that remain outstanding
are when and where tessellated mosaics came into being. What-
ever the circumstances, Pollitt is undoubtedly correct in seeing
the invention as having come about once the pebble mosaic tech-
nique had been pushed to its utmost, therewith prompting mo-
saicists to expand their craft in new directions. Discussion of later
Hellenistic mosaics, coming primarily from Delos, Pergamon, and
Pompeii, occupy the remainder of the chapter, where emphasis
is placed on their subject matter.
In his treatment of Hellenistic architecture, in chapter eleven.P
Pollitt notes the absence of great artistic originality in building.
He detects, however, three characteristic trends, which he then
develops with examples: a degree of theatricality in planning and
design; a didactic tendency ("almost the antithesis of the above");
and a growing use of the Corinthian order. Here then, as in the
chapter on painting, the author takes a thematic approach rather
than attempting a comprehensive overview of the medium or the
state of scholarship. Theatricality is seen first in the choice of
dramatic settings for temples. Prime examples are the Acropolis
of Lindos on Rhodes and, above all, the entire city of Pergamon.
Similar developments in Hellenistic Italy are cited. 36 Second, the
author finds theatricality in the use of dramatic vistas and un-
expected spatial organization within buildings, as in the temple
of Apollo at Didyma. Pollitt sees the didactic tradition in archi-
tecture as a manifestation of the Hellenistic scholarly analysis of
the arts. One part of this trend is the writing of treatises, of which
some parts survive encapsulated in the writings of the Roman
architect Vitruvius. Prominent among these scholarly Hellenistic
architects were the 4th-century Pytheos, known for his precisely
worked-out Ionic Temple of Athena Priene, and Hermogenes,
whose complicated system of proportional relationships for perip-
teral colonnades of temples is exemplified by the Temple of Dion-
ysos at Teos but not, oddly enough, by his famed Temple of Ar-
temis at Magnesia. Once again, the difficulties (for Pollitt, or
anyone) of coordinating literary tradition with actual monuments
become apparent.
The Corinthian order is considered in the final segment of this
chapter. Late Hellenistic architects came eventually to see its po-
3S Recent bibliographical additions on the subject include: W. Hoepfner
and E.-L. Schwandner, Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland,
Munich, 1986; and H. Lauter, Die Architektur des Hellen ism us, Darm-
stadt, 1986. I would also add M. Lyttelton. Baroque Architecture in Clas-
sical Antiquity, Ithaca, 1974, esp. 9-60.
30 Add to the bibliography on the temple of Fortuna Primigenia at Prae-
neste: H. Lauter, "Berrnerkungen zur spathellenistischen Baukunst in Mit-
telitalien." [ahrbuch des deutschen archaologischen lnstituts. XCIV, 1979,
esp. 390-415; and A. Ley and R. Struss, "Gegenarchitektur: Das Heiligtum
der Fortuna Primigenia als Symbol der politischen Selbstbehauptung Pra-
enestes." Hephaistos, IV, 1982, 117-138.
Onians, Art and Thought in tile Hellenistic Age. The Greek World
37 ).
View 350-50 B.C., London, 1979, 72-79.
tential as an exterior order, and they passed on this preference to
the Romans. Pollitt discusses the intriguing suggestion of John
Onians? that the three basic architectural orders came to have
hierarchical significance, with the Corinthian being the most sa-
cred, the Doric the most mundane, whence the use of the latter
outside, the former inside, in much of Hellenistic architecture. It
is not until the 2nd century B.C. that the Corinthian order is used
externally on a full-scale temple, the Temple of Zeus Olympios
at Athens.
The chapter on architecture seems to me in some ways rather
disappointing because it is approached with several theoretical
points to prove rather than letting the material speak for itself.
Although aspects of many issues, such as Hellenistic town plan-
ning, do appear, here as well as in the third appendix, still, there
are prominent areas of Hellenistic architecture that might have
been explored in some depth: domestic architecture, inside and
out (what of the houses of Pella, Delos, and Priene?); palace ar-
chitecture (Dernetrias, Vergina. Pella, and Pergamon); and, surely,
the reorganization of the agora with its great stoas (Miletus.
Priene, Pergamon, and Athens).
