The Ludovisi “Suicidal Gaul” and his wife:

bronze or marble original, Hellenistic or Roman?

Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway
From 1981 to 2002, in various lectures and writings, I presented my suggestion about the
“Roman” conception of the Ludovisi Suicidal Gaul, without eliciting positive responses.
What has prompted me to re-open this issue after the passing of so many years? Perhaps
the catalyst was a major exhibition — Pergamon and the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the Ancient
World — held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York from April 18 to July 17,
2016, together with its impressive catalogue. There, an essay by M. Papini reviewed pres-
ent knowledge about the victory dedications of the Attalids and the stone bases for them
erected at Pergamon within the precinct of Athena Nikephoros. Although admitting that
certainty was impossible and that serious difficulties existed about previously attempted
reconstructions, he reproduced two drawings that showed the Ludovisi Gaul atop the
large cylindrical monument as well as on the long rectangular pedestal “leaving aside
[other] improbable attempts … and even more the interpretation of the marble pieces as
Roman works evoking Pergamon ‘in the grand manner’.”1 The Ludovisi Gaul was not part
of the New York exhibition. Its companion piece, the Dying Gaul collapsing on a broken
trumpet, did receive a catalogue entry (by E. Polito) that reiterated the difficulty of visual-
izing the original placement. Yet these two Gauls (the “Trumpeter” and the Ludovisi Gaul)
have joined the sculptures from the Pergamon Great Altar as virtual touchstones for our
understanding of Pergamene style even though they may not be “Greek” at all, let alone
Pergamene.2

Frequently cited works:

· Pergamon MMA = C. A. Picon and S. Hemingway (edd.), Pergamon and the Hellenistic kingdoms
of the ancient world (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 2016).
· Queyrel, Sc. hell.= F. Queyrel, La sculpture hellénistique, vol. I. Formes, thèmes et fonctions (Paris
2016).
1 M. Papini, “Commemorations of victory: Attalid monuments to the defeat of the Galatians,”
in Pergamon MMA 40-43, figs. 50-51 (quote at 42). See also V. Kästner (ibid. 34) placing the
Ludovisi and the Dying Gaul on the long base: “... although preserved only in Roman copies.
The most famous depictions of Celts from antiquity, they document the distinctive style of this
major votive gift of Attalos”.
2 E. Polito, “Dying Gaul,” ibid., entry no. 97, pp. 176-77 and n.6, on the difficulty of placing the
original bronze on a Pergamene base. Because of the extensive existing discussion of all the
sculptures involved in the argument, I avoid mentioning the history of research or giving a
detailed description, which can be found in the works already cited, as well as in Queyrel, Sc.
hell., and, most recently, in F. Herbin and F. Queyrel, “Les monuments attalides du Dromos à
Délos (I): la “base des Galates”,” BCH 139-40 (2015-16) 267-319, especially 312, on which see
more below (nn. 16 and 21). The alleged bronze “originals” are attributed by Pliny (NH 34.84) to
several masters — including an Isigonos (sic) whose name has been emended to read Epigonos,
to conform to a later passage (NH 34.88). They would have been taken to Rome by Nero,
although Pliny’s mention is vague: atque ex omnibus quae rettuli clarissima quaeque iam sunt dicata
a Vespasiano principe in templo Pacis aliisque eius operibus, violentia Neronis in urbem convecta et in
sellariis domus aurea disposta. “Ex omnibus quae rettuli” include (without further description)
“the battles of Attalos and Eumenes against the Gauls …” by several artists, but also the “Boy
Strangling the Goose” by Boethos (although out of sequence, since the master was better known
as a silversmith). A long list in chronological/alphabetical order of other famous artists and
their works from different periods (NH 34.83) precedes both these references; it includes an

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759418001307 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 The Ludovisi “Suicidal Gaul” and his wife revisited 249

Such locational difficulties have been pointed out several times by different scholars.
The round pedestal had a domed top that was unlikely to be surmounted by a group of
statues; the extant traces of attachments suggested rather the presence of trophies, at dif-
ferent levels. The crowning blocks of the long rectangular base (now in Berlin) have been
examined by J. Marszal, who concluded that it was occupied by life-sized figures com-
prising horsemen; an extant bronze hoof seemed to fit exactly into one trace. He offered a
frieze-like reconstruction of the entire dedication and specifically argued that the Ludovisi
group was inappropriate not only because of its (larger) size and arrangement, but also
because of its subject matter — the incongruous presence of the dead wife within the battle
encounters depicted.3
The year 2016 also saw publication of another influential work: F. Queyrel’s La sculpture
hellénistique, with extensive discussion and updated bibliography on all the major free-
standing sculptures (whether originals or alleged copies) attributed to that period. Despite
the difficulty of its size, he too would place the Ludovisi group on the long rectangular
base, but at its S end, so that two main views of it would be offered to the spectator: from
the front, highlighting the male figure; and, with an element of surprise, from the short
side, revealing the dead wife (she is virtually invisible from the front).4 Queyrel would dis-
count the possibility of Roman creations but narrowed the date of the copies to the Early
Imperial age because of their use of marble from the Dokimeion quarries, exploited from
the end of the Augustan period until the 4th c. but extensively used in Tiberian times, as is
attested by the finds from the Sperlonga grotto.5

Amazon by Strongylion “in comitatu Neronis principis circulatam”.

