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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ump

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aarome

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4238781?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/4238781?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aarome

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ump



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







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.







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.







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.








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.







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.








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.








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.








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.








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.








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.








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.








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.








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.








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








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.








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.








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








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.








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.








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.








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.








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.








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.

Documents

Zenodorus's Colossus of Nero