Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
-
Upload
herodoteanfan -
Category
Documents
-
view
254 -
download
3
Transcript of Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 1/25
Zenodorus's "Colossus of Nero"
Author(s): Fred C. AlbertsonSource: Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Vol. 46 (2001), pp. 95-118Published by: University of Michigan Press for the American Academy in Rome
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4238781 .
Accessed: 21/04/2013 15:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
American Academy in Rome and University of Michigan Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 2/25
ZENODORUS'S"COLOSSUSOF NERO"
FredC. Albertson,The University f Memphis
1. Introduction
A mong the many monuments dominating the cityscape of ancient Rome, one of the most
?striking would have been the Colossus of Nero.1 This bronze statue, close to 32 m tall,
was originally commissioned by the emperor Nero, begun between A.D. 64 and 68, and in-
tended for the vestibule of his Domus Aurea. The last mention of the Colossus still standing
comes from the Calendar of 354.2 The statue may have been destroyed during the first sack
of Rome by Alaric and the Goths in 410 or toppled in one of a series of fifth-century earth-
quakes, then gradually dismantled in the years that followed.3 Nothing survives of the Colos-
sus today except for the foundations of its base-not the one marking the statue's original
location on the Velian but that near the Flavian Amphitheater, where the Colossus was moved
during the reign of Hadrian. Yet the existence of the Colossus is confirmed by numerous
literary references and miniaturized representations on coins and a gem.
In the early twentieth century, the Colossus was the subject of intense scholarly interest,
as evidenced by the work of Charles Hiilsen, Jean Gage, and above all FranSois Prechac.4
Interest then lulled until recently. Claudia Lega's reexcavation of the Hadrianic base in 1986
and its subsequent publication in volume 93 of the Bullettino comunale, together with an
extensive overview of the history of the Colossus, have provided a wealth of information on
the subject.5 The monograph by Marianne Bergmann published in 1993 has done much to
clarify the original appearance of the Colossus and the relationship of the statue to Nero's
Domus Aurea.6Bergmann's more recent work on the assimilation of the radiate/solar crown
I This article expands upon some ideas briefly presented
in Albertson 1996. The research for this article wasmade possible by a National Endowment for the Hu-
manities/American Academy in Rome Post-Doctoral
Fellowship in 1995-1996 and a Faculty Development
Leave from the University of Memphis. I would espe-
cially like to thank Professor Malcolm Bell, University
of Virginia and Mellon Professor at the American Acad-
emy, who facilitated my studies while in Rome. Dr.
Claudia del Monti of the office of the Soprintendenza
Archeologica di Roma very kindly provided access to
the podium of the Temple of Venus and Roma and the
excavations in the Valley of the Colosseum. A special
note of appreciation to Professor Eric Varner, EmoryUniversity, whose comments and criticisms as an out-
side reader helped greatly to clarify many of the argu-
ments presented here.
2 CIL 1.2:266. On the history of the Colossus, see Lega
1989-1990, 348-353; Lega 1993.
3Repairs to the adjacent Flavian Amphitheater due to
earthquake damage are recorded in a number of inscrip-
tions; see Lancaster 1998, 146 n. 11. The story found in
Magister Gregorius, claiming that the Colossus was
burned to the ground by Pope Gregory the Great, is a
medieval legend (Buddensieg 1965).
4Hiulsen and Jordan 1907, 320-32 1; Hiulsen 1926; Gage
1928; Prechac 1914; Prechac 1918-1919; Prechac 1920;
Pr6chac 1921; Prechac 1937.
5 Lega 1989-1990; Lega 1993.
6 Bergmann 1993.
MAAR46, 2001
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 3/25
96 FREDC. ALBERTSON
into the iconography of the Hellenistic and Roman rulers, appearing in 1998, has empha-
sized the reign of Nero, together with the Colossus, as a crucial stage in this process.7
Yet certain questions surrounding the Colossus's date of completion, its actual size, and
what or whom the statue was originally intended to represent remain unanswered and aremade all the more difficult by what seems to be conflicting information among the ancient
literary sources. This article focuses on these few select problems. The results proposed here,
however, are not intended to be simply interesting bits of antiquarianinformation. Most im-
portant to the study of Roman art, the Colossus provides an extremely rare opportunity to
analyze a work for which are known both the patron, in this instance the emperor Nero, and
the artist, recorded by Pliny the Elder as Zenodorus.8 No less significant is the fact that the
patron, actively engaged in the creation of this work, happens to be an emperor for whom
there is considerable information regarding his apparent use of the arts in imperial policy.
This has been the aspect of the Colossus most widely discussed by scholars. As demonstratedby Bergmann, the statue fits within an established pattern of solar imageryfound in Neronian
art and architecture, linked closely to recent victories in the East and the promise of a new
Golden Age.9The grandiosenature of the Colossus mayalso be viewed as part of this emperor's
extensive plans to renovate the capital as an "imperial city" by commissioning monuments of
a grand and opulent nature intent on glorifying the empire through the magnificence of its
ruler.10 n contrast, Zenodorus's role has essentially been overlooked. A renewed study of the
Colossus from the standpoint of the artist allows us to gain insight into the intentions of
Zenodorus and the relationship that may have existed between this individual and his pa-
tron. I argue here that Zenodorus brought to the Colossus certain aspects of tradition, em-
ploying techniques, styles, and a standard of measurement drawn from earlier Greek colossi.
At the same time Zenodorus may be the source for the controversy arising in antiquity and
still continuing today: was the Colossus originally a statue of Sol/Helios or an image of Nero
himself with solar attributes?
2. The "Neronian-Vespasianic"olossus
The most important literary reference concerning the Colossus comes from the Historia
Naturalis 34.45-47 of Pliny the Elder, an eyewitness to the statue's construction. The rel-
evant passage is cited here.
verumomnemamplitudinemtatuarum iusgenerisvicit aetatenostraZenodorusMercuriofacto in civitate GalliaeArvernisper annos decem, HS ICCCCImanipretii,postquamsatis artem bi adprobaverat,Romamaccitus a Nerone, ubi destinatum llius principissimulacrocolossum fecit [CVIS] pedumin longitudinem, qui dicatus Soli venerationi
I Bergmann 1998, 133-230, esp. 189-194 for the Colos-
sus and the Domus Aurea. Add to the bibliography of
the Colossus: Medria 1996; Ensoli 2000, 66-71, 86-90;Smith 2000.
8 Albertson 1996.
9 Bergmann 1998, 133-230. Concerning solar iconogra-
phy in Neronian architecture, note the fascinating and
often overlooked study on the domed octagonal hall of
the Domus Aurea by Voisin 1987, 509-543. For an ex-
cellent summary of the debate concerning the Domus
Aurea and Nero's intentions, with an extensive bibliog-raphy, see Zevi 1996, 320-331.
10Keeping in mind that connection with the Hellenistic
East does not infer divine kingship, see the remarks by
Balland 1965, 344-393; Morford 1968, 158-179; Aiardi
1978, 90-103; Voisin 1987; Hemsoll 1990, esp. 15-16.
Similarconclusions but different derivation:Elsner 1994.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 4/25
ZENODORUS'S"COLOSSUSOF NERO" 97
est damnatis sceleribus illius principis. mirabamur n officina non modo ex argillasimilitudinem nsignem, verum et de parvis admodum surculis quod primumoperisinstaurati uit. ea statua ndicavit nterissefundendiaerisscientiam,cum et Nerolargiriaurumargentumqueparatusesset et Zenodorus scientia fingendi caelandiquenulliveterum postponeretur. statuam Arvernorum cum faceret provinciae Dubio Avitopraesidente, duo pocula Calamidismanu caelata, quae Cassio Salano avunculoeius,praeceptorisuo, GermanicusCaesaradamatadonaverat,aemulatusest, ut vix ulla dif-
ferentiaesset artis.quantomaior Zenodoropraestantia uit, tantomagis deprehendituraeris obliteratio.
But all the giganticstatuesof this class havebeen beaten in our period by Zenodoruswith the Hermes orMercurywhichhe madein the communityof the Arverni n Gaul; ttook him ten yearsand the sum paid for its makingwas 40,000,000 sesterces.Havinggiven sufficientproof of his artistic skill in Gaul he was summonedto Romeby Nero,
and there made the colossal statue, [106.5] feet high, intended to representthat em-perorbut now,dedicated to the sun after the condemnationof thatemperor's rimes, tis anobjectof awe.In his studiowe used not onlyto admire he remarkableikenessof
the claymodel but also to marvelat the frameof quitesmalltimberswhichconstitutedthe first stage of the work put in hand. This statue has shown that skill in bronze-founding has perished,since Nero was quitereadyto provide gold and silver,andalsoZenodoruswas counted inferior to none of the artists of old in his knowledgeof mod-
elling andchasing.When he was making he statue for the Arverni,when the governorof the provincewas Dubius Avitus,he produced facsimiles of two chased cups, thehandiworkof Calamis,which GermanicusCaesarhad prizedhighlyand hadpresentedto his tutor CassiusSalanus,Avitus'uncle;the copies were so skillfullymadethat there
was scarcelyanydifference n artistrybetweenthemand the originals.The greaterwasthe eminence of Zenodorus,the more we realizehow the art of workingbronze hasdeteriorated.
Pliny is the only ancient author to make reference to Zenodorus as the artist of the Co-
lossus. Although the name suggests he was a Greek,12we know nothing of his previous back-
ground other than what Pliny provides. The passage clearly confirms that the Colossus in
Rome was made of bronze and, if one can accept Pliny's words at face value, was originally
intended to represent Nero himself. The idea for the statue came directly from the emperor,
for it was he who brought Zenodorus to Rome from Gaul. There Zenodorus had spent ten
years, most likely the previous ten years, working on a colossal statue of Mercury for the
Arverni. The location of this Mercury is generally held to be Puy-de-Dome, site of a national
sanctuary of the Arverni.13
Zenodorus must have been brought to Rome either just before or just after the fire of
A.D. 64. Suetonius tells us that the statue was intended to be set up in the vestibule of the
Domus Aurea, whose construction begins after this date:
vestibulumeius fuit in quo colossus CXXpedum staret psiuseffigie.
11Latin ext, with the exception of height,fromJan andMayhoff1897, 178-179. English trans.Rackham1952,161-163.ForPliny'suse of longitudo o mean"height,"see Gage 1928, 109n. 2.
12 Gross 1972, for references.Massilia,AsiaMinor,Al-exandria,and Syriahave at one time or anotherbeensuggestedas Zenodorus'splace of origin.
