572. Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Erich S. Gruen. His thesis: The expansion of Roman authority into the sphere of Hellas prompted a profound reappraisal of national responsibilities. The Romans strove to establish their place in the cultural world of the Mediterranean. Romans viewed their new interest in Hellenism intersecting with national interest. The meeting of the two cultures caused Rome to look at her own and re-examine. The idea that all was tense and discordant is discarded- instead it is viewed as an evolving process through which the Romans shaped their own values and gained a sense of their own distinctiveness.
The Making of the Trojan Legend
Aristotle, Plutarch, Herakleides Ponticus relate stories which declare Rome a Greek city. Early on Greek scholars made effort to connect Rome with Greek origins. Sicilian writers were instrumental in passing versions of Roman origin. Stories which existed about Trojan origins were elaborated by Sicilian writers. Interestingly Greek writers did not focus just on Aeneas. There were a wide range of versions.
Now Rome had her own stories such as Romulus and Remus. As time passed these were meshed with the Hellenic. In several cases Hellenic heroes had more play in Rome’s origin than Aeneas. How did it come to be that Aeneas eventually won out? The answer to this question drives to the core of the cultural awakening and sense of identity Rome developed.
By the 3rd century a common story was Aeneas settled Lavinium after seeing 30 piglets. Ascanius 30 years later founded Alba Longa. After 300 years Rome was founded in Latium. Varro, the great Roman scholar, stated that the first Roman settlement was Lavinium. Here even at the time of Varro, the Trojan penates were kept and celebrations were held. The legend was strong enough that when Pyrrhus invade Italy he claimed that as a descendant of Achilles he was coming to Italy to wage war on his Trojan enemies. This does not prove that the Trojan version was universal but it does show that it was a common version. After Rome won the war, Greek interest in the history of Rome increased.
Rome also embraced local Latin legends of Troy to help bind the area together. The legend of Lavinium founded by Aeneas, a Trojan, the Roman celebration of Trojan penates in Lavinium helped to make Rome the legitimate prime authority in Latium. But acceptance of these legends also gave Rome connection with Greek cities which had connections with the area. Trojans were claimed by some Greek scholars to be Greek. Aeneas had Greek allies. By positioning her self as the inheritor of this legend made Rome legitimate in the eyes of the Greeks. There was much variation in the versions.
The adoption of Troy connected Rome with Hellenic tradition and gave them international validity. But adoption of Troy made them distinct.
Naevius, Ennius and Fabius Pictor, Cato the Elder highlight Trojan legacy to celebrate national values. Their versions are different but the essentials remain the same. At this time there was no standard version.
“The succcessful and enduring version that made Trojans the forbearers of Rome owed its origin to Greek inventiveness and reformulated to Latin ingenuity. The Greeks imposed the Trojan legend upon the West as a form of Hellenic cultural imperialism only to see it appropriated by the westerner to define and convey a Roman cultural identity.”
Roman use of the legend allowed Rome to claim a place in the cultural community of the Mediterranean. It allowed sort of for a common language of diplomacy.
Cato and Hellenism
Cato the Elder is often viewed as the stern opponent to foreign cultures. Yet he knew Greek, understood Greek culture and learning. He thought that Socrates was a raging babbler who undermined tradition and drew people away from the laws and prepared the ground for his own tyranny. Yet, Cato’s familia had a quality Greek tutor. However, he tutored his own son. He was a harsh critic of luxury and the display of art objects for personal display. He reserved strongest hate for Greek doctors. He was aware of the story in which Hippocrates refused to treat a king because he was foreign enemy. Cato figured that this included the Romans. He believed that great statesmen should value otium (leisure) and negotium (labor).
That Cato practiced antihellenism needs review.
During the Hannibalic Wars, Cato was at Tarentum and Sicily. He may have learned Greek at this time. He certainly knew Greek by 191. According to Plutarch Cato’s style was influenced by Demosthenes and Thucydides and that he knew famous people from Greek history. A work which Cato wrote, Origines, had Greek models. The opening imitates Xenophon’s Symposium. So we have here Cato, oppopnent of Hellenism and student of Hellenism.
Cato is the key to understand Roman reaction to Hellenism. And this bears directly on Roman development of national identity.
Here is the re-evaluation.
