472
brill Mutilation and Transformation damnatio memoriae and roman imperial portraiture eric r. varner Mutilation and Transformation damnatio memoriae and roman imperial portraiture by eric r. varner monumenta graeca et romana monumenta graeca et romana

VARNER, Eric R. - Mutilation and Transformation. Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

e r i c r . va r n e r ,

Ph.D. (1993) in Classics, Yale

University, is Associate Professor

of Art History and Classics,

Emory University.

He has published on Roman

portraits, including the catalogue

From Caligula to Constantine:

Tyranny and Transformation in Roman

Imperial Portraiture (Atlanta, 2000).

e r i c r . va r n e r ,

Ph.D. (1993) in Classics, Yale

University, is Associate Professor

of Art History and Classics,

Emory University.

He has published on Roman

portraits, including the catalogue

From Caligula to Constantine:

Tyranny and Transformation in Roman

Imperial Portraiture (Atlanta, 2000).

var

ner

Mutilation and Transform

ation

t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n o f m e m o r yinexorably altered the visual landscape ofimperial Rome. Representations of ‘bad’ em-perors, such as Caligula, Nero, Domitian,Commodus, or Elagabalus were routinelyreconfigured into likenesses of victorioussuccessors or revered predecessors. Alterna-tively, portraits could be physically attackedand mutilated or even executed in effigy.From the late first century b.c. until thefourth century a.d., the recycling and de-struction of images of emperors, empresses,and other members of the imperial familyoccurred on a vast scale and often markedperiods of violent political transition. Thisvolume catalogues and interprets the sculp-tural, glyptic, numismatic and epigraphicevidence for damnatio memoriae and ulti-mately reveals its praxis to be at the core of

Roman cultural identity.

var

ner

Mutilation and Transform

ation

br

ill

t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n o f m e m o r yinexorably altered the visual landscape ofimperial Rome. Representations of ‘bad’ em-perors, such as Caligula, Nero, Domitian,Commodus, or Elagabalus were routinelyreconfigured into likenesses of victorioussuccessors or revered predecessors. Alterna-tively, portraits could be physically attackedand mutilated or even executed in effigy.From the late first century b.c. until thefourth century a.d., the recycling and de-struction of images of emperors, empresses,and other members of the imperial familyoccurred on a vast scale and often markedperiods of violent political transition. Thisvolume catalogues and interprets the sculp-tural, glyptic, numismatic and epigraphicevidence for damnatio memoriae and ulti-mately reveals its praxis to be at the core of

Roman cultural identity.

www.brill.nl

Mutilationand Transformation

da m n at io m e mor i a e

a n d ro m a n i m p e r i a l p o rt r a i t u r e

e r i c r . va r n e rThis book is volume 10 in the series

m o n u m e n ta g r a e c a e t ro m a n a .

www.brill.nl

Mutilationand Transformation

da m n at io m e mor i a e

a n d ro m a n i m p e r i a l p o rt r a i t u r e

by

e r i c r . va r n e r

Opgegeven en ingestelde rugdikte = 32 mm

i s s n 0169-8850

9 789004 1 35 772

i s b n 90 04 13577 4

mo

nu

men

ta g

ra

eca

et

ro

ma

na

mo

nu

men

ta g

ra

eca

et

ro

ma

na

br

ill

m.g

.r10

m.g

.r10

mg&r

Bril/Varner/HS/MGR10/4de 27-05-2004 11:09 Pagina 1 (Zwart/Process Black Plaat) Bril/Varner/HS/MGR10/4de 27-05-2004 11:09 Pagina 1 (PANTONE 5285 C Plaat)

MUTILATION AND TRANSFORMATION

MONUMENTA GRAECA

ET ROMANA

FOUNDING EDITOR

H. F. MUSSCHE

VOLUME X

MUTILATION

AND TRANSFORMATIONDamnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture

BY

ERIC R. VARNER

BRILLLEIDEN • BOSTON

2004

On the cover: the four illustrations represent the chronological and conceptual span of the mutilation and transformation of Roman imperial images. Portraits were routinely reconfigured from the Julio Claudian period(as evidenced by the image of Nero transformed to Vespasian in Cleveland [top left]) through the Constantinianperiod (as evidenced by the colossal portrait of Constantine in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, transformed from apre-existing image of Maxentius [bottom right]). Portraits were also attacked and defaced, especially in the lateseond and third centuries (as evidenced by mutilated portraits of Plautilla, in Houston [top right], and Macrinus,

at Harvard [bottom left]).

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISSN 0169-8850ISBN 90 04 13577 4

© Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written

permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personaluse is granted by Brill provided that

the appropriate fees are paid directly to The CopyrightClearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910

Danvers MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

table of contents v

D MAnn Varner

table of contentsvi

table of contents vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter One. Developments, Implications, and Precedents ................................................................... 1

Chapter Two. Caligula, Milonia Caesonia and Julia Drusilla ............................................................... 21

Chapter Three. Nero and Poppaea ........................................................................................................ 46

Chapter Four. Other Julio-Claudians ..................................................................................................... 86Julia Maior .......................................................................................................................................... 86Agrippa Postumus ............................................................................................................................... 88Julia Minor .......................................................................................................................................... 89Agrippina Maior ................................................................................................................................. 90Nero and Drusus Caesar .................................................................................................................... 91Sejanus ................................................................................................................................................ 92Livilla ................................................................................................................................................... 93Valeria Messalina ................................................................................................................................ 95Agrippina Minor ................................................................................................................................. 97Claudia Octavia ................................................................................................................................ 100Claudia Antonia ................................................................................................................................ 101Julia Livilla, Julia Drusilla, Lollia Paulina and Domitia Lepida ...................................................... 102Ptolemy of Mauretania .................................................................................................................... 103

Chapter Five. A.D. 69 ........................................................................................................................... 105Galba ................................................................................................................................................. 105Otho .................................................................................................................................................. 107Vitellius ............................................................................................................................................. 108

Chapter Six. Domitian .......................................................................................................................... 111

Chapter Seven. Commodus, Lucilla, Crispina and Annia Fundania Faustina ................................... 136

Chapter Eight. The Severans A.D. 193-235 ........................................................................................ 156The Rivals Of Septimius Severus: Didius Julianus, Clodius Albinus, and Pescennius Niger ........ 157Plautilla ............................................................................................................................................. 164Geta ................................................................................................................................................... 168Caracalla ........................................................................................................................................... 184Macrinus and Diadumenianus ......................................................................................................... 184Elagabalus and Julia Soemias ........................................................................................................... 188Severus Alexander and Julia Mammaea .......................................................................................... 195

table of contentsviii

Chapter Nine. The Later Third Century (235-285) ............................................................................ 200Maximinus Thrax, Maximus, and Caecilia Paulina ........................................................................ 200Pupienus and Balbinus ..................................................................................................................... 203Gordian III ........................................................................................................................................ 204Philip the Arab, Philip Minor and Otacilia Severa ......................................................................... 205Trajan Decius, Herrenius Etruscus, and Hostilian .......................................................................... 207Trebonianus Gallus ........................................................................................................................... 208Aemilian and Cornelia Supera ...................................................................................................... 209“Celsus” ............................................................................................................................................ 210Gallienus, Salonina, Valerian Minor, Saloninus and Marianianus ................................................. 210Carinus ............................................................................................................................................. 211Carausius and Allectus .................................................................................................................... 212