13 For bibliography on the site, excavated between 1872and 1878, see Bober 1945-1947, 35 n. 9; Charbonneau
1961; Leibundgut 1984, 276 n. 90. On this Mercury and
possible representations of it in the minor arts, see Ferri
1933; Bober 1945-1947; Blanchet 1945-1947; Boucher
1971; Moreno 1966; Gross 1972; Boucher 1976, 103-105,
figs. 172-175, map 13;Leibundgut 1984,275-282. On fur-
ther attributionsto Zenodorus, see Frel 1987.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 5/25
98 FREDC. ALBERTSON
[TheDomusAurea]had a vestibulein whichthe 120-footColossuswith [Nero's]own
imagemightbe set up.14
Even if Zenodorus had been brought to Rome slightly earlier, in A.D. 62 or 63, to design andbegin preparations for erecting the Colossus, any work on the actual construction of the statue
would have been destroyed by the great fire of A.D. 64.1' Furthermore, it would seem that the
property on which the Colossus was originally constructed was not available to Nero until
after the fire.16 We can be certain that Zenodorus was in Gaul in A.D. 54, for Pliny tells us
that the sculptor was commissioned to make two silver cups by Lucius Duvius Avitus, legatus
pro praetoreof the province of Aquitania in that year.'7A possible chronology for Zenodorus's
career can therefore be established: A.D. 54-63 in Gaul working on the Mercury,just before
or after A.D. 64 in Rome designing the Colossus for Nero.
Pliny's remarks suggest that the original Colossus was intended to represent Nero him-
self, but by the time the text was written, it had been dedicated to Sol. This change is also
confirmed in more detail by Cassius Dio:
In the sixthconsulshipof Vespasian ndthe fourthof Titustheprecinctof Pax was dedi-
catedand the Colossuswas setup (i3pu0,9)n the SacredWay.This statue s saidto have
been one hundred feet in height and to have borne the featuresof Nero, according o
some,or thoseof Titus,according o others.'8
So, according to Dio the Colossus was "set up" in A.D. 75. This fact is confirmed by early
Christian chroniclers, although the year they provide varies between A.D. 74 and A.D. 77.19Suetonius refers to the same event, when in the Vita Vespasianithe author remarks:
Vespasianalsopresentedeminentpoetswithprincely argessandgreatrewards,and art-
ists, too, suchas the restorer refectorem] of the Venusof Cos and of the Colossus.20
The question remainswhat work on the Colossus was done under Vespasian and what changes
may have been effected on Zenodorus's original design. The assumption up to this point has
'4 Suet. Nero 3 1. 1; confirmed by Mart. Spect. 2.1-3. On
the vestibulum and its post-64 date, see Lega 1989-1990, 353-354; Cassatella and Panella 1995. However,
Nero's large-scale plans to link the imperial residence
on the Palatine with a villa on the Esquiline, in the form
of the Domus Transitoria and then the Domus Aurea,
seem to have predated the great fire; see Balland 1965,
351-352; Morford 1968, 163-165. For this reason, the
Colossus may have been envisioned by Nero before the
great fire as part of a larger palatial complex, and
Zenodorus's presence in Rome earlier than A.D. 64 can-
not be ruled out.
15
Damage of 64 fire in this area: Panella 1990, 60-61,69-7 1; Zeggio 1996, 159-164. The Temple of Venus and
Roma has cancelled out any trace of the vestibulum of
the Domus Aurea and the original base of the Colossus
(Panella 1990, 70). Piero Meogrossi has suggested to me
that the original base may be instead on the other side
of the Sacra Via, on the site of what is tentatively identi-
fied as that of the Temple of Jupiter Stator.
16 Morford 1968, 160-162. Also note that there are no
identifiable remains of the Domus Transitoriain this im-mediate area: Schingo 1996, 145-158, fig. 147.
17 Wotawa 1905.
18 Dio 65.15.1, trans. Cary 1925, 289. In connection with
works of art, Dio uses i6pv- simply to relate the place-
ment and/or the enacting and completion of a commis-
sion, e.g., 37.9.2, 37.34.3, 51.22.2, and 55.9.6; see the
interpretations of Hiilsen 1907, 321 n. 1 and Platner and
Ashby 1929, 130. Suet. Vesp 18.1 uses refectorin describ-
ing this same event; for this term, see Thomas and
Witschel 1992, 152.
19Hieron. ab Abr. a.p.C. 75; Cassiod. Chron.Min. a.p.C
77; Chron. Pasch. a.p.C. 74; Bede, Chron. Min. 285, 298.
Texts are conveniently found in Lega 1989-1990, 366;
see too Howell 1968, 293-294.
20 Suet. Vesp. 18.1, trans. Rolfe 1914, 295.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 6/25
ZENODORUS'S"COLOSSUSOF NERO" 99
generally been that the Colossus was completed before Nero's death in A.D. 68 and that the
original statue was then altered for obvious political reasons under Vespasian. A notable ex-
ception to this assumption was offered by G. Lugli, who proposed that if the Colossus was in
fact finished, the statue was not brought to the site on the Velian and assembled there until
the reign of Vespasian.21 Lugli assumes that Zenodorus had already cast the Colossus in sepa-
rate pieces at the foundry, which were then brought and assembled on site at this later date.
The head originally intended for the Colossus was altered. In analyzing the literary sources,
P. Howell reached the same conclusion as Lugli.22Bergmann has suggested as well that the
Colossus may not have been finished.23
As Lugli and Howell have argued, only one conclusion seems to reconcile the rather dis-
parate information put forward by Pliny, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio-that the Colossus was
unfinished by the time of Nero's death in A.D. 68. The evidence is not just literary, however.
The length of time necessary to construct previous colossi of comparable size supports thisconclusion.24 Zenodorus himself had just taken ten years to construct a colossal statue of
Mercury in Gaul smaller than the one begun in Rome.25The comparable Colossus of Rhodes
by Chares of Lindos took twelve years to complete, from 304 to 293 B.c.26Pheidias's Athena
Promachos, at a height of only 7-10 m, was constructed over a nine-year period.27The simple
fact is that if Zenodorus had begun the actual construction of the Colossus of Nero in A.D.
64, four years would not have been enough time to complete a work of such dimensions.
A possible explanation for the lengthy time involved in the construction of colossi was
the casting technique employed. As argued by D. E. L. Haynes, this technique is best known
from the Colossus of Rhodes by Chares of Lindos.28The process of constructing the RhodianColossus is described in detail by Philo of Byzantium in De septem orbis miraculis. The text,
although probably written in the fourth century, is borrowed from a knowledgeable Helle-
nistic source that seems well acquainted with the technological aspects of bronze casting.29
As Philo remarks, most bronze statues are first modeled, subsequently dismembered and cast
in parts, and then rejoined.30The Colossus of Rhodes, however, was cast in situ, whereby on
a previous cast piece, a mold was made above it for the next part; when molten bronze was
poured in, the new bronze would fuse with the edge of the existing part below. No riveting
was necessary. Philo relates the process in the clearest possible terms:
Havingbuilt abaseof white marble, the artist] irst fixed upon it the feet of the Colossus
up to the height of the ankle-joints,having worked out the proportionssuitable to a
21Lugli 1961, 4-5. For those who assume the Colossus
was completed before Nero's death, see references in
Lega 1989-1990, 348-352; Kreikenbom 1992, 95.
22 Howell 1968; followed by Carandini 1988, 383-384.
23 Bergmann 1993, 9; Bergmann 1998, 190. Yet the au-
thor still presents a full-scale reconstruction on both
occasions with a portrait of Nero.
24 Albertson 1996, 803.
25 Although the actual size of the colossus for the
Arverni is not known, Paus. 1.18.6 confirms that the
two largest statues ever built were the Colossus of
Rhodes and the Colossus of Nero. So clearly Zeno-
dorus's colossus for the Arverni was smaller in size.
26 Moreno1973-1974.
27 Lundgreen 1997, esp. 190-191 for discussion of date
and size.
28 Arguments are outlined in Haynes 1957; Haynes 1992,
121-128.
29 Haynes1957, 312.
30 Here describing the direct or indirect lost-wax tech-
nique, known from numerous extant large bronzes. On
this technique, see Mattusch 1988, 10-20; Mattusch
1996, 8-18; Tzachou-Alexandri 2000.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 7/25
100 FREDC. ALBERTSON
divineimagedestinedto stand to a heightof seventy cubits;for the sole of the foot al-readyexceeded [in its length the height of] otherstatues.For this reason t was impos-
sibleto hoistup the rest [of the statue]andplaceit upon [the feet], andas when ahouse
is being built, the whole work had to riseupon itself.3'
Philo then specifically relates how this technique of casting in situ differs from that of other
bronze statues:
Andfor this reason,while otherstatuesarefirstmodeled,then dismemberedorcastingin parts,and finallyrecomposedanderected, n this case [the Colossusof Rhodes], after
the firstparthad been cast, the second was modelledupon it, and when this had been
cast, the third was built upon it, and for the following part againthe samemethodof
workingwasadopted.Forthe individualmetalsections could not be moved.32
To ensure the huge quantities of bronze necessary for the process, new foundries would need
to be built upon each successive stage of the scaffolding.33The interior of the statue was
crucial to this process. Philo describes an interior core or armaturecomposed partly of stone
blocks held together by iron; from a pillarlike core of squared stone blocks, horizontal iron
beams projected out to hold an iron framework, a lattice conforming roughly to the shape of
the statue.34Evidently, the technique required that much of the area comprising the interior
of the statue would have been filled with stone blocks.
One could arguethat this technique of fused castingin situ was also employed by Zenodorus
for the Colossus of Nero.35Pliny's praise of the skills of Zenodorus, especially in comparison
with those possessed by earlier artists of colossi, would suggest this artist'sknowledge and useof traditional techniques.36More enlightening, perhaps, the technique of casting in situ would
explain why, when it became necessary to move the Colossus during the reign of Hadrian, the
statue was not disassembled and transported in parts to its new site but moved in its entirety.
The Colossus, originally standing at the crest of the Velian along the Sacra Via, was moved
during the reign of Hadrian, eastward to a location at the base of the hill next to the Flavian
Amphitheater (fig. 1).37The move was necessitated by the construction of the Temple of Ve-
nus Felix and Roma Aeterna on the statue's original site. For this information, we rely prima-
rily on the author of the VitaHadriani in the Historia Augusta:
With the aidof the architectDecrianusHadrianraised heColossusand, keeping t in anupright position, moved it awayfrom the place in which the Temple of Rome is now,thoughits weightwasso vastthat he hadto furnish or the work asmanyas twenty-fourelephants.This statue he then consecrated o the Sun, afterremoving he features ofNero,to whom t hadpreviouslybeendedicated,and he also planned,with the assistanceof the architectApollodorus, o make a similarone for the Moon.38
31 Philo 4.3, translation from Haynes 1957, 311.
32 Philo 4.4, translation from Haynes 1957, 311.
33 Haynes 1992, 125-126.
34 Philo 4.2 and 4.5; see Haynes 1957, 311-312. For re-
construction and cross section, see Gabriel 1932, esp.
337, fig. 1.
