The Foro delle Corporazioni
[Page 33] The present form of the Foro delle Corporazioni was arrived at in two major building programs. Under Claudius, the Doric portico with two rows of columns was built, leaving entryways on the north side. The inner portico was decorated with mosaics occupying the spaces between the columns. Four mosaics from this stage are preserved, those of stationes 52, 53, 57, and 58. The second major building phase included the enlargement of the theater; the closing of the northern entryway; and, most important for the chronology of the mosaics, the renovation of the porticoes, at which time the existing pavements were covered with 40 centimeters of earth and new mosaics installed.
The dedication of the restored and enlarged theater in A.D. 196 provides a probable date for the composition of the upper-level mosaics. Becatti favors a date between 190 and 200 for most of the mosaics, and places the four lower-level mosaics in the second rather than the first century, mainly on the basis of stylistic comparison with more securely dated second-century mosaics. Blake also places these lower-level mosaics in the second century, again for stylistic reasons.
A final dating problem occurs in the river mosaic that originally decorated three of the stationes, numbers 26, 27, and 28. Its braided framing, composition, and use of the portico space set it apart from the other mosaics of the upper level as well as from the lower-level mosaics. Although it occupies the upper level, Becatti dates it around the middle of the second century. Such a dating is justifiable if we bear in mind that the remodelling of the portico, with the closure of the northern entrance, may have occurred several decades before the dedication of the theater in 196. The fact that the outer portico of statio 26 is reworked in mosaics belonging to the late-second-century [Page 34] style while the inner portico retains traces of the braided frame connecting it with the earlier-style mosaic of stationes 27 and 28 points to two distinct mosaic programs in this triple shop space, one of about 170 and a second in the new style of the end of the second century or the beginning of the third.
Since the portico format containing the stationes of the Foro delle Corporazioni remains basically the same throughout its history, an analysis of the response of mosaics of different date to this rigidly delimited trabeated space allows us to follow the changing approaches to mosaic decoration in the second century. The three figural mosaics found on the lower, Claudian level occupy rectangles formed between the inner row of columns and the circuit wall of the forum. The distance between columns and circuit wall is about four meters, and that between one column and another about three meters.
The framed rectangular panels adorning the floors of these spaces respond differently to this three-to-four breadth-to-depth proportion. The hunter mosaic of statio 52 has the most elaborate and therefore the most isolating frame of the three lower-level mosaics. The bottom of the frame is placed on the axis of the framing columns. A spectator standing in the outer portico has the privileged view of the figural elements like the viewer entering the analogous tablinum space in the atrium house. The figural emblema takes its three-to-four proportions from the shape of the shop space. Consequently the figural part of the scene, perhaps originally designed for a square format, fills only the lower two-thirds, and the strange reversed acanthus was added to fill the deep rectangle.
A thick black frame about 35 centimeters wide establishes an emphatically horizontal format for the ornamental and figural elements of statio 57. The emblema and its framing elements are to the right of the central axis of the shop. The textural unity of the figural emblema of Artemis and a stag and the elaborate floral spiral is stressed by the uniform size of tesserae. The small figural scene is meant for the spectator outside the shop; the U-shaped floral frame is most legible from within the space. The strength of this articulation of the rectangular space is much greater than that of statio 52, since it rests on more forceful and consistent framing patterns.
The vertical format of statio 52 is used also in statio 53, but there the figural scene is harmoniously related to the simple double frame without recourse to floral fill. The rectangle is broader than that of statio 52 and the frame is simpler, with the result that the image of Nereid and sea horse seems to move freely in spite of the rather constricted shop space. The stylistic parallels between this mosaic and the masterpieces of the Terme di Nettuno, pointed out by Becatti, are based on the designer's full use of the space: The breadth and enlarged scale of the figural elements in [Page 35] comparison with those of stationes 52 and 57 indicate acquaintance with mosaics employing kinesthetic address.
From the point of view of the mosaic's relationship to the surrounding architecture, statio 52 is either the oldest or the most retarditaire, above all for its frame, which, like a first-century mosaic, faithfully repeats the proportions of the space. In statio 57 a less isolating frame reduces all elements, figural and floral, to a kind of equivalence, like the tablinum mosaic in the Caseggiato di Bacco e Arianna. The most advanced of the mosaics in terms of harmony between format, figuration, and architectural parameters is statio 53, where a decorative scheme suited to vaulted spaces is gracefully reduced for an emblema composition in a static trabeated space.
