Laocoön and His Sons
|Dimensions||height 208 cm; width 163; depth 112|
|Location||Vatican Museums, Vatican City|
The statue of Laocoön and His Sons (Italian: Gruppo del Laocoonte), also called the Laocoön Group, has been one of the most famous ancient sculptures ever since it was excavated in Rome in 1506 and placed on public display in the Vatican, where it remains. Exceptionally, it appears to be identifiable with a statue praised in the highest terms by the main Roman writer on art, Pliny the Elder. The figures are near life-size and the group is a little over 2 m (6 ft 7 in) in height, showing the Trojan priest Laocoön and his sons Antiphantes and Thymbraeus being attacked by sea serpents.
The group has been "the prototypical icon of human agony" in Western art, and unlike the agony often depicted in Christian art showing the Passion of Jesus and martyrs, this suffering has no redemptive power or reward. The suffering is shown through the contorted expressions of the faces (Charles Darwin pointed out that Laocoön's bulging eyebrows are physiologically impossible), which are matched by the struggling bodies, especially that of Laocoön himself, with every part of his body straining.
Pliny attributes the work, then in the palace of Emperor Titus, to three Greek sculptors from the island of Rhodes: Agesander, Athenodoros and Polydorus, but does not give a date or patron. In style it is considered "one of the finest examples of the Hellenistic baroque" and certainly in the Greek tradition, but it is not known whether it is an original work or a copy of an earlier sculpture, probably in bronze, or made for a Greek or Roman commission. The view that it is an original work of the 2nd century BC now has few if any supporters, although many still see it as a copy of such a work made in the early Imperial period, probably of a bronze original. Others see it as probably an original work of the later period, continuing to use the Pergamese style of some two centuries earlier. In either case, it was probably commissioned for the home of a wealthy Roman, possibly of the Imperial family. Various dates have been suggested for the statue, ranging from about 200 BC to the 70s AD, though "a Julio-Claudian date [between 27 BC and 68 AD] ... is now preferred".
Although mostly in excellent condition for an excavated sculpture, the group is missing several parts, and analysis suggests that it was remodelled in ancient times as well as undergoing a number of restorations since it was excavated. It is on display in the Museo Pio-Clementino, a part of the Vatican Museums.
Though not mentioned by Homer, the story of Laocoön had been the subject of a tragedy, now lost, by Sophocles and was mentioned by other Greek writers. Laocoön was a Trojan priest of Poseidon who was killed with both his sons after attempting to expose the ruse of the Trojan Horse by striking it with a spear. Alternatively he was killed for having had sex with his wife in the temple of Poseidon, or simply making a sacrifice in the temple with his wife present. In the second version, the snakes were sent by Poseidon and in the first by Poseidon and Athena, or Apollo, and the deaths were interpreted by the Trojans as proof that the horse was a sacred object. The two versions have rather different morals: Laocoön was either punished for doing wrong, or for being right.
The most famous account of these events is in Virgil's Aeneid (see the Aeneid quotation at the entry Laocoön), but this dates from between 29 and 19 BC, which is possibly later than the sculpture. However, some scholars see the group as a depiction of the scene as described by Virgil. The snakes are depicted as both biting and constricting, and are probably intended as venomous, as in Virgil. Pietro Aretino thought so, praising the group in 1537:
...the two serpents, in attacking the three figures, produce the most striking semblences of fear, suffering and death. The youth embraced in the coils is fearful; the old man struck by the fangs is in torment; the child who has received the poison, dies.
In at least one Greek telling of the story the oldest son is able to escape, and the composition seems to allow for that possibility.
