If you love in depth studies on Julio Claudian Portraiture or just
great Photos join at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/julioclaudian/
This review was done by Prof. John Pollini. This is one of the best
works for the layman to understand Julio Claudian Portraiture.
Please take the time and soak it in!!
Die Bildnisse des Augustus, Das romische Herrscherbild, pt. 1, vol. 2
Berlin: Gebruder Mann Verlag, 1993. 252 pp.; 239 b/w ills., 9
foldouts. DM 290.
This volume on the sculptural portraiture of Augustus, arguably the
most important in the Romische Herrscherbild series (which currently
numbers ten volumes), was long in the making. First conceived for
the series by Max Wegner in the 1930s, a comprehensive study of the
portraits of Augustus was originally to be published by Walter
Gross. After the latter decided in the 1970s to focus only on the
coin portraiture of Octavian/Augustus, Paul Zanker took over the
project, [1] but in the end he passed it on with photograph
documentation to Dietrich Boschung, who brought this magnum opus to
completion within a remarkably short time.
The essential goals of any such modern iconographic portrait study
are, first, to assemble all known portraits of a given personage;
second, to determine the appearance and style of each of the
presumed lost prototypes on which all of the known surviving
replicas are based; third, to attempt to date the creation of the
lost prototype and the surviving replicas and other portrait
versions; and fourth, to try to determine the reason(s) for the
creation of each type. Because no ancient author discusses the
nature of portrait production, aside from some passing references
and anecdotal comments, we must depend to a large degree on the
evidence provided by the portraits themselves in addressing
questions of the nature, ideology, replication, distribution,
reception, and redefinition of an individual's portraiture. In
Augustus's case, that body of evidence is substantial, numbering
well over two hundred surviving sculptural portraits [2]--more than
exist for any other Roman leader.
Advertisement
Boschung's primary focus in Die Bildnisse des Augustus is the
creation of an elaborate taxonomical schema of Augustus's principal
portrait types based on the extant portraits themselves and the
rather limited literary and epigraphic evidence for his appearance.
Although comprehensive, the present study is not all-inclusive.
There is little discussion of the evidence provided by cameo and
gemstone images of Augustus, [3] which was felt to be of marginal
importance in establishing a portrait typology. Also omitted from
discussion are possible images of Augustus in other media,
especially vessels. [4] And because of the nature and goals of the
Herrscherbild series, relatively little will be found in this volume
with regard to the perceptual images of Octavian/Augustus or the
psychological and sociopolitical needs that prompted their creation.
[5] With regard to the numismatic evidence, it would have been
helpful if coinage were treated in a more comprehensive way, even if
that part of the study were written by another individual, as in the
case of Boschung's volume on Caligula in the Herrscherbild series.
As for the literary evidence for Augustus's physical appearance, it
would have been more appropriately presented at the beginning of the
book, rather than just before the catalogue.
Like others before him, Boschung accepts that there were three
principal portrait types of Augustus (p1. 1.3-5; Figs. 3-5), to
which he adds two earlier ones (p1. 1.1-2; Figs. 1, 2), with two
subtypes (p1. 1.6-7; Figs. 6, 7). All of these could be employed
with various body types representing him as imperator, priest, hero,
divinity, or deified leader. Although there is general scholarly
agreement as to the dating of one of the types (the so-called Prima
Porta type), other matters are more problematic. Particularly
difficult is establishing the earliest of Augustus's portrait types,
as well as dating the prototype of the so-called Forbes type (after
a head in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts), which Boschung rejects as
the best replica of the lost prototype, preferring instead a head in
the Louvre (his "Paris Louvre MA 1280" type). In Boschung's study,
as in all such scholarly endeavors based in part on incomplete
evidence and subjective interpretation, a number of points will
continue to be contested and will need to be further clarified and
modified in the future.
Before addressing the rather complex issues involved in establishing
a portrait typology, I would like to offer a few words on the book's
format. The three chapters after the introductory one constitute the
core of the study: chapter 2 (pp. 11-50) deals with the
establishment and categorization of the different types of
Augustus's portraits; chapter 3 (pp. 51-65) reviews past scholarship
on the successive types and their dates, together with Boschung's
own conclusions; and chapter 4 (pp. 66-82) discusses the dating of
the various individual images. The final two chapters deal with
broader issues: chapter 5 (pp. 83-91) attempts to explain the
distribution of Augustus's different portrait types, while chapter 6
(pp. 92-103) briefly discusses the copying of portraits, presents
literary evidence for the appearance of Augustus, and gives a very
useful thumbnail sketch of other issues pertaining to the images of
Augustus, including various statue types, honorific inscriptions,
and reasons for erecting images. [6] Boschung's discussion of
Augustus's sculptural images in chapters 1 through 6 is followed by
a catalogue of extant individual portraits, arranged according to
types and, in some cases, subtypes. Under each catalogue entry, he
gives basic information: museum, type of image, measurements,
provenance (if known), condition, description, suggested dating,
concise selective bibliography, and page references to the portrait
in his text. With only two exceptions (cat. nos. 154, 166), he
provides one or more illustrations of each of the portraits in his
catalogue. In addition, Boschung presents a very short section on
portraits of Augustus on several important cameos that represent him
in frontal view with the Prima Porta hairstyle (pp. 194-95, cat.
nos. 212-17). There are also brief catalogue entries of doubtful
(pp. 196-97) and modern portraits (pp. 198- 201), as well as of
those he takes as incorrectly identified as Augustus in the past
(pp. 202-4)--by no means an all-inclusive list. After the catalogue
of portrait s are several helpful line-drawn maps (pp. 206-13)
showing the known provenance of portraits for each of
Octavian/Augustus's portrait types. At the end of the study are
three indexes (general, museum, and provenance). Besides the many
photographic illustrations, a pocket attached to the back cover of
the book contains useful foldouts (Beilage) with line drawings of
key portrait heads (views of frontal, profile, and back of head) of
the various portrait types. In these line drawings individual locks
are selectively numbered to facilitate comparison.
The most important part of any typological study of this sort is the
photographic documentation. Ideally, there should be a minimum of
four views of each portrait (front, back, and both profiles), all
shot at the same angle. Extremely desirable also is a photograph of
each portrait from the optimum view; that is, the principal angle at
which it was intended to be seen (often with face averted to the
right or left). For a variety of reasons beyond the control of the
portrait typologist, it is often not possible to obtain photographs
of all these views, or even photographs of good quality, because of
the inaccessibility of some images or the way in which
portraits/portrait statues are displayed in museums and collections.