The mosaic of statio 26, now lost, and those of stationes 27 and 28 decorated a space that was different in character because of the interconnection of the three shop units. The designer outlined the floor of each unit with a braided frame; he extended the frame into the full depth of the outer portico but circumscribed only half the depth of the inner portico. Within these frames he designed the great river mosaic with the delta occupying the outer portico and the pontoon bridge the foreshortened area of the inner portico. The spectator is drawn into the design at its broadest and most abstract point and proceeds inward toward the pontoon bridge, the most concrete and concentrated point of the design.
By the middle of the second century, the heavily framed, isolated emblemata, placed so as to repeat the proportions of the space in plan, were replaced by more comprehensive and kinesthetically engaging figural decoration. The mosaics of the Foro delle Corporazioni that date from the last decade of the second century are much bolder in their use of the architectural space than their older counterparts. Figural elements, with only three exceptions (stationes 22, 49, and 50), are found only in the outer portico and are designed to attract the attention of the walking spectator and induce him to turn and face into the shop. In order to achieve this effect, a strong physiological response had to be interrupted, for this long portico is a dynamic passageway space which, once entered, encourages the viewer to proceed along its longitudinal axis. The shops of the inner portico would normally be seen in the viewer's peripheral vision, for as spaces they are completely dependent on the portico structure. In order to interrupt the spectator's progress along the longitudinal axis of the portico, another axis, that of the shop itself, had to be evoked.
There are two mutually related devices for delineating these shop axes in pavement patterns: the heraldic arrangement of twin figural elements on either side of the shop's axis line and the placement of the single figural element on the shop's axis. Both devices make the spectator turn and align himself with the axis markers in his effort to [Page 36] see the figuration right side up. The unframed figures themselves are the instruments used to elicit the spectator's response to the axis, a situation different from the centering of a framed emblema, placed on the axis line, as in the mosaic of statio 52. Corollary to this observation is the fact that these late-second-century mosaics in the Foro delle Corporazioni are not designed as decorations for the static shop space, as were the earlier, lower-level mosaics, but function as billboards along the outer, dynamic portico.
Many of these late-second-century mosaics are a mixture of heraldic and axial design; even in predominantly heraldic designs the axis is often also marked with a figure placed on the axis — usually a lighthouse, a perfect arrow-shaped marker. Perhaps the clearest example of the heraldic arrangement is found in the pavement of statio 11, where the twin elements of facing dolphins and medallions define the axis of the shop. The amorino riding a dolphin and the inscription, now partially lost, are also centered on the axis. The analogous composition of statio 48 introduces a humorous anecdote. The heraldic fish swim toward a small fish that both marks the axis and might be eaten by one of the pair.
The most frequent axis-marker in the Foro delle Corporazioni is the famous lighthouse of the port of Ostia, seen in stationes 22 (inner portico), 23, 26, 32, 35, 46, and 49. A representative example of the heraldic use of boats with the axial lighthouse is found in the pavement of statio 23, where two boats, differing slightly in size and type, sail toward each other to meet under the lighthouse. This arrangement makes the spectator feel the axis of the shop, since it includes movement from both right and left toward this axis. Arrangements of ships on either side of the axis line without the axis marker are less effective but generally more graceful and subtle (stationes 10, 25, 45, and 47). The finest example is the mosaic representing the transfer of cargo from one ship to another in statio 25.
A final example of the heraldically composed mosaic illustrates the pervasiveness of this arrangement for drawing the spectator from the outer portico to the inner shops; this is the pavement adorning the portico in front of the double statio 51-52, where twin dolphins swim toward each other to meet on the axis line of the column forming the geometrical center of the shop. The designer was able to expand the heraldic formula used to mark the axis of the single shop to emphasize the center of a larger space.
The bushel measure is the most common image in mosaics that simply mark the shop axis without heraldic elements. It so appears (sometimes with the rutellum, or leveling stick, sometimes with palm branches inserted in the grain bushels) in stationes 5, 7, 10, 17, 19, 21, 33, 34, 38, 53, 55, and 56, always centered over the shop axis and nearer the inner than the outer row of columns. In statio 7, for example, a tall, rather narrow measuring bushel in black with white decoration is placed directly on the shop axis without further compositional elements to channel the spectator's [Page 37] attention.
The effectiveness of this simple axial placement may account for its popularity in the architectural context of the Foro delle Corporazioni. The extension of the figured black-and-white mosaic into the trabeated spaces of the Foro delle Corporazioni was devised as a direct response to practical considerations for the use of these spaces. The need to divert the attention of the spectator from the longitudinal axis of the long promenade space to the latitudinal axes of the shop spaces led to axially symmetrical figural designs. As in the case of the Horrea Epagathiana et Epaphroditiana, the rigid rectilinear grid, derived from post-and-lintel construction, controls the figural program. But a consideration of spectator movement and viewing pattern is certainly behind the designs of the late-second-century stationes; the heraldic figures marking the shop axes function like the similar heraldic figures posted at doorways in the Terme di Nettuno.