The style of the work is agreed to be that of the Hellenistic "Pergamene baroque" which arose in Greek Asia Minor around 200 BC, and whose best known undoubtedly original work is the Pergamon Altar (dated ca 180-160 BC, now Berlin). Here the figure of Alcyoneus is shown in a pose and situation (including serpents) which is very similar to those of Laocoön, though the style is "looser and wilder in its principles" than the altar. The execution of the Laocoön is extremely fine throughout, and the composition very carefully calculated, even though it appears that the group underwent adjustments in ancient times. The two sons are rather small in scale compared to their father, but this adds to the impact of the central figure. The fine white marble used is often thought to be Greek, but has not been identified by analysis.
In Pliny's survey of Greek and Roman stone sculpture in his encyclopedic Natural History (XXXVI, 37), he says:
....in the case of several works of very great excellence, the number of artists that have been engaged upon them has proved a considerable obstacle to the fame of each, no individual being able to engross the whole of the credit, and it being impossible to award it in due proportion to the names of the several artists combined. Such is the case with the Laocoön, for example, in the palace of the Emperor Titus, a work that may be looked upon as preferable to any other production of the art of painting or of [bronze] statuary. It is sculptured from a single block, both the main figure as well as the children, and the serpents with their marvellous folds. This group was made in concert by three most eminent artists, Agesander, Polydorus, and Athenodorus, natives of Rhodes
It is generally accepted that this is the same work as is now in the Vatican. It is now very often thought that the three Rhodians were copyists, perhaps of a bronze sculpture from Pergamon, created around 200 BC. It is noteworthy that Pliny does not address this issue explicitly, in a way that suggests "he regards it as an original". Pliny states that it was located in the palace of the emperor Titus, and it is possible that it remained in the same place until 1506 (see "Findspot" section below). He also asserts that it was carved from a single piece of marble, though the Vatican work comprises at least seven interlocking pieces. The phrase translated above as "in concert" (de consilii sententia) is regarded by some as referring to their commission rather than the artists method of working, giving in Nigel Spivey's translation: " [the artists] at the behest of council designed a group...", which Spivey takes to mean that the commission was by Titus, possibly even advised by Pliny among other savants.
The same three artists' names, though in a different order (Athenodoros, Agesander, and Polydorus), with the names of their fathers, are inscribed on one of the sculptures at Tiberius's villa at Sperlonga (though they may predate his ownership), but it seems likely that not all the three masters were the same individuals. Though broadly similar in style, many aspects of the execution of the two groups are drastically different, with the Laocoon group of much higher quality and finish.
It used to be thought that honorific inscriptions found at Lindos in Rhodes dated Agesander and Athenedoros, recorded as priests, to a period after 42 BC, making the years 42 to 20 BC the most likely date for the Laocoön group's creation in the view of some scholars. However the Sperlonga inscription, which also gives the fathers of the artists, makes it clear that at least Agesander is a different individual from the priest of the same name recorded at Lindos, though very possibly related. The names may have recurred across generations, a Rhodian habit, within the context of a family workshop (which might well have included the adoption of promising young sculptors). Altogether eight "signatures" (or labels) of an Athenodoros are found on sculptures or bases for them, five of these from Italy. Some, including that from Sperlonga, record his father as Agesander. The whole question remains the subject of academic debate.
The group was unearthed in February 1506 in the vineyard of Felice De Fredis; informed of the fact, Pope Julius II, an enthusiastic classicist, sent for his court artists. Michelangelo was called to the site of the unearthing of the statue immediately after its discovery, along with the Florentine architect Giuliano da Sangallo and his eleven year-old son Francesco da Sangallo, later a sculptor, who wrote an account over sixty years later:
The first time I was in Rome when I was very young, the pope was told about the discovery of some very beautiful statues in a vineyard near Santa Maria Maggiore. The pope ordered one of his officers to run and tell Giuliano da Sangallo to go and see them. So he set off immediately. Since Michelangelo Buonarroti was always to be found at our house, my father having summoned him and having assigned him the commission of the pope’s tomb, my father wanted him to come along, too. I joined up with my father and off we went. I climbed down to where the statues were when immediately my father said, "That is the Laocoön, which Pliny mentions". Then they dug the hole wider so that they could pull the statue out. As soon as it was visible everyone started to draw [or "started to have lunch], all the while discoursing on ancient things, chatting as well about the ones in Florence.