Such qualifiers aside, Boschung should have obtained additional
views or better photographs of a number of the portraits in his
catalogue. Given the importance of Augustus to our understanding of
Roman portraiture, the impact of his portraiture and portrait
ideology on subsequent ages, and th e fact that this volume in the
Herrscherbild series will remain the principal catalogue for some
years to come, more of an effort should have been made to obtain the
best possible photographic documentation. In a number of cases,
Boschung uses photographs of plaster casts of extant portraits
rather than of the original work itself. In certain instances, this
might be understandable if a portrait is impossible to photograph
because of its location in a modern setting, but not when there
exist good-quality photograph of the original work, as in the case
of a head of Octavian in the Stanza degli Imperatori in the Museo
Capitolino in Rome: only photographs of a plaster cast are
represented (pls. 14, 28.1), with no photograph of the optimum view
of the original sculpture, even though excellent photographs of the
original head are available. [7] When photographs of casts are used,
the physical characteristics of the sculpture itself (such as
restorations, breaks, discoloration) are difficult, and sometimes
impossible, to detect.
In comparing photographs of different portraits and consulting
Boschung's catalogue, I discovered in a few instances that the
caption under the reproductions gave an incorrect catalogue number
(for example, p1. 61 should be not cat. no. 65 but 51; p1. 65, not
cat. no. 52 but 62; p1. 157, not cat. no. 100 but 95). In the
citation of sources, more precise page references would have been
preferable to the "if." typically used in German scholarship. Also,
the inaccurate and anachronistic vocabulary of kingship
or "emperorship" (for example, "Prinzenportrats") used to
characterize Augustus, members of his family, and the form of
government that he established should be given up. This sort of
vocabulary (including, in English and American scholarship, the use
of emperor and empress), which has been so prevalent, projects false
notions onto the past, especially in terms of leadership and
governance. Although Rome had acquired an empire (imperium) already
under the Republic, Augustus was not an emperor, a word that, of
course, derives from imperator but had a quite different meaning in
antiquity. Augustus's civic position in the state was that of
princeps ("first citizen" or "leader"), a term already in use under
the Republic. The Roman historian Tacitus (Annales 1.9), writing in
the 2nd century C.E., pointed out that Augustus had established
neither a kingship nor a dictatorship but a principate (governance
by a princeps): "Non regno tamen neque dictatura, sed principe
nomine constitutam rem publicam."
Typology and Ideology of Augustus's Portraits
In his "Introduction" (pp. 1-10), Boschung discusses some
methodological and general issues regarding Roman portraits and
their production. He sets up four general principles governing
portrait studies: (1) "Konstituierung der Typen" (establishment of
the types); (2) "Replikenrezension" (replica critique);
(3) "Rekonstruierung des Entwurfs" (reconstruction of the [portrait]
design); and (4) "Interpretation der Typen" (interpretation of the
types). This methodological approach is a well-established one,
based on a strong Germanic tradition going back to J. J. Bernoulli,
who catalogued some ninety-seven heads of Augustus in his
fundamental work Romische Ikonographie, vol. 2 (1886). In
establishing a given type, this approach places a great deal of
emphasis on the number, form, and arrangement of hair locks,
especially (but not exclusively) over the forehead--the so-called
Lockenzahlmethode (method of counting locks). To he sure, the
Lockenzahlmethode is a useful diagnostic tool in establishing
portrait types, b ut the almost all-consuming emphasis placed on it
in many portraiture studies can lead to erroneous identification, as
well as leave us at times wondering what is meant by a portrait. [8]
Is a portrait a likeness of an individual or simply of a hairstyle
(a "Portratfrisur")? It seems to me that an image of Augustus that
does not reproduce one of his known iconographic hair types but
closely resembles him in facial features might in some cases
appropriately be designated an atypical portrait or a portrait with
an atypical hairstyle [9] rather than simply excluded altogether as
representing him. Such images have sometimes been too quickly
dismissed as examples of Zeitgesicht (temporal visage), that is, a
portrait of a private individual made to resemble the princeps or
some other member of his family. [10] Conversely, how might we refer
to an image of an individual who resembles the princeps in hairstyle
but not in facial features? Such a hairstyle might be considered an
example of Zeitfrisur (temporal hairstyl e), to coin a term.
Providing an instance of such a Zeitfrisur is a colossal marble head
of a mature bearded male from Rome in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek
(Fig. 8), which is most likely an invented portrait of Augustus's
legendary ancestor Aeneas. [11] This image can be identified as
Aeneas because of its colossal size, beard, mature features, and,
most important, the arrangement of locks both over the forehead in a
mirror reverse of Augustus's Prima Porta type (cat. no. 171, pl. 69)
and at the nape of the neck. This image, which stylistically appears
to date from about the Hadrianic to early Antonine period, may have
been based on an Augustan model.
And how are we to regard representations of Augustus that can only
be identified by inscription? Among such images are those found on
reliefs from Roman Egypt (not mentioned by Boschung) representing
Augustus in a stereotypical Egyptian style. On the sides of a Temple
of Augustus from Dendur now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New
York (Fig. 9), [12] Augustus is represented as pharaoh, so
identified by his cartouche. These representations might
appropriately be regarded as symbolic images. The same might be said
of certain statues in the round in pharaonic dress, which some
scholars have identified as portraits of Augustus but which Boschung
categorically dismisses as images of him (see, for example, cat.
nos. [268.sup.*], [281.sup.*], [285.sup.*], [287.sup.*]).
In categorizing portraits that are identifiable as Augustus on the
basis of hairstyle and, to a lesser extent, facial features,
Boschung seeks ultimately to determine the appearance of the model
for a particular type. Portraits that are of high quality, reflect
the style of the city of Rome, and show a great degree of
correspondence among themselves are considered to constitute
replicas of a presumed lost model (Urbild) or, for Boschung, a lost
design (Entwurf). Those few portraits that show the closest affinity
to one another constitute Boschung's Kerngruppe (core group); others
that show substantial affinity with one another form the
remaining "replica series." The concept of a Kerngruppe works fairly
well, but where to make a division between the Kerngruppe and the
remaining less close versions of the type can be very subjective, as
is also the matter of establishing what constitutes the best one or
two examples within a Kerngruppe of the presumed lost original
model. Within a given replica series there m ay be portraits that
show an affinity among themselves but deviate from the core group in
various ways. Such a group of portraits Boschung calls a Repliken-
strang (replica string). Portraits that are of essentially the same
portrait type but differ significantly from the core group could be
regarded as Varianten (variants). Whether considered part of a
replica string or a variant, some portraits appear to combine
elements of more than one type and so constitute Klitterungen or
Typenklitterungen (contaminations). The reasons for these deviations
among the surviving portraits are varied and can only he postulated.
Some portraits do not fit into any established type and should be
considered independent creations. In his terminology, Boschung uses
Kopie (copy) and Replik (replica) interchangeably, although others,
from Georg Lippold on, [13] have attempted to differentiate between
the two. Some distinction should at least be made between a replica
(that which shows strong affinities with others of the same type)
and a version (that which does not show strong affinities with a
core group and can be considered an adaptation, variant, or new
creation).
The first of the portrait types of Octavian/Augustus to be discussed
(pp. 11-22, 59-65) is the so-called Actium or Octavian type, renamed
by Boschung the Alcudia type after a head in Alcudia (Mallorca; Fig.