3 J. R. Marszal, “Ubiquitous barbarians: representations of the Gauls at Pergamon and elsewhere,”
in N. T. de Grummond and B. S. Ridgway (edd.), From Pergamon to Sperlonga: sculpture and context
(Berkeley, CA 1990), specifically 208 with n.73 on 230 (mentioning A. Schober’s experiment
with the hoof), and reconstruction drawing (fig. 76). This source is cited by both Papini (supra
n.1) 42 with n.15 on 315, and Polito (supra n.2) 170 with n.6. My definition of the wife’s presence
as “incongruous” refers not to the fact that she is shown as dead (corpses are often included in
depictions of battle), but to the very presence of a female in a combat context. See also Marszal’s
argument on this point (208-9): the battles mentioned by the inscription on the long base “were
defensive … [Having] wives and children on the battlefield to encourage the men to fight …
was not a common Gallic practice ... [They] were otherwise sent away from the conflict into
areas protected by thick forests and diffiicult terrain” (historical examples are cited in his n.74
on 230-31).
4 Queyrel, Sc. hell.; for the privileged point of view of the Ludovisi Group, see 208; cf. his plan
of the Sanctuary, fig. 210 on 207. His color pl. 6 on 21 shows that, although the suicidal dagger
is largely restored, one section of it is ancient and connected to locks from the Gaul’s hair. The
caption to the same plate (on 335-36) lists restorations to both the male and the female figure.
5 Queyrel ibid. 201-33, section entitled “Les Grands Galates à Pergame et le petit ex-voto attalide
de l’Acropole d’Athènes”, with discussion of the Roman date on 206-7 with reference to
D. Attanasio, M. Bruno and W. Prochaska, “The Docimian marble of the Ludovisi and Capitoline
Gauls and other replicas of the Pergamene dedications,” AJA 115 (2011) 575-87. For the Sperlonga
marbles, see M. Bruno, D. Attanasio and W. Prochaska, “Identificazione di origine dei marmi
dei gruppi scultorei dell’antro di Tiberio a Sperlonga,” in G. Ghini and Z. Mari (edd.), Lazio
e Sabina 8 (Rome 2012) 403-15 (non vidi). Cf. also next note. The wide chronological span for
the use of Dokimeian marble may not prove the early date of manufacture of the sculptures
under discussion, but neither does it disprove it. Other pieces from the Horti Sallustiani were
in pavonazzetto from the same Turkish quarries and correspond to a sudden interest in colored
stones, as a novelty, during Early Imperial times, which is attested at the Sperlonga Grotto
by the Eagle and Ganymede group atop the cave. See also the comments by J. Isager, Pliny on
art and society (London 1991), especially 175, on the sudden popularity of marble during the
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759418001307 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 250 B. S. Ridgway

The Sperlonga sculptural complex has been much discussed, and variously dated, since
its discovery in 1957, but some consensus now seems to have been reached on the evi-
dence of the stone employed and the masonry remains at the site: early in the lifetime of
Tiberius, in the second third of the 1st c. B.C.6 The sculptors who signed the Skylla Group
were Rhodian masters who probably belonged to the same workshop that produced the
famous Laokoon, although the latter is in Parian marble. The style of the Sperlonga figures
and some of their poses recall the Pergamon Altar; it had even been hypothesized (as occa-
sionally also for the Laokoon) that they reproduced bronze Pergamene originals. It seems
certain, however, that the compositions as we have them — at least the Blinding of Poly-
phemos and the Skylla Group — were made ad hoc for their intended location and were
conceived in marble. The same is true for the Laokoon. Both bodies of work simply attest,
at some remove in time, to an interest in that particular (baroque) style that we have come
to think of as “Pergamene”.7
The traditional understanding of struts in ancient sculptures has read them as nec-
essary support for subjects being copied into marble from original bronzes. The tensile
strength of the metal allowed for unstable poses and expansive gestures, which the fragile
structure of the stone would have made impossible without special arrangements. Amor-
phous, neutral remnants of uncarved marble were therefore left in place between the main
block and the outlying features, each one placed where the individual carver felt the need
for strengthening — hence the difference in the position of struts from sculpture to sculp-
ture copying the same bronze prototype. Once considered unseemly or, at best, meant
to be ignored, today such supports are viewed as examples of bravura occasionally even
worthy of their own ornamentation. By contrast, a composition conceived from the start
to be rendered in marble adopted different approaches to prevent breakage: instead of
an anonymous treetrunk, a “narrative” dolphin could be carved next to the ankles of an
Aphrodite or a Poseidon; a cuirass could support the legs of a warrior; a stretch of mantle
could bridge the space between outstretched arm and torso; or an object could be added to
a human figure to provide further information about the intended depiction. To be sure,
neutral struts could also be employed, but in a rather inconspicuous manner.8
In Sperlonga’s Skylla and the Ship and Blinding of Polyphemos, a conception in marble
is shown by the obvious connecting struts and the interaction among the figures, which