Julius acquired the group on March 23rd, giving De Fredis a job as a scribe as well as the customs revenues from one of the gates of Rome. By August the group was placed for public viewing in a niche in the wall of the brand new Belvedere Garden at the Vatican ( ), now part of the Vatican Museums, which regard this as the start of their history. As yet it had no base, which was not added until 1511, and from various prints and drawings from the time the older son appears to have been completely detached from the rest of the group.
When the statue was discovered, Laocoön's right arm was missing, along with part of the hand of one child and the right arm of the other, and various sections of snake. The older son, on the right, was detached from the other two figures. The age of the altar used as a seat by Laocoön remains uncertain. Artists and connoisseurs debated how the missing parts should be interpreted. Michelangelo suggested that the missing right arms were originally bent back over the shoulder. Others, however, believed it was more appropriate to show the right arms extended outwards in a heroic gesture.
According to Vasari, in about 1510 Bramante, the Pope's architect, held an informal contest among sculptors to make replacement right arms, which was judged by Raphael, and won by Jacopo Sansovino. The winner, in the outstretched position, was used in copies but not attached to the original group, which remained as it was until 1532, when Giovanni Antonio Montorsoli, a pupil of Michelangelo, added his even more straight version of Laocoön's outstretched arm, which remained in place until modern times. In 1725-27 Agostino Cornacchini added a section to the younger son's arm, and after 1816 Antonio Canova tidied up the group after their return from Paris, without being convinced by the correctness of the additions but wishing to avoid a controversy.
In 1906 Ludwig Pollak, archaeologist, art dealer and director of the Museo Barracco, discovered a fragment of a marble arm in a builder‘s yard in Rome, close to the findspot of the group. Noting a stylistic similarity to the Laocoön group he presented it to the Vatican Museums: it remained in their storerooms for half a century. In 1957 the museum decided that this arm—bent, as Michelangelo had suggested—had originally belonged to this Laocoön, and replaced it. According to Paolo Liverani: "Remarkably, despite the lack of a critical section, the join between the torso and the arm was guaranteed by a drill hole on one piece which aligned perfectly with a corresponding hole on the other".
In the 1980s the statue was dismantled and reassembled, again with the Pollak arm incorporated. The restored portions of the children's arms and hands were removed. In the course of disassembly, it was possible to observe breaks, cuttings, metal tenons, and dowel holes which suggested that in antiquity, a more compact, three-dimensional pyramidal grouping of the three figures had been used or at least contemplated. According to Seymour Howard, both the Vatican group and the Sperlonga sculptures "show a similar taste for open and flexible pictorial organization that called for pyrotechnic piercing and lent itself to changes at the site, and in new situations". The more open, planographic composition along a plane, used in the restoration of the Laocoön group, has been interpreted as "apparently the result of serial reworkings by Roman Imperial as well as Renaissance and modern craftsmen". A different reconstruction was proposed by Seymour Howard, to give "a more cohesive, baroque-looking and diagonally-set pyramidal composition", by turning the older son as much as 90°, with his back to the side of the altar, and looking towards the frontal viewer rather than at his father. Other suggestions have been made.
The discovery of the Laocoön made a great impression on Italian artists and continued to influence Italian art into the Baroque period. Michelangelo is known to have been particularly impressed by the massive scale of the work and its sensuous Hellenistic aesthetic, particularly its depiction of the male figures. The influence of the Laocoön, as well as the Belvedere Torso, is evidenced in many of Michelangelo's later sculptures, such as the Rebellious Slave and the Dying Slave, created for the tomb of Pope Julius II. Several of the ignudi and the figure of Haman in the Sistine Chapel ceiling draw on the figures. Raphael used the face of Laocoön for his Homer in his Parnassus in the Raphael Rooms, expressing blindness rather than pain.
