An honorific statue could be looked at only from below and at a distance of at least 2.5-3 meters, as the base must be added to the height of the statue. The onlooker could thus take in only the general impression, not the details of head and face. Portrait busts, on the other hand, were intended to be seen from close range. It was only by observation from close up that anything could be discerned of the looks and the stance, or even of the self-conception, of the person represented - or, better, of the subject as a person, independently of his rank and his services to the public. It was only the close-up portrait that could awaken in the observer any memories and emotions. We have an extreme example in Cleopatra’s unsuccessful attempt to soften her conqueror, Octavian. She received him seated on a couch in simple mourning costume. ‘‘Beside her,’’ we are told, ‘‘she had many different portraits of his father [Iulius Caesar] and in her costume she had concealed all the letters he had written her. . . . At moments she burst into lamentations; at others she threw herself to the ground before his portraits and adored them’’ (Dio 51.12).
What did Caesar really look like? The Tusculum portrait
The earliest portraits of Caesar which we have, and the only ones which were certainly made in his lifetime, are the images on coins, discussed above (pp. 295-6). At the opening of the year 44 BC, the Senate had extended to Caesar the right to strike his portrait on coins (Dio 44.4). In consequence, the mint masters struck Caesar’s image on the denarii until the Ides of March and sometimes thereafter. Andreas Alfoldi collected and published a great number of illustrations of these denarii (Alfoldi 1974). While all these coin likenesses go back ultimately to the same original, the separate mintings vary enormously (Vessberg 138-48). That is not surprising: the dies must have been in need of constant renewal and improvement, as the work went on, and a number of die cutters must have been employed.
It often happened that recourse was had, not to an original, but only to a copy, itself already considerably altered. That meant that new variants were constantly arising, which exaggerate characteristic features, such as the folds in Caesar’s neck or his angular features: the results often border on caricature. Among the highest-quality versions are the early coinages of M. Mettius (figure 21.2). They present Caesar, at the time 56 years old, with a thin face, regular features, and a long and wrinkled neck, with prominent Adam’s apple (AlfOldi 1959, ill.16). The forehead, high and bald, is covered - on almost all mintings - with a massive wreath, already discussed (p. 296). This portrait type, the basis of the coinage of 44 BC, was certainly not the first. There must have been earlier honorific statues with portraits of the younger Caesar. We know, though, of no corresponding representations in three-dimensional sculpture, although a coin from Nikea in Mysia may give us an idea of an earlier portrait (Johansen 1967:8).
Fortunately, the portrait of Caesar which underlies the coin series of 44 BC is extant in several repetitions. The most faithful seems to be a portrait in Turin (figures 21.7,21.8), found in the Forum of Tusculum as early as 1825, but only recognized as a portrait of Caesar by Maurizio Borda in 1940 (Borda 1943-4: 347-82; Johansen 1967: 34; ill.16; Johansen 1987: 28ff.). In general it agrees well with the best coinages of M. Mettius; to judge by the style, it could have been produced in the last years of Caesar. The surface, unfortunately, is heavily corroded. The bronze original which lies behind the Turin head (Tusculum type) is repeated in a total of six further replicas, which are of different dates and varying quality (see, most recently, Weiss, Osanna, & Schafer 2004: 12). Two of these versions, one in Woburn Abbey (Angelicoussis 1992: 54 no. 22 [figure 21.9]) and the other in a private collection in Florence (Johansen 1967: 36 fig. 18), confirm all the significant features of the Turin head; the other copies present us with deliberate remodelings.
The artist to whom we are indebted for the original of the head in Turin was concerned, like the best portraitists of his time, to give a detailed reproduction of the physical appearance of the aging Dictator. We see a long neck with folds, an extremely projecting back to the head, a hollow and partly bald forehead, the sparse hair combed forward over it. In contrast with this portrait, the literary descriptions of Caesar’s appearance, in Suetonius and other authors (Bernoulli 1882: 147-8) do not go beyond very general formulae. Caesar does seem to have been an extremely imposing figure. Even Cicero (Brut. 75) speaks appreciatively of his forma magnifica
Publisher's Note:
Permission to reproduce this image online was not granted by the copyright holder. Readers are kindly requested to refer to the printed version of this chapter.
Publisher's Note:
Permission to reproduce this image online was not granted by the copyright holder. Readers are kindly requested to refer to the printed version of this chapter.
Figure 21.7-8 Portrait of Caesar, Turin, Museo Archeologico. Photo Deutsches Archaolo-gisches Institut, Rome.