Augustan period.
6 Date: Queyrel, Sc. hell. 261; discussion of the complex on 258-65, especially 261-62 with
acknowledgement that the architectural techniques have not yet been fully published and that
the span 30-20 B.C. is thus simply a terminus post quem. See also bibliographic details in the
captions to figs. 274-78 on 363-64.
7 The Laokoon has been thoroughly discussed by Queyrel, Sc. hell. 37-51, in particular, 48-49
on sculptors and dates, 49-50 on a possible bronze original, and 50 with reference to findspot,
now officially established as the Horti Maecenatiani. See also pl. 2 on 18 and its caption on
334 with detailed description and bibliography. For extensive documentation on the modern
findspot (and ancient possible location), see C. Häuber, The eastern part of the Mons Oppius in
Rome (BullCom Suppl. 22, 2014) 611-26, especially 624 and n.139, with figs. 81-83 on 453-56 for
comparisons with other finds from the same location: a Red Marsyas in pavonazzetto, a head of
a centaur, and a Blind Homer (Hellenistic) type that could share workshop and date with the
Laokoon. On the topography of the Horti, see her 355-435.
8 For an early statement on carving techniques and their different devices, see B. S. Ridgway,
“Stone and metal in Greek sculpture,” Archaeology 19 (1966) 31-42. On our revised understanding
of struts, see M. B. Hollinshead, “Extending the reach of marble: struts in Greek and Roman
sculpture,“ in E. K. Gazda (ed.), The ancient art of emulation (MAAR Suppl.1, 2002) 117-52.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759418001307 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 The Ludovisi “Suicidal Gaul” and his wife revisited 251

provide support for one another: the ship itself for the pilot who is being grasped by Skylla;
the blinding pole that joins the two helpers of Odysseus. The same is true for the Laokoon,
as is especially noticeable now that the ancient right arm of the father has been restored in
place, and modern additions to the right arm of both sons have been removed. Limbs and
snakes serve the function of struts, unobtrusively strengthening the human personages, to
the extent that the Elder Pliny (NH 36.36) could believe the group to have been made ex
uno lapide.
I suggest that the same mar-
ble conception can be inferred
from the composition of the
Ludovisi Gaul (fig. 1). The
dead woman functions like the
typical “narrative” support,
strengthening the male’s pose
while contributing to the total
meaning; her left arm, which
is restored, might not have
been outstretched as much as
at present. The true struts (for
the mantle, and from the wife
to the man’s thigh) are quite
common in marble originals,
at times almost as if to boast of
the sculptor’s ability in carving
from a single block. The pecu-
liar angle of the warrior’s right
arm, to some extent, echoes
Laokoon’s right arm in that it
is ‘anchored’ to the torso by the
‘strut’ of the suicidal weapon.
Moreover, to be understood in
its entirety the group requires
to be viewed from all angles,
not simply from a specific
viewpoint. At Pergamon,
whether on the round or the
rectangular base, all-around
and close inspection would
have been precluded, either
because of a high location or
because additional combatants
Fig. 1. Ludovisi Gaul (Kim J. Hartswick).
would have interfered.
We now know that the group entered the Ludovisi collection from the Italian fam-
ily’s own grounds, which in antiquity formed part of the Horti Sallustiani. Laid out at the
end of the 1st c. B.C., these extended, at least partially, over two hills: the gradual slope of
the Quirinal at the south and perhaps the sharper slope of the Pincio at the north, with a
deep valley in between. Any location of the sculpture within this area would have allowed

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759418001307 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 252 B. S. Ridgway

not only for circumambulation but perhaps also for a view slightly from above, thereby
encompassing all major aspects of the composition.9
My suggestion that the Laokoon and the “Large Gauls” were created almost contempo-
raneously and for Roman viewers is not predicated on their alleged originality, there being
no true copies preserved. This seems still true for the Trojan subject, although inspiration
from the “minor arts” is possible. For the Gauls, especially the “Dying Trumpeter”, the
pieces mentioned as comparisons could simply be part of the traditional repertoire for fight-
ing men, and Odysseus’ companions in the blinding are ‘neutral’ male figures likely to find
echoes in a variety of subjects.10 To be sure, however, other groups known from Sperlonga
or elsewhere generated several replicas which may not all postdate the Augustan period.
Two two-figured monuments known from several marble replicas have been cited as
possible inspirations from, or imitations of, the Ludovisi Gaul, and in connection with Per-
gamene art and presumed bronze originals of the 2nd c. B.C.: the “Pasquino Group”, and
Achilles supporting the body of Penthesileia (occasionally used in antiquity as a pendant
to the Pasquino). I have published my own opinions on such works, but, for objectivity’s
sake, prefer here to cite a recent voice, that of F. Queyrel. He suggests a date around 70 B.C.
for the Pasquino creation but considers the elder figure’s decorated helmet of the replicas
a classicizing imitation of the beginning of the Imperial period. He sees the Achilles with
Penthesileia as inspired by the Pasquino, with the motif known by A.D. 20-60 and repeated
in the panel with Claudius and Britannia on the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias.11 Thanks to

