History of Ancient Pottery: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman....

The site of Perennius’ principal workshop appears to have been in the city itself, close to the church of Sta. Maria in Gradi; but he may also have had a branch manufactory at Cincelli or Centum Cellae. Signor Pasqui[3383] notes that his name occurs alone on the interior of plain bowls and dishes. Next to these come the copies of Greek models by Cerdo, Pilades, Pilemo, and Nicephorus, followed by Tigranes, and then by Bargates, who also worked for Tigranes when he became a freedman (the stamps being in the form BARGATE M · TIGR); lastly occur the names of Crescens and Saturninus.

Three Annii had a pottery near the church of San Francesco, and employed over twenty slaves, with both Greek and Roman names; the most important of the three is C. Annius, who made vases with reliefs, as did Lucius, but Sextus only made plain wares. There are also vases stamped ANNI only; they probably belong to the first century B.C. Aulus Titius is found frequently at Arezzo and Rimini, at Lillebonne in France, and, as we have seen, in Spain; his wares also penetrated to Africa and all parts of Italy. He has no names of slaves coupled with his, and his signature appears in the various forms, A. Titi, A. Titi figul., A. Titi figul. Arret. He was succeeded by C. Titius Nepos, who had fifteen slaves, and there is also a L. Titius. C. and L. Tettius occur at Rome, but only the latter at Arezzo[3384]; the word SAMIA, which occurs on his stamps, is more likely to be a proper name than to have any reference to Samian ware. The name of Rasinius, which is associated with more names of slaves than any except P. Cornelius, is found more often at Rome than at Arezzo[3385]; it also occurs at Pompeii,[3386] and at Neuss in Germany, which facts point to the time of Augustus and A.D. 79 as the limits of date. Of the numerous slaves, some were afterwards employed by C. Memmius. There appear to have been at least two representatives of the name, C. Rasinius in the Augustan period, and L. Rasinius Pisanus in the Flavian. The latter Déchelette has shown to be a degenerate Arretine, making imitations of Gaulish ware.[3387] L. and C.

Petronius are found at Arezzo, together with remains of their potteries, and C. Gavius, who belongs to the Republican period, at Cincelli. Numerous other potters who are probably Arretine may be found in Ihm’s lists[3388]; on the other hand, there are stamps found at Rome and in Etruria which cannot have originated from Arretium. Such are Atenio circitor refi(ciendum) curavit,[3389] and Faustus Salinator Seriae[3390]; those with OF(ficina), such as OF · FELICIS, which are found at Rome, but are probably Gaulish[3391]; those with fecit or epoei (ἐποίει),[3392] with the exception of Venicius fecit hec, from Arezzo[3393]; and Atrane, a name found at Vulci, Chiusi, and many other sites in Etruria, but not at Arezzo.[3394]

The name usually given in the signatures on the stamps is that of the maker only; sometimes a slave’s name is added, either above or below the maker’s, or on a separate stamp. The maker’s name usually gives the nomen and praenomen, implying a freedman, and when given in full is seen to be in the genitive; the slave’s name is usually in the nominative. Four typical varieties are given by the following stamps from the pottery of P. Cornelius, with the name of the slave Potus:

A difficulty sometimes arises in regard to these two-line stamps when the slave’s name occurs below that of the master, on account of the frequent abbreviations; for instance, it is not easy to say whether such stamps as A·VIBI DIOM or P·CORNELI ANTHVS denote one name or two, for there are certain instances where the master has three names.[3395] It is always possible that the name denotes a slave become a freedman, as A. Vibius Diomedes or P. Cornelius Anthus, and in Dr. Dressel’s opinion[3396] this is the most probable explanation; but the alternative has much in its favour. There are, moreover, stamps such as P·MESEINI AMPLIO S(ervus) or P·CORNELI FIRMVS F(ecit) which, of course, leave no room for doubt. In later examples the praenomen is often omitted, and occasionally the praenomen and cognomen are found without the gentile name[3397]; there are also a few instances of female names.[3398] An exceptional form of signature is given by CINNA C·L·TITI(orum) S(ervus); occasionally also, as in the example from Spain already quoted, FIGVL(us) ARRE(tinus), or simply ARRETI(nus), are found. Sometimes, again, two potters seem to have been in partnership, as Sura and Philologus, L. Gellius and L. Sempronius (L·GELLI L SEMP),[3399] or two firms, as the Umbricii and Vibieni.