3). He sees four replicas (pp. 11-13) representing the Kerngruppe
(cat. no. 6, pls. 7, 8; cat. no. 10, pl. 9; cat. no. 31, pl. 10;
cat. no. 32, pl. 11), with another twenty-four also reflecting this
type to a lesser degree. Boschung's analysis here illustrates one of
the inherent problems of such typological studies, which make
comparisons among extant heads as a means of reconstructing the lost
prototype: namely, the self-limiting evidence of the portraits
themselves and the quality and available angle of photographic views
of each head. For example, within Boschung's Kerngruppe of the
Alcudia type (pp. 10-13), the head in Alcudia is capite velatus
(head veiled); only the top half of the Zurich head is preserved,
and it is very weathered; and there are no strict profile views or
back of the head shots fo r the Uffizi and Tripoli heads. Like Paul
Zanker and Klaus Fittschen, [14] Boschung (pp. 52, 60-61) pushes the
creation of this type (although not of the Alcudia head itself) back
to at least 40 B.C.E. His dating is based largely on the coin
evidence of Octavian's so-called DIVOS IVLIVS emission (pl. 238.2-3;
Fig. 10, which might date anytime between about 40 and 38 B.C.E. (p.
60 n. 244). [15] Boschung agrees (p. 60 and n. 247) with those who
see the Alcudia type as also reflected in later numismatic images on
the so-called triumphal series (pl. 238.4-7).
In categorizing portraits that are identifiable as Augustus on the
basis of hairstyle and, to a lesser extent, facial features,
Boschung seeks ultimately to determine the appearance of the model
for a particular type. Portraits that are of high quality, reflect
the style of the city of Rome, and show a great degree of
correspondence among themselves are considered to constitute
replicas of a presumed lost model (Urbild) or, for Boschung, a lost
design (Entwurf). Those few portraits that show the closest affinity
to one another constitute Boschung's Kerngruppe (core group); others
that show substantial affinity with one another form the
remaining "replica series." The concept of a Kerngruppe works fairly
well, but where to make a division between the Kerngruppe and the
remaining less close versions of the type can be very subjective, as
is also the matter of establishing what constitutes the best one or
two examples within a Kerngruppe of the presumed lost original
model. Within a given replica series there m ay be portraits that
show an affinity among themselves but deviate from the core group in
various ways. Such a group of portraits Boschung calls a Repliken-
strang (replica string). Portraits that are of essentially the same
portrait type but differ significantly from the core group could be
regarded as Varianten (variants). Whether considered part of a
replica string or a variant, some portraits appear to combine
elements of more than one type and so constitute Klitterungen or
Typenklitterungen (contaminations). The reasons for these deviations
among the surviving portraits are varied and can only he postulated.
Some portraits do not fit into any established type and should be
considered independent creations. In his terminology, Boschung uses
Kopie (copy) and Replik (replica) interchangeably, although others,
from Georg Lippold on, [13] have attempted to differentiate between
the two. Some distinction should at least be made between a replica
(that which shows strong affinities with others of the same type)
and a version (that which does not show strong affinities with a
core group and can be considered an adaptation, variant, or new
creation).
The first of the portrait types of Octavian/Augustus to be discussed
(pp. 11-22, 59-65) is the so-called Actium or Octavian type, renamed
by Boschung the Alcudia type after a head in Alcudia (Mallorca; Fig.
3). He sees four replicas (pp. 11-13) representing the Kerngruppe
(cat. no. 6, pls. 7, 8; cat. no. 10, pl. 9; cat. no. 31, pl. 10;
cat. no. 32, pl. 11), with another twenty-four also reflecting this
type to a lesser degree. Boschung's analysis here illustrates one of
the inherent problems of such typological studies, which make
comparisons among extant heads as a means of reconstructing the lost
prototype: namely, the self-limiting evidence of the portraits
themselves and the quality and available angle of photographic views
of each head. For example, within Boschung's Kerngruppe of the
Alcudia type (pp. 10-13), the head in Alcudia is capite velatus
(head veiled); only the top half of the Zurich head is preserved,
and it is very weathered; and there are no strict profile views or
back of the head shots fo r the Uffizi and Tripoli heads. Like Paul
Zanker and Klaus Fittschen, [14] Boschung (pp. 52, 60-61) pushes the
creation of this type (although not of the Alcudia head itself) back
to at least 40 B.C.E. His dating is based largely on the coin
evidence of Octavian's so-called DIVOS IVLIVS emission (pl. 238.2-3;
Fig. 10, which might date anytime between about 40 and 38 B.C.E. (p.
60 n. 244). [15] Boschung agrees (p. 60 and n. 247) with those who
see the Alcudia type as also reflected in later numismatic images on
the so-called triumphal series (pl. 238.4-7).
Some have felt that the Alcudia type was Octavian's first three-
dimensional portrait type and was the one used for the gilded
equestrian image that the Senate set up in 43 B.C.E. to Octavian in
Rostris [16] in the Forum. [17] But, as Boschung rightly notes, the
earliest numismatic images of Octavian dating to this time look very
generic. Since die engravers often show as much diversity in
creating two-dimensional portrait images as do sculptors carving
portraits in the round, such generic images would indicate that they
were not based on any real portrait image of Octavian. In short, the
earliest numismatic images of Octavian that reproduce the facial
features and hairstyle of the Alcudia type appear to belong to the
DIVOS IVLIVS issue, suggesting that die engravers for this issue
were using as their model an image based on the Alcudia type.
In this type, a heightened sense of physiognomic realism is
expressed in an artistic form that derives from the old so-called
Hellenistic Pathosbild (an emotionally charged image). Reflective of
the old pathos formula is the accentuated twist and inclination of
the head, the plastically carved hair locks that appear somewhat
agitated over the forehead, and the tension in the brows and
forehead. This image of Octavian is, however, a far cry from the
Roman Pathosbilder of earlier times. [18] In my opinion, the pathos
has been toned down [19] in the Alcudia type and tempered by
classicizing elements, especially evident in the surface treatment
of the flesh and the more composed and lower-relief hair locks at
the sides of the head. In this type we also find a stylistic range
from a more academic classicism, as evidenced in a head from Ephesos
in Selcuk (cat. no. 26, pl. 24.2-4), to a highly modeled and richly
plastic treatment, as in a head in the Palazzo Bardini in Florenze
(cat. no. 9, pl. 18.1-3). In the dati ng of individual portrait
versions of the Alcudia type, Boschung tends to give weight to
whether or not a particular work seems to have been influenced by
the strongly classicizing style of the Prima Porta type, which most
portrait specialists would see as created in or shortly after the
founding of the principate in 27 B.C.E. In certain cases (for
example, cat. no. 24, pl. 22, and even more in cat. no. 18, pl. 23),
we can see the impact of the strongly classicizing Prima Porta type
and pincer lock motif over the forehead.
After discussing his Alcudia type, Boschung (pp. 22-26) takes up the
matter of the problematic portraiture of Octavian's earliest years.