[Page 73] Becatti also saw the influence of the Neptune Master at Ostia in the Nereid represented in statio 53 of the Foro delle Corporazioni and the two Nereids in room F of the Domus di Apuleio. Although all three Nereids are related to the work of the Neptune Master in the handling of the theme and the space, that of the Foro delle Corporazioni is drawn with less precise and stiffer internal white line detail, suggesting a date around 160 to 180.
[Page 74] Brick-stamp evidence suggests a mid-second century date for the courtyard mosaic of the Horrea Epagathiana et Epaphroditiana at Ostia. The hunter and bull of statio 52 of the Foro delle Corporazioni and the representation of Artemis and a stag in statio 57 belong at midcentury because of their style. A mosaic with Dionysos and two tigers in the Insula del Dioniso, room D, dated to the end of the second century by Becatti, and to the period of Marcus Aurelius by Van Essen, relates in style to draftsmanly mosaics like that of statio 57 in its numerous but tremulous internal details in finely cut white tesserae and should date between 160 and 180.
The Nile River Mosaic of the Foro delle Corporazioni
[Page 83] The characteristics of the early optical style visible in the Domus di Apuleio Satyr and Maenad mosaic foreshadow the gradual changeover to the optical style of the Severan period. Another significant example of the early optical style in figural mosaics can be seen at Ostia in the mosaic of the Foro delle Corporazioni, statio 27, which dates around A.D. 170. As in the Domus di Apuleio Satyr and Maenad mosaic, this early optical style mosaic differs from those of the draftsmanly style in its composition in significant space-filling patches, in its simplification of silhouette, and in its use of isolated, unconnected internal white line. Because of abrupt shifts in tessera size and shape, there is less continuity of contour in both silhouette and internal line than in mosaics of the draftsmanly style.
In Figure 85 one can see how the shape of the river, with pontoon bridge at one end and tripartite delta at the other, is carefully arranged to fill the irregular space. The silhouette of the river is formed by a series of irregular curves, most of them convex, that in places, such as in the left side of the central fork of the delta, form scallops. These scallops are made possible by the irregularity of the white-tessera outline, set in a curvilinear pattern mirroring the movements of the black tesserae making up the silhouette. The remaining tesserae are laid in roughly parallel rows along the longitudinal axis of the shop space.
But the visual interest of the river lies not in the roughly scalloped silhouette but rather in the activated white lines inside the black figure that represent the current of the river. These white lines form wild zigzags, suddenly broadening at various points to white areas two to four tesserae wide. While the drawing of the pontoon bridge reminds one of the draftsmanly style, the manner of laying the tesserae that depict the river is quite new. The artist, instead of describing the current of the river with carefully controlled and regular wave lines of uniform width, has allowed the erratic shapes of the tesserae to suggest and create patterns during the process of their laying.
[Page 84] A comparison with relief sculpture puts the Nile River mosaic into clearer focus. Max Wegner, in "Die kunstgeschichtliche Stellung der Marcussäule," compares the lowest bands of the helical friezes on the columns of Trajan and of Marcus Aurelius, both representing boats on the Danube. The frieze on the Column of Trajan, of about 113, represents the current of the river in shallow and carefully controlled and repeated wave formations. Like the figures on the Column of Trajan, the waves are depicted in a flat and even modelling system best described as draftsmanly. In the Column of Marcus Aurelius, dated between 180 and 193, the current of the river is represented by irregular and dynamic wave formations. They curl in on themselves and are deeply modelled. The greater turbulence of the waves is achieved, as in the figural parts of the column, by the use of deeper relief and consequently enhanced chiaroscuro. (Technically speaking, these effects are due to deeper cutting and the use of the running and stationary drill.)
The mosaic representation of the Nile River shows similar characteristics and produces a similar effect to that of the Marcus Aurelius Danube scene. Although the means of sculptural representation are different from those employed in mosaic, the turbulent and irregular effect is strikingly similar. The three animals in the adjacent and contemporaneous statio 28 are less bold in design and execution than the representation of the river. The figural style is not as advanced as that of the Domus di Apuleio Satyr and Maenad mosaic. The representations of the stag and boar are technically close to the animals of the Terme dei Sette Sapienti, dated around 130. In this pavement we witness a phenomenon of stylistic schizophrenia that continues well into the Severan period. Side by side with the vital new optical style one encounters persistent remnants of a by now bloodless draftsmanly style. It is characteristic of the period from 150 to 210 to find the two styles rather jarringly juxtaposed.