The simple quadrangular form of stamp is by far the commonest, and, next to this, an outline of a foot; less frequent forms, and of later date, are the circular, oval, or lunate, and other varieties of marks, such as wreaths, stars, or branches. Dr. Dressel gives no less than eighty-seven types from Rome,[3400] of which thirty-three are rectangular with ornamental edges. The forms of the letters are not always an indication of date, but such forms as 15Attic alpha 15alpha for A, 15E for E, and 15F for F betoken an early date. Ligatured letters abound. The names are often written from right to left, or left to right with separate letters reversed or inverted; or the words are broken up as MVS DOCI for Docimus, ANV ROM for Romanu(s), and so on.[3401] The stamps were probably of wood, but some are taken from seal-rings.

The forms of Arretine vases are all, without exception, borrowed from metal originals, and in their contours display the same tendency. But, as compared with the Hellenistic forms they show great simplicity, and almost, as it were, a return to archaism. The vases are for the most part of small size, and indeed the dimensions of the furnaces at Arezzo seem to indicate that larger vases could not have been baked in them. They are principally cups, bowls, and dishes, the former of hemispherical or cylindrical form and devoid of handles—a characteristic which usually distinguishes Roman from Greek pottery. Some of the moulds for Arretine ware in the British Museum collection appear to have been used for a deep cup with flat base and spreading lip (Plate LXVI. fig. 5), of a type which finds no parallel in Greek shapes, but the hemispherical bowl on a low foot is the prevailing form. Other shapes are extremely rare, a notable exception being the beautiful krater in the British Museum with figures of the Seasons (Fig. 219), which, although found at Capua, is certainly Arretine in style and technique. The technical methods employed we have already described in the preceding chapter,[3402] and there do not appear to have been any variations peculiar to this fabric. Fabroni (p. 37) states that cinerary urns, tiles, lamps, and reliefs were also made in the potteries at Arretium.

The prototypes of the forms we have seen to be the Hellenistic vases of chased metal, for which Alexandria was the principal centre. But, apart from form, it is doubtful whether the Alexandrine toreutic work exercised much influence on the potters of Arretium. For the decoration and subjects they undoubtedly drew their inspiration chiefly from the New-Attic reliefs[3403] and the art of Asia Minor, as has been pointed out by more than one recent writer,[3404] who have urged that the influence of Alexandria on Roman art has been greatly over-estimated.[3405] Dragendorff points out that all the famous chasers known to us were natives of Asia Minor,[3406] and thinks that Rhodes was probably the centre of this art. It must also be borne in mind that the second century was the era of collecting works of art in Greece and Asia Minor and conveying them to Rome, so that the examples which were most prominently before the eyes of Italian artists under the later Republic were just these products of Greece and Asia Minor in the Hellenistic Age. Moreover, the Rhodian and Pergamene schools of art were still living when that of Alexandria was dying out under the later Ptolemies. The mixed style of art of the first century B.C. is essentially Roman, produced under the influence of the Greek works then collected in Rome, and does not extend beyond Italy.

But it is also conceivable that its predecessors in the line of ceramic development contributed to produce the ware of Arretium. It recalls in some respects the different Greek relief-wares discussed in Chapter XI., the Calene phialae of the third century, and the so-called Megarian or Homeric bowls, in which some have seen the real “Samian” ware of the Roman writers, dating from the same period. To these succeeded in Hellenic lands the fabrics of Athens, Southern Russia, and Asia Minor, to which allusion has already been made, and which often present similar characteristics to the Arretine fabrics. Nor must it be forgotten that the earliest Arretine pottery was covered with a black glaze, which may indeed represent a desire to reproduce the effect of metal, but is much more likely to be a direct heritage from the late Greek pottery, which in this respect carried on the tradition of the painted wares. At all events, two main characteristics of Hellenistic pottery have plainly left their mark on Roman fabrics: the disappearance of painting under the influence of relief decoration imitated from metal, and the cessation of the exclusive use of a black varnish.

The transition seems to be partially effected by a small group of vases which have been styled “Italian Megarian bowls” or “Vases of Popilius,” after the potter C. Popilius, whose name occurs on many of them.[3407] They form a distinct class, dating apparently from the third century B.C., on the testimony of the inscriptions; the form is that of a hemispherical bowl without handle or foot, with very thin walls, and covered with a slip of varying colour—yellow, brown, or black. These bowls, too, are a close imitation of metal-work, especially in the arrangement of the reliefs. The ornament usually consists of long leaves and scrolls radiating from a rosette on the foot and bordered above by bands of wave- or tongue-pattern, scrolls, or garlands; the ground is filled in with stars, shields, and other devices. In the finer examples a frieze of figures is added, with such motives as Erotes, masks, dolphins, and ox-skulls repeated. The bowl of Popilius published by Hartwig is the only one with a definite subject: a fight between Greeks and Barbarians, which is an undoubted reminiscence of the famous mosaic at Pompeii with Alexander at the Issus. Eleven bowls by Popilius are known, two by L. Appius (see Fig. 220), and one each by L. Atinius and L. Quintius. The first-named potter seems to have lived partly at Ocriculum, partly at Mevania in Umbria; both he and Appius also made “Calene” ware. These potters were freedmen, as the use of the two names indicates.