9 See K. J. Hartswick, The Gardens of Sallust. A changing landscape (Austin, TX 2004) 1-12, for general
location and history, and Part III on some statuary from the Gardens (the Gauls are discussed
on 104-8). Although the original setting of the two Gauls cannot be determined, the attribution
to the Gardens is made on the basis of “the sudden appearance of the [two statues], without
comment, in a Ludovisi inventory of 1633”, which may imply a discovery within the Ludovisi
property “sometime after 1622” (ibid. 105).
10 For the Laokoon, no copies were cited even at the Paris conference in 2002: see my “Le Laocoon
dans la sculpture hellénistique,” in E. Decoultot, J. Le Rider and F. Queyrel (edd.), Le Laocoon:
histoire et réception (Revue Germanique Internationale 19 [2003]) 13-31. The Dying Gaul is said to
be duplicated by a torso in Dresden (Queyrel, Sc. hell. 203-4 with fig. 201, dated to the Antonine
period), although it is acknowledged that the wound on the proper right side of the body has
been placed at a different level. I have not seen the Dresden torso, but from photographs it looks
as if the remnants of the neck show no trace of a torque; the positions of the arms, to judge from
the extant stumps, may have differed from those of the Trumpeter. Other possible copies do not
refer specifically to the two Gauls from the Horti Sallustiani and are cited purely on the basis of
their subject matter. In the case of Odysseus’ companions in the Blinding scene, that copies of
the heads may exist is not surprising, since heads were combined at will with different bodies
in Roman “copies”: see J. Fink, “Eine Kopf für Viele,” RömMitt 71 (1964) 152-57. Any imitation
after the turn of the era can be explained by workshop practices. It is therefore invalid to adduce
comparisons with sarcophagi and other reliefs to postulate Pergamene bronze prototypes.
11 Queyrel, Sc. hell. 253-55 (Achilles and Penthesileia), 249-53 (Pasquino Group) with figs. 257-59.
The original position of the older figure’s head is attested by the unbroken copy immured into
Rome’s Palazzo Braschi, whiich gives the composition its nickname. See ibid. 252 for the replica
from Sperlonga and comparison with the Ludovisi Gaul. The group is usually supposed to
depict Menelaos with the corpse of Patroklos; the version from Sperlonga, however, may show
Ajax supporting the dead Achilles. Since at least one more interpretation (Aeneas with the
body of Lausus) has been suggested, by A. H. Weis, “Odysseus at Sperlonga: Hellenistic hero
or Roman heroic foil?,” in de Grummond and Ridgway (supra n.3) 111-65, and each rendering
of the group may have implied different identities according to location, it seems best to refer to
the composition as the Pasquino. Weis’s article contains some useful comments on the replicas
and meanings of the Sperlonga subjects, although it has received little echo in the literature.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759418001307 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 The Ludovisi “Suicidal Gaul” and his wife revisited 253

Queyrel’s thorough treatment, these sculptures need not be reviewed in depth here, but
I highlight a specific point. Not only do both groups consist of a vital figure and a dead
or dying body that functions as ‘mute support’, but both ‘live’ actors in the composition
turn their heads abruptly toward an imaginary spectator, with the look of a ‘deer caught
in the headlights’. A third personage seems implied by their pose — just as a threaten-
ing opponent seems implied by the Ludovisi Group. The same abrupt turn of the head
is found in several other marble conpositions that could be described as “single-figured
groups” because of this imaginary viewer: the Borghese Warrior (or Hero) in the Louvre
signed by Agasias of Ephesos; the Hermes tying (or untying) his sandal; and several of
the pieces recovered from the Antikythera wreck that may belong to the epic world of the
Iliad, whose subject was particularly popular in the Late Hellenistic period. Their dating is
based on the time of the wreck (c.70 B.C.) and epigraphic/genealogic grounds (the master’s
signature on the Borghese Warrior’s support). All these pieces, moreover, present consid-
erable points of similarity with the Sperlonga sculptures — as well as echoes or adaptation
of what we consider “Lysippan style”.12
Such classicizing traits are, however, combined also with ‘baroque’ elements that have
prompted repeated comparisons with Pergamene art — as well as theories of lost bronze
prototypes. Indeed, the impact of the Great Altar’s Gigantomachy Frieze has been so
profound since its discovery that I did not hesitate to write about “The shadow of the
Pergamon Altar” as a major factor influencing our stylistic judgment.13 Yet the many free-
standing marble sculptures found at the site itself do not justify our assumptions — at
least, to the extent that the pieces preserved do not possess narrative content. On the Altar,
some of the Giants’ wild appearance has been taken to symbolize the ‘barbaric’ character
of the Gauls, but none of the weapons used in that fight are typically Gallic and none of the
perceived allusions to other opponents of the Attalids is more than generic. By contrast, the
reliefs decorating the balustrade of the two stoas delimiting the Sanctuary of Athena Nike-
phoros make explicit, if anonymous, allusions to Eumenes II’s victories (189-188 B.C.) over

