Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Review on Die Bildnisse des Augustus

Expand Messages
  • Joe Geranio
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      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)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.