The Florentine sculptor Baccio Bandinelli was commissioned to make a copy by the Medici Pope Leo X. Bandinelli's version, which was often copied and distributed in small bronzes, is in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence, the Pope having decided it was too good to send to François I of France as originally intended. A bronze casting, made for Francis I of France at Fontainebleau from a mold taken from the original under the supervision of Primaticcio, is at the Musée du Louvre. There are many copies of the statue, including a well-known one in the Grand Palace of the Knights of St. John in Rhodes. Many still show the arm in the outstretched position, but the copy in Rhodes has been corrected.
The group was rapidly depicted in prints as well as small models, and became known all over Europe. Titian appears to have had access to a good cast or reproduction from about 1520, and echoes of the figures begin to appear in his works, two of them in the Averoldi Altarpiece of 1520-22. A woodcut, probably after a drawing by Titian, parodied the sculpture by portraying three apes instead of humans. It has often been interpreted as a satire on the clumsiness of Bandinelli's copy, but it has also been suggested that it was a commentary on debates of the time about similarities between human and ape anatomy. Over 15 drawings of the group made by Rubens in Rome have survived, and the influence of the figures can be seen in many of his major works, including his Descent from the Cross in Antwerp Cathedral.
The original was seized and taken to Paris by Napoleon Bonaparte after his conquest of Italy in 1799, and installed in a place of honour in the Musée Napoléon at the Louvre. Following the fall of Napoleon, it was returned by the Allies to the Vatican in 1816.
Laocoön as an ideal of art
Pliny's description of Laocoön as "a work to be preferred to all that the arts of painting and sculpture have produced" has led to a tradition which debates this claim that the sculpture is the greatest of all artworks. Johann Joachim Winkelmann (1717-1768) wrote about the paradox of admiring beauty while seeing a scene of death and failure. The most influential contribution to the debate, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's essay Laocoon: An Essay on the Limits of Painting and Poetry, examines the differences between visual and literary art by comparing the sculpture with Virgil's verse. He argues that the artists could not realistically depict the physical suffering of the victims, as this would be too painful. Instead, they had to express suffering while retaining beauty.
The most unusual intervention in the debate, William Blake's annotated print Laocoön, surrounds the image with graffiti-like commentary in several languages, written in multiple directions. Blake presents the sculpture as a mediocre copy of a lost Israelite original, describing it as "Jehovah & his two Sons Satan & Adam as they were copied from the Cherubim Of Solomons Temple by three Rhodians & applied to Natural Fact or History of Ilium". This reflects Blake's theory that the imitation of ancient Greek and Roman art was destructive to the creative imagination, and that Classical sculpture represented a banal naturalism in contrast to Judeo-Christian spiritual art.
The central figure of Laocoön served as loose inspiration for the Indian in Horatio Greenough's The Rescue (1837–1850) which stood before the east facade of the United States Capitol for over 100 years.
Near the end of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge self-describes "making a perfect Laocoön of himself with his stockings" - which directly references the statue of Laocoön, since Scrooge is in such a rush to get dressed that he becomes entangled in his clothes.
In 1910 the critic Irving Babbit used the title The New Laokoon: An Essay on the Confusion of the Arts for an essay on contemporary culture at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1940 Clement Greenberg adapted the concept for his own essay entitled Towards a Newer Laocoön in which he argued that abstract art now provided an ideal for artists to measure their work against. A 2007 exhibition at the Henry Moore Institute in turn copied this title while exhibiting work by modern artists influenced by the sculpture.