The relative availability of prototypes for a particular figure may have caused this stylistic disparity; there are many representations of wild animals in the draftsmanly style, but none has been preserved of a river with a pontoon bridge. The mosaicist, relying on his imagination, created new images in the current style, while figures with preexisting prototypes retained the style of the prototype as well. Another explanation for the lack of stylistic convergence in this period is that of older and younger mosaicists working side by side. While neither argument can be proved, both are likely factors accompanying a reorganization of mosaic art not only in this period but throughout the history of black-and-white figural mosaics.
[Page 87] The black-and-white mosaics of the Severan period have been the most neglected, least popular, and perhaps the worst understood of all mosaics. Because of the poor quality of many examples and, on a more basic level, because of their radical break with Hellenistic prototypes, they generally have been passed over. It is interesting to note that black-and-white mosaic art of the third century was roundly condemned by Blake, who says: A critical examination of the silhouette mosaics of the third century in Rome, which are comparatively few in number, leaves the impression that all artistic merit had departed from that type of pavement. In many cases they reveal a conventionalization and lack of originality which is a mark of decadence. ... In all examples the coarseness of the tesserae and the careless fashion in which they were laid destroys all pleasure in craftsmanship as such. This kind of floor decoration had run its course.
It should be noted that, at the time of her writing, the majority of the Ostian pavements from the third century remained unpublished; even today those of the bath edifice near Porta Marina await publication. Becatti's treatment of Severan mosaic art is more sympathetic and better informed. He points out that in many ways the city of Ostia reached its apogee in the Severan [Page 88] period; he does not, however, seem convinced about the greatness of that period's mosaic art, nor does he characterize Severan style convincingly. Becatti makes several valid observations about changes during the first half of the third century; most of them attempt to explain the black-and-white mosaic's fall from Hadrianic and Antonine grace. One is left with the feeling that somehow these mosaics are of poorer quality than those of the preceding century, precisely because they seem to fail in the very ways in which second-century mosaics achieve distinction.
But if one recalls the way in which the second-century aesthetic of flow and kinesthetic address was radically rethought and reorganized in such edifices as the Foro delle Corporazioni and the Terme Marittime, one should expect a new kind of image to partake in the aesthetics of disjunction that Severan spaces avowed. It would be misleading to try to explain Severan complexes, which patently exhibit contrary properties, in terms of a Hadrianic composition of uniform flow. In the same way, one would have consciously to ignore the newly forged design principles behind the Severan mosaic image in order to try to explain it in terms of Hadrianic images. The stylistic characterization of the mosaics of this period, analyzed in their own terms, presents evidence for two branches of a common style which emerge simultaneously.
J.R. Clarke, Roman black and white figural mosaics from the first through the third centuries A.D., Yale University, Ph.D., 1973 Pages 107-117, 212-216
Summary of dates
- Stationes 27 en 28 [cat. 44 and 55, plus pp. 112-113 and 212-215]: c. 170. Cat. 44 is Draughtsmanly style, cat. 55 is Early literal style.
- Statio 52 [hunter; cat. 46]: c. 150. Draughtsmanly style.
- Statio 53 [Nereid; cat. 48]: c. 160-180. Draughtsmanly style.
- Statio 57 [Diana; cat. 49]: c. 160-180. Draughtsmanly style.
- Statio 10 [cat. 60]: c. 190. Late draughtsmanly style.
- Statio 11 [cat. 61]: c. 190. Late draughtsmanly style.
- Statio 5 [cat. 73]: c. 200-210. Severan optical style I.
- Statio 14 [cat. 74]: c. 200-210. Severan optical style I.The representations of ships in the Severan Optical Style I include: stationes 15, 18, 32, 45, 46, 47. Stationes 21, 23, and 46 have the most stylized silhouettes and the most geometric division of rigging in tesserae of uniform width; statio 25 shows some of the refinements of internal white line drawing characteristic of the Late Draughtsmanly Style, while the fragments of ships in stationes 51 and 52 are by the same artist.