To sum up with Dragendorff,[3408] it is clear that a careful study of Hellenistic pottery is necessary for a correct estimate of the Italian and Roman. As in the case of other arts, it proves that the Romans were merely receptive, at best only developing what they received. This development began with the importation of Greek relief-wares with black varnish, especially from Asia Minor, and their imitation at Cales. Then, as in Greece, so in Italy, the search for new forms, colouring, and decoration began and brought about a degeneration of technique. What the Calene vases are to those of Asia Minor, so are the vases of Popilius to the “Megarian” bowls. Finally, the finds in Southern Russia show that even the technique of the red-glazed ware is not an Arretine invention, but was already known to the Greeks, although first brought to perfection in Italy.

We must now return to the Arretine vases and turn our attention to their subjects and decoration, and their place in artistic development. Dragendorff[3409] divides them into two classes, including with them the vases of Puteoli, which bear Arretine stamps, and probably only represent a mere off-shoot of the latter potteries, merely differing in the quality of the design and in the absence of many of the best types. These were mostly discovered in 1874, and it is possible that the krater from Capua (p. 488) may also be reckoned as originating from this source.

His first class includes the vases of M. Perennius, which form such a large proportion of the signed Arretine wares. They are characterised by friezes of figures repeated, or of groups of figures all of the same size, sometimes divided by pillars or terminal figures. Ground-ornaments are rare, and the ground under the figures is not indicated as elsewhere. The subjects include Dionysiac scenes, such as dancing Maenads, sacrifices, drinking-scenes, the vintage, or Dionysos in a chariot; Cupids, Muses, and Seasons; Victory sacrificing a bull; Nereids with the weapons of Achilles; Hieroduli or priestesses dancing, with wicker head-dresses; banqueting, erotic, and hunting-scenes. Examples of the latter classes are given on Plate LXVI. The types of the figures, as in the case of the dancing Maenads, are largely derived from the New-Attic reliefs (see above).

In the second class, to which belong the vases of P. Cornelius and those found at Puteoli, a large use of ornament is the most conspicuous feature. The figures are little more than decorative, or form motives of a sculpturesque character, and are not, as in the first class, isocephalous. Naturalistic motives, such as wreaths, are very frequent. Among the types we have figures like those in the Nile-scenes on the terracotta mural reliefs (p. 371) and Centaurs derived from Hellenic prototypes.

Throughout there is a remarkable variety, not only of subjects, but of ornaments and methods of composition, features in which the Greek vase-painters at all periods allowed themselves little freedom. The ornamentation, which usually borders the figures above and below, or still oftener occupies the whole surface available for decoration, includes such motives as conventional wreaths and festoons, scrolls of foliage, and egg-and-tongue pattern; a favourite device is the use of columns with spiral shafts, often surmounted by masks, between the figures. But it is often naturalistic as well as conventional, at least in detail, and only in the general effect is it purely ornamental rather than a reproduction of nature.

In the figures derived from the New-Attic reliefs and similar sources, such as metal reliefs on bases, candelabra, etc., the copyist usually shows a strong tendency to archaism; the attitudes of the figures are graceful, but somewhat affected. They seldom represent any particular action or story, but even human figures are merely decorative. Groups of dancing figures are especially favoured, such as Satyrs and Maenads, or the Hieroduli or dancing priestesses, who wear a curious headdress of wicker-work (calathus)[3410]; or we see Genii and Cupids crowning altars and lamp-stands, or playing on musical instruments. Throughout the parallelism with the Roman mural reliefs (p. 367 ff.) is most remarkable, whether in the archaising style, the decorative treatment of human figures, or in the choice of themes: the dancing Maenads and Satyrs, the Hieroduli, Victory sacrificing a bull, or the figures of Seasons. Of the last-named a fine instance is the beautiful krater from Capua, now in the British Museum (Fig. 219), the figures on which are most delicately modelled. A stamp in the same collection from Arezzo has a figure of Spring, which repeats the type of the Capua vase (Plate LXVI. fig. 2: see p. 439).

A somewhat later development, corresponding to the second class described above, seems to draw its inspiration rather from the Hellenistic reliefs of naturalistic style, such as Schreiber has published, dating from the third century B.C.[3411] The figures are no longer stiff, but free and vigorous, and elaborate compositions are attempted, some being perhaps excerpts from large Hellenistic compositions. Realistic landscapes in the Hellenistic style, with rocks and trees, are largely favoured, and the repertory of subjects includes Dionysiac sacrifices and processions, combats of Centaurs and Lapiths, and hunting-scenes. A fragmentary mould in the British Museum is a good example of the latter, only that here the scene is definitely characterised as Alexander the Great at a lion-hunt (Plate LXVI. figs. 1, 3). The king is just slaying a lion, which stands over a man whom it has felled, and Krateros advances to his assistance with an axe. A wreath which adorns the beast’s neck seems to indicate that it was an animal specially kept in the royal park for hunting.[3412] The mould bears the name of M. Perennius.