Cato was in Athens as a representation of Roman government. It is now known that he at this time was fluent in Greek, yet when he addressed the assembly of Athenians he spoke Latin and an interpreter stood by to translate into Greek. Why did he do this? By doing so he indicated that Latin was superior to Greek and that Hellenic oratory was inferior to Latin. The audience was impressed that a Latin sentence required many more Greek words to say the same thing.
Cato is often viewed as one opposed to the study of philosophy. This is not accurate. He favored the study of philosophy as something which could be applied to the use of his country. Gruen says that what Cato opposed was a study of philosophy which devolved into self-absorption. For Cato the idea was to study philosophy in order to understand how distinctive Roman values are.
Cato had an interesting view of literature. He believed that one should pursue otium in order to profit from the study of Greek literature. Then this was applied to negotium. National duty came first. He realized the merits of Greek learning but saw the need to put it to the use for statesmen and intellectuals. He did not advocate selectiveness so much as sensible application of study as regards duty to the state.
Now for his stance on luxury and sumptuary. These are often assumed to be code words sort of for bad stuff which came from Greeks. Livy, the historian, gives him a speech for 195 which is not accurate. Livy has him express views which applied to his own times and then just applied these to the past. Pliny the Elder helps to refute Livy. Livy says that Rome loved art objects from Athens more than their own statues. Yet Pliny informs that no marble statues were in Rome til after Asian conquest. Cato’s criticism of luxury does not seem to come from antihellenism. He was simply an opponent of self-indulgence.
He did not oppose poetry but only that poetry which sought to flatter someone.
He sought to maintain Roman dignity and also claim Roman superiority. He had no problem with wide cultural learning but he did have a problem with proper behavior of a Roman official. For example he attacked M. Caelius, Tribune, for singing when he wished, telling jokes, using false voice, dancing in inappropriate places. He attacked him for behavior unbecoming to a Roman official. (Imagine the reaction if the President of the United States at a formal setting in Germany, suddenly began to break dance or do the moon walk.)
Cato was primarily concerned about national character. As Gruen puts it:
“It is not the Greeks themselves who are villians but Roman leaders who fail to play the part their nations preeminence had thrust upon them.” Cato valued otium combined with subservience to active public service. It appears that Cato was a sophisticated leader with a plan. Cato’s attack on Greek medicine stemmed from that fact that Greeks sought to make a profit healing someone. He was concerned to cause Romans to take pride in who they were.
“Unlike the Greek, the Roman achievement was a national achievement, not an individual one.” I suggest that Romans at Cato’s insistence saw culture in terms of something greater than themselves individually but in terms of the needs of service to the state. Cato noted that Greeks had individual lawgivers but Rome had many people who contributed over a long period. And the Romans ended up with a legal system applicable to a variety of cultures and changing circumstances. Studying Greek literature and history is what allowed Cato to see this. By learning Greek Cato studied Greek literature. He learned Greek ideas. This allowed him to see how distinctive the Roman experience was.
Art and Civic Life
The old view: Hellenic art eroded morals, corrupted attitudes, weakened the fiber of the nation. Greek art came to Rome and made the city beautiful. It gave fame to those generals who brought back this stuff. It added money to the state. All true but there is more. The common view is that this all began with Marcellus who during the 2nd Punic War conquered Syracuse and brought back much art from Sicily.
Lets look at Gruen.
Art had been around for a long time. Its presence had religious overtones and national interest. In 396 Rome conquered Veii. M. Furius Camillus had called upon Juno to leave Veii and come to Rome. Romans won. The statue of the Goddess very carefully was taken to Rome and placed in a temple. This statue: 1. reminded Romans of their victory 2. Added new goddess to Roman religion. 3. Served as reminder for success of Camillus.
380 Praeneste was taken by T. Quinctius Cincinnatus. Jupiter Imperator was removed and taken to the Capitoline. This statue: 1. Enlarged Roman religion. 2. Served as reminder of Cincinnatus. 3. God served to defend the state.
C. Maevius in 338 won a navel victory. He brought the prows of the ships to Rome. These decorated a speaking plateform forever after called the rostra. There are numerous examples. All of these art objects came from Italian states.
In war against Pyrrhus M. Curius Dentatus was victorious at Beneventum. He returned with statues, paintings and items of luxury. These were items of Greek art.
By the 3rd/4th centuries the exploitation of art was used to show success in war.