35 Haynes 1992, 127-128 n. 15.
36 Concerning the remarks by Isager 1991, 94 that
Zenodorus's knowledge of casting techniques was want-
ing, especially in terms of the correct alloys, see discus-
sion below.
3 The plan from Lanciani 1893-1901, pl. 29 is repro-
duced here to mark the statue's location and not the spe-
cific dimensions of the base.
38 SHA, Hadr. 19.12-13, trans. Magie 1922, 61.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 8/25
ZENODORUS'S"COLOSSUSOF NERO" 101
I..:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(from Lanciani 1990, pl. 29).~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......
-A ~ ~ A
The transporting of the Colossus is confirmed by archaeological evidence. The Hadrianic
base of the Colossus was initially discovered by Antonio Nibby in 1828; he unearthed a brick-
faced, rectangular base measuring 17.60 x 14.75 m, with a height of 2.25 m, originally cov-
ered with marble revetments. The base remained visible until 1933, when it was sheared off
and paved over by the Via dei Fori Imperiali. The site had been hurriedly reexcavated by
Colini, and a sounding along its perimeter was again performed by Lega in 1986.39In addi-
tion to the base, C. Panella has recognized within the podium on the east side of the Temple
of Venus and Roma the remnants of the brick-faced ramp used in the transport of the Colos-
sus.40Although ancient sources disagree as to the exact year, the move most likely occurred
between A.D. 126 and 128.A'
The need to transport the statue in its entirety,essentially dragged with the aid of twenty-
four elephants, would be understandable if the Colossus had originally been cast in situ fol-
lowing the technique described by Philo of Byzantium. First, since the individual parts had
39 Her results together with Colini's unpublished notes
appear in Lega 1989-1990, 339-348.
40Panella 1985, 110, 111 fig. 8 (markedas Q1, Q2, and Q3).
41 Lega 1989-1990, 356, who notes that brick stamps
found in the ramp and base date to A.D. 123 (342). See
also discussion in Prechac 1918-1919.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 9/25
102 FRED C. ALBERTSON
not been cast separately nd attached o createthe original,cuttingup the statuealong initial
joins and reassemblingts partswas not possible;the statue'sconstituentpartshad essen-
tially been fused together. Second, the structural ntegrityof the whole depended upon an
interior core of stone, whichwould haverequired hat both the bronze "shell"and its inte-rior structurebe moved together.Unfortunatelywe have no surviving nformation, ther than
for the Colossus,on how colossal statueswere moved. We do know that other colossiwere,
in fact, transportedby the Romans o the capital.Plinyinformsus that a 30-cubit-tallApollo
on the Capitolinewas broughtfrom Apolloniain Pontus and that a colossal Heraklesby
Lysippuscame to Rome after the sack of Tarentum y Q. FabiusMaximus n 209 B.c.42Pliny
recounts a notable feature that perhaps has bearingon this problemwhen he refers to the
colossalZeusby LysippusatTarentum: Aremarkableact about this statue s that, although
it can be moved, as they say, by hand, the system by which its weight is distributed s such
that it cannot be dislodged by storms."43 et, justa few sentences ater,the authoradds thatFabius Maximus eft this work because of its size and the difficultyof moving it, while the
smalleralthoughstill colossalHeraklesby the same artistwas taken to Rome.44Was t simply
a questionof size, or is this againanexamplewhere, although he solid castbody seemed to
move with the touch of the hand,the dependenceon aninnercoreprevented he movement
of the statue in its entirety?45
Thistechniqueof casting n situ would explain whyCharesof Lindosspenttwelveyears
on the Colossus of Rhodes,whyZenodorusspentten years n Gaulworkingon a colossusof
Mercury, ndwhyonce in Romehe would have needed more than fouryears o completethe
Colossus of Nero. This was a time-consumingprocesswhich could not be speeded up bymoremoneyor moremanpower.This techniquealso required he statueto be constructed
on site,not asa series of dismemberedpartswhich could then be assembledatany ocation.46
Dio's date of A.D. 75 for the completionof the statue fits well the timetable or the castingof
a colossus employing he techniquesdescribedby Philo of Byzantium.
At thetimeof Nero's death n A.D. 68, one canenvisiononlyapartially onstructed tatue
standingon the Velian.Certainly his would have been a statuewith no head, although a
head, possibly resemblingNero himself,had been designed orthis statueandexisted as part
of the model seen by Pliny in Zenodorus'sworkshop.Only afterVespasiancame to power
was a decision made to continue construction.47 uetonius'sunnamedrejectorof the Colos-
sus, employedby Vespasian,must be none otherthanZenodorus, or no one else in the capi-
tal would have had the expertiseto finish the statue.48The original designwas continued,
some would arguewith possible alterations o the head. The Colossus was completedand
42 Pliny, NH 34.40. On the basis of remarks made by
Niketas Choniates, De signis Constantinopolitanis 5,
Moreno 1995, 281-282 estimates the dimensions of the
Herakles to have been five times lifesize.
43 Pliny,NH 34.40.
44 Confirmed by Strabo 6. 278.
45 Johnson 1927, 139: the statue could be "slightly
rocked." Pollitt 1986, 48 suggests the Zeus was equipped
with some sort of device-gears, internal counterweights,
or wheels-that made it possible to move the statue by
hand. See also Dorig 1964; Moreno 1971.
46 Contra Lugli 1961 and Howell 1968. See Lega 1989-
1990, 375 n. 86 for a list of scholars arguing that
Vespasian moved the Colossus from its original loca-
tion.
47 On Flavian continuation of Neronian projects, see the
recent contribution by Davies 2000, 36-42, who notesthat structures begun in the emperor's name were sur-
prisingly not renamed after damnatio memoriae, "at east
in common parlance" (37). Thus we have the Baths of
Nero as well as the Colossus of Nero.
48 Vesp. 18.1. Albertson 1996.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 10/25
ZENODORUS'S"COLOSSUSOF NERO" 103
dedicated to Sol under Vespasian in A.D. 75 on its original site, the vestibule of the Domus
Aurea, which had now been transformed into an elaborate porticus.49Only this conclusion
gives sense to the combined remarks of Pliny, Suetonius, and Dio. This also explains
Suetonius's use of the verb staret in Nero 31.1, suggesting Nero's unfulfilled intention of erect-ing the statue.50The Colossus, interestingly enough, never portrayed Nero; its true patron
turned out to be Vespasian.
3. TheHeight of the Colossus
One important aspect of the Colossus that has remained unsolved is its height.51Our most
reliable source would be Pliny the Elder, who visited Zenodorus's workshop and presumably
would have had firsthand information from the artist on the intended height of the Colossus.Unfortunately the relevant passage in Pliny's Historia Naturalis is corrupt; the letters in the
surviving manuscripts are incomprehensible.52Various scholars have interpreted Pliny's mea-
surement as 106.5, 119, and 119.5 Roman feet.53The difficulties are compounded by the wide
range of measurements recorded in numerous other literary sources, both ancient and medi-
eval. These are arranged chronologically in table 1.54The difference between the upper and
lower measurements has usually been explained by the exclusion or inclusion of the base
and/or rays of the crown in computing the total height.55
Through a process of elimination, Cassius Dio's measurement of 100 feet maybe dropped.
Dio seems to be clearly rounding off.56 Suetonius's 120 feet seems also an estimate, relatingless to the Colossus and more to the height of the porticus designed to surround it57or mea-
sured by sight in relation to the Flavian Amphitheater.58
There is a clear grouping of sources favoring 107 Roman feet for the height of the Colos-
sus. All are late in date. The earliest source for 107 would seem to be St. Jerome's Chronicle,
composed A.D. 380-381.59 This is a Latin translation, updated with additional information, of
the earlier Chronicle of Eusebius, covering universal events to A.D. 325. Eusebius's work is
known primarily through Jerome's Latin version, a thirteenth-century Armenian translation,
and excerpts incorporated into the chronicle of the early ninth-century scholar Georgius
Syncellus.60The 127 feet of the Chronica ad Syncelle and the 128 feet of the Armenian manu-
script could well be corruptions of Eusebius's original 107 feet, which is reproduced byJerome
and all subsequent Latin chroniclers. Another possibility is that since Jerome is known to
49On this structure, see van Deman 1923; van Deman
1925; Cassatella and Panella 1995; Papi 1995.
50 Howell 1968, 293; Smith 2000, 537.
51 Lega 1989-1990, 347-348; Bergmann 1993, 9.
52 Lega 1989-1990,347.
53 Lega 1989-1990, 347 and 374 n. 45.
54 Sources are found in appendix 1 of Lega 1989-1990,364-368.
55 Bradley 1978, 175; Lega 1989-1990, 347.
56 Pr6chac1920, 21.
57 Smith2000, 537.
58 Suetonius would be composing his life of Nero in the
late 120s, following Bradley 1978, 21, at precisely the
time when the Colossus had just been moved.
59 Hier. Chron. anno p.C. 75: Helm 1956, 188.
60 Karst 1911, 217; Dindorf 1829, 647. On the relation-
ships between these manuscripts and remarks on their
reliability, see Mosshammer 1979, 65-83, esp. 78-81.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 11/25
104 FRED C. ALBERTSON
Table1: Height of the Colossusof Neroas recorded y literary ources, isted chronologically.
Sourcesfound in Lega 1989-1990, 3 64-3 68 (app. 1).
Date Source Heightin Romaneet(lengthof raysof crown, f given)
A.D. 64-68 Pliny,NH 34.45 corrupt,variouslygivenas 106.5, 119, 119.5
ca. 125 Suetonius, Nero 31.1 120
ca. 230 Dio 66.15.1 100
4th century Curiosum 102.5 (22.5)
4th century Notitiaurbisregionum14 102.5 (22.5)4th century Notitia locorumurbisRomae 106.5 (22.5)
ca.325 Eusebius,ChroniconChronicon dSyncelle 127Armenian ersion 128
ca.380 Hieronymus,Chronicum usebiiab 107hieronyma etractatumnnop.C. 75
ca.520 Cassiodorus,ChronicaMinoraannop.C. 77 107
6th century Chronicon aschaleannop.C. 74 107
7th century Bede, ChronicaMaiora 107
8th century Libermonstrorum.3 107
12th century MirabiliaurbisRomae14 108
12thcentury Graphia ureaeUrbis 108
early 13th century MagisterGregorius,De mirabilibusUrbisRomae 126
13th century Le miracolede Roma 107
14th century RanulfHigden,Polychronicon 126
have added information to Eusebius's entries, especially those concerning Rome, 107 feet
may be St. Jerome's correction of Eusebius's figure.61
St. Jerome's 107 feet, and perhaps the same figure found in Eusebius, may be a rounding
off of 106.5. This precise measurement is found in the fourth-century Notitia locorum urbis
Romae.62 The 102.5 Roman feet listed in the contemporary Curiosumand Notitia63 imply in-
volves a miscopy of one letter, CIIS in place of CVIS. The accuracy of these accounts (the
precise figures with fractions) and the use of a common source are suggested by the additional
61On Jerome's additions, see Helm 1929.