Chapter Ten. The Early Fourth Century ............................................................................................. 214Maximian .......................................................................................................................................... 214Maxentius, Galeria Valeria Maximilla and Romulus ...................................................................... 215Maximinus Daia ............................................................................................................................... 220Prisca, Galeria Valeria and Candidianus ......................................................................................... 221Crispus and Fausta ............................................................................................................................ 221

Catalogue of Mutilated and Altered Portraits1. Caligula ....................................................................................................................................... 2252. Nero ............................................................................................................................................ 2373. Julio-Claudians ........................................................................................................................... 2574. A.D. 69 ........................................................................................................................................ 2595. Domitian ..................................................................................................................................... 2606. Commodus, Livilla, Crispina and Annia Fundania Faustina .................................................... 2707. The Severans. Plautilla, Geta, Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Elagabalus, Severus Alexander

and Julia Mammaea ................................................................................................................... 2758. Third Century ............................................................................................................................ 2839. Fourth Century ........................................................................................................................... 286

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 289

Index of Museums and Collections ...................................................................................................... 307General Index ....................................................................................................................................... 317

List of Illustrations and Photo Credits ................................................................................................. 335Illustrations

table of contents ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project would not have been possible without the sustained help and encouragement ofinnumerable friends and colleagues. A very special debt of gratitude is owed to Diana Kleiner who,as mentor and friend, has generously shared with me her wide-ranging insights on Roman sculptureand who has nurtured the project along in its various guises. Many thanks are also due to Pat ErhartMottahedeh who originally suggested the topic of damnatio memoriae to me and looked after it in itsearliest incarnation.

In addition, I would like to warmly thank the following: Paolo Arata, Musei Captiolini; Jane Biers,University of Missouri at Columbia, Museum of Art and Archaeology; John Bodel, Rutgers University;Sheramy Bundrick, University of South Florida; Maddalena Cima, Musei Capitolini; John Clarke,University of Texas at Austin; Robert Cohon, Nelson Atkins Museum; Diane Conlin, University ofColorado, Boulder; Penelope Davies, University of Texas, Austin; Stefano de Caro, MuseoArcheologico di Napoli; Sandro de Maria, Università di Bologna; Jas Elsner, Oxford University;Harriet Flower, Princeton University; Jasper Gaunt, Michael C. Carlos Museum; John Herrmann,Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Tony Hirschel, Indianapolis Museum of Art; Catherine Howett Smith,Michael C. Carlos Museum; Sandra Knudsen, Toledo Museum of Art; Ann Kuttner, University ofPennsylvania; Anne C. Leinster-Windham; Paolo Liverani, Musei Vaticani; Susan Matheson, YaleUniversity Art Gallery; David Minten, Harvard University Art Museums; Mette Moltesen, NyCarlsberg Glyptotek; Sarah Morris, University of California at Los Angeles; Michael Padgett, TheArt Museum, Princeton University; John Pappadopoulos, University of California at Los Angeles;Carlos Picon, Metropolitan Museum of Art; Jerry Podany, J. Paul Getty Museum; J. Pollitt, YaleUniversity; J. Pollini, University of Southern California; Gianni Ponti, Sovrintendenza Archeologicadi Roma; Gay Robins, Emory University; Peter Rockwell; Brian Rose, University of Cincinnati; V.Rudich, Yale University; Marion Schröder, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Rome; Alan Shapiro,the Johns Hopkins University; Catherine Simon, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection; Niall Slater,Emory University; Alaistair Small, University of Alberta; R.R.R. Smith, Oxford University; RenéeStein, Michael C. Carlos Museum; Katrin Stump, Deutsches Archäoligisches Institut Rome; MichielKlein Swormink, Brill Publishers; Emilia Talamo, Museo Nazionale Romano; Marion True, J. PaulGetty Museum; Ute Wartenburg, American Numismatic Society; Bonna Wescoat, Emory University;Susan Wood, Oakland University.

I would also like to thank all of my colleagues and staff in the departments of Art History andClassics at Emory University, the staff of the Michael C. Carlos Museum, the staff of the Libraryof the American Academy in Rome, the staff of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Rome,as well as my current and former graduate students, Katrina Dickson, Erin Black, John Stephensonand Brandon Foster for various, sundry and invaluable assistance. As always, heartfelt thanks toBrad Lapin for help on every level and for putting up with bad emperors (and the bad moods theyhave been known to induce) for so long. Ultimately, all omissions, errors, and translations are myown.

table of contentsvi

developments, implications, and precedents 1

As vital expressions of political authority andprestige, imperial portraits permeated all aspectsof Roman society. Representations of the em-peror and his family were prominently displayedin civic, sacred, and domestic spaces throughoutthe empire and were carefully manipulated anddisseminated in order to reach multiple audi-ences. The power of these images lay in theirability to speak to disparate members of the so-ciety, from the illiterate and slaves through themost educated members of the Roman elite.However, imperial portraits were neither immu-table nor monolithic, and should an emperor beoverthrown, his images were systematically mu-tilated or physically altered into the likenesses ofother emperors. This process, popularly knownas damnatio memoriae, is the first widespread ex-ample of the negation of artistic monuments forpolitical and ideological reasons and it has inexo-rably altered the material record of Roman cul-ture. Jerome aptly describes the fate of the por-traits of Rome’s” bad” emperors: “When a tyrantis destroyed, his portraits and statues are alsodeposed. The face is exchanged or the headremoved, and the likeness of he who has con-quered is superimposed. Only the body remainsand another head is exchanged for those thathave been decapitated (si quando tyrannus obtrun-catur, imagines quoque eius deponuntur et statuae, et vultutantummodo commutato, ablatoque capite, eius qui vicerit,facies superponitur, ut manente corpore, capitibusque prae-cisis caput aliud commutetur).1 Although Jerome waswriting in the late fourth/early fifth century, hisdescription clearly reflects centuries of establishedpractices regarding the public images of emper-ors condemned as tyrants.

Beginning in the republican period, the legalsanctions which could be associated with damnatiomemoriae provided the mechanisms by which an

individual was simultaneously canceled and con-demned. The Romans themselves realized thatit was possible to alter posterity’s perception ofthe past especially as embodied in the visual andepigraphic record. Sanctions passed by the Sen-ate could mandate the destruction of the monu-ments and inscriptions commemorating capitaloffenders or hostes, the official enemies of theRoman state.2 As a result, the condemned in-dividual’s name and titles were excised from allofficial lists ( fasti); wax masks (imagines) represent-ing the deceased were banned from display ataristocratic funerals;3 books written by the con-demned were confiscated and burned; propertyrights were forfeited; wills were annulled; thebirthday of the condemned was proclaimed a dayevil to the Roman people (dies nefastus), while theanniversary of the death was celebrated as a timeof public rejoicing; houses belonging to the de-ceased were razed; and prohibitions could beenacted against the continued use of the con-demned’s praenomen.4 After Augustus solidifiedhis control of the Mediterranean in 31 B.C. andsubsequently established the imperial system,damnationes memoriae and the attendant mutilationand transformation of images were almost exclu-sively enacted against deposed principes, othercondemned members of the imperial house, orprivate individuals who had conspired against the

CHAPTER ONE

DEVELOPMENTS, IMPLICATIONS, AND PRECEDENTS

1 In Abacuc 2.3.14-16.984-88. P. Stewart (1999) 159, 180-81.

2 F. Vittinghoff (1936) 13.3 On the imagines, see H.I. Flower (1996). Flower also

discusses the term imago in its narrowest senses as a waxancestor mask, and its later broader implications of por-traiture in general, 32-52.