Dragendorff, in a valuable and illuminating estimate of the Arretine wares,[3413] points out that they are an example of the tendency, so constantly occurring in classic art, to imitate one substance in another. He is further of opinion that they largely reproduce contemporary originals which illustrate the eclectic art of the Augustan period, instituting a reaction against Hellenistic art and forming in their simple shapes a contrast to the baroque forms of later Hellenistic pottery. The art of the Augustan Age was followed, as Wickhoff has pointed out,[3414] by a period of impressionism or illusionist style derived from painting, which is, however, completely absent from Arretine and all other pottery of the Roman period. It may, therefore, be fairly assumed that when the impressionist style came into vogue, the art of the Arretine potter had had its day. All subsequent wares with reliefs are essentially provincial, and the origin of their style is uncertain, but it is at all events not derived from any of the contemporary phases of Roman art.

The vases of the types which we have been describing are not, as has been hinted already, found exclusively at Arezzo. In Italy they are found in all parts,[3415] and the stamps of known Arretine potters occur in large numbers in Rome, as also at Cervetri, Chiusi, Vulci, and elsewhere in Etruria,[3416] and at Mutina (Modena).[3417] They are also found all over Campania, at Capua, Cumae, Pompeii, and Pozzuoli. North of the Alps they occur but rarely, and almost exclusively in Gallia Narbonensis,[3418] but we have seen that they are found in Spain, and instances are also recorded from Sardinia, Africa, Greece,[3419] Asia Minor, and Cyprus.[3420] From these details two conclusions may be drawn, either that there were various centres scattered over the Empire for the manufacture of what was currently known as “Arretine ware,” or that an extensive system of exportation went on from one centre, which would naturally be Arretium. Certainly there is no difference either technically or artistically between the Arezzo vases and some of those found in other places, such as Modena or Capua. Either view has something in its favour, and it is doubtful whether the question is yet ripe for solution.

The Arretine ware, as we have seen, steadily degenerated during the first century of the Empire, and at the close of that period had practically come to an end. The question then arises, What took its place in Italy? For it will be seen in the following pages that in discussing the remaining examples of terra sigillata which Roman potters have left us, we have to deal almost entirely with provincial wares, made in Gaul and Germany, and exported largely even into Central and Southern Italy. Not the least striking feature in the history of Roman pottery is the rapid rise of these provincial fabrics, and the reputation which they so speedily acquired even in the more central and more civilised parts of the empire. Yet the manufacture of pottery in Italy cannot have died out entirely by the end of the first century. The plain and unglazed wares for domestic or other ordinary uses, such as the dolia and wine amphorae, of course continued to be made in Italy as elsewhere, and the list of centres given by Pliny, which we have already discussed, clearly shows that in the Flavian epoch several places still preserved a reputation for the manufacture of pottery. On the other hand, we have no evidence that the pottery made in these centres had any other than utilitarian merit, or that it represents what we know as terra sigillata, and it is certainly remarkable that all the ornamental wares found in Italy are either of the Arretine type or else importations from Gaul, with very few exceptions.

Lamps and tiles, as we have seen in previous chapters, continued to be made throughout the second and third centuries, but both were essentially utilitarian in their purposes, and the latter, at any rate, lay no claim to artistic distinction. The growing use of metal vases by all but the poorer classes, was also not without its effect on the disappearance of moulded wares in Italy, and a reference thereto may perhaps be traced in Martial’s plea for the Arretine pottery (p. 479).

It therefore seems safest to assume that as in the fourth century B.C. the manufacture of painted vases ceased at Athens, but entered on a new era of development in Southern Italy with the migration of Athenian artists to the Hellenic centres of that region, so in the first century after Christ the manufacture of terra sigillata in Italy—as distinguished from plain pottery and other objects such as lamps—gradually died out, owing to the migration of artists and transference of artistic traditions to the rising centres of a new civilisation in the country bordering on the Rhone and the Rhine. It will be our object in the succeeding pages to collect the evidence for the existence and importance of the potteries in these regions, and to show, in short, that they for some time supplied to the whole Roman world all that its representatives were then capable of in the way of artistic and decorative work in pottery. In the following chapter will also be more conveniently discussed the vases of Ateius, Aco, and other potters which represent the transition from the Arretine to the Gaulish fabrics.