Figure 21.9 PortraitofCaesar, Woburn Abbey. ForschungsarchivfurrcimischePlastik, Cologne.
Etgenerosa. Velleius (2. 41) even thinks he was forma omnium civium excellentissimus. Elsewhere we hear of his lively black eyes, his full mouth, but most especially of his baldness, which he is said to have liked to conceal with a wreath. His normal manner was marked by a certain langor (Dio 43.43; Plut. Caes. 4).
‘‘Psychological realism”?
The master who produced the Tusculum portrait was not only concerned to express Caesar’s external appearance but also to capture something of his character in his expression. The almost imperceptible movement of the slightly lifted head, and the momentary contraction of the forehead and the mouth, tell of a watchful and superior presence. In the look of the eyes, slightly converging, one has the impression of discerning a certain aristocratic reserve or irony. The depiction of the highly individual expression brings out the superiority of the Turin head to the replica in Woburn Abbey, which is better preserved only in appearance: the surface of the face has undergone a fundamental modern scouring, in the course of which the special look of the eyes has been lost. While the posthumous portraits will not be treated here until later, the portrait of Caesar which was recently found on Pantelleria may be considered in brief here (Weiss, Osanna, & Schafer 2004: 6), as it is possible to illustrate the peculiar expression of the Turin head by contrast (figure 21.10). To judge by the context of the discovery, the new find derives originally from a gallery of statues of the Julio-Claudian house, from the time of Claudius. Undoubtedly, the
Publisher's Note:
Permission to reproduce this image online was not granted by the copyright holder. Readers are kindly requested to refer to the printed version of this chapter.
Figure 21.10 Portrait of Caesar, Pantelleria. From Weiss, Osanna, & Schafer 2004.
Portrait rests on the same basic type as the Tusculum type; but here the features have been completely expunged and replaced by abstract, classicizing formulae, which lend the head an empty and masklike appearance.
The Tusculum-type portrait of Caesar belongs to a small group of very high-quality portraits, which have in common the wish to depict something of the individuality and character of the sitter, something transcending the realistic presentation of the physiognomy. Never before, and never again in the study of Roman portraits, do we come across psychological studies of comparable directness and penetration as in the first century BC. Such skill in portraiture presupposes the existence of a highly developed ‘‘realistic’’ style, not one smothered in emotional formulae, like most of the portraits in the directly Hellenistic tradition. An objective analysis and description of these studies in character is, of course, not possible; but comparison with some portraits from roughly the same time brings out more clearly what is unique to the particular portrait. I take my examples from the small group of portraits of which several copies are known. That means, in all probability, that the persons portrayed are men who have played a significant role in public life: that is to say, men active in politics.
Let us begin with the well-known later portrait of Pompeius, as it is represented by an excellently preserved head in Copenhagen (Megow 2005: ill. 29 [figure 21.11]). We are surprised at once, in contrast with the portraits of Caesar, by the almost
Publisher's Note:
Permission to reproduce this image online was not granted by the copyright holder. Readers are kindly requested to refer to the printed version of this chapter.
Figure 21.11 Portrait of Pompeius, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. From Cat. Roman Portraits, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 1994, p. 25.
Commonplace expression and the strained features. People have wanted to see the expression of a citizen among fellow citizens, which does not sit well with the allusion to Alexander in the hair springing up from the forehead (Giuliani 1986: passim). Chance will have it that we also recognize, in all probability, a portrait of M. Crassus, the third member of the First Triumvirate, extant in numerous versions (Megow 2005: ill. 34, 35 [figure 21.12]). It depicts the face, thin and bony, of a thoroughly prosaic man, his expression utterly dominated by hardness and the will to prevail. Again, a very different character is presented by a portrait, extant in two versions, in which people have attempted to see the orator Hortensius (Megow 2005: 42-3). It is arresting in its momentary look of attention, directed skeptically at an opponent. Further examples could be given, such as the traditional portrait of Cicero, unfortunately not well preserved, or the so-called pseudo-Cicero (Megow 2005: ill.57-9, 47-56). Again and again we see the same unvarying individual, with - each time - an unique expression. That changes fundamentally in the Augustan period, when even portraits of nobly born senators are made to resemble, in the dignified poise of the head and in their expression, the portraits of the Imperial family. A good example is the portrait, perhaps of Calpurnius Piso the Pontifex, which is preserved in an excellent bronze bust from
Publisher's Note:
Permission to reproduce this image online was not granted by the copyright holder. Readers are kindly requested to refer to the printed version of this chapter.
