DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31189#0017
II
not in context, must none the less have belonged to the material brought and used
for the construction of the villa or of parts of it. It is now generally accepted that
the Third Style came into fashion around 15 B.C. 8 The decoration of the cubicula
may then be dated in the very beginning of the last decade of the first century B. C.
So early a date is also suggested by the decoration of the peristyle which is no
longer preserved, but is described by Della Corte (476) as follows:
„Era un grandioso insieme architettonico di II stile, nel quale ad ogni colonna
reale del portico corrispondeva, sulla parete, una simile colonna dipinta, per
modo da aversi l’illusione di un portico doppio, sullo sfondo che era trattato a
grandi kstroni marmorei, neri, larghi m. 0,87-0,90, tra il fregio, in tutto scom-
parso, e lo zoccolo, ad alto podio sporgente, fatto di minori bugne di marmi
policromi venati e brecciati 9.“
A villa with decorations of two consecutive styles, if planned and executed
as a whole without visible traces of later alterations, should provide us with a precise
date. Even without the discovery of the tiles we should have to conclude that the
villa was probably built during the transitional period between the Second and the
Third Style.
Historical considerations tend to corroborate the dating. Obviously the villa
was owned by Agrippa at his death—it could not otherwise have been, in 11 B. C.,
the property of his posthumously born infant son. After a long absence Agrippa
returned to Rome in 21 B.C.; in the same year he was married to Julia and was
made praefectus urbi. In 16 B. C. he, together with Julia, again left for the East, to
return in the year 13. He died in March 12. It would then seem best to date the
beginning of the erection of the villa in the years between 21 and 16. It may have
remained unfinished until 11 when work was resumed; our rooms were decorated
shortly thereafter, in the latest fashion, the Third Style 10.
8 F. Wirth, DLZ. 59, 1938, 163. H. Beyen, Ber. 6. IntKongrArch. Berlin 1939, 504ff.;
Studia Vollgraff (1948) 11. Schefold, PM. 165. 189; WP. 2.
9 This description, of course, is not sufficient for an exact dating of the decoration of
the peristyle, but is perfectly compatible with late Second Style walls such as some of the
Farnesina.
10 Surely there is no reason to believe that the cubicula remained undecorated for
many years (see Beyen in: Studia Vollgraff 12 on special cases of lapses between erection
and decoration, which always are exceptions). Also the years between 2 B.C. (Julia’s
scandal and subsequent removal from Rome) and 4 A.D. (Augustus’ adoption of Agrippa
Postumus) may in any case be ruled out, while after 7 A.D., when Agrippa Postumus was
himself exiled, any decoration of his villa would not seem probable either. Schefold sug-
gests, on stylistic grounds, the following dates: „unmittelbar nach Zeitwende“ (PM. 189),
„um 10 nach Chr.“ (WP. 2), „um 15“ (ibid. 356).
not in context, must none the less have belonged to the material brought and used
for the construction of the villa or of parts of it. It is now generally accepted that
the Third Style came into fashion around 15 B.C. 8 The decoration of the cubicula
may then be dated in the very beginning of the last decade of the first century B. C.
So early a date is also suggested by the decoration of the peristyle which is no
longer preserved, but is described by Della Corte (476) as follows:
„Era un grandioso insieme architettonico di II stile, nel quale ad ogni colonna
reale del portico corrispondeva, sulla parete, una simile colonna dipinta, per
modo da aversi l’illusione di un portico doppio, sullo sfondo che era trattato a
grandi kstroni marmorei, neri, larghi m. 0,87-0,90, tra il fregio, in tutto scom-
parso, e lo zoccolo, ad alto podio sporgente, fatto di minori bugne di marmi
policromi venati e brecciati 9.“
A villa with decorations of two consecutive styles, if planned and executed
as a whole without visible traces of later alterations, should provide us with a precise
date. Even without the discovery of the tiles we should have to conclude that the
villa was probably built during the transitional period between the Second and the
Third Style.
Historical considerations tend to corroborate the dating. Obviously the villa
was owned by Agrippa at his death—it could not otherwise have been, in 11 B. C.,
the property of his posthumously born infant son. After a long absence Agrippa
returned to Rome in 21 B.C.; in the same year he was married to Julia and was
made praefectus urbi. In 16 B. C. he, together with Julia, again left for the East, to
return in the year 13. He died in March 12. It would then seem best to date the
beginning of the erection of the villa in the years between 21 and 16. It may have
remained unfinished until 11 when work was resumed; our rooms were decorated
shortly thereafter, in the latest fashion, the Third Style 10.
8 F. Wirth, DLZ. 59, 1938, 163. H. Beyen, Ber. 6. IntKongrArch. Berlin 1939, 504ff.;
Studia Vollgraff (1948) 11. Schefold, PM. 165. 189; WP. 2.
9 This description, of course, is not sufficient for an exact dating of the decoration of
the peristyle, but is perfectly compatible with late Second Style walls such as some of the
Farnesina.
10 Surely there is no reason to believe that the cubicula remained undecorated for
many years (see Beyen in: Studia Vollgraff 12 on special cases of lapses between erection
and decoration, which always are exceptions). Also the years between 2 B.C. (Julia’s
scandal and subsequent removal from Rome) and 4 A.D. (Augustus’ adoption of Agrippa
Postumus) may in any case be ruled out, while after 7 A.D., when Agrippa Postumus was
himself exiled, any decoration of his villa would not seem probable either. Schefold sug-
gests, on stylistic grounds, the following dates: „unmittelbar nach Zeitwende“ (PM. 189),
„um 10 nach Chr.“ (WP. 2), „um 15“ (ibid. 356).