Alexandria and its art receives a separate treatment (chapter
12) because of the traditional importance accorded to it in the
development of Hellenistic literature." Scholars have 100i.g sought
to bestow the qualities apparent in its literature (impressionism,
social realism, and allegory, for example) to a virtually non-
existent artistic body, one that, in other words, is made up of thin
air. Pollitt very clearly lays this view to rest, noting that the few
actually surviving scraps from a once active Alexandrian art pro-
duction suggest that it stood very much in the mainstream of
Hellenistic developments and was probably not even in a dom-
inant position. What of course is unique about Ptolemaic Egyp-
tian art is what Pollitt calls its "split personality": it encompassed
a very Hellenistic style, supported by the Ptolemies in Alexandria,
and a very distinct Pharaonic tradition that the Ptolemies equally
maintained and encouraged elsewhere in Egypt.
The decorative arts associated with Alexandria form a rela-
tively compact body of material. Central to the discussion are the
jewelry and figured metal vessels discovered at Touk-el-Qara-
mous early in this century and the Egyptian-looking Tazza Farnese
whose antecedents, prior to acquisition by the Medici in the 15th
century, are unknown. Pollitt's comments concerning the cos-
mopolitan character of the Touk-el-Qararnous treasure (pp. 154-
155 and 255) could profitably have been expanded. For instance,
a very Persian-looking rhyton from this treasure, which Pollitt
speculates, on very slender grounds, may have been made in Ptol-
emaic Egypt, could be compared with Thracian, Scythian, and
Macedonian material." It is, in the end, difficult to establish much
that is truly Alexandrian."? A separate chapter on the minor arts
might, in fact, have been appropriate in a book of this scope. The
To the bibliography on Ptolemaic history. add now: D.). Thompson.
38
Memphis lInder the Ptolemies, Princeton, 1988.
30 On Thracian material: 1. Venedikov and T. Gerassimov, Thracian Art
Treasllres, Sofia, 1979, pl. 127 for a selection: on Scythian: M.l. Arta-
monov, The Splendor of Scythian Art, London, 1969, pis. 119, 137: on
Macedonian: see an animal-headed rhyton held in the hand of a female
centaur on a mosaic at Pella (M. Lilimbaki-Akamati, "A New Pebble Mo-
saic Floor at Pella" lin Greek), in AIIIetos, as in n. 31, pl. 93,2).
.0The role Egypt may have played in the manufacture and diffusion of
various crafts and motifs needs to be fully reassessed (see the essay by
R.S. Bianchi, "The Pharaonic Art of Ptolemaic Egypt," in Cleopatra's
Egypt, as in n.B, 55-80),

great value and significance of this branch of artistic production,
particularly important in the Hellenistic period, tends to be under-
estimated."l Although, to be sure, a certain number of small dec-
orative items are interspersed in different contexts throughout
Pollitt's book, they do not receive the sort of comprehensive treat-
ment they surely deserve.s- nor is the question of the actual re-
lationship between the major and minor arts ever Faced."
Pollitt devotes considerable space to the magnificent and unique
Tazza Farnese. whose iconography and dating have been much
debated. It seems strange to find it so prominently featured (in
color, on the cover, with a full-page black-and-white illustration
and more than a page of discussion inside) but with no mention
of the much earlier, but equally spectacular, figured bronze Der-
veni crater from Macedonia." This suggests a second possible
area of expansion for such a survey book: a chapter might well
be devoted to Macedonian art. The role of the Macedonians is
no longer merely theoretical. Macedonia has in recent years been
yielding up a steady stream of works of art, which could form
the basis for such a chapter. To write about these developments
would help to lay the foundations for subsequent developments
in Hellenistic art. 45
Having suggested a formidable enlargement of an already full
and tremendously useful study - perhaps another book alto-
gether? - I return now with the very positive conclusion that
this is a richly packed and scholarly book that deals effectively
with enormously complicated material. With his deeply knowl-
edgable and sensitive approach to the subject matter, Pollitt has
established a new point of departure for further research and
debate.
STELLA G. MILLER
Department of Classics
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 94221
.1 On this subject. see the essay by ED. Reeder, 'The Hellenistic Minor
Arts," in Hellenistic Art in the Walters Art Gallery. ed. E.D. Reeder. Bal-
timore, 1988, 45-51, with bibliography.
42 Recent, significant publications concerning the minor arts include: B.
Barr-Sharrar. The Hellenistic and Early Imperial Decorative Bust,Mainz,
1987; B. Deppert-Lippitz, Griechischer Goldschmuck, Mainz, 1985; R.A.
Higgins, Tanagra and the Figurines. Princeton, 1986; and E.M. De [uliis.
et al.. Gli ori di Taranto in eta ellenistica, exh. cat., Milan, 1984.