The old designation of Otto Brendel's Type A (represented by a
famous head from Ostia in the Musei Vaticani [20] has long been
rejected by Roman portrait specialists as an image of Octavian in
his early teens and taken instead as a portrait of one of Augustus's
adopted sons--a fact lost on modern historians, who continue to use
this head in their historical treatments to illustrate what the
young Augustus looked like. [21] Far more debated as being a
portrait of the young Octavian is Brendel's Type B, which some have
regarded as Octavian's earliest known type, predating the so-called
Actium type (Boschung's Alcudia type). Boschung (pp. 51-52, 54-55)
and others (myself included) [22] consider Brendel's Type B to be a
portrait of Augustus's grandson and adopted son Gains. The facial
hair, in the form of long side-whiskers and/or beard, evident in
some of these portraits (for example, a portrait in the Galleria
degli Uffizi [fig. 11]) and in a number of images of Octavian in his
early coin types (for example, Fig. 10) has often been interpreted--
incorrectly, in my opinion--as a Trauerbart (beard of mourning).
[23] The long sideburns and/or narrow, neatly trimmed beard worn by
Octavian in his early coin types (a detail that might also have been
painted on some of his marble portraits) was most likely a military
beard or "beard of vengeance" to evoke an image of a Roman Ares/Mars
Ultor-like commander. [24]
Boschung postulates two new types as having been created before the
Alcudia type. One of these he calls the Lucus Feroniae type (pp. 23-
24, 59-62), after a head from Lucas Feroniae (cat. no. 4, pl. 5;
Fig. 2), just outside Rome. This type, which he identifies in only
two other replicas (cat. no. 3, pls. 4, 28.4; cat. no. 5, pl. 6),
appears to be related to the Alcudia type. Although these three
heads had previously been taken as versions of the Actium type
(Boschung's Alcudia type), there are enough distinguishing features
shared among them (and apart from other replicas of the Alcudia
type) to establish this as a separate type or, at least, a subtype.
Besides the tightly locked pincer effect over the forehead, these
few portraits display a number of points of comparison in patterns
of locks at the sides and back of the head (cat. no. 3, pl. 4; cat.
no. 4, pl. 5). Most noteworthy are the very distinctive long,
horizontal locks high above the right ear that form a double-stacked
fan of down-turned locks. Clea rly different from the postulated
prototype of the Alcudia type are the six to seven reverse-comma-
shaped locks over the right temple in ail three portraits. These
distinctive reverse-comma-shaped locks are also found on an early
coin type of Octavian, with seemingly true portrait features, that
Boschung correctly associates with his Lucus Feroniae type (pp. 24,
59-60). This numismatic issue, minted by Q. Voconius Vitulus (pl.
238.1), probably dates to the late 40s B.C.E. It is distinctly
different from the DIVOS IVLIVS issue (Fig. 10), which, as we have
seen, appears to be associated with the Alcudia type. Because of the
problematic dating of both the DIVOS IVLIVS issue and that of
Voconius Vitulus, it is difficult to know whether the Alcudia or the
Lucus Feroniae type came first or to what extent the two may have
overlapped in time. In any case, the Lucus Feroniae type appears to
be either a distinct type that might have led directly to the
Alcudia type, as Boschung postulates, or an early subtype of the Al
cudia type that was very short-lived. As for the surviving replicas
of the Lucus Feroniae type, Boschung dates all three to the time
before the creation of the Prima Porta type. Of the three, the head
from Lucus Feroniae, despite its summary carving and lower artistic
quality, shows the strongest classicizing features, especially in
the linear treatment of the hair.
In individual features and in the shape of the face, the Lucus
Feroniae head (as well as others of that type) does not stand far
from two other portraits that Boschung postulates belong to yet
another early type of Octavian. This type, with physiognomic
features rendered in a less realistic fashion than in the Lucas
Feroniae type, Boschung calls the Beziers-Spoleto type (pp. 25-26,
59-62) after only two existing replicas: one from Spoleto in Perugia
(cat. no. 1, pls. 1.1, 2; Fig. 1), the other from Beziers (ancient
Baeterrae) in Toulouse (cat. no. 2, p1. 3). The two replicas are
extremely close in formal details, including the number and
arrangement of hair locks over the forehead, but differ somewhat in
the treatment of hair locks at the sides of the head. Boschung
believes that the Beziers Spoleto type, like the Lucus Feroniae
type, was in existence in the period between 43 and 40 B.C.E.,
therefore predating the Alcudia type. He acknowledges that the
period between 44 and 40 B.C.E. is a rather narrow range of time for
the coexistence of three types and, further, that it is difficult to
explain the relationship of the three earliest types, except to see
the Beziers-Spoleto and Lucus Feroniae types as "experimental" in
nature.
Although known in very few replicas, as we might expect for this
early period and limited geographic area, the Beziers-Spoleto and
Lucus Feroniae groupings appear to be genuine types rather than
subtypes of the Alcudia type. The earliest numismatic evidence,
which Boschung might have utilized to greater effect, seems to bear
out his hypothesis. The first numismatic portraits of Octavian,
dating to 43 B.C.E., present a classicizing image of a boyish youth,
in some cases with longish side-whiskers. [25] This image is so
generalized and so unlike his portraiture in the round that we must
conclude that it is only a symbolic portrait for a coinage that was
created in great haste to pay his troops. These and subsequent
issues present images of Octavian that are classicizing to a varying
degree. This preference for a classicizing style in numismatic
imagery is expressed also in the strongly classicizing physiognomic
features of the Beziers-Spoleto type.
Although not noted by Boschung, the images of Octavian on the
coinage minted by L. Livineius Regulus in 42 B.C.E. [26] are among
the earliest to reflect what appear to be his real portrait
features. These coin likenesses compare fairly well with the
portrait from Beziers (cat. no. 2, pl. 3). Even the fringe of locks
over the forehead of the Beziers head, when viewed in profile, and
of the numismatic images appears to be comparable. [27] As also in
the coin portraits, the preserved part of the hair of the reworked
Beziers head [28] is in low relief and is generally more composed
than the thicker, plastically carved locks of the head from Spoleto.
In this respect, the hair of the Beziers head may more closely
reflect the lost prototype, which, based on the coinage, may in fact
have been a more classicizing image than Boschung believes. In both
the Beziers and Spoleto portraits, strong classicizing traits are
manifest in the smooth, idealized structure and planes of the face,
which is only somewhat averted, unl ike the more dramatically turned
head of the Alcudia type. Evident at this time in the late Republic
are both classicizing and nonclassicizing (baroque) tendencies, as
well as a combination of the two, in keeping with late Hellenistic
classicizing trends in Greco-Roman Ideal-skulptur (nonclassicizing)
and adaptations and in Roman portraiture.
Advertisement
Interestingly, Octavian's own literary and rhetorical style, which
most likely followed that of Caesar, was of a simple, classicizing
type, or what might be called neo-Attic. [29] This was a Roman
version of the late Hellenistic Attic style, which in turn looked
back to late Classical models. This personal style of Octavian stood
in stark contrast to the florid, more exuberant Asiatic style of his
chief rival, Marc Antony. [30] In the late Republic, literary and
rhetorical styles could be highly politicized and exemplify an
individual's character and virtue. It was not until the founding of
the principate that Classicism came to be the Zeitstil, the dominant
style of the day, commonly referred to as Augustan Classicism. [31]
Indicating the power of the princeps's stylistic imprimatur, even
the polemical debates between the "Atticists" and "Asianists," which
had so characterized the last days of the Republic, simply
disappeared.