I refer to my own latest discussion of 1st-c. B.C. sculptures in Hellenistic style (Hellenistic sculp-
ture III. The styles of ca. 100-31 B.C. [Madison, WI 2002] 68-95 with notes on 99-113) which includes
the Laokoon, all the Sperlonga groups, villa decorations with scene involving Polyphemos and
Odysseus (e.g., from Colle Cesarano and, in terracotta, in Tortoreto, plus additional ones) for
the ampler treatment not feasible in the present article.
12 “Single-figured groups” implying an invisible spectator: for the term (“Einfigurengruppen”),
see P. H. von Blanckenhagen, “Der ergänzende Betrachter, Bemerkungen zu einem Aspekt helle-
nistischer Kunst,” in Wandlungen. Festschrift E. Homann-Wedeking (Waldsassen 1975) 193-201,
especially 197; also B. S. Ridgway, Hellenistic sculpture I. The styles of ca. 331-200 B.C. (Madison,
WI 1990) 80 and passim. For the Borghese Warrior in the Louvre, see Queyrel, Sc. hell. 265-68,
fig. 286 with caption on 364-65; for the Hermes with the Sandal, see ibid. 268 with fig. 291 and
caption on 365; for the Small Iliad in marble from the Antikythera wreck, see ibid. 255-57. It
has been pointed out to me that the abrupt turn of the head appears as early as on the Bassae
frieze (5th c. B.C.) and within the “murder pediment” of the Alexander Sarcophagus (late 4th
c. B.C.), yet these are both two-dimensional, many-figured compositions in relief with actions
taking place all around them, rather than free-standing groups in isolation. By the same token,
postures that appear similar to clearly Hellenistic statues (e.g., the Crouching Aphrodite) recur
much earlier, on Black- and Red-figure vases. Pertinent, in this context is, e.g., the comment by
J. Neils, “Praxiteles to Caravaggio: the Apollo Sauroktonos redefined,” ArtB 99 (2017) 17 and n.55,
on unstable or complex poses on vases much preceeding such renderings in sculpture.
13 B. S. Ridgway, Hellenistic sculpture II. The styles of ca. 200-100 B.C. (Madison, WI 2000) as the title
of chapt. 2. Details of the German excavations and subsequent impact are now amply discussed
in the essays of Pergamon MMA.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759418001307 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 254 B. S. Ridgway

the Gauls “in Greater Phrygia” and over Prusias I of Bithynia (186-184 B.C.) who employed
Celtic mercenaries, but the latter’s weapons seem to date from a century earlier, according
to a study in progress.14
It may be relevant to repeat here the reminder by N. de Grummond of “just how little has
survived in the way of Hellenistic representations of the Gauls at Pergamon itself”.15 But
some comments can be made from the monuments that were undoubtedly meant as com-
memorations of victory. Except for the detailed depiction of different enemies and events
(each occupying a single section on the long rectangular base, as visualized by Marszal),
the other monuments seem to have displayed trophies and bronze statues of Nike or of the
ruler himself, in traditional format. The same approach seems to have prevailed among
other Hellenistic rulers, who often derived their inspiration from the Classical period.16
On the Athenian Akropolis, the victorious Attalids were again represented by tradi-
tional, over-lifesized portraits or by triumphal chariots on pillar bases, but also by an
unusual monument (124 m in length) that held no fewer than 132 under-lifesized bronze
figures in combats comprising winners as well as defeated opponents. Long known
through a description by Pausanias (1.25.2) and by at least 10 marble replicas from Rome,
our understanding of this “Lesser Attalid Dedication” (c.200 B.C.) has now been greatly
expanded by the discovery on the Akropolis of several blocks containing the attachment
traces of the original bronze figures.17 Here, however, local influences on the Hellenis-
tic conception, together with Roman demands affecting the copies, provide iconographic
answers.18 Built in the very shadow of the Parthenon, the intent of the depiction was
undoubtedly to rank the historical victories over Gauls and Persians with the legendary
ones over Giants and Amazons shown on the 5th-c. metopes of the Parthenon. As for the
marble copies, although no one-to-one correspondence with the extant traces of bronze

14 Queyrel, Sc. hell. 197-98, on the meaning of the Altar Gigantomachy; 179 on the weapon frieze
in the Sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros (with figs. 166-67 and n.27), repeating the comment
by T. Lejars who is investigating the topic. The specific victories are named by the dedicatory
inscription on the propylon, but the mixture of weapon types on the reliefs make the occasions
generic. Cf. Pergamon MMA no. 109a-c on 188-89 (V. Kästner). That most of the statues in the
round recovered from Pergamon are in marble is probably due to the fact that they are either
honorary or divine images. Yet, although the bases of the bronze dedications have survived,
others, equally for bronze offerings, have not been recovered. To postulate a “lost” bronze
original on the assumption that some areas of the site have not yet been excavated seems a
specious argument.
15 N. T. de Grummond, “Gauls and Giants, Skylla and the Palladion: some responses,” in ead. and
Ridgway (supra n.3) 255-77 (quotation on 256).
16 See, e.g., T. M. Brogan, Hellenistic Nike: monuments commemorating military victories of the Attalid
and Antigonid kingdoms, the Aitolian League and the Rhodian polis ca. 307 to 133 B.C. (Ph.D. diss.,
Bryn Mawr College 1999); also several examples cited by Queyrel 2015-16 (supra n.2) with
reference to coinage and other depictions.
17 Akropolis Long Monument: Queyrel, Sc. hell. 225-33. Initial and thorough publication of the
Akropolis finds was provided by A. Stewart, Attalos, Athens, and the Akropolis. The Pergamene
“Little Barbarians” and their Roman and Renaissance legacy (Cambridge 2004) (it includes an essay
by M. Korres).
18 The marble bases in Athens show only the points of attachment of the individual figures
and tell little about their identifying attributes; imitation of the Parthenon might have been
predominant. At Rome, however, the marble figures were carved in one with individual plinths
which carried both indication of landscape and weapons or other attributes, obviously added
by the copyists and probably following the wishes of the Roman sponsor or the requirements
of the intended setting: cf. Queyrel, Sc. hell. 231.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759418001307 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 The Ludovisi “Suicidal Gaul” and his wife revisited 255

attachments on the blocks exists, their distinctive subjects and size plausibly suggest that
they reproduce figures from the Athenian monument. Even though their intended setting
in Rome is not known, modifications were undoubtedly required — including the elimi-
nation of the winners, and especially the addition of individual marble bases with their
‘attributes’. Technical analysis has shown that their marble derives from the Göktepe quar-
ries near Aphrodisias, and their execution has been attributed to Aphrodisian sculptors
working in Italy in the 2nd c. A.D.; it is assumed that a single commission, probably from
an Imperial client, was responsible for the entire lot.19
Given the differences — sources of marble, distance in time, type of Roman commis-
sion and presumed setting —, no possible comparison can be made between the Ludovisi
Gaul and the “Little Barbarians”. Yet other monuments exist that commemorate victories
over Celtic enemies — with marble originals. The best known is the life-sized “Wounded
Gaul” from the Agora of the Italians on Delos that stands in isolation on his own base,
although the tilt of his head implies, once again, the presence of an imaginary viewer. A
second Gaul statue survives at present only as a head lying on the ground (as shown by a
point of adherence on its back), but images of Roman magistrates stood in nearby niches to
allude to the victors over Celtic invaders. Queyrel mentions that the Late Hellenistic period
witnessed a return to favor of such ethnic depictions, listing several events of Roman suc-
cesses against “barbarians”. A third marble example — the striding legs of a man wearing
tight-fitting trousers — certainly shows a Gaul because he wears his weapon on his right
side, but he is said to have been found at Cerveteri (Caere) in Etruscan territory. Was it the
Roman-influenced, Etruscan-connected locale that spurred this renewed interest in Celtic
representations? It may even be irrelevant to mention that Caesar conquered and con-
trolled “Celtic” Gallia in the 50s B.C.20
We have been so captivated by the Pergamene discoveries that we have tended to mini-
mize other iconographic expressions of conflicts with barbarians, yet both the Etruscans
and the Romans had their share of problems with such enemies. J. Marszal has mentioned

19 Marble analysis: D. Attanasio, M. Bruno and W. Prochaska, “Aphrodisian marble from the
Göktepe quarries: the Little Barbarians, Roman copies from the Attalid dedication in Athens,”
PBSR 80 (2012) 65-87. Lack of one-to-one correspondence: Stewart (supra n.17) 193: “extant
surfaces [of the newly found bases] do not allow an exact fit”; 271 (Korres): “they [the traces]
merely indicate some possibilities and show that figures like those in Fig. 280 and the following
perhaps stood on some of the blocks”.
Dating and attribution to Antonine-period sculptors: Pergamon MMA, entries nos. 99-10a-c
(Persian, Giant, Amazon, Gaul) on 178-81 (S. Pafumi et al.). Influence from/on contemporary
sarcophagi is suggested. The possible motivation toward the Roman copying, I believe, is the
location of the bronzes in Athens, as seen and described by Pausanias (1.25.2; c.A.D. 170) — a
city which still exercised a strong intellectual impact on the Romans — rather than Pergamon,
which may not have been familiar to most Italic peoples. Warrior poses, even if similar to some
of the combatants on the Pergamon Altar’s Gigantomachy, can be considered staples of battle
compositions, even without direct influence from a single specific monument.
20 For the “Wounded Gaul” and “Head of a Gaul” from Delos, see Queyrel, Sc. hell. figs. 196-97
on 200-1, and color pl. 37 on 211, dated c.100-90 B.C. For the lower body of a Celt(?) wearing
trousers, in New York, from Caere/Cerveteri, see Queyrel, Sc. hell. 203-4, fig. 206; a better
illustration is found in Ridgway (supra n.13) pls. 81a-b.
On Late Republican and Early Imperial representations of Gauls, see also the comment by
Marszal (supra n.3) 216: “Influence from Pergamon has been at times seen to stand behind the
individual motifs, but the new subject matter has in several cases demanded a considerable
reworking of the theme”.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759418001307 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 256 B. S. Ridgway

a great number of post-Pergamene depictions; S. Steingräber has specifically addressed

Pergamene influence over Etruscan culture; but other sources could be considered, espe-
cially since a tradition of ‘baroque’ style ante litteram, as it were, was well-known on Italic
territory from Tarentine sculptures predating the Great Altar.21
Our conception of “Roman” sculpture
A major shift is beginning to occur in our conception of “Roman” sculpture. Once
credited only with the creation of distinctive portraits or of historical reliefs, the entire pro-
duction is now seen as much more imaginative and responding to enormous requests from
the Italic public, whether made in workshops operating on Greek territory (the “Neo-Attic”
ateliers) or by sculptors who had relocated in Italy to respond to the immediate demands
of their new customers. Shipwrecks reveal the quantities of objects being shipped to Italy
to furnish the villas of the new clients. Emphasis was placed on themes that connected
Trojan or Greek heroes to Italic foundations, in a culture that created its own counterpart
to the Iliad and the Odyssey with the Aeneid, as if to establish its self-identity.
As the Vergilian poem gave its own Roman slant to the Homeric stories, so the new
sculptures imitated Greek styles but with their own creative component. A new taste for
the picturesque peopled grottos and gardens with marble sculptures: not only Sperlonga
but also the Blue Grotto in Capri; not only the Villa of Oplontis but also the Horti Sallus-
tiani and Maecenatiani, and the private collections of Cicero and Asinius Pollio.22
It is therefore clear that stylistic analysis, in the traditional sense of our evolutionary
approach to sculptural chronology, is no longer viable, in that all previous styles were avail-
able for quotation by the end of the 1st c. B.C. and the beginning of the Principate. The recent
Oxford handbook of Roman sculpture emphasizes this position, highlighting the veritable “pas-
sion for marble”23 of the Romans that made sculpture ubiquitous in their lives. As S. Dillon
has pointed out, even small provincial cities were filled with it, “in houses, on city gates, in
theaters, along streets, in fountains and in baths, in sanctuaries and temples, in cemeteries”
— a distribution that far surpasses the use of sculpture even in Hellenistic times.24

21 Marszal ibid.; S. Steingräber, “Pergamene influence on Etruscan art,” in de Grummond and

Ridgway (supra n.3) 235-54. See also the important Italic perspective in de Grummond (supra
n.15). The Introduction (1-16) to de Grummond and Ridgway (supra n.3) may be usefully
read as background for the specific orientation of the three authors mentioned in this note.
For additional material on Roman Republican coinage (and other objects), see Queyrel 2015-16
(supra n.2) 300-2. On Tarentine Hellenistic sculpture, see E. Lippolis, “La produzione in pietra,”
in id. (ed.), I Greci in Occidente. Arte e artigianati in Magna Grecia (Taranto 1996) 493-507; also
Ridgway (supra n.13) 105 with ill. 16, and n.4 on 129-30. There is a good illustration of a metope
from a tomb in Via Umbria imitating Alexander the Great: Pergamon MMA, no. 16 on 115, dated
late 3rd to mid-2nd c. B.C. (L. Masiello).
22 See de Grummond (supra n.15). On the “Blue Grotto sculptures”, see A. De Franciscis, Le
statue della Grotta Azzurra nell’Isola di Capri (Naples 1964); B. S. Ridgway, “The setting of Greek
sculpture,” Hesperia 40 (1971) 356. It should be clear by now that I consider “Roman” all works
intended to suit Roman taste and habits, starting in the 2nd c. B.C. As stated at Ridgway (supra
n.12) 373, “the third century would … appear as the last truly Greek time”.
23 The expression is taken from my “A passion for marble,” in G. E. Borromeo and C. C. Goulet
(edd.), Exhibition notes. Rethinking the Romans. New views on ancient sculpture = RISD Mus. Bull. 13
(Spring 2001) 7-10 All the essays in those exhibition notes (3-36) are pertinent to my topic here.
24 For the “interpretation” of the various stylistic phases in Late Hellenistic times, see Ridgway
(supra n.11). For a wider compass, see E. Friedland and M. Grunow Sobocinski (edd.), The
Oxford handbook of Roman sculpture (Oxford 2015), with the review by S. Dillon at BMCR
2015.12.13, especially with reference to Section 4, as quoted; Dillon emphasizes the “central
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759418001307 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 The Ludovisi “Suicidal Gaul” and his wife revisited 257

Of special interest is the evidence from a “foreign” site: Glanum (Saint-Rémy) in Gallia
Narbonensis. Made a Roman city officially in 27 B.C., after Caesar’s conquest, it erected a
triumphal arch (c.A.D. 14) whose reliefs may be among the earliest monuments to include
women as captives of war. In the same town, the mausoleum of a local Celtic family, the
Julii, roughly contemporary with the Arch, has a podium decorated with scenes from both
‘history’ and mythology: an Amazonomachy, a fight between Trojans and Greeks for the
body of Patroklos, a Boar Hunt on horseback (Meleager and the Kalydonian Boar?) and,
finally, a cavalry battle with a Victory carrying a trophy. A study of the armor worn by
the horsemen may not provide reliable information since foreign peoples serving in the
Roman army (especially officers or members of the élite) tended to adopt their conquerors’
panoply. The Celts, like the Etruscans, were trying to imitate their Hellenistic and Roman
former enemies in forging for themselves a similar form of expression.25 It is worth asking,
therefore, whose meaning is implicit in sculpture like the Laokoon and the Suicidal Gaul:
a Greek one, a Roman one, or even that of the international viewers who visited Rome and
strolled around the city’s gardens?26
Much has been written about possible reactions to the Suicidal Gaul, depending on its
identification with either a Pergamene or a Roman monument. Queyrel, believing that the
emotions of the viewer favor the winner rather than the Gaul, therefore assumes the pres-
ence of a Greek public who shares the same values. Yet, by emphasizing the bravery of the
loser, the implicit message would glorify his opponent — hence the Roman? Not only is
the concept of suicide (not just to escape capture, as would be the motivation behind the
Ludovisi Gaul) more diffused among the Roman élite than among Greek warriors, but the
victimization of women is much more typical of Italic iconography, as was mentioned.27

importance of sculpture to our understanding of Roman social history”.