There were also commemorative statues of victorious Roman generals. Q. Marcius Tremulus,consul 306 received honor of an equestrian statue in the forum. Thurii honored C. Aelius, tribune, for protecting them with a statue in Rome. Often the statue of the general was set up in a temple to show that gods supported Roman efforts. Public art to honor success was common.
The fact that art was used to honor good work shows that art was considered the proper way to do so. Romans liked art. Please, note this. The Romans liked art before the Greeks came along. Greeks did not teach Romans love of art.
During the Hannibalic Wars Romae was smashed at Lake Trasimene. Hiero, the ruler of Syracuse sent help to Rome. (He was an ally.) And he sent a large statue of Victory. He knew what Romans liked.
During these wars Rome made an alliance with Aetolia. The Romans made a contract that any land acquired would go to the Aetolias but art went to Rome.
Now let us look at M. Claudius Marcellus. Polybius, Livy and Plutarch pretty much agree that what Marcellus brought back from Sicily was bad for Rome. Marcellsu faces two charges:
1. Plundering did not distinguish between civic art and religious art.
2. Brought the taste for expensive stuff to Rome.
Does Marcellus represent a break with the past? There is an absence of contemporary criticism of Marcellus. Gruen suggests that a more careful reading of these guys is needed.
Polybius questions if Marcellus acted “correctly and advantageously” in confiscating art in Sicily. Concern about the effect of art is not the issue. The looting, Polybius suggests, may have caused resentment. Livy suggests that Marcellus’ inappropriate behavior toward gods of Syracuse would cause Romans someday to treat their gods with the same distain. This is anachronistic. Livy here is actually referring to behavior during the late civil wars of the Republic. Plutarch’s assessment of what Marcellus brought back reads much like what Dentatus brought back during the Pyrrhic Wars. Yet he says that before Marcellus Rome was not a refined city. But this is refuted by the fact that Romans had been collecting and displaying for a long time before this.
Marcellus was accused of dragging statues of gods/men around in triumph. Does this stand up to the evidence? Polybius says that art which was privately owned in Sicily was owned privately in Rome. Public art became the property of the state. Marcellus also dedicated statues of gods at Rome and Samothrace and Rhodes. This indicates a committment to religious duty. Plutarch says that Marcellus bragged that he brought refinement to rustic people. This in Gruen’s opinion reflects a hostile source. Marcellus like any politician had enemies. This would have been said to try and bring resentment against Marcellus. His political opponents were concerned about the great success which Marcellus achieved. It makes no sense that Marcellus would return to Rome and announce to his people that he had elevated them from the level of barbarians with foreign art (Greek).
In 222 Marcellus vowed to build a temple to Honos and Virtus after his victory. The 2nd Punic War interveined. The sack of Syracuse provided money to carry this out. But in 208 Pontifices would not allow one temple to be for two gods. So the temple to Virtus was built beside an earlier temple to Honos outside the Porta Capena. I only relate this to let the reader reflect that Romans were not falling over each other grasping for art and plunder. Law mattered, propriety mattered and so did religion. Marcellus payed respect to divinities which represented Roman character. These two temples stood beside the Temple of Mars outside the Porta Capena. The location these temples next to each other is a message . Hellenic culture would serve to highlight the character, religion and power of Rome.
So what Marcellus did is no different from those in the past who commemorated self achievement, commemorated Roman success, honored Roman religion, beautified Rome.
“The idea of adverse moral consequences is plainly post eventum.”
Q. Fabius Maximus captured Tarentum in the 2nd Punic War in 209. In his triumph he had captured loot, paintings and statues. All of these would have been Greek art. The description indicates that this was on the scale of art brought from Syracuse. Fabius used the money to set up a bronze statue of himself beside Hercules carved by Lysippus. Fabius tried to make Marcellus look bad in the way he handled things at Syracuse and Marcellus’ supporters called Fabius’ actions unseemly but Marcellus was “gentle and magnanimous.” This is politics. I do not use the word negatively here. The function of politics is give release to tension in society for service to the state. Marcellus achieves success in Syracuse. Political opponents wince at this. This spurs opponents to mount their own success.