62 Codex Bernensis 451, fols. 144b-146a. Valentini and
Zucchetti 1940, 192; Nordh 1936, 29-35; Nordh 1949,
13-14, 35-37.
63 Valentini and Zucchetti 1940, 100 and 169; Nordh
1949, 78. Note that Manuscript "S" of the Notitia, which
Nordh 1949, 25 associates with Bernensis 451, has 103.5
feet, which also may be seen as a miscopying of CIIIS
from CVIS. Following the stemma in Nordh, both have
a direct link to the original of the Notitia.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 12/25
ZENODORUS'S"COLOSSUSOF NERO" 105
measurement f the raysof the crownas 22.5 feet. This source is generally houghtto be an
official documentcomposedduringthe reignof Diocletian.M4 t.Jeromemost certainlyhad
accessto this information. 06.5is mostlikelythe figuregivenby Plinyaswell.65
If we speculate that the height of the Colossuswas 106.5 Roman eet andthe length ofthe rayswere each22.5, the appearanceof fractions n these measurementsdraws mmedi-
ate attention.In Pliny's ist of colossi, the authoralwaysgiveswhole numbers, n multiples
of ten;for example,the Apollo on the Capitolinebrought by MarcusLucullus from Pontic
Apollonia is 30 cubits;the Colossusof Zeus at Tarentumby Lysippus40 cubits;the Colos-
sus of Rhodes 70 cubits; and the TuscanicApollo in the Templeof Augustus 50 Roman
feet.66 t has been suggestedthat Pliny may just be roundingoff in every case,67but it is
important o note thata heightof 70 cubits for the Colossus of Rhodes is reportedby other
ancientsources andis not uniqueto Pliny,68 hilePliny'sheightof 40 cubits for the Lysippan
Zeus at Tarentum s repeatedby Lucilius.69Most striking s the fact that Pliny consciouslygives Romancolossi in feet and Greek colossi in cubits; since Pliny is ultimately drawing
the lattermeasurements rom Greeksources,70hey must denote Greek cubits and not the
shorter Roman cubit.7' As a Greek working in Rome, Zenodorusmay have designed the
Colossus of Nero not in Roman feet but accordingto a standardtraditionallyassociated
with Greek colossi, a cubit and most likely a Rhodiancubit. The measurements or the
Neronian Colossusgiven by authors n Romanfeet havebeen convertedultimately rom a
Greek standard.
Calculating he measurements f the Colossusof Nero using a Rhodiancubit of 0.525
m72and a Roman oot of 0.296 m73 results n:
Height: 106.5 Roman eet x 0.296 m/Roman oot = 31.524 m
31.524 m . 0.525 m/Rhodiancubit = 60.04 Rhodiancubits
Lengthof raysof crown: 22.5 Roman eet x 0.296 m/Roman oot = 6.66 m
6.66 m - 0.525 m/Rhodiancubit = 12.68Rhodiancubits
The suggestion s put forwardhere that if the height of the Colossus was 106.5 Roman eet
and the length of each rayof the solar crownwas 22.5 Roman eet, in Zenodorus'soriginal
64 Chastagnol 1996; Arce 1999. Hermansen 1978, 131-
138, 140-145 is less definitive but does admit the au-
thor "had access to official material or informations"
(137).
65 As concluded also by Detlefsen 1866-1873 and
Rackham 1952 in their editions of Pliny; see too TLL
3:1725, s.v. colossus.
66 Pliny, NH 34.3 9-45.
67 Kreikenbom 1992, 3 n. 11.
68 Philo, de sept. mir. 4.3; Strab. 14.652; Sext. Emp. Math.
7.107.
69 Lucilius, as quoted in Nonius, s.v. cubitus (from
Johnson 1927, 274-275 no. 18).
70For Pliny's Greek sources, see Sellers 1896, xvi-xxxvi;
Isager 1991, 102 and n. 344.
71 See comments concerning the Colossus of Rhodes by
Maryon 1956, 73, together with his list of Greek cubits
(74, fig. 5). The confusion between Greek and Roman
cubits also occurs in antiquity, as in Vibius Sequester
142 (Herbert 1989, 19, no. 35), who gives the height of
the Colossus of Rhodes at 105 feet. The author, how-
ever, has clearly taken the traditional 70 Rhodian cubits
assigned to this statue and converted it to feet using aRoman cubit of 0.444 m.
72 Moreno 1994, 138.
73 Moreno 1994, 138; Wilson Jones 1989, 37 and n. 7.
On the variations in the Roman foot, see Hecht 1979; de
Zwarte 1994, 128-13 1.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 13/25
106 FREDC. ALBERTSON
y~~~~
Fig. 2. Reverseof a bronze multiple, minted at Rome ca.A.D.
240, Colossusand the FlavianAmphitheater photo
FototecaUnione,AmericanAcademy n Rome).
Fig. 3. Amethyst gem (impression),Colossusof Nero.Berlin,
StaatlicheMuseen,Antikensammlung nv. FG 2665 (from
Bergmann1993, pl. 2, fig. 3; photo I. Pini).
design it is no coincidence that these measurements are exactly 60 and 12 2/3 Rhodian cubits.
In the case of the length of the rays, the fraction of 2/3 of a cubit is not unusual, as 2/3 of a
cubit equals one foot.74 From a Roman standpoint a unit of 60 is the perfect commensurable
dimension, incorporating multiples of six, ten, and twelve.75
The height of 106.5 Roman feet or 60 Rhodian cubits would be the distance from the
soles of the feet to the top of the head. Suetonius's height of 120 Roman feet (x 0.296 m =35.52 m = 67.66 cubits) could be an estimated total height taking into account the extension
of the rays of the crown above the head and including the base.
The height of 60 cubits for the Colossus of Nero confirms that Zenodorus once again
looked to previous bronze colossi for models, specifically the Colossus of Rhodes. The use of
the Colossus of Rhodes as Zenodorus's source of inspiration for the Colossus of Nero is not
surprising;76 he Rhodian Colossus would certainly rank as the most revered and renowned
example of this type. The intended rivalrybetween the two was immediately apparent to the
Roman viewer. As early as ca. A.D. 80, Martial remarks: "Let not the mass, girt with rays of
the wondrous Colossus thatexalts to surpass the laborsof Rhodes,detainyou."77 What isperhaps new to the discussion of the Colossus of Nero is just how dependent Zenodorus was
on its Rhodian counterpart. We can now see that Zenodorus continued the tradition of the
Rhodian statue not just in terms of its casting technique but also in his use of Rhodian cubits
as the standard.
74 OCD 3rd ed., 942-943, s.v. "Measures." Sixteen
daktyloi equals one foot; 24 daktyloi equals one cubit.
75 As often seen in architectural planning: Wilson Jones
1989, 60-65, and Wilson Jones 1993, 27. The possi-
bility that Zenodorus employed a Roman cubit of 0.444m (1.5 feet) is ruled out. Although this would convert
the Colossus' height to precisely 71 Roman cubits, 71
seems unlikely, for as a prime number it is unwork-
able in any proportional arrangement.
76 Prechac 1918-1919, 292; Kriekenbom 1992, 97.
77 Mart., epig. 1.70.7-8: nec te detineat miri radiata co-
lossi quae Rhodium moles vincere gaudet opus; trans. Ker1919, 75. See also Chron. Pasc. anno p.C. 74, 128 or
130, and 492, for another comparison between the two
colossi.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 14/25
ZENODORUS'S"COLOSSUSOF NERO" 107
4. Zenodorus'sDesignfor the Colossus
Until recently, the appearance of the Colossus was known in art only through miniature scale
representations on two third-century coins. A sestertius issued in A.D. 223 under AlexanderSeverus depicts the emperor and an attendant between the Flavian Amphitheater and the
Meta Sudans; in the background stands the Colossus with radiate crown.78More helpful is a
bronze multiple from the reign of Gordian III, minted ca. A.D. 240 (fig. 2).79 The image of the
reverse shows the Colossus to the right of the Flavian Amphitheater and behind the Meta
Sudans. We can clearly distinguish a radiate crown on the head, a nude figure with the right
hip jutting to the side, and the right arm supported by a rudder. The attributes of rudder and
radiate crown have often been ascribed by scholars as later second- or even third-century
additions.80In her monograph on the Colossus, Bergmann introduced to the problem of the
reconstruction of the Colossus an amethyst gem in the Staatliche Museen, Berlin (fig. 3).81 Acomparison of the image on the gem with that on the third-century bronze multiple shows
that the same statue is represented. The gem also allows another attribute to be included-a
globe on which the rudder rests. The significance of the Berlin gem is its date, late first to
early second century. Thus it reproduces the "Neronian-Vespasianic" Colossus as designed
by Zenodorus. The gem also verifies that the Colossus, as completed in A.D. 75, remained
unchanged throughout its history. The third-century coins reveal that no lasting alterations
were made during its history.82Perhaps the technical process ensured this continuity, as radi-
cal changes in design could not have been instituted, especially attributes that served as im-
portant structural members. When we examine the reconstruction of the Colossus of Neropublished by Bergmann (fig. 4),83 the attributes and pose we see are those belonging to
Zenodorus's original design and the actual statue completed under Vespasian (minus the por-
trait of Nero).
If the gem in Berlin (fig. 3) can be trusted as a general reflection of the pose of the Colos-
sus, it is clear that Zenodorus employs a restrained classicizing style, drawing upon models
from the second half of the fourth century B.C. The Skopaic Meleager most readily comes to
mind, for this and the Colossus share a distinctive "double contrapposto."84 As described by
78 BMCRE 6:128 nos. 156-158, pl. 6; RIC 4.2:64, 104,nos. 410-411 pl. 8.2; Lega 1989-1990, 348, 356, figs.
16-17; Bergmann 1993, 10, pl. 2.2. Issued to commemo-
rate the restoration of the amphitheater after a fire of
A.D. 217: Lancaster 1998, 146.
79Gnecchi 1912, 89, nos. 22-23, pl. 104.5-6; Lega 1989-
1990, 348, 357, fig. 18; Bergmann 1993, 10, pl. 2.1.
80 Prechac 1920, 44; Gage 1928, 107-114; Howell 1968,
298, among others.
81
Antikensammlung inv. FG 2665: Bergmann 1993, 11,pl. 2.3.
82 Dio 72.22.3, whose account is repeated by Herodian
1.15.9 and SHA, Comm. 17.9-10, reports that Commodus
transformed the Colossus into an image of himself as
Herakles; the most dramaticchange was the removal of the
head and its replacement with a portrait of the emperor.