After discussing the earliest three types of Octavian/Augustus's
portraiture, Boschung turns his attention to the old Forbes type,
which he renames the Paris Louvre MA 1280 type (pp. 27-37, 60-65),
after a head in the Musee du Louvre (cat. no. 44, pls. 36, 37; Fig.
4). This portrait he takes to he the best replica of his Kerngruppe,
which includes also three other replicas (cat. no. 45, pl. 38; cat.
no. 41, pl. 39; cat. no. 37, pl. 40). Of the thirty replicas in this
group, he identifies fifteen as belonging to the lost prototype,
with two Replikengruppen, or subtypes: one group of eleven replicas,
of which the best representative is a head in Stuttgart (cat. no.
58, pls. 52, 53; Fig. 6); the other, a group of four replicas, best
represented by a recut head in Copenhagen (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek
611, cat. no. 60, pl. 64; Fig. 7). Boschung postulates (pp. 35-37)
that the first of these subtypes (his Stuttgart replica group) was
created under the influence of the Prima Porta type, while the other
(Kopenhagen 61 1 replica group) would be a later (posthumous?)
modification of the type. All of the replicas of the Kopenhagen 611
group are dated after the death of Augustus.
As in the case of Octavian's earliest portrait types, the dating of
the original lost prototype behind the Forbes/Paris Louvre MA 1280
portrait has been much debated. The two principal dates proposed for
the creation of the prototype are about 30-27 B.C.E. (therefore
predating the creation of the Prima Porta type) and about 17 B.C.E.,
in connection with the Ludi Saeculares (Secular Games). Some have
argued that the old Forbes type (Paris Louvre MA 1280) reflected the
need for a new official Redaktion (updating/correction/edition) of
the highly classicizing Prima Porta type because that type would
have appeared to be too impersonal an image (p. 52 and n. 192). To
support this claim, those who favor the 17 B.C.E. date cite the
appearance of the Forbes type, with its distinctive lock formation,
on denarii of L. Vinicius in 16 B.C.E. (pp. 60-61, pl. 239.2-3). The
three-dimensional replica that best shows the configuration of locks
over the forehead in the numismatic image is a labeled bronze bust
of Augustus fro m Neuilly-le-Real in the Louvre (acc. no. N 3254,
cat, no. 55, pl. 63), whose antiquity has been questioned in the
past (incorrectly, I believe). A few have associated the creation of
the Forbes type with the setting up of the Ara Pacis (13-9 B.C.E.),
[32] on which Augustus is represented with a hairstyle associated
with this type, and/or Augustus's becoming Pontifex Maximus (high
priest of the Roman state religion) in 12 B.C.E. [33] For this type,
Hans Jucker preferred the designation Ara Pacis type. [34]
For Boschung, the L. Vinicius issue reflects not the original
prototype of his Paris Louvre MA 1280 type, which he dates to about
29-27, but rather an edited version of that prototype, which he sees
reflected in a group formed around the portrait in Stuttgart (cat.
no. 58, pls. 52, 53). Boschung (p. 63) sees the Stuttgart replica
group, unlike the original prototype, as being influenced by the
Prima Porta type. I am inclined to agree that the original prototype
of Boschung's Paris Louvre MA 1280 type was probably created before
the Prima Porta type, quite possibly in commemoration of Augustus's
triple triumph in 29 B.C.E. The fact that it would have largely been
replaced so soon after its creation by the Prima Porta type would
also explain why it is hardly found outside Italy (p. 84). Had the
principal type first been produced after the Prima Porta type (that
is, about 17 B.C.E.), then we would probably expect to find far more
replicas of the Paris Louvre MA 1280 type disseminated throughout
the vast Roman Empire.
The last of Boschung's main types is the old Prima Porta type (pp.
38-59, 60-65), which takes its name from the famous statue of
Augustus from Livia's country villa at Prima Porta, now in the
Braccio Nuovo of the Musei Vaticani (cat. no. 171, pls. 69, 70; Fig.
5). Including the Prima Porta sculpture, a total of 148 replicas are
catalogued by Boschung as belonging to this type, with another six
cameo images of Augustus reflecting his Prima Porta hairstyle. The
number of three-dimensional replicas and versions (adaptations,
variants, new creations) of this type (more than doubles the number
of surviving versions of all his other types) indicates its great
popularity. Among the reasons for the success and endurance of the
Prima Porta type are the simplicity and geometry of its very
distinctive pincer and fork arrangement of hair locks over the
forehead. Although the earliest known replica of the Prima Porta
type is a bronze head from Meroe in the British Museum (cat. no.
122, p1. 195), which can be securely dat ed before 25 B.C.E., most
portrait specialists see this type as having been created around the
time of the founding of the principate in 27 B.C.E. This supposition
is further confirmed by Ulrich Hausmann's association of the Prima
Porta type with Augustus's numismatic images on cistophori from
Pergamon that can be closely dated to 27-25 B.C.E. (pp. 53, 61 and
n. 255, pl. 239.4). [35]
In his conclusion to chapter 3 (pp. 61-65), Boschung points out that
unlike the Alcudia type, which looked back to the tradition of late
Republican portraiture, the Prima Porta type conveys in its design
(Entwurf) the physiognomy of the princeps in a classicizing
Formensprache (language of forms), which depends especially on
Polykleitan forms. By blending with prototypical forms of Greek art,
the personality of the princeps, according to Boschung, retreated
behind a Kunstfigur, which had to appear unassailable through its
aesthetic qualities. Although the more intensive classicizing
physiognomic features and ordered hairstyle of the Prima Porta type
are indeed oriented toward the high Classical ideal, as expressed in
the portrait image of Perikles, the end result points more in the
direction of late Classical portraiture, which softens the frozen
forms of the ideal Classical stereotype, permitting the personality
of the individual to shine through the ideal type. Although an icon
(in the modern sense of the word) is created in the process, this
image of Augustus remains a portrait, while embodying at the same
time a new concept of the heroic ideal. In my opinion, this new
Augustan model stands, in a sense, midway between Greek high
Classical and late Classical concepts of portraiture, even as the
statue of Augustus from Prima Porta stands midway in its proportions
between the old Polykleitan and Lysippan canons. [36] In attempting
to challenge and outdo earlier prototypical concepts of the heroic
ideal, the sculptor created the new Augustan heroic ideal. Although
the complexity of these concepts would have been meaningful to only
a small elite group, [37] the new ecumenical Augustan portrait image
did capture the popular imagination, as attested by the great number
of extant images of this type found throughout the empire. Like
Octavian/Augustus's previous types, the official image was
reinterpreted to varying degrees, with a wide range of stylistic
treatments of facial features and hairstyles (compare, for exam ple,
pls. 148, 149). And even though Augustus's earlier types continued
to be reproduced, some examples of the older types show the
influence of the new Prima Porta type, even to the extent of being
Typenklitterungen (contaminated types). The continued production of
earlier types after the creation of the Prima Porta type may have
been related to the commemoration of earlier events from the
princeps's life. [38]Boschung's attempt in chapter 4 (pp. 66-82) to
date individual surviving replicas and versions of Augustus's
various portrait types constitutes one of the most problematic
aspects of his work. Only a terminus post quem or a terminus ante
quem can be established for most of the portraits. Contributing to
the dating problem is the fact that Augustus, who was deified after
his death, played an important role in the dynastic politics of
subsequent principes and so his image continued to be reproduced
during the principates of his successors. It is often extremely
difficult, in any case, to date an individual work on stylistic
grounds alone because of eclecticism and variability in workshop
practices. Demonstrative of this problem is the case of the handsome
portrait of Augustus from Ariccia in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts
(cat. no. 80, pls. 119.3, 120), which has been dated from Angustan
to Hadrianic times (Boschung places it in the period of Caligula).