Art declared Roman prowess, success of generals, religious favor. All of this was played out in the political arena. The whole affair was common to the Romans. The Romans did not condone reckless pillaging. When art came from Capua, the Pontifices determined which paintings and sculpture were sacred and which were private. “(Romans) showed genuine regard for foreign art and for its value in promoting Roman religious sensibilities and national pride.
Cn. Manlius Vulso, victor over Asia, 187 celebrated a triumph. In that triumph were precious metals, expensive objects, bronze couches, expensive garments, furniture. L. Calpurnius Piso, a historian of the 2nd century mentions this stuff but says nothing of moral decline. This came later from Livy, Pliny and St. Augustine. There was a challenge to block Vulso’s triumph but none of these political manuevres mention moral decline as a reason. He had political opponents. They were testing the waters.
Now we come to M. Fulvius Nobilior. He is often held up high as the quintessential plunderer, a prime example of Roman greed etc.
He was victor over Aetolia. He captured Ambracia, once the capital of Pyrrhus. He did not sack the city but brought back: 785 bronze statues, 230 marble statues. He was prosecuted by opponents to halt his triumph. He was accused of confiscating art. Ambraciot citizens delivered hostile testimony. They now had only door posts to worship. Gruens looks carefully at the evidence. Nobilior compossed a work on the religious calendar. The fact that Ambraciots complained of the theft of sacred art shows that Rome’s policy did not approve of such things. In this case the Senate decreed that the Ponftifices determine which were sacred and which private.
What level of sophistication did Nobilior have? Fulvius brought back numerous statues. One set was of the nine Muses. These were placed in the temple of Hercules of the Muses. Fulvius moved the shrine to Roman Muses (aedicula camerarum) to this temple. This symbolized melding of Roman and Greek song, music, dance, religion, literature, melding of hellenic and native art. In the newly decorated temple was placed the Fasti (his study of the religious calendar) of Nobilior. This temple was to serve as the meeting spot of Rome’s collegium poetarum. His spoils of war he dedicated to the Muses. “(This) put the fruits of war in the service of the advancement of culture.”
Was there objection of the flow of art to Rome?
Cato is often used as the hammer here. Cato in a speech condemned not art but sacred art in private hands, public art in private display. He was concerned about the proper use of booty. In none of his speeches does he object to art.
Gruen sites numerous examples of art work dedicated which had nothing to do with military achievement.
Lucius Aemilius Paullus- victor 3rd Macedonian War- much art from Pydna. No objections to art.
P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, victor over Carthage 146. The art in Carthage had been taken from Sicily. Scipio returned much of the art to the proper cities. Much he also took to Rome.
There is continuity in Roman use of art: enhance Rome, declare military success, display appreciation of art, enhance religion.
Now we come to the real big dog: L. Mummius, conqueror of Corinth. Polybius tells us that Roman soldiers played dice on famous Greek masterpieces. Velleius Paterculus states that Mummius insisted on replacement for any lost art. Mummius if often used as the example of a very ignorant Roman who had no knowledge of refinement.
Polybius does say that soldiers played games on famous works of art. He does not say that this was done with Mummius’ knowledge. The comment is not meant to embarrass Mummius for he comes off well in other passages of Polybius. Paterculus’ comments about the contract to replace art was standard business practice. I think that the way to look at this is to think about people today who insure valuable, one of a kind antiques. These people know full well that duplicates can not be provided but perhaps replacements can be made of equal value. Mummius is also accused of mistaking a statue of Poseidon for one of Zeus. He did but modern art historians have made the same mistake. The best art Mummius took to Rome. He knew the difference. He dedicated statues at temples as had been done in the past. The literary and epigraphical testimony adds more. He left dedications at Delphi, Olympia and in numerous other places. He was given honors at Isthmus, Sicyon, Nemea, Tegea, Epidaurus, Sparta, Thebes- it is a long list.
He respected consecrated statues. He left them in place. He resisted demands to destroy statues of those statesmen in Greece who had opposed Rome. When Mummius learned that monuments to Achaeus, Aratus and Philopoemen were in the process of being shipped to Rome, he had those momuments reinstated. “Mummius was no unlettered ignoramus trampling thoughtlessly on Greek sentiments and heedless of the value and quality of Greek art.” He distributed art, which he could have kept for himself, all over Rome and Italy. Many inscriptions survive from towns in Italy, and Italica ,Spain, thanking Mummius.