Consideringthe effort for such an undertaking, t is doubt-ful that the head was removed. The attributes of Herakles,
such as a club, could easilyhave been done by bronze sheet-
ing over the rudderand globe. The same cosmetic changes
could also have been done to the face. The author of the
HistoriaAugustareportsthatthese changeswere short-lived
(quaeposteacuncta ublata unt), andthe coins of Alexander
Severus and Gordian III confirm that the Colossus was
quickly restored to its original image of Sol. This suggests
the alterations by Commodus were easily removable. For
Herodian as a source for the SHA, see Syme 1971, 51, 58,
111, 163, 184-185, 188; Syme 1983, 184. For Dio Cassius
as a source for Herodian, especially in his passages onCommodus, see Hohl 1954; Millar 1964, 122-134. For a
different interpretation, see Bergmann 1993, 11-13.
83 Bergmann 1993, 26, fig. 10;Bergmann 1998, 191, fig. 3.
84 For the Meleager and its copies, see Stewart 1977, 104-
107, 142-144, pl. 44b.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 15/25
108 FREDC. ALBERTSON
Fig. 4. Reconstruction f ..;;..
..... ff; .
the Colossusof Nero byS. Bertolin : :: o r 4 < r > s :::.....--:::-:-.............5w ..........-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......
(from ergmann998, 91,ig. )...........
Hi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew Stewart: "the eye fol s te t t o: te bie ft....... s
*'''i1..1............
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....iiim..... i. imi|
leg to the~~~~~~ips ._.and>;cros to th,oee rgt shole asif?t wer rsing in? slo spiral
.t p o .weeh .wd i m .r the bac of th f the composition is
... . .. ... i |
closed, byhe lowere2,d [left] ar.. and_7She ey le bac agin alon th riin digoa ofthe~~~rholest h ed hr Sitrstsfo a momet bfoeeig care ou beon the
. .?. 2., S's?..111..l
:''-,,
^.. S...O?iE E L
....
.. ......
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . . . . ,i
sAtuewnewarto:its"surroundis the wirecti of the gaze "85fThe Clsu's orep'fronounced
projecting hip, and thcressulting slightembalance neculdessitatingitwereiscolum n-suppt flor
across the~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~uve fac of a. hal or- qatert'' cylin...de'SSSSr........ However,.i jus a...s6- he spectator reaches| _
closed, byhe lowered [left] arm.:.s :'s... a';d the eye led backagain along th risn.,aonlo
projecting hip, and the resulting slight imbalance,inecessitating ac.os:mn-support for the bent
left arm, are again late fourth-century features. These have commonly been associated with
Praxiteles and his school,86 but they may also be found in a Lysippan context, specifically the
statues of Sisyphos I and Sisyphos II from the Daochos Monument at Delphi.8 Zenodorus's
use of late classical models is no surprise. The Late Classical period marked a renewed inter-
est in sculpture executed on a colossal scale, owing primarily to the efforts of Lysippus and
his school.88In a sense, the tradition of Graeco Rm ct
seen previously in Zenodorus's casting techniques and units of measurement, this period like-
wise inspired the artist's style.
85 Stewart 1977, 92, fig. 1.
86 I note the cautious remarksexpressed by Ridgway 1997,
261-266 on the subject of attributions to Praxiteles.
87 On this monument, see Moreno 1995, 81-90, nos.
4.11.1-11, and esp. 84 no. 4.11.3, with fig. for Sisyphos
II (directly attributed to Lysippus). Ridgway 1990, 46-
49, and esp. 47-48, pl. 26 for Sisyphos I (more hesitant
in attribution to Lysippus).
88 Pollitt 1986, 49.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 16/25
ZENODORUS'S"COLOSSUSOF NERO" 109
Fig. 5. Obverseof as, minted at RomeA.D. 64-66, portraitofNero with radiatecrown. New York,AmericanNumismaticSocietyacc. 1957.172.1554 (photoAmericanNumismatic
Society).
The major issue remains as to whom or what the Colossus, as designed and constructed
by Zenodorus, originally represented. In a direct rebuttal to scholarly consensus, R. R. R.
Smith has recently proposed that the Colossus neither represented Nero nor was ever in-
tended to represent Nero-from its very inception, the Colossus was an image of Sol/Helios.89
As the statue was never completed during Nero's lifetime, this might now seem a moot point.
However, the mere fact that the Colossus may have originally been designed by Zenodorus to
bear a portrait of the emperor has major significance, most importantly for our understand-
ing of Nero's own self-conceived role as emperor and how this relates to the political ideol-
ogy that dominated his massive building program in Rome. The Colossus's introduction to
the city of Rome would certainly have been novel, to say the least. Large-scale statues por-
traying previous emperors were known in the city, but these were twice or perhaps three
times lifesize and in marble,90not eighteen times lifesize and in bronze. From Pliny's list of
colossi in Rome,91statues of such size had previously been reserved for the gods. As Smithconcludes, "If this is correct, Nero was indeed, as the sources would suggest, mad."92The
question once again deserves a reexamination.
There is evidence that Nero was not above having himself represented on a colossal scale.93
Pliny mentions a 120-foot-tall painting of Nero set up in the Gardens of Maia, which shortly
afterwards was struck by lightning and destroyed.94Some scholars have been inclined to in-
terpret this painting as a replica of Zenodorus's original design.95There is, however, no evi-
dence to substantiate this connection. Pliny gives no description of the painting's appear-
ance, but significant is the fact that the heights do not compare. One may wonder whether
such a painting may simply have been left over from a previous celebratory event, perhapsNero's Parthian triumph. Its display in an imperial garden suggests its reuse.
To support Smith's claim, we would now also have to conclude that it is simply coinci-
dence that precisely when Zenodorus is completing his initial design of the Colossus, a new
portrait of Nero with radiate crown appears on coins (fig. 5).96 This has tempted many to
89 Smith 2000, 536-538.
90 Kreikenbom 1992, 51-63, 113.
91 Pliny, NH 34.39-44.
92 Smith 2000, 536.
93 ContraSmith2000, 536.
94 Pliny, NH 35.51; Cima 1986, 36; on the hortiMaiani:
Cima Di Puolo 1996, esp. 62.
95 Prechac 1920, 21; Platner and Ashby 1929, 130-13 1;
Boethius 1952, 132.
96 MacDowall 1979, 42, 82-83, 118-119, 177-178, as-
signs those issues of dupondii and asses first bearing the
obverse of Nero with radiate crown to A.D. 62/63. For
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 17/25
110 FREDC. ALBERTSON
associatethe image with the model designedby Zenodorusfor the head of the Colossus.97
Yet the evidence suggeststhat it is justa coincidence.The appearance f Nero with the radi-
ate crownon coinagebeginning n A.D.64 may, nstead,have been struck to commemorate
the fiftiethanniversary f Augustus'sdeificationand concurrently erved to designatea newdenomination.98 ergmannprovides anotherexplanation, inkingthis imageto a statue of
Nero erectedby the Senateto commemoratehe emperor's uccessesoverthe Parthians.99
The most importantevidence s again iterary. nitiallyPliny'swordson the subjectseem
clear:destinatumlliusprincipis imulacro olossum "aColossus intendedto represent hat
emperor").Simulacrumn this case is taken to mean "portrait" r "likeness."Suetoniusre-
peats the claim:the Colossuswas to bear the emperor'sown image. Yet, as Smithargues,
both Plinyand Suetoniuscouldbe relatinga rumor, nitiated afterNero's death andempha-
sizinghow Nero'sown megalomania ad causedhim to ordera colossalimageof himself.100
Since Plinyhad visited Zenodorus'sworkshopand seen a claymodel of the originaldesign,the authorwouldhave knownthe true identityof the Colossus.FollowingSmith'snterpreta-
tion, Pliny wouldknowinglybe instigatingandsustaininga falserumor.Yet thereis another
possible explanation.One mightsuggestthat the Colossuswasindeed designedas an image
of Sol/Helios, yet with facial featuresresembling hose of Nero, or at least believedby the
likes of Plinyto resemble hose of the emperor.Thus Pliny'sdescriptioncouldbe translated
as "aColossus designedwith a resemblance o thatemperor." imulacrumn this case would
emphasize he idea of semblanceor imitation,as opposedto thatwhich is originalor real.101
It is not beyondthe realmof possibility hat Zenodorusmodeled the face of Sol/Helios found
on the Colossus afterNero, perhapssimplyas a meansof pleasinghis patronor,more likely,to establish a visual bond betweenthis Sol and the Romanstate.102his conclusion would
help to explainthe intriguingremarks ound in Dio Cassiusconcerning he dedicationof the
Colossus n A.D. 75, when the Romanpopulacewerein doubt asto whetherthis imageof the
Sun bore the featuresof Nero or Titus.103f the Colossus had been designedas an imageof
Nero, certainly he Flavianswould neverhave allowed he plannedhead of Neroto be added.
If Zenodorusaltered this supposedhead of Nero into a more genericone of Sol, then why
would the citizensof Rome still be arguingwhom the face most resembled-Nero or Titus
(newly nserted nto thediscussion)?Again,thebest explanationwould seem to be thatword
had spread that Zenodorus'soriginal mage of the Sun had borne a remarkableikenessto
Nero. Despite claims to the contraryand possiblyeven alterations rom the originaldesign,
the morewidely heldview that these coins should date
to A.D. 64, see the remarksin Griffin 1984, 218, 238-239
and Bergmann 1998, 172-175. As evidence for the ori-
gins of a new portrait type of Nero in A.D. 64, see
Hiesinger 1975, 120-123.
97 Lega 1989-1990, 348 for references.
98
Grant 1950, 83-84; Fears 1977, 326-328; Bastien 1982,263-265; Bergmann 1998, 172-180. And one may add
that if the chronology of MacDowall 1979 is followed,
the dates do not coincide with the Colossus.
99Bergmann 1993, 6, pl. 1.4.
100 mith2000, 536-537.
1O0OLD, s.v. simulacrum.It may be significant that Pliny
does not use the more definitive imago here.
102 Although numerous studies deal with portraits of
the emperors and members of the imperial family that
include divine characteristics, little seems to have been
done on divine images that may have assimilated
portraitlike features of emperors and empresses. Nev-
ertheless, the latter must have occurred frequently; seePollini 1990, esp. 351-352, fig. 22 (Sol with features of
Augustus), 352, fig. 24 (Honos with feature of
Augustus), and 353-355, fig. 29b (Diana with Augustus's
features).
103 Dio. 65.15.1.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 18/25
ZENODORUS'S"COLOSSUSOF NERO" 111
the rumorcontinued.The fascinationof latergenerations,as evidencedby Dio Cassiusand
the authorof the HistoriaAugusta,centers on the head.104 he Colossusseems to lose its
head regularly-perhaps first under Vespasian, hen duringthe move underHadrian, and
finally under Commodus.Morelikelythese decapitationsnever occurred.What we are wit-nessing in these sourcesis that even in the third and fourth centuries, there is still a pre-
sumed connectionbetween Zenodorus'sSol/Helios and Nero.