Figure 21.12 Portrait of M. Crassus, Paris Louvre. From a cast in the Museum fur Abgiisse rcimischer Bildwerke, Munich.
Publisher's Note:
Permission to reproduce this image online was not granted by the copyright holder. Readers are kindly requested to refer to the printed version of this chapter.
Figure 21.13 Portrait of Calpurnius Piso Pontifex, Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale. Photo Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Rome.
Herculaneum (Syme 1986: frontispiece; Vessberg, ill. 73; Fittschen & Zanker 1985: I, 21 A.7 [figure 21.13]).
One may well ask why, in the last phase of the Republic, there arose such accurate and perceptive studies, such penetrating presentations of the character of the sitters. And why did such a very different style of portraiture prevail under Augustus? Doubtless, there is a connection with the unprecedented culture of competition, which had developed in the late Republic and permeated every aspect of life. In the dominant class, especially, the desire was no longer merely to achieve and maintain power and influence, but to display it at every opportunity. At any rate, the portraits of this period show the desire in their subjects to appear as unique figures and unique personalities, with their own expressions and their own gestures, and to be recognized as such.
We have mentioned that portraits of Caesar were omnipresent, that statues of him stood in every town and in all the shrines (Dio 44.4; App. B Civ. 2.106). Most of them will have been made of bronze and have gone into the melting pot. That may explain why the number of surviving portraits is relatively small. But that Caesar’s face was not only generally familiar but also found very attractive is proved by the phenomenon, so characteristic of the time, of the Period Face (Zeitgesicht). We observe it for the first time with Caesar. Many portraits from the period, which their style shows to have been created in the Caesarian period or immediately after it, are more or less reminiscent of the features of Caesar (Zanker 1981). Not a fewwere, until very recently, treated as authentic copies of portraits of Caesar. Among them are such celebrated heads as the Luxburg Caesar or that of Acireale (Boehringer 1933: ill. 44.1). Even the celebrated bust in Berlin, made of the hard green schist mined only in Egypt, represents, in all probability, not Caesar but one of his admirers from the Nile (Johansen 1987: 37 [figure 21.14]). If photographs of these pseudo-Caesars are compared with one another, it is easily seen that the portraits must be of different people; at any rate, they neither exhibit resemblances, in the sense ofa fixed type, nor can they be arranged typologically. It is no less true that in the cut of the face, in the pronounced lines round the mouth, or in other details, they resemble, more or less, the authentic type of portrait of Caesar. Although Johansen (1967, 1987) exposed most of these pseudo-Caesars for what they are, there are constant attempts to discover new representations of Caesar. Interestingly, these portraits that resemble Caesar are often found on the grave reliefs of members of the Roman middle class and among the people of rank in Italian towns, not in those few portraits of aristocrats of which several copies are known. On gems and on ring-stones, too, we find portraits of Caesar and portraits which could resemble Caesar, but the attributions of
Publisher's Note:
Permission to reproduce this image online was not granted by the copyright holder. Readers are kindly requested to refer to the printed version of this chapter.
Figure 21.14 Portrait bust, Berlin, Staatliche Museen Antikensammlung. From Boehringer 1933.
M. L. Vollenweider are not without their problems, because the typological connections have not been demonstrated (Vollenweider 1974: 120-35, esp. ill. 75).
The phenomenon of a specific period of history being dominated by portraits of Caesar reflects the fascination exerted by Caesar as a historic figure. Later, one can see corresponding instances of the assimilation of particular, especially popular, emperors: above all, of Nero and Trajan (Zanker 1982). The fact that we can recognize, for the first time in the age of Caesar, what we may call an aesthetic focus on a leading figure of power is symptomatic of the way in which willingness to acknowledge a common model develops in the heart of a society, of the way in which psychological processes correspond to external political processes.
As Divus lulius, Caesar becomes young and beautiful
When we speak of certainly identified types, we mean portraits which can be traced to a common model by means of unambiguous correspondences in detail (Boschung 1993b, with literature). Beside the Tusculum type, best represented by the head in Turin which we have discussed, there is another, more widespread type of Caesar portrait. This second type arose, very probably, only after Caesar’s death; at any rate, it does not appear either on the coins minted in 44 BC or on those minted in the 30s. The tradition, consisting of a total of 11 copies, divides into two separate strands, the prototypes of which arose, probably, at some distance in time. It is rewarding to go through the complex material, as it permits some interesting historical consequences to be drawn (the matter is dealt with at greater length in Fittschen & Zanker forthcoming: II nos. 12, 13).
