Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Response to R. Tybout “Roman wall-painting and social significance”

Bibliographic Data

ID12374234
AuthorsChristopher H Hallett (Seattle University, corresponding author)
Year2001
Volume14
Pages414-416
Publication date2001-01-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Roman Archaeology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1047-7594 • E-ISSN: 2331-5709
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s1047759400020043
OpenAlexW2588217590
LanguageEN
Citations received1

In his article in this issue, R. Tybout has some harsh words (38-39) for an article by S. Yerkes published in JRA 13. T.'s reaction seems to involve not so much a scholarly disagreement as a major misunderstanding of Yerkes' paper. I would like to offer a brief corrective to his comments. T. seems under the impression that the identification of Vitruvius' monstra is the main — or only — point of Yerkes' essay. This is probably because of the title. The paper is a radically reduced presentation of the argument of the author's master's thesis which was entitled “Neo-Attic motifs in Roman painting”. And the identification of some of the sources for the monstra — as motifs in much earlier Roman marble furnishings — is actually the main thrust of her argument. Her original title for the article also included a reference to “neo-Attic motifs” but that was omitted by the editor after it was submitted to JRA. T. is dismayed that Yerkes fails to cite the chapter on Vitruvius 7.5.3 ff. in W. Ehrhardt's monograph Stilgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (T. 1, n.l). Now, Yerkes is well aware of this work and cites it in her thesis, together with another paper Ehrhardt published on “Vitruv und die zeitgenössische Wandmalerei” in KJb 1991. So she could — and perhaps should — have included Ehrhardt's work in her notes, as T. suggests; perhaps including fuller references to other past scholarship too. But T. goes on to make the extraordinary claim (38 n.30) that Ehrhardt's chapter renders Yerkes' observations “largely superfluous”. I cannot follow T. here, for Ehrhardt's essay actually has a quite different aim and focus; and the differences are worth underlining

Argument (complex analysis · Art · Art history · Identification (biology · Literature · Painting · Presentation (obstetrics · Scholarship · Ancient Mediterranean Archaeology and History · Classical Antiquity Studies · Classics · Historical and Religious Studies of Rome · History · Law · Philosophy

  • Painting, Ethics, and Aesthetics in Rome

    Open Access•Nathaniel B Jones•Painting, Ethics, and Aesthetics…•2019

Citations per year0.14
Citation span2019 - 2019 (1)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae