Notes on Diligentia as a Term of Roman Art Criticism

Abstract

IT IS DIFFICULT TO READ Pliny Elder's discussions of art without noticing that he often praises skillful imitation of nature, expressing particular admiration for representations, similitudines, that deceive viewers into belief that they are looking at the real thing. Pliny tells us that realism (indiscreta veri similitudo) of a bronze dog licking its wounds, a sculpture once displayed on Capitoline Hill, was so impressive that its guards had to pledge their lives as a sort of insurance for it (HN 34.38). He marvels at a scene painting in which crows, deceived by image flew straight at representation (similitudinem) of rooftiles (HN 35.23). The Natural History is, in fact, filled with anecdotal accounts of artworks in which birds fly at painted grapes, horses whinny at paintings of their species, representations of athletes actually seem to sweat, and portraits are so lifelike that professional physiognomists can divine year of sitter's death.' Such anecdotes have dominated modern evaluations of Pliny's artistic judgment, often leading to conclusion that his understanding of subject is simple-minded and unsophisticated.2 Pliny did, however, evaluate works of art according to criteria other than their ability to deceive eye. In this regard, one critical term that repays closer examination is diligentia. The present study argues that diligentia characterized best artists, and that this quality was directly related to their ability to produce convincing likenesses, or similitudines. It also argues, however, that an artist's diligentia was not sufficient to make a work of art great. In Pliny's view, which appears to be shared by other Roman writers, an artist might be excessively diligens, and might on this account destroy other qualities that were desirable in a work of art.