Although the Colossus was never completed during the lifetime of Nero, Smith'sques-
tioning of previous scholarlyconsensushas merit. The basic fact that a colossalimageof a
living monarchwould seemso adverse o a Romanaudience s a soundargumentn itself.
The Colossus of Zenodorusmaynow be interpreted imply orwhatit was-an imageof
the Sun.Bergmannhasmeticulouslydocumentedhow muchof the imagery een on the Co-
lossus has been drawnfrom ruler iconography, racingthe manner n which divine imagery
was assimilated nto the imperial sphere duringthe Julio-Claudianperiod.105 owever,in-stead of the Colossusbeing identifiedas Nero with solarattributes, he position can be re-
versed. Zenodorusdesignedan imageof Sol with attributesof an emperor.The uniqueico-
nographydemonstrates hat Zenodorushad this specific meaning n mind.The radiatecrown
andglobe are traditional olarattributes,but it is clear that this is not a traditionalmageof
the Sun.'06UsuallySol/Helios is depictedwith awhipin onehandand a scepter,globe,torch,
orVictory n the other.Crucial o the interpretations the additionof the rudder.The rudder
is an element foreignto solariconography-a motif drawn romimagesof Fortunaand per-
sonificationsof cities.107t is a symbol inkedto a steersmanor gubernator, ne who directs
or leads along a safe course.108 ombinedwith a globe as a symbolof the earthlydomain,these become obvious attributes or a protectivesolardeity,as guardianof the emperorand
the city of Rome. This interpretationwould also fit into the existing political agenda.The
Sun god is the overseerof the GoldenAge,whichsignifiesa new era of peace and prosperity,
so essentialto Augustanpolitical ideology.109he radiatecrownagainportrays he weareras
the navigatorof destinyand the guarantor f good luck. By the Augustanperiod, the synthe-
sis of the Greek Helios/Apollo with the Italic Sol/Indigeshad established tself in Roman
political-religious deologyas a protectordeityassociatedwith the princeps."0 he Colossus
of Nero andZenodoruscanaptlybe labeled Sol Augustusor Sol Augustuset Romanus.
The fact that the Colossus seems to have had no impact on the iconographicaldevelop-ment of representations f Sol/Helios in the second and third centuriesneed not be a con-
cern."'Forwhateverreason,colossi in general seem to have had little impacton the icono-
graphical radition.One reason s that theywere rarelycopied (a case in point, the Colossus
104 SHA, Hadr. 19.12-13.
105 Bergmann 1993, 14-16; Bergmann 1998, 133-230.
106 On the Roman Sol in art, see Schauenburg 1955, 23-
26; Letta 1998.
107 Gage 1928, 108-109, 119-120; Bergmann 1993, 16.
On Fortuna in Roman ideology: Alonso-Nnfiez 1986,
with bibliography on 292 n. 2. For an example of a
Tyche with a rudder, there is the image of Vetulonia on
the relief from Caere, now in the Vatican, Museo
Gregoriano Profano, inv. 9942: Fuchs et al. 1989, 53-
57 no. 1, fig. 24.
108 Gage 1928, 108-109; Bergmann 1993, 16.
109A point stressed by Bergmann 1993, 5-6; Bergmann
1998, 123-126, 229-230.
10 Mannsperger 1973; Cogrossi 1978.
111 he only image of Sol remotelysuggesting nfluence from
the Colossus of Nero that I have found is on the base for a
Jupiter column, now Maastricht,Bonnefantemuseum,inv.
no. 733, dating to the Severan period: Bauchhenss and
Noelke 1981, 319, 479, no. 182, pl. 94.3. Here Sol's arm
extends downward holding a torch (not a rudder) resting
on a globe, which itself rests on a rocky base.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 19/25
112 FREDC. ALBERTSON
of Nero). Artistsapparently hied awayfromusing such massiveworks as models, perhaps
due to theirinability o copythemaccuratelyo a smallscale. Thislack of copiesis evidenced
by our present difficulties n reconstructing ome of the largestand most renownedcolossi
of antiquity: he Athena Promachosof Pheidias,the Colossus of Rhodes,and the Zeus ofLysippus at Tarentum."12
The Colossus may have been intended to evoke both a more limited message, one more
concerned with immediate events-recent military and diplomatic victories in the East and
the dawning of a new Golden Age overseen by Apollo-Sol"13-and a more universal theme.
In the course of the second and third centuries, ruler and solar iconography were united to
convey themes of invincibility (invictus), domination over the East (oriens), and eternity
(aeternitas)."4 Of the three, the concept of eternity, the continued preservation of the empire
and its success, becomes the most important."15The Colossus of Nero may be viewed as our
most definitive evidence that we do not have to wait for such a change to appear in Romanideology; the Colossus itself may mark the beginning of this transformation. Significant to
this discussion is the original site chosen for the Colossus, presumably under the guidance of
Nero himself. The Velian hill prior to the construction of Nero's Domus Aurea was the site
of the Temple of the Penates, a cult long associated with the aeternitas of the city."6 The
Temple of Venus Felix and Roma Aeterna was certainly built on this site due to its prior
association with eternity. Zenodorus designed the Colossus with the rudder of Fortuna-Tyche
and a solar crown precisely for these reasons. The statue was consequently preserved by
Hadrian, despite the necessity to move it. The connection with eternity is reinforced by
Hadrian's elaborate ceremony of moving the Colossus with twenty-four elephants, an animal
itself associated with eternity."7
5. Patron and Client
Up to this point the evidence suggests that Zenodorus was not a pawn subservient to the
wishes of his patron, Nero. Zenodorus seems to have had considerable input in this commis-
sion, maintaining control over production, if not interpretation as well. What little we know
about artisticpatronage in the Roman world suggests this was most often the case."8 Of course
artists, and particularly those working at the imperial level, needed to be politically savvy
individuals. On the one hand, they needed to maintain control over their creations, while on
the other hand they were well aware of their patron's wants. Such a balance not only ensured
employment but also the preservation of their art."9
112 On the Athena Promachos, see Lundgreen 1997, who
concludes that no satisfactory evidence exists to recon-
struct the statue. Colossus of Rhodes: Maryon 1956, 71
fig. 1, based on a fragmentary relief from Rhodes, or
Sztetyllo 1966, 54-62, figs. 7-17, based on amphora
stamps. Zeus at Tarentum: Moreno 1971, and Moreno
1995, 278-280, esp. no. 4.40.1, reconstruction based on
a fragmentary mold found at Heraclea.
113 Bergmann 1998, 229-230; Smith 2000, 536.
114 Bergmann 1998, 278; Smith 2000, 538.
115 Gage 1928,113-1 14.
116 Castagnoli 1946; Lugli 1949,3-13; Dubourdieu 1989,
383-451; Palombi 1997.
117 Prechac 1920, 14;Mellor 1981, 1022.
118 Among the many studies on patronage and the role of
the artist in ancient Rome, I cite one, Horsfall 1988, who
meticulously analyzes the available evidence and reaches
the same basic conclusion.
119 Concerning the relationship between Zenodorus and
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 20/25
ZENODORUS'S"COLOSSUSOF NERO" 113
An interesting nsight into the relationshipbetween Nero and Zenodorus s provided
once againby Plinythe Elder: "Thisstatue has shown that skill in bronze-foundinghas per-
ished, since Nero was quiteready o providegold andsilver,and also Zenodoruswascounted
inferior o none of the artistsof old in his knowledgeof modelingandchasing."Thispassageat firstglancecould be interpreted implyas Nero's wish for a gilded or silverizedColossus
or even a Colossusentirelyof gold or silverandnot bronze;but suchanexplanationdoes not
explain Pliny'sinsertion of such a remark n the context of bronze castingand the lack of
skilledartistsduringhis day.J. Isagerhas interpreted his passageas reflectingZenodorus's
lack of knowledge concerningproper alloys.120uch a conclusionwould then, however,ap-
parentlyascribe to Nero the correctformula,havingofferedwhatevergold and silver was
necessary,which Zenodorusrejected.This would place Plinyin the act of praisingNero-a
conclusion that most certainly can be ruled out.121
A more likely explanationto the situation describedby Pliny is found in the passagesimmediately following the narrative of the Colossus, where the author elaborates on
"Corinthian bronze."1122This is a subject that Pliny had dealt with previously,123 ut now the
authorseemscompelledto return o it briefly.The arrangement f the text would suggesta
connection in Pliny'smind between the Colossus and this technique. So far as we know,
Corinthianbronze refers to a techniquethat includes the use of an alloy incorporating he
normalquantitiesof bronze, tin, and lead togetherwith amounts of silver, gold, or both,
ranging rom 1 percentor 2 percent to perhapsmore than 15 percent by volume.124The re-
sult was an object with a distinctive surface color. The use of Corinthianbronze seems to
have beenlimitedto smallobjects-vases, utilitarian bjects,andstatuettes.125xampleswerevery rare and highly prized. Nero himself seems to have owned at least two,126revealing the
emperor'sknowledge of this technique and his participation in the collecting craze of
Corinthian ronzes n first-centuryRome.Pliny'spassage s perhapsbest understoodasNero's
proposal o use the techniqueof Corinthianbronze for the Colossus,hence his willingness o
place at Zenodorus'sdisposal the necessarygold andsilver.Zenodorus,whose knowledgeof
modelingandengravingwas second to none, chose not to employ the technique,for adding
silver andgold to bronze would diminish he strengthof the metal andendanger he casting
of the Colossus.127Pliny may earlier in book 34 be lamenting the lost knowledge of bronze
casting;n his timeonlya fewartistscarriedon thetraditionof theancientmasters,Zenodorus
being one.
Nero, one is tempted to make an analogy between Anto-
nio Canova and Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon (as as-
suredly Nero) was a patron who viewed the arts as a
means of self-glorification and as a conveyance of politi-
cal values; at the same time, he was eager to employ a
renowned artist whose involvement added to the stature
of the commission. Canova managed to remain in charge,
but he was clearly cognizant that to ensure the preserva-
tion of his work he needed to yield at times to the de-mands of Napoleon. On this subject, seeJohns 1998, 88-
122.
120 Isager 1991, 93-94. Note also the translations of Jex-
Blake, in Sellers 1896, 35; Ferri 1946, 71 with note.
121 On Pliny and Nero, see Isager 1991, 224-229.
122 Pliny,NH 34.48.
123 Pliny,NH 34.6-8.
124 Jacobson and Weitzman 1992; Haynes 1992, 85-86.
For minute percentages of gold and silver normally used
in Roman statuary, see Mattusch 1994, table on 173. I
am fully aware of the controversy over what was meant
by "Corinthian bronze," and for an alternative interpre-tation, see Craddock and Giumlia Mair 1995.