The original of the strand of the tradition that we call ‘‘Pisa’’ came into existence, probably, soon after the death of Caesar, in the late 40s or the early 30s. To reconstruct it, two substantially different portraits can be invoked. One is a head, completed as a bust, in the Pitti Palace in Florence (Boehringer 1933: ill. 22, 23; Johansen 1967: 29, ill.7; Johansen 1987: 22 ill.7); the other, an insertable head intended for a statue, is in the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo in Pisa (Faedo 1984: 133; Johansen 1967: 28, ill. 6; Johansen 1987: 22, ill. 6 [figure 21.15]). Unfortunately, both heads misrepresent the original on which they are based. A mistaken positioning on the base gives the head in the Pitti Palace a markedly sentimental character, not present in the original. In contrast to this, the Pisa head shows an energetic turn to the left and upwards; this is confirmed by two further replicas, in Turin and Leiden. It is true that the replica in Pisa also misrepresents the original, as the features of the face, having undergone profound alteration as a result of a reworking in modern times, have taken on a sharp, or even - thanks to the protruding eyes - fanatical expression, which is of interest only as an interpretation of the piece in modern times.
The original that is the basis for the copies of this first version represents a version of the Tusculum type (Turin portrait), which has been corrected both aesthetically and in expression. The most striking innovation is the lively and mobile locks of hair, which have replaced the bald forehead. The long hair on the neck, too, serves to make the likeness younger. On the other hand, the angular facial features
Publisher's Note:
Permission to reproduce this image online was not granted by the copyright holder. Readers are kindly requested to refer to the printed version of this chapter.
Figure 21.15 Portrait of Caesar, Pisa, Museo del Primaziale. Photo Deutsches Archaolo-gisches Institut, Rome.
Have been taken over, almost literally, from the Tusculum type - but without carrying over the expression. In place of the ironic and withdrawn expression, and the apparently chance movement of the head, there have come in an energetic movement of the head and an expression of determination. The rejuvenated image, which emphasizes energy and resolution, suits very well the situation after Caesar’s death and deification (42 BC), when the memory of his person was being used by Octavian as a figurehead. In stylistic terms the portrait, with its realistic features - the long neck with wrinkles, the sunken features of the face - fits neatly into the tradition of late-Republican portraiture. The portraits of Octavian and Agrippa, from about or after 40 BC, offer a very good comparison (Boschung 1993a, ill. 1-14; Johansen 1971: 27; de Kersauson 1986: no. 22). In all these cases the classicizing marks, which will be so characteristic of the Augustan period, are still not present. The same goes for the majority of the reproductions which seem to have been produced in such numbers in the 30s or in the early Augustan period.
The second strand of the tradition, on the other hand, represents an unambiguously classicizing remodeling. Fortunately, we possess an excellent copy in the well-known portrait in the Vatican (Boehringer 1933: ill. 2, 25; Johansen 1967: 25, fig. 1; Johansen 1987: 17, ill.1, 2 [figure 21.16]), which is confirmed, in the main respects, by copies in Vienna and Parma (Johansen 1967: ill. 3, 4; Johansen 1987: 17, ill.1, 2). The hair on the forehead forms a solid row, as in the portraits of the princes Gaius and Lucius, and even of Tiberius; the curls and partings are now neatly arranged and give no impression of spontaneity. In the case of the hair on the neck, too, the long strands leading to the neck are shortened and arranged in classical order. The feature which does most, however, to produce the different effect of the whole is the regularizing of the proportions of the face. The sharp formulation of the protruding cheek bones and of the sunken cheeks, so prominent in the Pisa head, has given place to smooth transitions. Like the Prima Porta portrait (Zanker 1987: 105, ill. 83), the turn of the head aims at an impressive representation. The portrait in the Vatican, to judge by the characteristic way in which it is worked out, may have originated in the middle of the Augustan period, the period when the figure of Caesar was being allowed to emerge from the shadows, in the context of the Secular Games and of the presentation of the grandsons as Augustus’ successors (see pp. 299-300 above). This rejuvenated and transfigured portrait would, at any rate, be in place in a portrait gallery of the Julio-Claudian house.
Publisher's Note:
Permission to reproduce this image online was not granted by the copyright holder. Readers are kindly requested to refer to the printed version of this chapter.
Figure 21.16 Portrait of Caesar, Musei Vaticani. Photo Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Rome.