4 On the razing of houses, T.P. Wiseman (1987) 393-4 and n. 3; J. Bodel (1997) 7-11. On the banning of praeno-mina, see H. Solin (1986)70-3; H. Solin (1989) 252-3; H.Flower (1998) 163-5.

chapter one2

reigning emperor. Damaged or transfiguredimperial portraits survive in vast quantities andinclude marble, bronze, and painted likenesses,as well as representations in relief, on coins, andgems.

The term damnatio memoriae, literally the dam-nation or condemnation of memory, is modern,but it accurately reflects the Romans’ preoccu-pation with the concepts of memory and fame.5

The Latin term memoria has much broader reper-cussions than its English cognate, memory, andencompasses the notions of an individual’s fameand greater reputation. The belief that a deceasedindividual enjoyed an afterlife through the per-petuation of his memory or by being rememberedis at the core of Roman cultural identity and isamply witnessed by the innumerable survivingworks of funerary art and architecture created forall classes of the society, throughout the empire.6

Furthermore, Varro closely links the idea ofmonumental commemoration with the perpetu-ation of memory.7 In effect, the condemnation,damnation or abolition of an individual’s memoryis a posthumous destruction of his or her veryessence or being. When discussing the condem-nation of a person’s memory and monuments,ancient authors usually combine the word memoriawith particularly strong verbs damnare, condemnare,

accusare, abolere, or eradere.8 These verbs, to damn,condemn, accuse, abolish, or eradicate, them-selves resonate with the process of historical cen-sure which is the basis of damnatio memoriae. Over-all, these sanctions were not conceived of inabsolute terms, but were flexible and practicalmethods of destroying the condemned’s posthu-mous reputation and memory.9

Cancellation of a bad emperor’s identity andaccomplishments from the collective conscious-ness was one of the fundamental ideological aimsof damnatio in the imperial period. Portrait stat-ues and busts were routinely removed from publicand private display and the names and titles ofoverthrown rulers were ruthlessly excised fromthe inscriptions that had formerly extolled theirvirtues. This calculated obliteration of images,effectively an abolitio memoriae (abolition of me-mory), is starkly illustrated by representationswhich have been chiseled out of relief monu-ments, as for instance portraits of Commodusremoved from the series of reliefs honoring hisfather, Marcus Aurelius, or the excision of Plau-tianus, Plautilla, and Geta from reliefs deco-rating Severan arches in Rome and LepcisMagna.10 For representations of condemned em-perors in the round, their removal from publicdisplay and subsequent storage in secure locationshas often led, ironically, to their preservation forposterity. Indeed, damnatio contributed directly tothe warehousing of great numbers of imperialimages.

Another important aim of post mortem sanctionscould be the complete denigration of the con-demned individual’s posthumous reputation as a

5 The term damnatio memoriae covers a wide array of postmortem sanctions against a condemned individual’s memo-ry and monuments. These penalties could be officiallymandated by the Senate, emperor, or even army, or theycould be unofficial, de facto sanctions; see F. Vittinghoff(1936) 13, 64-74; K. Mustakallio (1994) 9-15; J.M. Paillierand R. Sablayrolles (1994) 12-15; and H. Flower (1998)155-6. The term first appears as the title of a dissertationcompleted in 1689 by Schreiter-Gerlach; see P. Stewart(1999) 184, n. 3.

6 On commemoration and perpetuation of memory, seeM. Koortbojian in J. Elsner, ed. (1996) 210-34; P.J.E.Davies (1997) 41-65. For the “activity of memory in monu-ments” see, J. E. Young (1989) 69-106.

7 Ling. 6.49: Sic monimenta quae in sepulcris, et ideo secun-dum iviam, quo praetereuntis admoneat et se fuisse et illos esse mortalis.Ab eo cetera quae scripta ac facta memoriae causa monimenta dicta(...so monuments which are on tombs, and in fact alongthe roads, in order that they can warn anyone coming alongthat the deceased themselves were once mortal, just as theyare now mortal. From this, other things which are writtenor done for the sake of memory are said to be monuments).See also J. Bodel (1997) 21.

8 For example see, Suet. Dom. 23.1 (abolendamque omnemmemoriam); HA.Com.19.1 (memoriam aboleatur), and Cod.Iust.1.3.23; (memoriam accusare defuncti ) CodIust 1.5.4.4Pap. Dig.31.76.9 (memoriam damanatam); Cod.Iust. 7.2.2 (memoria ...damnata); Ulp. Dig. 24.1.32.7 (memoria... damnata); Ulp. Dig.28.3.6.11 (memoria...damnata); Paul. Cod.Iust 9.8.6 (memoria...damnetur); Inst. 4.18.3 (memoria... damnatur); Inst. 3.1.5(memoria...damnata); F. Vittinghoff, Staatsfeind 13; 66-69; T.Pekáry (1985) 135.

9 H.I. Flower (1995) 163.10 Arch of Septimius Severus in the Forum Romanum,

infra; Arch of the Argentarii, infra; and the Arch of SeptimiusSeverus at Lepcis Magna, infra.

developments, implications, and precedents 3

stark political warning to future offenders.11 Al-though posthumous denigration would appear atfirst glance contradictory to the total eradicationof a condemned individual’s memory, in prac-tice the two prove to be neither incompatible normutually exclusive. In visual terms denigrationwas effected through the physical mutilation ofportraits. As recognizable signs of an overthrownruler’s disgrace, deliberately damaged likenessesphysically expressed the abstract concepts of in-famia (disrepute, disgrace) and iniuria (insult, af-front, revenge), and must have remained publiclyvisible for some time after the emperor’s over-throw. The sensory organs comprising the eyes,nose, mouth and ears were specific targets of theattacks on sculpted portraits. The resulting dam-age to the face is T-shaped, but still renders therepresentation recognizable. The mutilation ofimages is often described in graphically anthro-pomorphic terms. Pliny recounts the destructionof bronze images of Domitian just like they wereliving beings, capable of feeling pain and says thatthe portraits were attacked as if “blood and painwould follow every single blow” (ut si singulos ic-tus sanguis dolorque sequeretur).12 Dio similarly por-trays the destruction of Sejanus’s statues: thosewho assaulted his images acted as if they wereattacking the man himself.13 Although probablyhistorically spurious, the account in the HistoriaAugusta of the “crucifixion” of a portrait of theNorth African usurper Celsus is certainly indica-tive of fourth century attitudes and expectationsconcerning the treatment of representations ofcondemned rulers, as well as the continued Rom-an perception of images as effigies.14

The anthropomorphic rhetoric employedwhen discussing the destruction of imperial im-

ages underscores their function as literal embodi-ments of the imperial presence in stone or bronze.Trajan’s posthumous Parthian triumph, in whicha statue of the emperor rode in the quadriga,illustrates well the positive, celebratory connota-tions of imperial portraits as effigies.15 Con-versely, deliberate assaults on these images aredirectly analogous to physical attacks against theemperor’s person, a kind of mutilation or execu-tion in effigy.16 The desecration of the vital sen-sory organs, the eyes, ears, nose and mouth,negates any “power” of these images to see, hearor speak. Furthermore, the disfigurement ofimperial likenesses has close conceptual ties to thedesecration of the corpses of capital offenders, aprocess known as poena post mortem.17 Lucangraphically describes the mutilation of a corpseand the attack on the ears, eyes, nose and mouthexactly parallels the disfigurement of imperialimages: exsectaque lingua/ Palpitat et muto vacuum feritaera motu./Hic aures, alius spiramina naris aduncae/Amputat; ille cavis evolvit sedibus orbes, (And thetongue having been severed, squirms and withsilent motion strikes the empty air. Someoneamputates the ears, someone else the nostrils ofhis hooked nose, and another one gouges the eyesout of their hollow sockets).18 Although corpseabuse was not uncommon for criminals and othernoxii executed in arena spectacles, the desecra-tion of elite corpses was viewed as an extremelysevere form of punishment, and as a result is fairlyrare for condemned emperors or other membersof the imperial house.19 Nevertheless, the bodies

11 H. Flower discusses the these two approaches (“thetendency to forget” vs. the “urge to remember”) in the caseof Gn. Calpurnius Piso (1998) 180.