Mummius career was advanced by his artistic generosity. He became Censor in 142. His negative image is probably due to his political opponents. I suggest that later writers such as Livy used information such as that against Mummius to indicate that the Republic was corrupt and ruined and thus worthy of conversion to the principate of Augustus.
Art and Ideology
Why did Rome not hold artists in high esteem when they held art in such high esteem? Why did Romans rely so heavily on Greek artists?
Of the known names most by far are Greek names. Pliny is our main source and he may have used Pasiteles’, a Greek sculpture who set up shop in Rome, history of art. He would have concentrated on Greek artists and ignored Roman. Greek artists often signed their works. This may be a habit of Greek artists. Then too many artists names may be Greek but these are names of people who are 2nd or 3rd generation children of those who originally moved to Rome. We here in the States hardly think that 3rd generation Hungarians are less American than descendants of John Adams. The hellenic roots of artists would not be as important as the Roman context.
Italic art existed before the coming of Greek art to Rome. Why then did Romans seek out talent from Greece?
For me this is difficult to follow. But take a look see.
Aemilius Paullus after Pydna had a relief carved showing battle scenes of Pydna. It was set up beside monuments set up by other Greek rulers. This work is usually sited as the first Roman historical relief. Gruen says no. Paullus wished to use Greek artists, Greek art along side other Greek rulers to show the Roman achievement within Greek cultural tradition. He wanted to speak to Greeks using their own artistic language. There is the ‘altar of Ahenobarbus’. One part show thiasos scene. It is thoroughly Hellenic. Figure movements are gentle and flow with grace. There is also a lustrum scene. It is more stiff, more serious. “The Romans here gave voice to what...expressed distinctive characteristics of the nation: gravitas of demeanor and adherence to tradition.”
Portraits
The typical Roman face shows a face durable, tough, serious with a sense of duty. Moderns now call this verism. It is often traced to Italic art, plebeian art, native art. Gruen says that this may derive from Hellenic art. He does not think that these come from death masks. Upon death wrinkles fade, cheeks sink. Yet verism shows these things. There are hellenic heads which show verism but Romans increased this verism and made it their own. I suggest that this has something to do with Roman desire to use art to reflect to others their sense of community and their distinctiveness.
Romans adapted and adopted Hellenic naturalism and drama (like the turn of the head) for their own purposes. The hope was to depict an individual with individual features but at the same time accentuate creases, serious visage to display a sense that the group, the aristocracy felt, even welcomed the burden of service to government and state. This style set them apart but kept them in the context of a cultural setting that any Greek would understand.
The appreciation of hellenic art was complex and thorough, the use of Greek artists was intentional. The idea was to use artists who understood Greek art and culture to convey the sense of Romaness a cultured Greek would understand.
The Theater and Aristocratic Culture
Lots of questions here.
What role did theater play in political ambition?
What relationship existed between artists and politicians?
What benefit came of that?
What did dispute over seating arrangements in a theater indicate?
Why was there a dispute over the construction of a permanent theater?
What role did theater have in showing values of aristocracy?
Gruen cautions using Cicero’s letters which talk of crowd activities in the theater in his time to what theater was like long before him.
Livy tells us that the ludi scaenici (plays) began in 364. There were playlets, mimes, Atellane farces. In 240 began the Ludi Romani- Livius Andronicus’ lst drama was performed at these. 212 the Ludi Apollinares in honor of Apollo, 204 Ludi Megalenses to celebrate the coming of Magna Mater to Rome. By 194 ludi scaenici were part of the celebration held in front of her temple on the Palatine. Plautus’ Pseudolus marked the temple’s dedication. Religious ceremonies and plays were closely linked. By 200 there were 11 days of plays annually. But extra days could be and were added. These were called instaurationes. Funeral games had these and perhaps triumphs.
What significance did these have for Roman life?
Aediles are often viewed as putting on shows to be able to advance to next office. The Curule Aedile was in charge of Ludi Romani. But it was the consul or Urban Praetor who gave the signal to start the chariots. There is no evidence that the Aedile claimed credit. The Curule Aedile also ran Ludi Megalenses, yet in 191 Plautius’ introduction to his Pseudolus only mentions the Urban Praetor. There appears to be no connection between holding aedilship and consulship. Many who did had to wait years. It is difficult to believe that ten years later, the public remembered some play or chariot race and voted based on that. In addition voting for Praetor and consul took place in comitia centuriata. This assembly gave more voice to moneyed classes and little to plebs. The prologues of Terence’s plays suggest that the playwright’s reputation was at state not the presiding magistrate.