Caesar’s portrait becomes a timeless monument
Despite this renewal of the portrait of Caesar in the style of the court portraits of the Julio-Claudians, it is probable that statues of Caesar were not often erected. Most portraits of Caesar are dated by their style to no later than the Augustan period. The lack of interest in statues of Caesar is clear from the fact that, with few exceptions, they are absent from the numerous statue groups of the Julio-Claudian period. To the three examples named by Rose and Boschung we can add the new replica of the Tusculum type, which was discovered recently on the remote island of Pantelleria, together with portraits of Antonia Minor and of Titus (Weiss, Osanna, & Schafer 2004). As already remarked, this portrait, created in the time of Caligula or Claudius, has lost all the lively features which speak to us so vividly in the Turin head (above, p. 303).
The preservation of works in marble may be a matter of chance, but this striking absence of Caesar from the groups of statues, which in other respects have come down to us in such numbers, confirms that his memory, despite his deification, was but little cultivated in the period of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The same seems to be true of the Flavian period. The absence of archaeological evidence is confirmed by a critical survey of the literary texts, which consistently maintain a rather distant attitude towards Caesar, and which do not conceal the ambiguity of his political image (Donie 1996: passim). Doubtless, it was the ideology of the Principate, and the mighty shadow of Augustus, that drove the figure of Caesar into the background. That did not change until Trajan. Admittedly, we are confronted here, not so much by the Divus lulius and the Dictator perpetuus, as by the great general and the great conqueror. Trajan, renewing his policy of conquest, seems to have seen a model in him. That is connected particularly, in all probability, with Caesar’s plans for his last expeditions: those against the Dacians in the north and the Parthians in the east. Those were the identical opponents which Trajan had singled out for conquest and definitive subjection. At the same time, we have evidence in Arrian, Plutarch, and Suetonius of a new interest in Caesar’s biography. Suetonius goes so far as to present him as the first Princeps (Donie 1996: 158-230). Caesar appears on the restoration coins of Trajan, but it is disputed what this allusion to him was supposed to mean (Mattingly III: 142, nos. 696-8 pl. 23, 17-19; see Levick, chapter 15 in this volume, p. 218).
It is probably no accident that two portraits of Caesar from the Trajanic period, greater than life-size, have been found in Rome. That of him in armor, more than three meters in height (the arms and legs are restorations, the head original), has been known since 1550 AD; today, it stands - by the will of Mussolini - in the Chamber of the Parliament of the city of Rome, in the Palazzo Senatorio on the Capitol (Stemmer 1978: 74, ill. 48,1; Kreikenbom 1992: 154-5; Boehringer 1933: ill. 27-9; Cadario 2006: 35 [figure 21.17]). Its style corresponds extensively with a torso of Trajan found in Trajan’s Forum; that allows us to infer a date about 110 AD. Perhaps the statue of Caesar, too, was set up in the Forum of Trajan. The portrait is based on the Tusculum type, but what we have is not a copy but a free
Publisher's Note:
Permission to reproduce this image online was not granted by the copyright holder. Readers are kindly requested to refer to the printed version of this chapter.
Figure 21.17 Statue of Caesar, Rome Palazzo Senatorio. Photo Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Rome.
Interpretation, in the style of the later portraits of Trajan. The hair on the forehead is arranged in neat rows, turning the baldness into a lofty brow. The face, ageless, reminds us by the style of its cutting of the Turin head; but it lacks an unambiguous expression.
More impressive in its effect is the second Trajanic portrait, coming from the Farnese collection (Boehringer 1933: ill. 30-1; Johansen 1987: fig. 20; Kreikenbom 1992: 56-9, 151-4 [figure 21.18]). The sculptor has been guided here rather more by the physiognomy of the Tusculum type, while at the same time the proportions and the details have been largely translated into the style of the time of Trajan. The sharply angled strands of hair, which give a metallic effect, are no less characteristic of formulas used by the Trajanic sculptors than the eyelids and the brows. Only the area round the mouth, and the folds of the nose, are still reminiscent of the physiognomy of Caesar. The decided turn of the head, together with the expression of the face, expresses sovereign command. From the lively first sketch, which the portrait in Turin permits us to imagine, there has come to birth a timeless image of a ruler, fixed in its representational stance.
Publisher's Note:
Permission to reproduce this image online was not granted by the copyright holder. Readers are kindly requested to refer to the printed version of this chapter.
Figure 21.18 Portrait of Caesar, Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale. Photo Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Rome.
There is in the history of Roman portraiture no other figure whose likeness continued so constantly, over such a period of time, to be corrected and to be generally subject to such a profound process of change.
World History