12 Pan. 52.4-5; for an interpretation of the full passagein its Domitianic context, see infra.

13 58.11.3.14 Tyr.Trig. 19: et novo iniuriae genere imago in crucem sublata

persultante vulgo, quasi patibulo ipse Celsus videretur (and in a newkind of outrage, his portrait was hoisted on a cross, withthe crowd running around as if they were seeing Celsushimself on the gibbet); see infra.

15 As illustrated on Hadrianic aurei of 117-18, BMCRE244, no. 47; S. Settis, ed. (1988) 78-9, fig. 33.

16 Actual effigies were important components of impe-rial funerals, see S.R.F. Price (1997) 64, 96-7. For the mu-tilation of imperial portraits as effigies, see F. Vittinghoff(1936) 13-19; J. von Schlosser (1910-11) 184; W. Brückner(1966) 192; J.P. Rollin (1979) 165-69; D. Freedberg (1989)259.

17 On the post mortem abuse of corpses, see F. Vittinghoff(1936) 43-6; D.G. Kyle (1998) 131-3, 220-24, and 183, n.106 where he calls the “abuse of statues” “surrogate corpseabuse;” E.R. Varner (2001a).

18 BC 2.181-4.19 Although obviously comic in nature, Apuleius’s story

of the guarding of a corpse at Larissa against mutilation

chapter one4

of Nero Caesar, Drusus Caesar, Sejanus, LolliaPaulina, Claudia Octavia, Galba, Vitellius,Pertinax, Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus,Plautianus, Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Elagaba-lus, Julia Soemias, Maximinus Thrax, Maximus,Pupienus, Balbinus, Gallienus, and Maxentiuswere all abused in some fashion. Politically, themutilation of imperial images and corpses was in-tended as a visual expression of dissatisfactionwith the policies and personalities of the con-demned emperor, and, concomitantly, loyalty tothe new regime. Dio links the concepts of imageand corpse abuse in his account of the attacks onSejanus’s portraits, which the condemned manwas forced to witness, thus becoming an unwill-ing spectator of his own imminent death anddestruction (6"\ @ÜJT 2g"JZH ô< Bg\FgF2"4 §:g88g<

¦(\(<gJ@).20 After Commodus’s overthrow, thepopulace mutilated his images, as artistic surro-gates for his corpse.21 Deliberate defacement ofimages was often the result of spontaneous dem-onstrations against a condemned emperor’smemory and it additionally represents a veryphysical and violent response to the news of anemperor’s overthrow. Not coincidentally, themutilation and destruction of imperial likenessesreaches its apogee in the middle years of the thirdcentury, c. A.D. 235-85, when the empire wasengulfed in a period of military, social, political,and economic unrest, with no single emperor ordynasty able to maintain control or guaranteestability for an extended period.

Sculpted images could also be effectively can-celed and transformed through recarving. Por-traits of condemned emperors were routinelyrecut to represent victorious successors or es-teemed predecessors. Reuse constitutes a Romanpractical response to the economic problemsinherent in the destruction of images. Marbleportrait sculptures were expensive commissionsand recutting representations of condemned in-dividuals is an efficient and cost-effective form ofartistic recycling.22 Furthermore sculptural reusehas ideological implications as a kind of visualcannibalism in which the likeness of a successfulruler displaces that of his defeated predecessor.Thus the transformed image has the potential tocannibalize the power and meaning residing inthe original portrait. The process of manipulat-ing preexisting images into new more acceptablelikenesses occurs throughout the imperial period.

In the early empire vast numbers of the marbleportraits of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian wererecut and reconfigured into new likenesses andit is the most intensive period for the recyclingof imperial images.23 At least 120 extant sculptedrepresentations of these emperors have beentransformed. In the second century, there is ahiatus in the process of recarving imperial por-traits. No likenesses of Commodus, Lucilla, orCrispina were recut immediately after their con-demnations. Their images which were refash-ioned were not altered until the third and fourth

of the facial features by witches illustrates the seriousnesswith which Romans viewed the this kind of desecration,Met. 2.21-22, 30. The mutilation of the ears and nose whichis ultimately carried out on the guard, Thelyphron, ratherthan the dead man, resembles the disfigurement of impe-rial images and corpses. Significantly, Thelyphron views hisown mutilation as a great disgrace which will prevent himfrom ever returning to his hometown. Deiphobus’s corpsehas been similarly disfigured with the nose and ears sev-ered in the Aeneid (6.494-9): Atque hic Priamiden laniantumcorpore toto/Deiphobum vidit, lacerum crudeliter ora,/ora manusqueambas, populataque tempora raptis/ auribus et truncas inhonestovulnere naris./vix adeo agnovit pavitantem ac dira tegentem/ supplicia,et notis compellat vocibus ultro. Vergil’s use of supplicia furtherrecalls the language of criminal punishment.

20 58.11.3; D.G. Kyle (1998) 221.21 Dio 74.2.1.

22 On the high cost of sculpture, recutting, and ques-tions of econmy, see C.B. Rose (1997) 10.

23 Private images were also reworked throughout theimperial period, as for instance a late Flavian/earlyTrajanic female portrait whose coiffure was completelyrecut and updated in the late Trajanic period (Boston,Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 1988.327; J.J. Herrmann, jr.(1991) 34-50, figs. 1a-d). I cannot agree with P. Liveranithat the reworking of private images provide the impetusfor the recarving of imperial portraits (1990-91) 170-71.The sheer number of reworked images beginning with Ca-ligula would seem to argue that the relationship was ex-actly the opposite, with the imperial manifestations influ-encing the private examples. Nevertheless, Liverani is rightto stress the widespread nature of the phenomenon, bothprivate and imperial. Furthermore, Liverani is correct topoint out that the private examples provide an ongoingcontext within which to read the recutting of imperialimages.

developments, implications, and precedents 5

centuries.24 In the third century, reuse remainsrelatively rare, with examples essentially limitedto portraits of Elagabalus transformed into rep-resentations of his cousin and successor, SeverusAlexander. Recutting at this time may have beenpragmatically motived by the strong physicalresemblance between the two young Severancousins. Under Constantine, there is a renewedinterest in reworking marble portraits as attestedby several of his images which have been refash-ioned from earlier likenesses of Maxentius (as wellas the recut relief portraits on the Arch ofConstantine).25 Altered likeness are not limitedto three dimensional marble portraits, but in afew instances also occur in relief, gem, bronze,basalt, and coin portraits. Imperial images weretransformed in all parts of the empire with sur-viving examples from Italy, Spain, Gaul, Ger-many, Greece, North Africa, Egypt, and AsiaMinor.

Marble images were also transformed andrecycled in more utilitarian fashion as buildingmaterial. A relief representing Nero and Agrip-pina was reused face down as a paving slab inthe Sebasteion complex at Aphrodisias, while amutilated portrait of Julia Mammaea was re-cycled as a paving stone in one of Ostia’s thor-oughfares.26 The use of images as paving stonesmay also have had further denigrative intentagainst the memory of the condemned as peopleliterally trampled the portraits underfoot.

The physical removal of banned images frompublic view resulted in large numbers of portraitsbeing warehoused, stored or hidden.27 Severallikenesses were deposited in sculptural cachesincluding portraits of Nero, Lucilla, Commodus,Geta, Macrinus, and Elagabalus.28 The storageof these images has ultimately ensured their sur-vival, and often contributed to their fine statesof preservation, as in case of the well knownCommodus as Hercules from the Esquiline (fig.141). Portraits, or other monuments, were alsoremoved to sculptors’ workshops in order to bereworked, as may have been the case withCancelleria Reliefs.29 The warehousing of imagesis further confirmed by portraits of Caligula,Nero, Domitian, Lucilla, Commodus, Plautilla,and Geta which were not recut for decades oreven centuries, suggesting that they were in goodstates of preservation and readily accessible at thetime of their reuse.30 Portraits could also beburied or hidden from public view, as presum-ably happened to a likeness of Domitian discov-ered in the Tomb of Julia Procula at Isola

24 A marked decline in the instances of reuse is alreadyapparent in the recut images of Domitian: there are 24recut marble representations of Domitian in the round,versus 53 for Nero and 43 for Caligula. This may reflectin part accidents of preservation, as well as the fact thatso many of Domitian’s own portraits had been reworkedfrom portraits of Nero, thus precluding a third recutting,but is also probably due to changing practices.

25 On the recut portraits on the Arch of Constantine,see J. Rohmann (1998) and J. Elsner (2000).

26 Nero and Agrippina, Aphrodisias, infra; JuliaMammaea, Ostia, Museo, inv. 26 infra; Portraits of Lucilla(Palazzo dei Conservatori, Centrale Montemartini 2.91, inv.2766) and Otacilia Severa (Palazzo dei Conservatori,Centrale Montemartini 2.95, inv. 2765) were incorporatedinto the fabric of a post-antique wall between the Colos-seum and the Basilica of Maxentius and are likely indica-tive of earlier practices.

27 M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 320 describethese marble depots as Steingarten (stone gardens); see alsoD. Kinney (1997) 118, 124-25.

28 Nero, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, CentraleMontemartini 1.25B, inv. 2835, infra; Lucilla, Rome,Palazzo dei Conservatori, Centrale Montemartini 3.85, inv.1781, infra; Commodus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,Sala degli Arazzi, inv. 1120, infra; Geta, Oslo, Nasjonal-galleriet 600, inv. 1433, infra; Macrinus, Rome, PalazzoConservatori, Centrale Montemartini 3.82, inv. 1757, in-fra; Elagabalus, Oslo, Nasjonalgalleriet, inv. 1434 infra. Fora brief discussion of sculptural caches, see E. Bartmann(1991) 72 and ns. 3 and 4.

29 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano,cat. 5.17.

30 Caligula/Claudius Gothicus?, New York, White-LevyCollection, cat. 1.37; Nero/Gallienus, Columbia, Univer-sity of Missouri, Museum of Art and Archaeology, 62.46,cat. 2.62; Nero/4th century emperor, Rome, MuseoNazionale delle Terme, inv. 126279, cat. 2.63; Domitian/Constantinian emperor, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 89.6,5.30; Lucilla/Helena, Florence, Uffizi, inv. 1914.171, cat.6.11; Lucilla/Helena, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanzadegli Imperatori 59, 496, cat. 6.12; Commodus/Pupienus?,Mantua, Palazzo Ducale, inv. G 6812/1, cat. 6.5; Com-modus/Pupienus, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti27.8, inv.1613, cat. 6.6; Plautilla/fourth century empress,Irvine, Robert K. Martin Collection, cat. 7.3; Geta/midthird century individual, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Salone51, inv. 675, cat. 7.10.

chapter one6

Sacra.31 The numerous images of condemnedindividuals recovered from the Tiber, other bod-ies of water, sewers and wells suggest that moreviolent and destructive forms of disposal, can also,ironically, contribute to a portrait’s ultimate sur-vival.32 In antiquity, the disposal of portraits inbodies of water, especially the Tiber, closelyparallels the disposal of the corpses of arena vic-tims, another aspect of poena post mortem.33 Addi-tionally, the practice has intriguing connectionswith the Sacra Argeorum, an annual purificationritual of hostile spirits in which human effigieswere thrown into the Tiber from the Pons Subliciusevery May.34

In the imperial period, the Senate continuedto formally pass sanctions in the case of officialdamnationes. Livilla, Sejanus, Messalina, Nero,Domitian, Commodus, Elagabalus, and JuliaSoemias were all officially condemned by theSenate. Condemnations could demonstrate sena-torial autonomy, as in the case of Nero, who wasdeclared a hostis while still living, or Domitian,condemned against the express wishes of thearmy. Naturally, the emperor could also exert hisinfluence in cases of damnatio. As early as thedamnatio of Caligula, his successor Claudius re-fused to permit the senate to formally proscribehis memory, but did allow an unofficial, de factodamnatio.35 In cases of conspiracy (maiestas orperduellio), as for Livilla, Sejanus and Messalina,it seems likely that the emperor took a direct handin promoting the senatorial sanctions. By theearly fourth century, the damnatio of Maxentiusappears to have been a necessary response by the

Senate and people of the city of Rome to the newpolitical realities of life under Constantine, asevidenced by the inscription on Constantine’sarch which publicly memorializes the formerruler Maxentius in highly negative terms as atyrannus.36

Damnatio is the direct antithesis of consecratio, theprocess by which a deceased emperor was de-clared an official god of the Roman state, andhis character, policies, and reign formally andeternally endorsed.37 S.R.F. Price has suggestedthat in the early imperial period the Senate wasable to act with some degree of freedom in casesof consecratio as when they conspicuously refusedto deify Tiberius, but by the second centuryconsecrations, while still technically voted by theSenate, were largely at the discretion of the reign-ing emperor.38 Price cites the deification ofHadrian, which was passed by an unwilling Sen-ate at the express instigation of Antoninus Piusas indicative of the new state of affairs and bythe end of the century Septimius Severus un-equivocally compels the consecratio of Commo-dus.39 The inverse phenomenon of condemna-tion appears to mirror the decline in senatorialautonomy in matters of consecration. Indeed, bythe end of second century, the senate was notonly forced by Septimius Severus to consecrateCommodus as a new divus but also, in a morehumiliating blow, to rescind the damnatio they hadpronounced against him. Caracalla appears tohave bypassed the senate entirely, at least in theearly stages of his condemnation of Geta, whenhe demanded that the army, rather than the Sen-ate, declare his brother a hostis.40

The destruction and alteration of images waslikely accomplished in much the same way asportrait dedications. In the latter case, the sen-ate or emperor could decree portrait honors, ormunicipalities, groups, or individuals could pe-tition to erect commemorative images, usually in

31 Ostia, Museo, Magazzini, inv. 19, infra.32 Portraits allegedly recovered from the Tiber include

several bronze and marble portraits of Caligula (New York,White-Levy Collection, infra; Rome, Museo NazionaleRomano delle Terme, 4256, infra; Switzerland, Private Col-lection, infra) as well as a bronze portrait of Domitian(Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 664, inv. 768). Aportrait of Otho was unearthed from Ostia’s sewer, (Os-tia, Museo, inv. 446). Portraits thrown in wells include:heads of Caligula from Tharsis (Huelva, Museo Provincial),Domitian from Munigua (Munigua, Museo), and ClodiusAlbinus from Dougga (Tunis, Musée du Bardo). For thiskind of “refuse disposal,” see also P. Stewart (1999) 166.