The location where the buried statue was found in 1506 was always known to be "in the vineyard of Felice De Fredis" on the Oppian Hill (the southern spur of the Esquiline Hill), as noted in the document recording his sale of the group to the Pope. But over time, knowledge of the site's precise location was lost, beyond "vague" statements such as Sangallo's "near Santa Maria Maggiore" (see above) or it being "near the site of the Domus Aurea" (the palace of the Emperor Nero); in modern terms near the Colosseum. An inscribed plaque of 1529 in the church of Santa Maria in Aracoeli records the burial of De Fredis and his son there, covering his finding of the group but giving no occupation. Research published in 2010 has recovered two documents in the municipal archives (badly indexed, and so missed by earlier researchers), which has established a much more precise location for the find, slightly to the east of the southern end of the Sette Sale, the ruined cistern for the successive imperial baths at the base of the hill by the Colosseum.
The first of these was the record of De Fredis' purchase of the vineyard of about 1.5 hectares from a convent for 135 ducats on 14 November 1504, exactly 14 months before the statue was found. The second, from 1527, makes it clear that there is now a house on the property, and clarifies the location; by then De Fredis was dead and his widow renting out the house. The house is shown on a map of 1748, and still survives as a substantial building of three storeys, today in the courtyard of a convent. The area remained mainly agricultural until the 19th century, but is now entirely built up. It is speculated that De Fredis began building the house soon after his purchase, and as the group was reported to have been found some four metres below ground, at a depth unlikely to be reached by normal vineyard digging operations, it seems likely that it was discovered when digging the foundations for the house, or possibly a well for it.
The findspot was inside and very close to the Servian Wall, which was still maintained in the 1st century AD (possibly converted to an aqueduct), though no longer the city boundary, as building had spread well beyond it. The spot was within the Gardens of Maecenas, created by Gaius Maecenas the ally of Augustus and patron of the arts. He bequeathed the gardens to Augustus in 8 BC, and it is known that Tiberius lived there after he returned to Rome as heir to Augustus in 2 AD. Pliny said the Laocoön was in his time at the palace of Titus (qui est in Titi imperatoris domo), then heir to his father Vespasian, but it is not known where this was; the imperial estate of the Gardens of Maecenas may be a plausible candidate. If the Laocoön group was already in the location of the later findspot by the time Pliny saw it, it might have arrived there under Maecenas or any of the emperors. The extent of the grounds of Nero's Domus Aurea is now unclear, but they do not appear to have extended so far north or east, though the newly rediscovered findspot location is not very far beyond them.
- Digital Sculpture Project: Laocoön, "Catalogue Entry: Laocoon Group"
- Beard, 209
- Spivey, 25
- Spivey, 28–29
- Spivey, 25 (Darwin), 121–122
- Boardman, 199
- Clark, 219–221 was an early proponent of this view; see also Barkan, caption opp. p 1, Janson etc
- Boardman, 199 says "about 200 BC"; Spivey, 26, 36, feels it may have been commissioned by Titus.
- Howard, 422
- Howard, throughout; "Chronology", and several discussions in the other sources
- Stewart, 85, this last in the commentary on Virgil of Maurus Servius Honoratus, citing Euphorion of Chalcis
- William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, Taylor and Walton, 1846, p. 776
- Boardman, 199
- Boardman, 199, also Sperlonga und Vergil by Roland Hampe.