Similarly, a portrait of Augustus from Fondi in the Museo Nazionale
di Napoli (cat. no. 16, p1. 26), combining a softened form of
classicizing elements with lively, plastically carved hair locks,
has been variously dated because of its stylistic treatment.
Boschung (pp. 17, 61-62, 75, 83) classifies this work as a
Neuschopfung (new creation) dependent on the Alcudia type (but
probably even more so, in my opinion, on the Prima Porta type); he
dates it, apparently correctly, to the Caligulan period because a
pattern of hair locks behind the left ear compares fairly well with
that found in some of Caligula's portraits. [39] Nevertheless, a
strikingly close stylistic comparison of the general treatment of
facial features and hair locks can also be made with Augustus's
numismatic image on a cistophori series from Pergamon (27-25 B.C.E.,
p. 61 and n. 255, p1. 239.4), showing that such a portrait could
also have existed some fifty years earlier. A great range of
stylistic possibilities within a classicizing style (from a hard,
cold, academic treatment to a softer, more mo deled and plastic one)
can also be demonstrated within just the latter half of the Augustan
Principate in the extant portraits of Augustus's grandsons and
adopted sons Gaius and Lucius. [40] The vast majority of their
portraits are datable to the latter part of the Augustan period
because these youths were important only to Augustus's dynastic
plans and played no significant role after his death in 14 C.E.
Augustus's portraits can be dated more securely when they either
bear a strong and intentional physiognomic resemblance to his
successors or have been recut from portraits of his successors who
suffered a "damnatio memoriae," or, more accurately, a memoria
damnata (damned memory), after their death. [41]
In chapter 5 (pp. 83-91), Boschung discusses and attempts to explain
the distribution (based on known provenance) of each of Augustus's
different portrait types in four general regions: (1) Rome and
Italy, (2) the western provinces, (3) the eastern Greek provinces,
and (4) Egypt. Some of his reasoning is speculative. For example,
Boschung assumes that unless carved in a distinctly local style,
most of the marble portraits of the earlier iconographic types from
the western provinces were imported from Rome or Italy. It is
difficult to believe, however, that there were not also local
sculptors (at least in the main Roman centers of the western
provinces) capable of producing high-quality Rome-style portraits
based on imported plaster or clay models. Some of these sculptors
may even have originally come from Rome, elsewhere in Italy, or
Greece. Although there was relatively little good-quality marble
available locally in the western provinces, it does not mean that
raw marble could not have been imported and ca rved in workshops in
some of the larger western Roman centers. Are we to assume, for
example, that the high-quality architectural sculptures of the
Augustan Temple of Gaius and Lucius (Maison Carree) [42] were carved
in Rome and shipped to Nimes?According to Boschung, we do not find
many examples of the Alcudia type in Italy, which was under
Octavian's control in the Second Triumviral period, because such an
emotionally charged image (Pathosbild) would have
appeared "shocking" to the Italians after the civil war period and
would therefore not have been acceptable to them. Boschung
postulates that after the creation of the Prima Porta type, the
Italians would have replaced these Pathosbild versions. This
explanation, however, seems somewhat questionable because the
removal of any images of Octavian after his victories at Actium and
Alexandria (except by his order, as occurred in Rome [43]) might
have been interpreted as an act of disloyalty or even treason.
Although there was no law to the contrary, this did not prevent
charges of treason (maiestas) from being brought against Granius
Marcellus, the praetor of Bithynia, because of his imprudent act of
replacing Augustus's portrait head on a statue with a head of
Tiberius after the death of Augustus (T acitus, Annales 1.74).
To be sure, more replicas of the Alcudia type have been found in the
western provinces than in Italy, but the provinces, too, were under
Octavian's control during the Second Triumviral period. Boschung
suggests that the inhabitants of the western provinces would not
have been as "sensitive" as the Italians about the civil war period
when the Alcudia type was in vogue. According to Boschung's
hypothesis, there would have been no need, therefore, to replace
later on the replicas of the Alcudia type in the western provinces.
There may, however, be another explanation for the relative lack of
portraits of the Alcudia type in Italy: a number of these portraits
may have been destroyed in the factional strife in Italy during the
civil war period.
In chapter 6 (pp. 92--103), Boschung briefly discusses the copying
of portraits in the early principate, contrasting the copying then
with that practiced in the late Republic. Although Boschung notes
that Augustus was not the first to have his portrait copied, he
makes no mention of the fact that portraits were not merely
occasionally reproduced but already replicated in great numbers in
the late Republic, as we know from the case of M. Marius
Gratidianus, tribune of the Plebs in 87 B.C.E., whose image was set
up in omnibus vicis (in all the districts) of the city (Cicero, De
officiis 3.80; Pliny, Historia naturalis 34.27). By the Augustan
period, the number of such districts (vici) was 265 (Pliny, 3.5.66).
However, in the early principate, portrait images of Augustus were
set up in great numbers not merely in the city of Rome but
throughout the entire Roman Empire. Boschung cites the portrait head
of Augustus from far-off Meroe in Nubia (presumably created a few
years after the original prototype) as an exa mple of how fast and
far the official image of Augustus spread. As Boschung and others
have also pointed out, Augustus's official image was not only copied
but also commonly altered and transformed in various parts of the
empire for a variety of reasons, including the sociopolitical need
to translate the Roman concept of the princeps into local or
regional perceptions of leadership. [44]
Because any typological study of portraiture of necessity seeks to
focus on the similarities among the extant portraits that establish
them as replicas of the lost model, Boschung places relatively
little emphasis on the question of diversity in so many images of
Augustus. In a way, the matter of the great variety in imagery is
more interesting than the similarity among replicas because of what
it tells us about not only the various workshop practices and
traditions current in antiquity but also the nature of ancient
reception and response to images of the leader of state. As far as
similarity is concerned, especially with regard to establishing the
original lost prototype, there are relatively few replicas that make
up Boschung's Kerngruppe.