33 D.G. Kyle (1998) 213-28.34 D.G. Kyle (1998) 215-6.35 Suet. Claud. 11.3; Dio 60.4.5-6, and infra.

36 CIL 6.1139=ILS 694.37 On the inverse relationship between damnatio and

consecratio see S. G. MacCormack (1981) 96, 98, 132-3, 149,254; S. Settis, ed. (1988) 76.

38 (1987) 86-87, 91-3.39 S.R.F.. Price (1987) 93.40 HA. Carac. 1.1; Herod. 4.8; see infra.

developments, implications, and precedents 7

response to senatorial or imperial decrees mark-ing important events in the life and reign of theemperor and his family.41 Similarly, municipali-ties, groups, or individuals were expected to re-spond appropriately to senatorial decrees man-dating the dishonoring of an emperor’s memoryand monuments. The army may also be impli-cated in the implementation of damnationes, assuggested by their involvement in Geta’s condem-nation, as well as their presumed physical involve-ment in the damnationes of the soldier emperorslater in the century.42 As is to be expected inRome and its environs, compliance with senato-rial sanctions against a condemned emperor’smemory is essentially universal, but elsewhere itcould be more sporadic and there appears to havebeen a certain degree of autonomy in respond-ing to condemnations. Several representations ofCaligula, whose condemnation was for the mostpart unofficial, were allowed to remain on pub-lic display, as were a boyhood portraits of Neroat Velleia (and possibly Rusellae), and a statueof Domitian as prince from the theater at Aphro-disias.43 In the few instances where portraits ofcondemned emperors or other members of theimperial family were permitted to remain visible,their presence within group dedications as wellas their importance for dynastic coherence andimperial continuum must have outweighed con-cerns over canceling or denigrating the indiv-idual’s memory.

The physical destruction and mutilation of anemperor’s images is the direct visual equivalentof the vilification of his character and actionswhich occurs in literary and historical sources.Literary, historical, or biographical damnatio of-ten relies on rhetorical tropes of invectio and

vituperatio in order to defame the memory of thecondemned ruler.44 Indeed, the author of theHistoria Augusta acknowledges the distortions anddifficulties surrounding the biographies of con-demned emperors or “historical losers” in hisbiography of Pescennius Niger, the defeated ri-val of Septimius Severus:

Rarum atque difficile est ut, quos tyrannos aliorum vic-toria fecerit, bene mittantur in litteras, atque ideo vix omniade his plene in monumentis atque annalibus habentur.primum enim, quae magna sunt in eorum honorem abscriptoribus depravantur, deinde alia supprimuntur, postremonon magna diligentia in eorum genere ac vita requiritur,cum satis sit audaciam eorum et bellum, in quo victi fuerint,ac poenam proferre.45

(It is uncommon and difficult to give an unbiasedwritten account of those men who have come tobe characterized as tyrants because of the victoryof others and furthermore scarcely anything aboutthese men is accurately preserved in monumentsor histories. For indeed, in the first place, greatevents which accrued to their honor are misrep-resented by historians, and then other events aresuppressed, and finally no great diligence is givento recounting their ancestry or life, since it seemsenough to reveal their effrontery, the battle inwhich they were conquered and their punishment.)

Significantly, the author links the literary distor-tions and omissions with the visual distortions andomissions on monuments (in monumentis atqueannalibus). Thus, the mutilation and transforma-tion of imperial images can be viewed as a de-liberate rewriting of the visual record of Romanhistory and society.

The literary vilification of an overthrown rulerwhich mirrors the mutilation of images was in-tended as a written portrait of the emperor’s evildeeds and moral inadequacies. Like publiclymutilated likenesses, they function as potent re-minders of an emperor’s posthumous disgraceand failure as leader. Literary denigration, likeits visual counterpart, could also be actively andofficially promoted; indeed, E. S. Ramage has

41 For a discussion of the motivations of portrait dedi-cations in the late Republic and early Empire, see C.B. Rose(1997) 7-10.

42 P.J. Casey (1994) 34.43 Portraits of Caligula: Iesi, Palazzo della Signoria;

Genoa-Pegli, Museo Civico, inv. 614; Gortyna, Antiqua-rium; Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 64; see in-fra. Statues of Nero: from Velleia, Parma, Museo Nazio-nale d’Antichità, no. 3, inv. 826; see infra; from Roselle,Grosseto, Museo Archaeologico. Statue of Domitian fromAphrodisias: Aphrodisias, depot, excavation inv. nos. 66-27, 67-282-85, 71-477; see infra.

44 T. Barton in J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds. (1994) 48-66.

45 HA, Pesc.Nig. 1.1-2; M. Cullhed points out the im-portance of this passage for the study of condemned empe-rors, or historical losers, in his monograph on Maxentius(1994) 9-11.

chapter one8

pointed out that while images could be removedor transformed, buildings destroyed or rededi-cated, texts favorable to a condemned ruler couldnever be entirely rescinded, so hostile literarytraditions were actively encouraged.46

While the centrality of epigraphical texts to theunderstanding and interpretation of artistic andarchitectural monuments for the ancient viewercan be overstated, the phenomenon of damnatiomemoriae certainly underscores the interdepen-dence of image and text, at least for the literatesegments of Roman society.47 Obvious parallelsexist between the treatment of the monumentalinscriptions and portraits of condemned emper-ors. Just as the emperor’s name and titles areeradicated in commemorative inscriptions orpapyri, so too are his sculpted images removedfrom public display, and his likenesses erasedfrom reliefs and paintings. Like portraits, inscrip-tions are intended as visual signifiers of theemperor’s position and achievements, and whenan emperor is overthrown and damned, his por-traits, like inscriptions, can be “erased” from thepublic consciousness. The practice of eradicatingcondemned emperors from the epigraphic recordis remarkably long lived, as witnessed by theerasure of Phocas’s name from the inscription onhis column, the last commemorative monumentknown to have been erected in the ForumRomanum.48 Portrait inscriptions, or inscriptionson arches, both of which identify and explain themonuments to which they belong, are places inwhich imperial images and texts necessarily in-teract. Such inscriptions can also be transformedfrom commemorations of a condemned ruler intocelebrations of a successor or predecessor, as forinstance a statue base from the Caserma dei Vigiliat Ostia in which the name and titles of Commo-dus have been erased and replaced with those ofhis successor Septimius Severus.49 Presumably

any image which this statue base supported wassimilarly transformed. Inscriptions are also liableto mutilation, as when only part of a condemnedindividual’s name is erased, making the inscrip-tion still readable as a kind of denigrative memo-rial.

The erasure of an overthrown emperor’s namein inscriptions, papyri and on coins is also relatedto prohibitions against the continued use of acondemned individual’s praenomen. Both high-light the importance of the act of naming inRoman culture. In the realm of religious dedi-cations, the simple naming of the dedicant com-prises the great majority of Roman votive inscrip-tions and M. Beard has suggested that namingis a fundamental and permanent assertion of thededicant’s membership in the larger pagan com-munity.50 Thus the erasure of a condemned em-peror’s name and the suppression of praenominaare acts of un-naming and effectively exclude thecondemned individual from society at large. Inaddition un-naming acts to deny the physicalexistence of the nameless individual.51 By thefourth century A.C., there exists a well establishedrhetorical tradition of not explicitly naming over-thrown emperors or those who were deemedusurpers of legitimate imperial authority.52

Just as imperial representations were createdin order to reach multiple Roman audiences, sotoo were the messages encoded in their destruc-tion and transformation intended to reach differ-ent segments of the public.53 On the most fun-damental level, the negation of images or theiralteration into new likenesses signal to the entirepopulace the political transition to a new regime.