- The Greeks were familiar with constricting snakes, and the small boa Eryx jaculus is still native to Greece. But the danger to Ancient Greeks from venomous snakes was far greater
- Farinella, 16
- Stewart, 78
- Boardman, 164-166, 197-199; Clark, 216-219; Cook, 153
- Cook, 153
- Cook, 153
- English text at Tufts, Book 36, Ch 4, but usually cited as 36:37, eg by Spivey, 26. Latin text:"... nec deinde multo plurium fama est, quorundam claritati in operibus eximiis obstante numero artificum, quoniam nec unus occupat gloriam nec plures pariter nuncupari possunt, sicut in laocoonte, qui est in titi imperatoris domo, opus omnibus et picturae et statuariae artis praeferendum. ex uno lapide eum ac liberos draconumque mirabiles nexus de consilii sententia fecere summi artifices Hagesander et Polydorus et Athenodorus rhodii." Naturalis Historia. Pliny the Elder. Karl Friedrich Theodor Mayhoff. Lipsiae. Teubner. 1906, as 36:11, at Tufts. The word statuariae used by Pliny means bronze statues as opposed to stone, as pointed out by Bernard Andreae and others. See Isager, 171
- As Beard, 210, a sceptic, complains
- Stewart, Andrew W. (1996), "Hagesander, Athanodorus and Polydorus", in Hornblower, Simon, Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Isager, 173
- Howard 417-418 and figure 1 has the fullest account used of the complicated situation here; with the damages and after the various restorations he lists 14 parts (417, note 4) when the group was last dismantled. See also Richard Brilliant, My Laocoön - alternative claims in the interpretation of artworks, University of California Press, 2000, p.29
- Rose, Herbert Jennings (1996), "Laocoön", in Hornblower, Simon, Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press
- Spivey, 26; see also Isager, 173, who translates it "by decision of the [imperial] council".
- Rice, 239, with photo on 238
- See Rice or Agesander
- Herrmann, 277
- Stewart, Andrew W. (1996), "Hagesander, Athanodorus and Polydorus", in Hornblower, Simon, Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Rice, 235-236
- Rice, 239-242
- In 2005 Lynn Catterson argued that the sculpture was a forgery created by Michelangelo, in Catterson, Lynn, "Michelangelo's 'Laocoön?'" Artibus et historiae. 52 2005: 29. Richard Brilliant, author of My Laocoön, described Catterson's claims as "noncredible on any count". See An Ancient Masterpiece Or a Master's Forgery?, New York Times, April 18, 2005
- Barkan, 1-4, with English text; Chronology has the Italian, at 1567, the date of the letter.
- Or possibly, due to a quirk of Tuscan Italian, "everyone started to eat lunch" ci tornammo a desinare - see Barkan lecture notes PDF for 2011 Jerome Lectures, University of Chicago, “Unswept Floor: Food Culture and High Culture, Antiquity and Renaissance”, Lecture 1, start: "It’s a piece of sixteenth-century spelling, and I (along with many other commentators — if I was wrong, I wasn’t wrong alone)—understood it as disegnare, that is, to draw ...[rather than] digiunare—in other words, to eat lunch." Farinelli, 16, has "And having seen it we went back to dinner, talking ..."
- Chronology, 1504-1510
- Howard, 417-420
- Howard, 418-419, 422
- Barkan, 7-11
- Barkan, 7-10
- Chronology; Barkan, 9-11
- Liverani, Paolo, Digital Sculpture Project, "Catalogue"; Chronology, 1957
- See Beard, 210, who is highly sceptical of the identification, noting that ‘the new arm does not directly join with the father's broken shoulder (a wedge of plaster has had to be inserted); it appears to be on a smaller scale and in a slightly differently coloured marble’. On the wedge, Barkan, 11 notes that in the restoration of c. 1540 "the original shoulder was severely sliced back" to fit the new section.
- See figures in Howard for photos and diagram of the dis-assembled pieces
- Howard, 422
- Howard, 422 and 417 quoted in turn. See also "Chronology" at 1959
- "Chronology" at 1968-70
- Barkan, 13-16, and on the Torso, 197-201; Spivey, 121-123; Clark, 236-237
- Roger Jones and Nicholas Penny, Raphael, p. 74, Yale, 1983, ISBN 0300030614
- Barkan, 10
- Barkan, 11-18; Spivey, 125
- Barkan, 13-16; H. W. Janson, "Titian's Laocoon Caricature and the Vesalian-Galenist Controversy", The Art Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Mar., 1946), pp. 49-53; Clark, 390-391 rejects Janson's theory as to the meaning.
- Spivey, 125-127
- Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2001.08.34, review of Richard Brilliant, My Laocoön: Alternative Claims.