125 Pemberton 1981.
126 Pliny,NH 34.48.
127 For this I follow Gross 1972, 18.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 21/25
114 FREDC. ALBERTSON
6. Conclusion
This last incident makes clear that Zenodorus was in a position to reject the emperor's sug-
gestions. Mostly likely Zenodorus's superior position in this artist-patron relationship wasdue to his reputation as the recognized master of the art of colossal bronze statuary.We might
perceive the Colossus as initially a monument to an emperor's self-aggrandizement and part
of the largerpolitical scheme that characterizes the architectural construction of that emperor's
reign. Yet Nero's plans may have been tempered by Zenodorus's traditional training and views
toward colossi-employing techniques and standards of measurement harkening back to the
Colossus of Rhodes, styles inspired by late classical models, and alloys appropriate to the
casting of bronze colossi-all in the finest tradition of the medium. In the same light,
Zenodorus's innovative blend of solar and ruler iconography elevated the meaning of the
Colossus to a universal theme of aeternitas. It wasperhaps
Zenodorus's contributions that
ensured the statue's continued existence after Nero's demise in A.D. 68 and its legacy thereaf-
ter. Zenodorus may well be responsible, through his initial design of the head of Sol with
features of Nero, for the controversy that was to surround the statue for centuries to come.
The evidence examined here suggests that Zenodorus's role in the design and construction of
the Colossus was paramount and that this work may be better understood not as the Colos-
sus of Nero but as the Colossus of Zenodorus.
Bibliography
ABBREVIATIONS
BMCRE British Museum Catalogue of Coins of the Roman Empire (London1923-).
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
LIMC Lexicon IconographicumMythologiae Classicae, 8 vols. (Zurich 1981-1997).
LTUR Lexicon TopographicumUrbis Romae, ed. E. M. Steinby, 6 vols. (Rome 1993-1999).
RIC Roman Imperial Coinage, ed. H. Mattingly, . A. Syndenham, et al. (London 1923-1967).
WORKSITED
Aiardi, A., "Per un'interpretazione della Domus Aurea," La parola del passato 38 (1978) 90-103.
Albertson, F., review of Bergmann 1993, in AmericanJournal of Archaeology 100 (1996) 802-803.
Alonso-Nuinez, J.-M., "Die Ideologie der Virtus und der Fortuna bei Florus im Lichte der Inschriften
und Miinzen," BonnerJahrbiicher 186 (1986) 291-298.
Arce, J.,"El inventario de Roma: Curiosum y Noticia," in The Transformations of the "VrbsRoma" in
LateAntiquity, ed. W. V. Harris (Ann Arbor 1999) 15-22. Journal of RomanArchaeology suppl. 33.
Balland, A., "Nova Urbs et 'Neapolis.' Remarques sur les projects urbanistiques de Neron," Melanges
d'arche'ologieet d'histoire de l'Ecolefrancaise de Rome 77 (1965) 344-393.Bastien, P., "Couronne radiee et buste monetaire imperial. Problemes d'interpretation," in Studia Paulo
Naster Oblata, vol. 1, ed. S. Scheers (Leuven 1982) 263-272. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 12.
Bauchhenss, G., and P. Noelke, Die Iupitersdulen in den germanischenProvinzen (Cologne 1981). Bonner
Jahrbiichersuppl. 41.
Bergmann, M., Der Koloss Neros, die DomusAurea und derMentalititswandel in Rom derfriihenKaiserzeit
(Mainz 1993). TriererWinckelmannsprogramme 13.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 22/25
ZENODORUS'S"COLOSSUSOF NERO" 115
Bergmann,M., Die Strahlender Herrscher.TheomorphesHerrscherbild ndpolitischeSymbolik m
Hellenismusundin derromischenKaiserzeitMainz1998).
Blanchet,A., "Statuettesde Mercure,"Bulletinde laSocietenationaledesantiquaires eFrance 1945-
1947) 159-162.
Bober,P., "MercuriusArvernus,"Marsyas (1945-1947) 19-45.
Boethius,A., "Etcrescuntmediapegmatacelsa via (Martial'sDe Spectaculis , 2)," Eranos50 (1952)
129-137.
Boucher,S., "Lebronze183duMuseeduLouvre,'HermesdePolycleteet le Mercure rverne," atomus
30 (1971) 317-327.
-, Recherches ur les bronzesiguresde Gaulepreromainet romaine Rome1976).Bibliothequedes Ecolesfranqaisesd'Atheneset de Rome228.
Bradley,K. R.,Suetonius'Life of Nero.A HistoricalCommentaryBrussels1978).CollectionLatomus
57.
Buddensieg,T., "Gregoryhe Great, heDestroyerof PaganIdols,and theHistoryof MedievalLegend
concerning heDecline of AncientArt andLiterature,"ournal f theWarburgndCourtauldnsti-
tutes 28 (1965) 44-65.
Carandini,A., "Domuse horrea n Palatino,"n Schiavi n Italia:Gli strumenti ensantideiRomanira
tardaRepubblica medioImpero, d. A. Carandini Rome1988)359-387.
Cary,E., Dio's RomanHistory,vol. 8. Loeb ClassicalLibrary Londonand Cambridge,Mass. 1925;
reprint,1982).
Cassatella,A., and S. Panella,"DomusAurea:Vestibulum,"n LTUR2 (Rome1995) 50-5 1.
Castagnoli,F.,"II empiodei Penati e la Velia,"Rivistadifilologia74 (1946) 157-165.
Charbonneau,G., "Nouvelles ouilles auxPuys-de-VoingtPuy-de-D6me),"Gallia19 (1961) 226-231.
Chastagnol,A., "Lesregionnairesde Rome,"EntretiensHardt42(1996) 179-192.Cima,M., "Dagliscavidell'Esquilinoall'interpretazioneeimonumenti,"n Letranquilledimoredegli
dei. LaresidenzamperialedeglihortiLamiani, d. M. CimaandE. La Rocca(Venice1986) 37-53.
CimaDi Puolo, M., "HortiLamiani,"n LTUR3 (Rome1996) 61-64.
Cogrossi,C., "L'apollinismougusteoe un denariocon il Sole radiatodi L. AquilioFloro," nAspetti
dell'opinioneubblica el mondoantico,ed. M. Sordi(Milan1978)138-158. Contributidell'Istituto
di storiaantica.UniversitaCattolicadel SacroCuore,Milan5.
Craddock,P., andA. GiumliaMair,"TheIdentityof CorinthianBronze:Rome'sShakudoAlloy," n
Acta of the 12th InternationalCongresson AncientBronzes,Nijmegen1992, ed. S. Mols et al.
(Nijmegen1995) 137-147. NederlandseArcheologischeRapporten18.
Davies,P., "'WhatWorseThanNero, What BetterThan His Baths?':DamnatioMemoriae ndRomanArchitecture,"nFromCaligulao Constantine:TyrannyndTransformationn RomanPortraiture,ed. E. Varner Atlanta2000) 27-44.
Detlefsen, D., PliniusSecundus.Historianaturalis Hildesheim1866-1873;reprint,1992).
de Zwarte,R.,"Der onischeFuss unddasVerhaltnis erromischen,onischenundattischenFussmasse
zueinander,"Bulletinantiekebeschaving 9 (1994) 115-143.
Dindorf,G., Georgius yncellus tNicephorusBonn1829). CorpusScriptorumHistoriaeByzantinae .
Dorig,J., "LysippsZeusKolossvonTarent," ahrbuchesDeutschenArchdologischennstituts79 (1964)
257-278.
Dubourdieu,A., Lesorigineset le developpement uculte despenatesdRome(Paris1989).Collection
de l'Ecolefran,aisede Rome 118.Elsner,J., "ConstructingDecadence. The Representation f Nero as ImperialBuilder,"n Reflections
of Nero.Culture,HistoryandRepresentation,d.J. ElsnerandJ. Masters London1994)112-127.Ensoli,S., "IcolossidibronzoaRomanetatardoantica:alColossodiNeronealColossodiCostantino,"
inAureaRoma.Dallacittdpagana llacittd ristiana,d. S. EnsoliandE. LaRocca Rome 000)66-90.
Fears,J. R., "Princeps diis electus":TheDivineElectionof theEmperor s a PoliticalConcept tRome(Rome 1977). Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 26.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 23/25
116 FREDC. ALBERTSON
Ferri,S., II "NumenAugusti'di Avallon (Lugdunensis) laprobabileattivitad i Zenodoronelle Gallie
(Rome 1933).
PlinioiI Vecchio. toriadelle arti antiche(Rome 1946).
Frel, J., "Zenodoreet la sculptureen Gaul,"Revue archeologique e l'Est et du Centre-est 8 (1987)
301-3 14.
Fuchs, M., P. Liverani,and P. Santoro,Caere,vol. 2, Il teatroe il ciclo statuariogiulio-claudio Rome
1989).
Gabriel, A., "Laconstruction, l'attitude, et l'emplacementdu Colosse de Rhodes,"Bulletin de
correspondanceelhnqiue56 (1932) 331-359.
Gage, J., "LeColosseet la Fortunede Rome,"Me'langes 'arche6ologiet d'histoirede l'Ecolefrancaise
de Rome45 (1928) 106-122.
Gnecchi, F.,I medaglioni omani,vol. 2 (Milan1912).
Grant,M.,RomanAnniversaryssues(Cambridge 950).
Griffin, M.,Nero. The End
ofa
Dynasty London 1984).Gross, W., "Zenodorus,"n REser.2, IOA Munich1972)16-18.
Haynes,D. E. L., "Philo of Byzantiumand the Colossusof Rhodes,"Journalof Hellenic Studies77
(1957) 311-312.
-, The Technique f GreekBronzeStatuary Mainz1992).
Hecht, K., "Zumromischen Fuss," Abhandlungender BraunschweigerischenWissenschaftlichen
Gesellschaft 0 (1979) 107-137.
Helm, R., Hieronymus'Zusdtzen Eusebius'Chronikund ihr Wert ur die LiteraturgeschichteBerlin
1929). Philologus uppl.21.2.
-, Die Chronikdes Hieronymus.Eusebius'Werke (Berlin1956).
Hemsoll, D., "TheArchitectureof Nero's GoldenHouse,"in Architecture nd Architecturalculpturein the RomanEmpire,ed. M. Henig (Oxford 1990) 10-38. OxfordUniversityCommittee or Ar-
chaeologyMonograph29.
Herbert,R., Schriftquellenur hellenistischenKunst (Graz 1989).
Hermansen,G., "ThePopulationof ImperialRome:TheRegionaries,"Historia27 (1978) 129-168.
Hiesinger,U., "ThePortraitsof Nero,"American ournalof Archaeology 9 (1975) 113-124.