46 Ramage discusses the phenomenon within the con-text of Pliny’s Panegyricus and Juvenal’s Satires (1989) 643,650.

47 J. Elsner has underscored the function of epigraphicaltexts as monuments in their own right, in J. Elsner, ed.(1996) 32-53. For epigraphical damnatio, see H.I.Flower(2000).

48 CIL 6.120049 R. Lanciani, NSc 75.

50 M. Beard (1991) 46-8.51 P.J. Casey (1994) 46; naming is also an equivalent

existence in the ancient Near East, and the excision of aninscribed name is tantamount to the suppression or removalof physical being, Z. Bahrani (1995) 377.

52 A.E. Wardman (1984) 222.53 The widespread nature of the surviving physical

evidence for damnatio in the form of mutilated, transformed,or warehoused portraits, as well as erased inscriptionscertainly refutes C. W. Hedrick’s statement that the audi-ence for damnationes is a “small percentage” of the popula-tion, namely the senatorial elite, (2000) 110-11. While thearistocracy are indeed an important audience, as well asagent for condemnations, all strata of the society are im-plicated in the phenomenon.

developments, implications, and precedents 9

Certainly those illiterate members of the popu-lation who could not read the written history ofthe failed regime could read its visual history asembodied in mutilated and transformed images.54

But alteration of the visual landscape of impe-rial portraits could also be read in alternativeways by different audiences. Damnationes whichwere avidly pursued or desired by the Senate suchas those of Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodusor Elagabalus, served to reaffirm the Senate’spower and prestige for the senatorial aristocratsthemselves and for the society at large. Similarly,for the new emperor, his family, and supporters,the mutilation and transformation of a predeces-sors images made tangible the authority of thenew regime. For the partisans of the overthrownemperor, the destruction of portraits stand ob-viously as negative exempla. To a certain extent,the new emperor could also read the negation ofhis predecessor’s likenesses as negative exempla,visual warnings of the consequences to his ownimages should his regime fail.

In cases where images have been altered, itmay have been the intention that visually sophis-ticated Roman viewers recognize the transforma-tion and appropriation of the original portrait.Reworked likenesses which to modern audiencesseem less satisfactory because they retain toomany traces of the original image may be symp-tomatic of this trend. The Nero/Domitian/Nervastatue from Velleia stands as an extreme examplesince it contains strong visual elements of its twoearlier incarnations as representations of bothNero and Domitian (cat. 2.50/5.13). These por-traits may then exhibit deliberate signs of theirown transformation, readable by certain viewersas manifestations of the new emperor visuallycannibalizing the power and images of his de-feated predecessor.

If imperial images act on certain levels as ef-figies, intended to embody in marble or bronzethe reigning princeps, his family, and revered or

deified predecessors, then another potential au-dience for mutilation and transformation of theserepresentations becomes the images themselves.H. Flower has raised the intriguing possibility thatimagines, wax ancestor masks, assembled in theatrium of a Roman house, act as a kind of audi-ence witnessing the actions of their living descen-dants. Similarly, when worn by actors at elitefunerals, imagines also function as both participantsin, and an audience for, the funerary rites.55

The physical alteration or mutilation of artis-tic objects, such as portraits, also provided aneffective means of visual communication betweensubject and ruler. Official sanctions which man-dated the destruction of images pointedly com-municated the victorious emperor’s new status,while the public’s response to the damnatio could,in turn, proclaim loyalty to the new regime.Spontaneous demonstrations against an over-thrown emperor’s memory and monuments, es-pecially in instances where the ruler was neverofficially condemned, provided important outletsfor public expression.56 Portraits of SeverusAlexander, Julia Mammaea, and Gordian IIIhave all been spontaneously attacked, despite thefact the none of them was officially condemnedand Severus Alexander and Gordian III wereactually deified.57 The spontaneous mutilation,transformation, or destruction of images visuallyrepudiates the failed ruler and simultaneouslyprofesses allegiance to his successor.

54 H. Flower discusses the importance of the visualtrappings of power and prestige, such as the display ofimagines or the erection of important public building andmonuments in communicating to the populace at large inrepublican Rome (1996) 65, 69.

55 H.I. Flower (1996) especially 60-127, and 185-222.56 T. Pekáry reviews the evidence for spontaneous dem-

onstrations (1985) 134-42; see also C. W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000)99 for popular demonstrations involving Gn. CalpurniusPiso’s statues during his maiestas trial under Tiberius, andinfra for descriptions of spontaneous demonstrations involv-ing the images of Poppaea and Claudia Octavia.

57 Damaged portraits of Severus Alexander: Bochum,Kunstasammlungen der Ruhr-Universität, cat. 7.20; Rome,Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv. 1431, cat. 7.22; Swit-zerland, Private Collection, cat. 7.24; Damaged portraitsof Julia Mammaea: Bochum, Kunstsammlungen der Ruhr-Universität, cat. 7.25; Paris, Louvre, MA 3552 (inv. MND2137) cat. 7.27; Ostia, Museo, inv. 26, cat. 7.26; Switzer-land, Private Collection, cat. 7.28; Damaged portrait ofGordian III: Sofia, Archaeological Museum, inv. 1497, cat.8.9.

chapter one10

Iconographic Implications

Earlier works have been intent largely on docu-menting the historical dimensions of damnatio orits specific physical effects on individual sculptedportraits, paintings, coins, inscriptions, or papyri.The conceptual implications of the phenomenonhave not yet been fully addressed. Obviously,knowledge that a work of art has been trans-formed or intentionally mutilated radically altersassumptions concerning the production and cul-tural context of these images. Implicit in thecreation of imperial portraits, then, is the notionthat mechanisms and sanctions existed wherebyrepresentations could be transformed or de-stroyed. Thus, the imperial image is not inher-ently stable or static.

In formal terms the mutability of imperialimages has serious iconographic and stylisticramifications. Sheer numbers alone reveal theimportance of recut images. As already men-tioned, well over 100 surviving early imperial im-ages have been transformed from representationsof Caligula, Nero, and Domitian. Altered repre-sentations often retain some or all of the style ofthe original image. At the most basic level, thesetrends can be reduced to classicizing or idealiz-ing versus veristic approaches to imperial por-traits. Style functions as a significant bearer ofmeaning in Roman portraits, especially in peri-ods of political transition, periods also marked bydamnationes memoriae and the transformation ofimages. Important evidence for the ideology ofstyle is furnished by representations of Vespasianwhose emphasis on verism is often viewed as aconscious visual repudiation of Nero and theJulio-Claudian past and a return to late Repub-lican values and style. On the other hand, thoseportraits of Vespasian which are more classiciz-ing can be read as attempts to project the ideaof imperial continuum and visually connect thenew Flavian emperor with his respected Julio-Claudian predecessors, Claudius, Tiberius, andespecially Augustus. These opposing approachesand intentions exist simultaneously in Vespasian’sportraiture and suggest that his images weredesigned for audiences with different expecta-tions. Vespasian’s veristic likenesses with their

Republican associations may have been intendedfor the members of the senatorial aristocracy whohad grown disaffected with Nero, the Julio-Claudians and the imperial system in general,while the classicizing images may have appealedto the middle and lower classes or inhabitants ofthe eastern sections of the empire, whose expe-rience of the Julio-Claudians would have beenradically different and more positive.58

Significantly the most veristic of Vespasian’ssurviving portraits, as well as the most classiciz-ing and Julio-Claudian in style are all reworkedfrom earlier representations of Nero.59 In theformer instance, the supra-verism is inspired bya desire to obliterate all trace of the initial im-age and its style, while in the latter instance, thereworked image attempts to co-opt and cannibal-ize the idealizing style of the original. Similarpatterns apply for the portraits of Claudius re-cut from Caligula and they challenge basic no-tions about the development of style and stylis-tic trends, since in these examples the heightenedverism or classicism of the likenesses is a directresult of and response to the necessity of refash-ioning a pre-existing work of art with its own in-herent iconographical meaning.60 The divergentstyles expressed in the reworked images may alsoreflect differing approaches on the part of artistsfacing the technical challenges of recarving, dif-fering wishes expressed by the patrons oversee-ing the reworking, or the differing audiences forwhom they were intended. Finally, a recognitionof the profound stylistic influence which an origi-

58 This interpretation runs counter to R. Bianchi-Bandinelli’s classic Marxist reading of Vespasian’s portraittypology which sees the veristic portraits as more plebeianin style, designed to appeal to the proletariat and to presentthe emperor as ordinary citizen, while the classicizingportraits are more “intellectual” and stress Vespasian’sposition as ruler, (1969) 211-12.