- Gustafson, Susan, Laocoon's Body and the Aesthetics of Pain: Winckelmann, Lessing, Herder, Moritz and Goethe by Simon Richter, South Atlantic Review, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Nov., 1993), pp. 145-147, JSTOR
- "Laocoon and the expression of pain", William Schupbach, Wellcome Trust
- Blake's comments
- The Rescue by Greenough
- Towards a New Laocoon, Henry Moore Institute
- Volpe and Parisi; Beard, 211 complains of vagueness
- Volpe and Parisi
- Volpe and Parisi; the map is Giovanni Battista Nolli's Nuova Pianta di Roma, section image here, the house shown with a zig-zag plan to the top left of the section.
- Volpe and Parisi
- Volpe and Parisi; the text probably reflects tidying by Pliny the Younger, as his father died at Pompeii only two months after Vespasian died and Titus became Imperator rather than Caesar, his title as heir.
- Volpe and Parisi
- Warden, 275, approximate map of the grounds is fig. 3
- Barkan, Leonard, Unearthing the Past: Archaeology and Aesthetics in the Making of Renaissance Culture, 1999, Yale University Press, ISBN 0300089112, 9780300089110
- Mary Beard, Times Literary Supplement, "Arms and the Man: The restoration and reinvention of classical sculpture", 2 February 2001, subscription required, reprinted in Confronting the Classics: Traditions, Adventures and Innovations, 2013 EBL ebooks online, Profile Books, ISBN 1847658881, 9781847658883, google books
- Boardman, John ed., The Oxford History of Classical Art, 1993, OUP, ISBN 0198143869
- "Chronology": Frischer, Bernard, Digital Sculpture Project: Laocoon, "An Annotated Chronology of the “Laocoon” Statue Group", 2009
- Clark, Kenneth, The Nude, A Study in Ideal Form, orig. 1949, various edns, page refs from Pelican edn of 1960
- Cook, R.M., Greek Art, Penguin, 1986 (reprint of 1972), ISBN 0140218661
- Farinella, Vincenzo, Vatican Museums, Classical Art, 1985, Scala
- Haskell, Francis, and Penny, Nicholas, 1981. Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500–1900 (Yale University Press), cat. no. 52, pp. 243–47
- Herrmann, Ariel, review of Sperlonga und Vergil by Roland Hampe, The Art Bulletin, Vol. 56, No. 2, Medieval Issue (Jun., 1974), pp. 275-277, JSTOR
- Howard, Seymour, "Laocoon Rerestored", American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 93, No. 3 (Jul., 1989), pp. 417-422, JSTOR
- Isager, Jacob, Pliny on Art and Society: The Elder Pliny's Chapters On The History Of Art, 2013, Routledge, ISBN 1135085803, 9781135085803, google books
- Rice, E. E., "Prosopographika Rhodiaka", The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 81, (1986), pp. 209-250, JSTOR
- Spivey, Nigel, Enduring Creation: Art, Pain, and Fortitude, 2001, University of California Press, ISBN 0520230221, 9780520230224, Google books
- Stewart, A., "To Entertain an Emperor: Sperlonga, Laokoon and Tiberius at the Dinner-Table", The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 67, (1977), pp. 76-90, JSTOR
- "Volpe and Parisi": Digital Sculpture Project: Laocoon. "Laocoon: The Last Enigma", translation by Bernard Frischer of Volpe, Rita and Parisi, Antonella, "Laocoonte. L'ultimo engima," in Archeo 299, January 2010, pp. 26-39
- Warden, P. Gregory, "The Domus Aurea Reconsidered", Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec., 1981), pp. 271-278, DOI: 10.2307/989644, JSTOR
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Laocoon group.|
|Laocoön and his Sons at Smarthistory.|
- University of Virginia's Digital Sculpture Project 3D models, bibliography, annotated chronology of the "Laocoon"
- Laocoon photos
- Outscreaming the Laocoön: Sensation, Special Affects, and the Moving Image, by Maria H. Loh
- Texts on Wikisource: