We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2009
The two ivory tablets in Paris and London, dating from late antiquity and forming parts of one diptych (Plates 1, 2), have been convincingly placed in their stylistic setting by the scholar to whom this article is dedicated. With other works in ivory from about A.D. 400 and with the Rothschild cameo, they form a ‘classicistic’ group, some manufactured in Rome, some in Milan. The cameo probably refers to the marriage in A.D. 398 of the young Emperor Honorius to Maria, daughter of Stilicho. We may assume that the diptych under consideration here also has reference to an aristocratic wedding, although its iconography is quite different. It shows not the portrait of a bridal pair, but two female figures, hitherto regarded as pagan priestesses. It is not these figures, but the tabulae ansatae at their heads that give support to the hypothesis that the diptych was made on the occasion of a marriage between the two families named on the tablets, the Symmachi and the Nicomachi. Matrimonial unions between members of the pagan aristocracy in officially Christian Rome may not only be presumed, but in the case of the Nicomachi and Symmachi may be actually shown to have happened. The following observations would seem to provide appropriate reinforcement for reference to a wedding on iconographic grounds.
Volbach, Frühchr. at Plate 90f.; Volbach, Elfenbein no. 55; Weitzmann, Spirituality no. 165f; Shelton, K.J., ‘The diptych of the young office holder’, JbAChr 25 (1982), 157ffGoogle Scholar.; Cat. Frankfurt no. 141 (D. Stutzinger).
2. Cf. Volbach Frühchr. at Plate 59. Most ivory diptychs, because of their consular subject matter, were probably manufactured in Rome. Nevertheless for the Stilicho diptych, stylistically related to our group, Volbach, Frühchr. at Plate 62 f. assumes a Milanese origin.
3. As Volbach, Frühchr. at Plate 59 argues convincingly. The connection between cameo cutting and ivory carving is interesting in itself. The stylistic stimulation may well have come from ivory, which in late antiquity was worked to a much greater extent than sardonyx. On the other hand, the tablets of the classicistic group are closer in fineness of cut to cameos than to works in ivory.
4. For the dates, some inferred A.D. 388, 392, 394, and 401 – cf. Weitzmann, Spirituality no. 166 (K.J.Shelton).
5. This interpretation is already to be found, e.g., in the original essay by Graeven, H., RM 28 (1913), 143Google Scholar ff. as well as in the works quoted in n. 1 and the earlier works quoted in them.
6. Cf. a 4 above and the essay by Shelton quoted in n. 1.
7. As in Volbach, Frühchr. Plate 90 and Elfenbein no. 55, as well as Weitzmann, Spirituality no. 165.
8. Representations of Galli, e.g., Helbig II4 (Tubingen, 1966) nos. 1176 and 1183; Helbig IV4 (Tubingen, 1972) no. 3003: Archigallus coloniae Ostiensis (E. Simon).
9. Simon, GdR 46 f.
10. See below p. 61.
11. The point in question is the phenomenon of ‘Sacrificing Gods’, on which I should like to quote here only my dissertation under the title Opfernde Götter (Berlin, 1953)Google Scholar , together with Himmelmann-Wildschütz, N., ZurEigenart des Klassischen Götterbildes (Munich, 1959)Google Scholar and Arafat, K. W., Classical Zeus (Oxford, 1990), pp. 89 ffGoogle Scholar
12. On these priests and their attributes: Clinton, K., The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 64, 3 (1974)Google Scholar .
13. Rome, Palazzo Borghese. For classification among sarcophagi of Asia Minor: Sichtermann, G. Koch-H., Römische Sarkophage, HdArch (Munich, 1982), pp. 500Google Scholarf. n. 38 Fig. 484; LIMC, Demeter-Ceres no. 146 Plate 607.
14. Cf. LIMC, Demeter-Ceres nos. 145–8 Plate 607. In the other representations Cora carries only one (upright) torch, but the statuary type is comparable.
15. For this costume worn by Aphrodite cf. LIMC II (Zürich, 1984) Plate 18 ff. and nos. 156, 165, 225, 227, 228, 234, 235, 237, 239, 243, 244, 246, 248, 254, 339, 665, 666 to name but a few examples.