In Cicero’s time it appears that aediles may have chucked out own money for the costs of plays but before this time, the state funded the activity. Think about it. Why would the audience applaud someone for a play when state money payed for it?
Plays did not promote political careers.
Triumphs may seem a place where someone could use performances to promote a career. There is only one- Mummius. This was unusual. There were some at funeral games. Most of these were gladiatorial contests.
In 206 writers and actors were given a place at Temple of Minerva on the Aventine to hold meetings and make offerings. This connects dramatic art to religion. The Roman magistrate presiding over a performance made it clear that theater was sponsored by government. (Perhaps like our National Endowment for the Humanities?)
Seating arrangements. In 194 a censorial edict specified seating for senators up front. But special seating for senators was already in place. This was another reminder to the people that the aristocracy backed culture, promoted theater. It also reminded the plebs of aristocratic superiority.
Why did the Romans take so long to build a permanent theater? They were always so suspicious of culture, weren’t they? This argument Gruen makes into a silly one. A permanent theater would remove from aristocracy a clear sign that they ran the show. They were willing to forego the cost savings of a permanent theater in order to indicate that plays were held at their discretion.
Some scholars say that Roman audiences were uncouth, crude, ignorant. Evidence for this comes from one play: Terence’s Hecyra. It failed twice and was a success on the third try. From this assumptions have been made about Roman populace. Gruen asks if the audience was so unsophisticated and clumsy why was this the only play to which this happened? If you wish his complete explanation, check out the book.
The Appeal of Hellas
Roman interest in Hellenism came before expansion. In the late 4th century several families had a Greek cognomen. Long before expansion statues of Alcibiades and Pythagoras had been set up in Rome. The Sibylline Books were in Greek. These were linked with Apollo’s cult. There was a temple to the Greek goddess Demeter. In 291 Romans built the temple for Aesculapius, Temple of Magna Mater- all long before period of expansion. This clearly shows that Romans were interested in Greek religion. By 283 there were Romans who were fluent in Greek. Livius Andronicus wrote in Latin but gave lectures in Greek. He was from Tarentum. Epigrams on tombs show Greek influence. Q. Fabius Pictor wrote a history in Greek. This was meant for Romans since several Greeks had already written histories of Rome. This also shows that Greek was acceptable to Romans. It does not reveal inferiority. Plautus’ plays have Greek phrases in them. Philosophers marooned in Rome for various reasons lectured in Greek to Roman audiences. Romans and Italians participated in Greek athletic contests and at religious festivals. “Romans embraced the legacy of Hellas.”
The fact that emissaries had to use Latin interpreters is due to desire for accuracy in matters of dispute. Plus Roman rulers felt that Greek or any other language should yield to Latin.
Roman leaders appear to be more concerned to use Hellenic culture for their own uses rather than simply to promote hellenism among Romans. The great Scipio Africanus lived like a Greek in Syracuse. He was criticized not for his hellenism but for inappropriate behavior. “Proper Romans harnessed Hellenism to their nation’s cause.”
Lucilius and Contemporary Scene.
He was upper class, very wealthy, the uncle to Lucilia who married Cn. Pompeius Strabo. She was the mother of Pompey the Great. He had a close connection to P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus. They became close friends. Another very close friend of Scipio was C. Laelius. They often ate together. Laelius once came upon Lucilius with rolled napkin in hand (as though it was a sword), chasing Scipio around the table. I cherish such moments. Such things bring people to life and give them such depth.
Gruen pretty much annihilates that contention that Lucilius was a mouthpiece for Scipio’s political program. He too fits into the theme of this book. Romans took seriously how they conducted themselves. Lucilius was not concerned about presence of Hellenism but he was concerned about how someone conducted themselves. It is a shame that more of him does not survive. In the surviving passages there is no hint of anti-Greek. He had some harsh, sharp comments about major political players. He was never prosecuted. Why? “Roman society respected the independence of writers. Artistic license reflects the sophistication and maturity of Rome’s intellectual and political communities.”
This work puts Romans in a whole new light. They were sophisticated in their appreciation and use of art.
No comments:
Post a Comment