25 For the monuments in Glanum, see Marszal (supra n.3) 217-18, with added comments on the
type of armor adopted by the Gauls. For the practice among the Etruscans, see also M. J. Taylor,
“Etruscan identity and service in the Roman army 300-100 B.C.E.,” AJA 121 (2017) 275-92. The
same author has identified some naked Gauls (and their typical oblong shields) on the Aemilius
Paullus Monument at Delphi: “The battle scene on Aemilius Paullus’s Pydna monument:
a reevaluation,” Hesperia 85 (2016) 559-76. An interesting parallel because from Asia Minor is
the weapons frieze from Miletos which depicts Amazonian peltas mixed with Gallic shields,
thus equating both enemies(?) as quasi-legendary. Initially attributed to the propylon of the
Bouleuterion, which would give it a date between 175 and 163 B.C. by its dedication to Antiochos
IV, the frieze has more recently been redated to the 2nd c. A.D.: E. Polito, Fulgentibus armis:
Introduzione allo studio dei fregi d’armamenti (Rome 1998) 213-14. On the victimization of women,
see Marszal (supra n.3) 217 (in the context of the arch at Glanum): “the arches are the earliest
well-dated monuments that include women among the captives of the war”. See also n.27..
26 See Polito’s entry in Pergamon MMA 176 with n.9, citing further bibliography on the contrasting
views of the image of the barbarian. For Queyrel’s opinion, see Sc. hell. 55, also 255, describing
the “ataraxia” of the barbarian Gaul whose face demonstrates no physical pain. I have not seen
the recent re-examination of the ancient sources (and their prejudices) about “barbarians” by
L. Baray, Celtes, Galates et Gaulois, mercenaires de l’Antiquité (Paris 2017), but cf. the review at
BMCR 2017.12.03 .
27 It is traditionally held that suicide was a “barbarian” habit, inappropriate for Greeks. Yet
Queyrel (Sc. hell. 205 and n.16) notes that a slightly variant depiction of suicide appears during
the second half of the 2nd c. B.C. on the frieze of Magnesia’s Temple of Artemis Leukophryene.
The subject, however, is an Amazonomachy and the suicidal warrior is a Greek, follower
of Herakles (perhaps at Themiskyra) — therefore one of the aggressors/victors. The notion
appears out of character. Suicide, however, seems to have been well-known to Romans: e.g.,
Brutus and Cassius, Marc Antony, Cato “Uticensis”, Petronius, Seneca, even the poet Lucan. For

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759418001307 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 258 B. S. Ridgway

The case of the Dying Gaul has been prejudiced by Pliny’s reference (NH 34.88) to a
work by Isigonos (sic) who made a tubicen, but a broken instrument is not implied by his
wording and the depiction on the marble base of the Trumpeter is a Roman tuba, not the
distinctive carnyx of the Celts. Equally, the matri interfectae infante miserabiliter blandiente
that Pliny attributed to the same master is not identified as a Gaul, nor do the two monu-
ments cited appear within a context of victory monuments but — when the entire passage
is cited — as part of a repertoire of philosophers, comic actors, and athletes by many other
sculptors, As a final consideration, I wish to stress that both the Ludovisi Gaul and the Lao-
koon are not expressing classical pathos — i.e., their own feelings — as much as they are
pathetic — i.e., engendering emotions of pity and compassion in the viewer. The same can
be said for the Pasquino Group and the Achilles and Penthesileia.
Inevitably, such speculations are largely subjective and may not reflect situations in
antiquity. In the case of the two “Large Gauls”, their established date and location within
the Horti Sallustiani implies without question that they were seen by a “Roman” public. It
can also be mentioned that one additional over-lifesized sculpture of a young warrior sit-
ting on a base entered the Ludovisi inventories in 1641 and may also have depicted a Gaul.
The description of the pose resembles that of the Ares Ludovisi, with which it has occa-
sionally been confused and which, however, was found in an entirely different location.
This “third Ludovisi Gaul” is in a relaxed attitude and still holds his (restored?) sword. If,
indeed, this figure formed a group with the Ludovisi and the Dying Gauls, the total mes-
sage of the composition might have to be reconsidered, perhaps as illustrating the Celts in
three different situations: in repose, wounded, and committing suicide — thus placing all
previous speculations into question.28
We should look anew at sculptures of “Roman” execution without being influenced
either by ancient literary sources — vague at best and written at great chronological dis-
tance from the works they mention — or by our own preconceived notions, in which
originals such as Pergamon’s Great Altar Frieze dominate our perception, and in which
anything “Greek” is bound to be more original and creative than anything made during
Roman times. The finds from Sperlonga have impressed upon us the realization that imi-
tation of Greek styles need not imply lack of imagination and innovation, and that new
settings may have inspired new, even spectacular compositions. It is because of this optic
that I hope to have re-opened the issue of the Ludovisi Suicidal Gaul and his wife.
[email protected] Bryn Mawr College, PA

Acknowledgements
I most warmly thank my (few) archaeological friends who encouraged me to try this more focused
approach — no need to mention names: you know who you are! My deepest gratitude is to John
Humphrey who, when asked for his personal opinion as a “Romanist”, volunteered to publish my
text. I am both delighted and honored to have my writing included in this important periodical. My
hope is that it will spark, if not agreement, at least a lively discussion from diverse points of view.

women among enslaved captives, see, e.g., two artifacts with Early Roman Imperial content:
the Gemma Augustea and the Grand Camée de France. Also n.25 above.
28 Hartswick (supra n.9) 107 and nn. 142-43 on 185; B. S. Ridgway, Fourth century styles in Greek
sculpture (Madison, WI 1997) 86 and n.24 on 103. On the Ares Ludovisi (not part of the Horti,
since it is said to have been found near Palazzo Santa Croce), see ibid. 84 and n.22 on 103. Since
the Horti Sallustiani are known to have also housed some funerary monuments, the “third
Ludovisi Gaul” — owned by the Terme Museum but now exhibited in Palazzo Altemps — may
instead have formed part of such a memorial together with a twin counterpart now lost.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759418001307 Published online by Cambridge University Press