Collected at the end of chapter 6 is the epigraphic and literary
evidence for the physical appearance of Augustus. Boschung tries to
discover in the extant sculptural portrait types various
characteristics of Augustus's physiognomic features and hairstyle
that are mentioned in the ancient written record. He also attempts
to reconcile or explain discrepancies between the literary and
visual evidence. Despite this necessary endeavor, Boschung, like
many archaeologist/art historians, generally accepts the literary
evidence at face value. However, the validity of this evidence is
often questionable, since certain literary descriptions of
physiognomy might be colored by the didactic nature of ancient
rhetoric (especially epideictic) and its effects in such literary
works as biography and history. Because the ancients believed that
physiognomy could reveal the character and virtues of an individual,
biographers and historians of the period manipulated their evidence
as they saw lit. After all, the primary purpose of biography and
history was not so much to tell the truth as to teach and to
inculcate moral lessons and values. Accordingly, historians and
biographers (most notoriously, Suetonius) used literary and oral
accounts, as well as physioguomic "theory," in shaping their
literary portraits of the great personages of the past.
Summation of Chronology of Augustus's Portrait Typology
I offer below some further thoughts on each of the portrait types,
which are taken up in a hypothetical chronological order and with
possible interpretative reasons offered for their creation. Roman
numerals will be used to designate the different types rather than
names that privilege individual works. Even the old, popular
designation Prima Porta type is problematic because it takes its
name from the statue of Augustus from Prima Porta, which itself
dates no earlier than 20 B.C.E., [45] although the original model of
this type was undoubtedly produced about 27 B.C.E. The old so-called
Actium type (Boschung's Alcudia type) we now know, too, to have been
created a number of years before the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C.E.
The neutral designations Type I, Type II, and so on, also allow for
the possibility of new portrait discoveries that might better
represent a lost model than does the "named" portrait. Any subgroups
or subtypes (as in Boschung's Stuttgart or Kopenhagen 611 series)
can then be assigned a letter of the alphabet: hence, Type III.A,
Type III.B. An "S" can also be assigned if there is only one subtype
(for example, Type II.S) or a "V" if there is a variant of a given
type (for example, II.V).
As possibly the earliest type, Type I (Boschung's Beziers-Spoleto
type; Fig. 1) would presumably have been used for Augustus's gilded
equestrian statue in Rostris in 43 B.C.E. The two portraits
representing this type show him as very idealized and more youthful
than either of his other two early types. Because the statue set up
to Augustus by the Senate in Rostris was equestrian, it would have
represented him as a military leader, or imperator. The title of
imperator was the first to appear on his earliest coin type, which
likewise shows the equestrian image. Type I might therefore be
called secondarily his Imperator type. In 43 B.C.E., when this type
was still current, Octavian became consul and, toward the end of the
year, triumvir. Probably only two examples of Type I survive because
it was so limited not only in time but also geographically, being
found only in the west, Octavian's sphere of influence as triumvir.
This type would have been created before the great impetus to copy
portraits that came with the founding of the principate and
Augustus's inauguration of peace throughout the entire Roman world.
In my opinion, little thought went into the creation of Type I
insofar as its social or ideological impact was concerned, mainly
because it was created out of a sudden need, namely, for the gilded
equestrian image to be set up in Rostris in 43 B.C.E. Shortly
thereafter, this type was probably deemed unsatisfactory in that it
represented Octavian, now imperator, consul, and triumvir, as too
young and ineffectual-looking. Such a characterization, in fact, had
been part of the anti-Octavian propaganda promoted by his rival Marc
Antony and Antony's supporters. Antony's famous political barb,
preserved by Cicero (Orationes Philippicae 13.25), "et te, o puer,
qui omnia nomini debes" (And you, o boy, who owe everything to a
name), must have been an exceedingly painful reminder of Octavian's
political inferiority in that it implied he would have been nothing
if not for Caesar's name.
Advertisement
In order to appear as triumvir and equal to Marc Antony, Octavian
needed a more powerful image that conveyed to the Roman people that
he was both the worthy heir of Caesar, who had become a state god
(divas) in 42 B.C.E., and the leader of the Caesarean party in
opposition to Antony. In Type II (Boschung's Lucus Feroniae type;
Fig. 2), which might be considered secondarily Octavian's First
Triumvir type, a more mature-looking and emotionally charged image
of a leader was created through an increased use of classicizing
elements. The portraitist started with the old Hellenistic concept
of the Pathosbild, which had already been employed for powerful
images of Roman leaders. For Octavian's new image, the old pathos
formula with its baroque elements was toned down (Pathos-dampfung),
as it was made to harmonize with classicizing tendencies. [46] Like
Type I, Type II seems not to have been too successful, since both
essentially experimental types were shortly replaced by Augustus's
third type.
Type III (Boschung's Alcudia type, formerly the Actium/Octavian
type; Fig. 3) was created as an even more evocative image that would
both compensate for Octavian's youth and inexperience and better
reflect his auctoritas. Type III may even have started out as a
subtype of II but later replaced it as the main type. In Type III
Octavian has a more simplified hairstyle with a reduction of the
number of reverse-comma-shaped locks over the right temple and more
agitated locks over the middle of the forehead. Although some have
taken this as a reference to Alexander's famous upswept anastole, or
upswelling, wave-like, hairdo, any such citation would only have
been very indirect. The somewhat agitated locks were probably meant
to portray Octavian as more of a man of action. This portrait became
the image of choice for about a decade, lasting throughout the rest
of the Triumviral period, for which reason it might also be called
the Second Triumvir type.
Type IV (Boschung's Paris Louvre MA 1280 type, formerly the Forbes
type; Fig. 4) logically followed Type III to satisfy a need for a
new image of the leader after the end of the Civil War, a period
that Octavian/Augustus wanted to put behind him. [47] Although not
noted by Boschung, the pattern of locks at the back of the head of a
Type III portrait in the Museo Capitolino in Rome (Stanza degli
Imperatori, 2, cat. no. 23, pl. 14.2) is very similar to that of the
Louvre MA 1280 head (cat. no. 4-4, pl. 37.2). This closeness helps
establish a direct relationship between Types III and IV. This third
type would have satisfied a need for a more mature image with a more
classicizing, composed hairstyle, in preference to Octavian's more
emotionally charged, though still somewhat classicizing image
(Alcudia/Actium type), which had been so closely associated with the
turmoil of the Second Triumviral period.
Type IV would have served not only to commemorate Augustus's triple
triumph in 29 B.C.E., the year in which this type was most likely
created, but also to celebrate the closing of the doors of Janus and
the peace that Octavian had finally brought to the Roman world, an
accomplishment of which he himself proudly boasts in his Res
Gestae: "terra marique... parta victoriis pax" (Monumentum Ancyranum
13). Type IV might be called secondarily Augustus's "Triumphator"
type. After his triple triumph in 29 B.C.E., he was never to
celebrate another triumph, although he had the right to do so when
those who served under his auspicia had successfully conducted a war
for which a triumph could be voted by the Roman Senate. [48] An
important head of Augustus in the Museo Capitolino reflecting this
type (cat. no. 45, pl. 38) shows him wearing the corona civica with
three gemstones, presumably one for each of his three victories.
Even so, the prototype (Urbild) would have been created without the
wreath, since any given type would have to serve for various kinds
of images.
With the death of Antony and the end of the triumvirate, Octavian
was in sole control of the government. He was now ready to turn his
attention to stabilizing the political situation and creating a new
constitution that would be acceptable to the majority of the Roman
aristocrats. To celebrate the founding of a new form of government
based on the principle of governance by a princeps, or "first
citizen" as well as Octavian's assumption of his new
name, "Augustus," with all of its sacral aura, a new ecumenical
image was needed that was both retrospective and prospective:
retrospective in that it invited comparison with the prototypical
ideal of the Classical Greek past and prospective in that it
reflected the optimism of the Augustan Principate and transformed
Augustus into the new model of the heroic ideal. [49] Although
Boschung sees this Type V (his Prima Porta type; Fig. 5) as becoming
rather static and sterile as time went on, this view seems to me too
modern. The very reason for the success of this type was its
symbolic value: it became an icon for the stability and durability
of the Augustan Principate. Because Type V initially seems to have
celebrated Octavian's taking the new name Augustus and becoming
princeps, it might be called secondarily the Princeps type.
Boschung argues convincingly that the prototype of his Stuttgart
replica group (what I would call Type IV.A; Fig. 6) is represented
on the coins of L. Vinicius in 17 B.C.E., the year of the Secular
Games, with which this subtype may have been particularly
associated. Type IV.A would represent a new redaction of Type IV
under the influence of Type V, [50] which continued to be replicated
in great numbers. For the image of Augustus on the Ara Pacis (cat.
no. 56; pls. 59.1-2, 225.1), it is a subtype, Type IV.A, that is
employed, rather than the earlier prototype, Type IV, as had
previously been believed. [51] Boschung assumes that his Stuttgart
replica group (IV.A) was employed on the Ara Pacis only because it
was the latest official image of Augustus produced. Although this
may have been the case, I believe there may also have been an
ideological intent. To my mind, the use on the Ma Pacis of IV.A,
representing a combination of Types IV and V, was intended to herald
Augustus as the triumphant princeps who inau gurates a new golden
age of peace. His triumphant return from Spain and Gaul was, after
all, the original and official reason for the Senate's voting him
the Ara Pacis (Monumentum Ancyranum, 12). This triumphal imagery
would also fit the larger context of the Augustan monuments of the
northern Campus Martius, especially if Augustus's great dynastic
Mausoleum was crowned--as I believe it was--not with a statua
pedestris (a statue representing an individual on foot) but with a
quadrigate image of him (in a four-horse chariot) as triumphator
perpetuus (perpetual triumpher). [52]
Type IV.A may also have been seen as particularly appropriate for
representations of Augustus in an augural role. This subtype appears
to have been used for the relief portrait of Augustus on the altar
from Vicus Sandaliarius (cat. no. 36, pl. 67.4-5), [53] on which he
appears holding the lituus (the crook-shaped staff of the augur) as
he takes augury in connection with the departure of his adoptive son
Gaius, who, under the auspices of Augustus (auspiciis Augusti), is
about to set out on his eastern campaign in 2 B.C.E. [54] In the
case of augury in relation to the Ara Pacis, I have argued elsewhere
that Augustus was originally represented in the south processional
frieze performing an augural act in connection with either the
inauguration of the area on which the altar was to be built or
possibly an augurium or maximum augurium salutis Rei Publicae, [55]
which was performed for the safety of the state in years in which
peace was renewed. An augurium salutis is known to have taken place
in 29 B.C.E. and, gi ven the nature of this type of augury, it is
reasonable to surmise that it was also performed in connection with
the Secular Games in 17 B.C.E. (when IV.A appears on the coins of L.
Vinicius), as well as on the occasion of the inauguration of the Ara
Pacis in 13 B.C.E. [56] Augustus's appearance on the Altar of Peace
in an augural capacity would have emphasized his role not only as
inaugurator of a new golden age of peace and prosperity but also as
mediator between gods and man. The form of the Ara Pacis, with its
bifrontality and double set of doors, consciously recalled the
Shrine of Janus Geminus in the Roman Forum, [57] whose doors had
been closed to signify peace only twice in all of Roman history
before 29 B.C.E. [58] Following the completion of the Ma Pacis in 9
B.C.E., it is likely that its doors would have been opened in the
future when the doors of Janus were closed. The use of IV.A for a
representation of Augustus in an augural role on the Ara Pacis and
on the altar from Vicus Sandaliarius might ex plain why this subtype
is found only in Rome and Italy (p. 84). [59] The Roman religious
practice of augury was meaningful primarily in these areas.
Of the two subtypes of Type IV that Boschung identifies, IV.B
(Boschung's Kopenhagen 611 replica group; Fig. 7) is the more
puzzling. Because of points of comparisons shared among three of the
replicas (cat. no. 60, pl. 64; cat. no. 62, p1. 65; cat. no. 61, p1.
66), including the turn of the head to the left side, [60] they
appear to belong to a subtype different from that of the Stuttgart
head. It is uncertain how long after IV.A this subtype was created.
Although an approximate terminus post quem for IV.B would probably
be 13 B.C.E. (when the Ma Pacis was begun), this subtype may have
been created after Augustus's death in 14 C.E. (Boschung dates the
three extant replicas posthumously). If IV.B were first created
after Augustus's death, it may have been in response to a need for a
separate, posthumous portrait model. If so, based on the small
number of extant replicas, IV.B never caught on.
With regard to the evolution of Augustus's main portrait types, it
might seem odd that there was such a short period of time between
the creation of Types I, II, and III and then between Types IV and
V, but that is because we have the (dis)advantage of hindsight. The
relative brevity of the time between the creation of Types I, II,
and III and again between Types IV and V can be explained in light
of the demands of a rapidly changing political situation that
necessitated the creation of new portrait types. Perhaps somewhat
analogous to multiple prototypes within a short range of time is the
use of three different titles on coins issued in the year 43 B.C.E.,
the first title referring to Octavian's being imperator, then
consul, and finally triumvir r.p.c. (rei publicae constituendae).
[61] These titles reflect just how quickly the political
circumstances were changing.
Advertisement
Variability and Assimilation in Portraiture
One important issue that I wish to discuss further is the question
of variability in Roman portraiture and some of the possible reasons
for it. Although historians might tend to think of the distribution
of Augustus's portraits as part of some grand imperial
propagandistic scheme, the great variability of his extant portraits
from all over the Roman Empire indicates, if anything, the lack of
any strict government control of how the princeps was portrayed.
Based on the internal evidence, it is now generally believed that
portrait models of the princeps and members of his family were made
available to the "art market," which played an active, if not, in
fact, the primary role in the dissemination o<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)