Hohl, E., KaiserCommodus nd Herodian Berlin 1954). Sitzungsberichte er Deutschen Akademie
derWissenschaften u Berlin.Klasse urSprachen,Literaturund Kunst 1954, 1.
Horsfall, N., "Patronage f Artin the RomanWorld,"Prudentia 0 (1988)9-28.
Howell, P., "TheColossusof Nero,"Athenaeum 6 (1968) 292-299.
Hiilsen, C., "Topografiaomanaanticae medievale,2. Colosseum,"Bullettinocomunale 4 (1926) 53-64.
, and H. Jordan,TopographieerStadtRom mAlterthum, ol. 1.3 (Berlin1907).
Isager,J., Plinyon Art andSociety Londonand New York1991).
Jacobson,D., and M. Weitzman,"WhatWas CorinthianBronze?"American ournal f Archaeology 6
(1992) 237-247.
Jan,L. von, andC. Mayhoff,C. Plini SecundiNaturalishistoria,vol. 5 (Leipzig 1897;reprint,Stuttgart
1967-1970).
Johns, C.,Antonio Canovaand the Politicsof Patronagen Revolutionary nd NapoleonicEurope Ber-
keleyand Los Angeles 1998).
Johnson, F, Lysippos Durham,N.C. 1927).Karst,J., Die Chronikdes Eusebiusaus dem armenischenUbersetzt.Eusebius'Werke,vol. 5 (Leipzig
1911).
Ker,W.,MartialEpigrams,ol. 1.Loeb ClassicalLibrary LondonandCambridge,Mass. 1919;rev.ed.,
1968).
Kreikenbom,D., Griechischeund romischeKolossalportrdts is zum spdten erstenJahrhundert ach
Christus (Berlin 1992). Jahrhuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts suppl. 27.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 24/25
ZENODORUS'S"COLOSSUSOF NERO" 117
Lancaster,L., "Reconstructinghe Restorationsof the Colosseum afterthe Fire of 217,"Journalof
RomanArchaeology 1 (1998) 146-174.
Lanciani,R.,FormaUrbisRomae(Milan1893-1901; reprint,Rome1990).
Lega, C., "IIColosso di Nerone," Bullettino comunale 93 (1989-1990) 339-378.
"Colossus:Nero,"in LTUR1 (Rome1993)295-298.
Leibundgut,A., "Der'Traian' on Ottenhusen," ahrbuch es DeutschenArchdologischennstituts99
(1984) 257-289.
Letta, C., "Helios/Sol," n LIMC4 (Munich1988)592-625.
Lugli, G., "RomaAeterna"e il suo culto sulla Velia(Rome1949). AccademiaNazionale dei Lincei.
Problemiattualidi scienza e di cultura11.
, "LaRomadi Domizianonei versi di Marziale di Stazio,"Studi romani9 (1961) 1-17.
Lundgreen,B., "AMethodologicalEnquiry:The Great Bronze Athenaby Pheidias,"Journalof Hel-
lenicStudies117 (1997) 190-197.
MacDowall,D. W., The WesternCoinagesof Nero (New York1979).AmericanNumismaticSociety,NumismaticNotes andMonographs161.
Magie, D., TheScriptoresHistoriaeAugustae,vol. 1. Loeb ClassicalLibrary Londonand New York
1922;reprint,1969).
Mannsperger,D., "ApollogegenDionysos,"Gymnasium0 (1973)381-402.
Maryon,H., "TheColossusof Rhodes,"Journalof HellenicStudies76 (1956)68-86.
Mattusch,C., GreekBronzeStatuary Ithaca,N.Y. 1988).
,The Fireof Hephaistos Cambridge,Mass.1994).
,ClassicalBronzes:TheArtandCraftof Greekand RomanStatuaryIthaca,N.Y. 1996).
Medria,M., "Suet.,Nero31.1:Elementi proposteper a ricostruzione elprogettodellaDomusAurea,"
in MetaSudans,vol. 1, Un areasacra"inPalatino" la valle del Colosseoprimae dopoNerone,ed.C. Panella(Rome 1996) 165-188.
Mellor, R., "TheGoddess Roma,"AufstiegundNiedergangderromischenWelt2.17.2 (Berlin1981)
950-1030.
Millar,F.,A Studyof Dio Cassius Oxford 1964).
Moreno,P., "Zenodoros,"n Enciclopedia ell'arteantica7 (Rome1966) 1249-1250.
, "LeZeusde Lysippea Tarente,"Revuearche'ologique1971) 289-290.
, "Chronologia el Colosso di Rodi,"Archeologia lassica25-26 (1973-1974) 453-463.
,Sculturaellenistica,vol. 1 (Rome 1994).
Lisippo.L'arte la fortuna(Milan1995).
Morford,M., "TheDistortion of the DomusAureaTradition,"Eranos66 (1968) 158-179.Mosshammer, ., TheChronicle fEusebiusandGreekChronographicraditionLewisburg,Pa. 1979).
Nordh,A., Prolegomenaill den romerskaRegionskatalogenGoteborg 1936).
, Libellusde regionibusurbisRomae(Lund1949). Skrifterutgivnaav Svenska nstitutet Rom
ser.8, 3.
Palombi, D., "AedesDeum Penatium n Velia,"MitteilungendesDeutschenArchdologischennstituts,
RomischeAbteilung104 (1997) 435-463.
Panella,C., "Scavonellaplateadel Tempiodi Veneree Roma,"n Roma.Archeologia el centro Rome
1985) 106-112. Lavori studi di archeologia ubblicatidallaSoprintendenza rcheologica iRoma
6.1.
, "Lavalle del Colosseonell'antichita,"Bollettinodi archeologia -2 (1990) 35-88.Papi, E., "DomusAurea:PorticusTriplicesMilliariae,"n LTUR2 (Rome 1995)55-56.
Pemberton,E., "TheAttributionof CorinthianBronzes,"Hesperia50 (1981) 101-111.
Platner,S., andT.Ashby,A Topographicalictionary f AncientRome (London1929).
Pollini,J., "ManorGod: DivineAssimilation ndImitation n the LateRepublicand EarlyPrincipate,"
in BetweenRepublicandEmpire: nterpretations f Augustusand His Principate, d. K. Raaflaub
and M. Toher (Berkeley 1990) 334-357.
This content downloaded from 89.180.171.15 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:23:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/28/2019 Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zenodoruss-colossus-of-nero 25/25
118 FRED C. ALBERTSON
Pollitt, J. J., Art in the HellenisticAge (Cambridge 986).
Prechac,F., "Seneque t la Maisond'Or,"Comptes endusdesse'ances e l'Academie esinscriptionst
belles-lettres 914, 231-242.
"Ladate du d6placement u colosse de Romesous Hadrien,"Melanges 'archeologiet d'histoirede l'E1colefranCaisee Rome17 (1918-1919) 285-296.
-, Le Colosse de Ne'ron, on attitude et ses vicissitudesd'apres es textes et les monnaies Paris
1920).
, "Le Colosse de Neron,"Revuenumismatiqueer.4, 23 (1921) 1-22.
, "Le Colossede Neron,"Revuedesetudes atines 15 (1937) 273-274.
Rackham,H., Pliny,NaturalHistory,vol. 9. Loeb ClassicalLibrary Londonand Cambridge,Mass.
1952).
Ridgway,B., HellenisticSculpture, ol. 1, TheStylesof ca.331-200 B.C. (Madison,Wisc. 1990).
, Fourth-Centurytyles n GreekSculpture Madison,Wisc. 1997).
Rolfe,J., Suetonius, ol.2. LoebClassicalLibrary LondonandCambridge,Mass.1914;rev.ed., 1997).Schauenburg,K.,Helios.Archdologisch-mythologischetudieniberdenantikenSonnengott Berlin1955).
Schingo, G., "Indice opograficodelle struttureanterioriall'incendiodel 64 d.C. rinvenutenellavalle
del Colosseoe nellesueadiacenze,"nMetaSudans, ol. 1, Un area acra"inPalatino" la valle del
Colosseoprimae dopoNerone,ed. C. Panella(Rome 1996) 145-158.
Sellers,E., withK.Jex-Blake,The ElderPliny'sChapters n theHistoryofArt (London1896).
Smith,R. R.R., "Nero and the Sun-god:Divine Accessoriesand PoliticalSymbols n Roman mperial
Images,"Journalof RomanArchaeology 3 (2000) 532-542.
Stewart,A., Skopasof Paros(ParkRidge, N.J. 1977).
Syme,R., Emperors ndBiography Oxford1971).
- HistoriaAugustaPapers Oxford1983).Sztetyllo,S., "Quelquesproblemes elatifsa l'iconographie es timbresamphoriques,"tudes t travaux
3 (1966) 45-80.
Thomas, E., and C. Witschel, "ConstructingReconstruction:Claim and Realityof RomanBuilding
Inscriptions romthe LatinWest,"Papersof the BritishSchoolat Rome60 (1992) 135-177.
Tzachou-Alexandri,O., "SomeRemarks n the Bronze God of Artemision,"n From he Partsto the
Whole,vol. 1 (AnnArbor2000) 86-94. Journalof RomanArchaeology uppl.39.
Valentini,R., and G. Zucchetti,Codice opografico ellacittadi Roma,vol. 1 (Rome 1940).
vanDeman, E., "TheNeronianSacraVia,"American ournalof Archaeology7 (1923) 383-424.
"TheSacraViaof Nero,"Memoirsof the AmericanAcademyn Rome5 (1925) 115-126.
Voisin, J.-L., "Exoriente ole (Su6tone,Ner. 6). D'Alexandriea la Domus Aurea," n L'urbs.Espaceurbain t histoire Iersie'cle v.J.-C.-IIIe iecleap.J.C.).Actesducolloquenternationalrganise'par
le Centrenationalde la recherchecientifique t l'Ecole ranCaise e Rome(Rome1987) 509-543.
Collectionde l'Ecolefran,aisede Rome98.
WilsonJones, M., "Designing he RomanCorinthianOrder," ournalof RomanArchaeology (1989)
35-69.
, "OneHundredFeetand a SpiralStair:TheProblemof DesigningTrajan's olumn," ournal f
RomanArchaeology (1993)23-38.
Wotawa,A. von, "Duvius,"n RE5.2 (Stuttgart1905) 1868-1869.
Zeggio, S., "La tratigrafiaelativaallatrasformazione eronianadell'AreaSacra.Alcuneprecisazioni,"
in MetaSudans,vol. 1, Unareasacra"inPalatino" la valle del Colosseoprimae dopoNerone,ed.C. Panella(Rome 1996) 159-164.
Zevi,F.,"Nerone,Baiae laDomusAurea,"n Ulisse. l mitoe la memoria.Roma,Palazzo elleEsposizioni.
22febbraio-2 settembre1996,ed. B. Andreaeand C. ParisiPresicce (Rome 1996)320-331.