.3 B.S. Ridgway believes that the major and minor arts "remained distinct
in content and function" until the end of the Hellenistic period, when some
themes seem to be shared ("The Study of Hellenistic Art" in Hellenistic
Art in the Walters Art Gallery. as in n. 41, 31). For a contrasting point
of view. suggesting close relationships between them, see: B. Barr-Sharrar,
"Major to Minor: Some Reflections of Classical Sculpture in Hellenistic
and Early Imperial Decorative Relief," American [ournal of Archaeology,
XCI, 1987, 302.
•• Charbonneaux (as in n. 4), 224, fig. 236. The fundamental publication
on the crater is by E. Gioure, The Derveni Krater (in Greek), Athens,
1978.
.5Recognition of the importance of Macedonia in fact appears right at
the outset of Pollitt's introduction. which begins, 'The Greeks and Mac-
edonians who shaped Hellenistic culture ... " (p. 1). but it is not de-
veloped as a theme. As a basis for study, one now has available the book
on Vergina by Andronikos (as in n. 12). as well as a host of exhibition
catalogues on Macedonian subject matter and a growing number of books
and articles on specialized material (see, for instance. Macedonia and
Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic TillleslStlldies ill the History
of Art. x]. ed. B. Barr-Sharrar and E. Borza, 1982).
BOOK REVIEWS 515
ELENA PARMA ARMANI, Perin del Vngn, l'anello mancante:
Studi sui manierismo, Genoa, Sagep Editrice, 1986. Pp. 372;
104 color ills.. 265 black-and-white ills. L 80,000
Among the major Italian painters of the 16th century, Perino del
Vaga and Salviati have shared a dubious distinction: neither artist
before now has been the subject of a monograph. This is
incongruous given the historical importance of each and the
proliferation of monographic studies on other cinquecento painters
in recent years, among them Michael Hirst's volume on Sebastiano
del Piombo. John Cere's study of Taddeo Zuccaro's career as
traced in his drawings, and the efforts of Alessandro Marabottini
and Lanfranco Ravelli devoted to Polidoro da Caravaggio. Even
such less-than-first-rate artists as Bugiardini and Schiavone have
been treated in monographs, making the absence of Perino and
Salviati from these ranks even more anomalous. In the case of
Perino del Vaga. however, the inequity has finally been rectified
with the publication of Elena Parma Armani's Perin del Vngn,
l'anello mancante.
The literature on Perino, if not vast, is extensive, and the author
of the first overview of his thirty-year career was faced with a
herculean task of compiling, distilling, and integrating the
substance of previous, specialized studies into a coherent synopsis.
On this front, Parma Armani has succeeded admirably. Indeed,
the twin merits of this study are its judicious synthesis of the
existing literature and the extraordinary and abundant color
illustrations that accompany the highly readable text.
Conforming to a standard chronological format, the book is
divided into nine chapters, ranging from Perino's elusive Florentine
beginnings through his last major pictorial decoration, the papal
apartments in Castel S. Angelo. These chapters are bracketed by
an introduction and a "vicenda critica." the latter followed by a
somewhat idiosyncratic catalogue and a short appendix of
documents, about which more will be said below. An immediate
problem arises with the placement of the informative critical and
historiographical section at the conclusion of the study. The brief
overview of Perino's career that begins this section would have
been more useful as a preamble, and the tracing of the artist's
changing critical fortunes from the late cinquecento through the
18th century, culminating with his resurrection by scholars in the
last fifty years, would have made a sound platform from which
to launch the entire study. Instead, this section seems something
of an afterthought, and much of the material is redundant because
it has already been encountered in the foregoing text. The
introduction proper, as a result of this organization, is deprived
of its critical function and becomes a precis of observations
concerning specific works that reappear in more elaborated form
in the text and, often, yet again in the catalogue. At the end of
this introduction, the reader encounters a useful statement of
Parma Arrnani's approach to the material. This may roughly be
described as a "contextual" methodology: the author proposes to
consider the social and political background of the period in which
Perino lived and worked, his relationship to his patrons, and his
responsiveness to 16th-century reform currents as the framework
in which to study his art. Such an attempt to locate the artist in
a cultural and historical ambient is laudable, since Perino del Vaga
has suffered from being isolated too often in a stylistic and formal
vacuum.
The chapter on Perino's Florentine period is necessarily brief,
for this early moment of his career remains the most opaque. One
has little recourse at this point but to paraphrase Vasari, and this
is what Parma Armani does, reciting the story of Perino's move
from the household of the candle painter Andrea de' Ceri to the
workshop of Ridolfo Chirlandaio , where the garzone
distinguished himself as one of the finest young draftsmen in