Catalogue 44
Statio 28; Elephant, deer, boar; 3.80 x 6.0 m.; 1.50-2.0 cm.; southern part lacking; ca. 170 A.D. With the adjacent mosaic no. 55 (statio 27) and the largely destroyed mosaic of statio 26, this mosaic formed a single shop, filling three intercolumniations. The easy availability of prototypes for these figures in the representations of the hunt in such mosaics as no. 32, the Terme dei Sette Sapienti, may account for the closer proximity of these figures to the Draughtsmanly Style than to the Early Optical Style of the certainly contemporaneous River mosaic of statio 27.Catalogue 46
Statio 52; Hunter and bull; 1.58 x 2.29 m.; 1.0 cm.; some glass paste tesserae in yellow, blue, and red; ca. 150 A.D. Blake notes that the subject is foreign to first century mosaics (1930, p. 101), and the figural style partakes certainly of the innovations found in the mosaic of the Draughtsmanly Style.Catalogue 48
Statio 53; Nereid on hippocamp, two dolphins; 1.93 x 2.29 m.; 1.0 cm.; 160-180 A.D. Although the similarities in the types of the hippocamp and dolphins may show the influence of the Master of the Neptune mosaic (as also on the Nereids of the Domus di Apuleio, no. 55, both of which influences Becatti suggests, Ostia IV, p. 83), the lesser precision in the placement of interior white lines, and their greater thickness lead us to see it as a later product of the Draughtsmanly Style. The elongation of the hippocamp and the greater invasion of the ground by the figural silhouette is quite different from the compact, self-contained silhouettes of the Master of the Neptune mosaic, no. 34. The mosaic from Risaro, no. 41, seems closer in style than the Neptune mosaics.Catalogue 49
Statio 57; Artemis and stag; 3 x 3 m.; 1.50 cm.; 160-180 A.D. While the figures in the framed rectangle, in the complication of both silhouette and in the refinement of the interior white line composed of halved tesserae, belong with the Draughtsmanly Style, the floral spirals of the decorative frame are close in style to those surrounding the Satyr and Maenad mosaic of the Domus di Apuleio, no. 55. As in the pavements of the Domus di Apuleio there is the contemporaneous co-existence of the Draughtsmanly Style and the Early Optical Styles. See also no. 50.Catalogue 55
Statio 27; River ending in three forks with pontoon bridge; 7 x 3.50 m.; 1.50-2.0 cm.; northern and southern borders destroyed; ancient restorations in larger tesserae; 170 A.D. Becatti's identification of this representation as the Nile River and its delta seems convincing in light of the purposes of the statio which, combined with stationes 26 and 28, formed a triple shop space devoted to the commerce of exotic beasts from Africa (Ostia IV, pp. 74-76). Calza identified the river as the Tiber (Not.Sc. (1914), p. 288, Fig. 3).Catalogue 60
Statio 10; Two ships, heraldic fish on either side of lighthouse, coupling fish; 3.20 x 4.20 m.; 1-1.5 cm.; 2 cm. in antique repairs; ca. 190 A.D. In the finicky yet unsteady silhouettes of the fish and the sails, as well as in the weakness of interior white line, this mosaic forms a startling contrast with the strong geometric organization of the Severan Optical Style I mosaics which we see in the other representations of ships, fish and lighthouse in the Foro delle Corporazioni. The representations of ships in the Severan Optical Style I include: stationes 15, 18, 32, 45, 46, 47. Stationes 21, 23, and 46 have the most stylized silhouettes and the most geometric division of rigging in tesserae of uniform width; statio 25 shows some of the refinements of internal white line drawing characteristic of the Late Draughtsmanly Style, while the fragments of ships in stationes 51 and 52 are by the same artist. For an analogy with the statio 10 mosaic we must turn to mosaics such as that of the Old Master of the Terme Marittime, no. 58; our date reflects this identification with the art of the second rather than that of the third century, while the Severan Optical Style I mosaics mentioned above date between 200 and 210 A.D.Catalogue 61
Statio 11; Heraldic tondi with busts, amorino on dolphin, heraldic dolphins; 4 x 4.40 m.; 1.5 cm.; southern fourth restored in antiquity, modern restoration of northern medallion; ca. 190 A.D. Like no. 60, in style; especially noteworthy is the reduction of the silhouettes of terminal fins from the fuller Draughtsmanly tradition of the earlier second century.Catalogue 73
Statio 5; Man on knees with rutellum and grain measure; 2 x 2.40 m.; 1.50-2 cm.; eastern end missing; 200-210 A.D. A good example of the Severan Literal Style; the tapering interior white lines recall very closely the drawing of the drapery in the figures of the Caserma dei Vigili mosaic, no. 67, which may be by the same master.Catalogue 74
Statio 14; Elephant; 2.20 x 3.30 m.; 1.50-2 cm.; eastern side and part of southeastern corner missing; 200-210 A.D. Excellent example of the Severan Optical Style I.