16. Aurelius Symmachus and Nicomachus Flavianus: RE XIV 1 (1928), 178Google Scholarf. s.v. Macrobius (P. Wessner); KIPauly 3 (1975), 857Google Scholarf. s.v. Macrobius (R. Herzog).
17. Homer, : Macrobius, , Sat. 1.22.4Google Scholar; 1. 23.1 and frequently; Aischylos: 1.18.6; very frequently Euripides, e.g., 1.17.59; 1.18.4. The equation of Demeter and Cybele mentioned on p. 56 above is first found in Euripides, , Helen 1301Google Scholar ff. See Kannicht, R., Euripides, Helena II (Heidelberg, 1969), pp. 337ffGoogle Scholar.
18. A rich collection of authorities in Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary(Oxford, 1879Google Scholar, reprint 1966) s.v. taeda.
19. Cf. LIMC III (Zürich, 1986), nos. 366–87 Plate 628 f. s.v. Eros (A. Hermary-H. Cassimatis-R. Vollkommer); ibid. nos. 146–71 Plate 688–90 s.v. Eros-Amor, Cupido (N. Blanc-F. Gury).
20. Evidence in the dictionary mentioned in n. 18 above, ibid.
21. See Bieber, M., Jdl 43 (1928), 298ffGoogle Scholar.; Simon, E., Jdl 76 (1961), lllff.Google Scholar
22. See Cat. Frankfurt no. 141.
23. He is usually described as a serving woman, e.g., Cat. Frankfurt 534. But the tunic is characteristic of boys and especially of Camilli, for whom from the middle of the first century A.D. feminine coiffures are recorded. F. Fless will deal with sacrificial servants in her Mainz dissertation.
24. Recorded in Gellius, , Noctes Atticae 10Google Scholar.15.12. See Pötscher, W., Hellas undRom, Collectanea XXI (Hildesheim-Zurich-New York, 1988), p. 424Google Scholar = Mnemosyne 21 (1968), 215 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25. Macrobius, , Sat. 1.18.15–18Google Scholar and passim. For the tense relationship between Iuppiter and Liber in Rome see Simon GdR 111.127.
26. Compare one of the reliefs on Trajan's arch: Hassel, FJ., Der Trajansbogen in Benevent (Mainz, 1966), Plate 1.1, and numerous scenes on Trajan's columnGoogle Scholar.
27. Sacrifice of wine and incense in the cult of Vesta: Zwierlein-Diehl, E., ‘Simpuvium Numae’ in Tainia, Festschrift für Roland Hampe (Mainz, 1980), pp. 418ffGoogle Scholar.
28. Simon, GdR 45 f.
29. This probably arises from the epitaph of the wife of Praetextatus, (CIL VI. no.1780)Google Scholar, interpreted by D. Stutzinger in Cat. Frankfurt 534.
30. The cloak veiling the body in this way is also met with in women on Christian ivory diptychs likewise belonging to the ‘classicistic group’ of c. A.D. 400: Volbach, Frühchr. Plate 92 f. The artist in ivory is here harking back to Hellenistic robed statues.
31. And not a matronly-virginal goddess like Vesta. For her representations see Simon, GdR 229 ff. Her head is usually veiled.
32. LIMC, luventus 464 with the sources in antiquity. On New Year's Day ivory diptychs would be presented!
33. It was called Kissotomoi: Pausanias 2.13.4.
34. Livy 5.54.7; see Ogilvie, R. M., A Commentary on Livy (Oxford, 1970), p. 750Google Scholar .
35. LIMC, luventus no. 6a Plate 278.
36. Simon, , GdR 117Google Scholarf. Fig. 143 a-c.
37. The finest representation is on a side face of the Ludovisi Throne in the Museo delle Terme: Simon, GdR 217Google ScholarFig. 271.
38. Augustan models are generally assumed, but the connection with classicistic works from the second century A.D. is closer; as with the sarcophagus of Torre Nova already quoted (Fig. 1) and the Antinoos relief from Lanuvium: Simon, , GdR 204 Fig. 262Google Scholar.