59 Arguably the most veristic of Vespasian’s likenessesis a head recut from Nero in the Terme, inv. 38795 (seecat. 2.23), while his most classicizing is another recut headfrom Lucus Feronia, Magazzini cat. 2.22.

60 A portrait of Claudius in the Centrale Montemartinirefashioned from Caligula is often cited as his most realis-tic likeness, inv. 2443 (cat. 1.31). Claudius’s most classicizingimage, also recut from Caligula, is the colossal head fromOtricoli in the Sala Rotonda of the Vatican, 551, inv. 242(cat. 1.30).

developments, implications, and precedents 11

nal portrait can have on its recarved progeny candrastically alter assumptions about whole periodsin Roman art, as for instance the colossal Maxen-tius/Constantine in the Cortile of the Palazzo deiConservatori whose classicism and spirituality areoften cited as characteristic of new directions inConstantinian art but which were, in reality,already significant artistic components of theMaxentian original, appropriated wholesale bythe new image.61

Furthermore, the wide range and variation ofcoiffure and physiognomy among recut images,which can have only the most approximate re-semblance to more standardized, unreworkedrepresentations, underscore the innate diversitypresent in the portraiture of any given emperor.62

Inscriptions and context would have aided an-cient viewers in identifying less precisely definedreworked portraits. The latitude within specificportrait types, especially apparent among alteredlikenesses, is yet another symptom of the flexibil-ity and mutability of imperial images.

Beyond the important stylistic implications forthe development and history of Roman portrai-ture, a recognition of altered imperial images hasramifications for other kinds of subsidiary imag-ery. For instance, reworked cuirassed images ofNero suggest that certain motifs on sculptedbreastplates, such as that of victories flanking athymeterium, may be an innovations of Neronianrather than Flavian (or Trajanic) artists. Similarly,a representation of Augustus with a corona spiceawhich has been transformed from a likeness ofNero suggests that Nero, rather than Augustus,is the first emperor to introduce this importantcorona in male imperial portraits.63

The recutting of Roman portraits also impactsmodern questions surrounding the authenticityand forgery of ancient works of art. Portraitswhich look strange and unusual, because theywere reworked in antiquity have been con-

demned as fakes, as for instance a likeness ofSeverus Alexander refashioned from Elagabalusin Kansas City (cat. 8.X).64 In fact, the odditiesoccasioned by recutting can help to validate aportrait’s authenticity. However, E.B. Harrisonhas sounded an important note of caution con-cerning reworked pieces of ancient sculpture andthe art market: “In the art market and in themuseums for which the market is the mainsource, they represent a real danger, for the ideaof an anciently recut original can serve as a maskfor the ineptitude of a forger.”65

Much scholarly effort has been expended inattempting to recover the lost voices of thosemembers of Roman society who are misrepre-sented, under represented or not represented atall in the literary and historical tradition largelyauthored by the male elite or in the officiallysponsored monuments of Roman art. The po-sition of women, slaves, foreigners, as well asRoman attitudes towards gender, ethnicity, andsexuality have all been explored in recent schol-arship.66 “Bad” emperors like Caligula, Nero,Domitian, Commodus, Elagabalus and Maxen-tius as historical losers have also been deprivedof their voices and no longer have the power tospeak through their images that revered rulerssuch as Augustus, Vespasian, Trajan, or Con-stantine have retained. A survey of condemna-tions prompts reappraisals of art created for these“bad” emperors and reveals new insights intovarious aspects of imperial self-representationincluding Caligula’s innovations in Julio-Claudiangroup dedications, the surprising persistence ofNeronian military imagery or the extraordinaryrange of Maxentius’s visual propaganda duringhis six year rule of Rome. Furthermore, it oftencalls into question the veracity of certain asser-tions in surviving ancient sources and our own

61 Inv. 1622, cat. 9.4.62 On diversity within the framework of imperial por-

trait typology, see H. von Heintze, in A. Cambitoglou ed.(1995) 264; R.R.R. Smith (1996) 30-47.

63 Sala dei Busi 274, inv. 715; as proposed by B.S.Spaeth (1996) 23; on the portrait see cat. 2.10.

64 Nelson Atkins Museum 45-66, cat. 7.16. On ques-tions of forgery and authenticity, see R. Cohon (1996).

65 (1990) 180.66 Scholarship has grown rather vast in these areas, but

important contributions in the field of Roman art include:N.B. Kampen, ed. (1996); D.E.E. Kleiner and S.B.Matheson eds., (1996) and in particular N.B. Kampen,“Gender Theory in Roman Art,” 14-26; J.R. Clarke (1996b)599-603; and J.R. Clarke (1998) and 2003.

chapter one12

subsequent historical assumptions. The physicalevidence provided by damaged, altered, or mu-tilated portraits also aids in the recovery of thelost political voice of Roman imperial womensuch as the two Julias, Livilla, Messalina, Lucilla,Crispina, and Fausta.67 Although these womenwere most often accused of adultery and sexualmisconduct, the virulent destruction of theirimages underscores the political nature of theircrimes, namely involvement in conspiracies tooverthrow the reigning princeps. Thus, damnatiocontributes new avenues for revisionist ap-proaches to Roman art and history.

Sculptors also faced substantial technical ob-stacles when recarving marble portraits. In com-parison to a freshly cut portrait, freshly cut froma block of stone, the volume of marble availablefor refashioning a likeness is obviously limited tothe extent of the pre-existing image. The basicposition of eyes, ears, and nose is also establishedby the original likeness. The recutting of portraitsand resulting reduction in sculptural volume,often results in representations with overly large,projecting ears, thick necks, and receding chins.68

Marble also becomes more friable as it ages, soprojecting elements such as ears, noses, andcrowns can prove especially delicate and prob-lematic. Indeed, ears and crowns, are often leftentirely intact from the original likeness. Therecutting of the lower sections of the face and inparticular the mouth, often a focus in the trans-formation process may have additional ideologi-cal implications as the word for mouth, os can alsobe used to signify the entire face.69

Precedents and Parallels

The Near East

Prior to the Roman imperial period, represen-tations of rulers were certainly destroyed, dam-aged, or altered for political reasons. Numerous

examples of mutilated royal images survive fromthe Near East. A vandalized copper head of anAkkadian ruler from Nineveh provides an earlyexample of mutilation in effigy.70 The ears havebeen severed from the image, the left eye gougedout, the bridge and tip of the nose damaged bychisel blows, and sections of the beard broken off,all acts of deliberate denigration. These vandal-ized features contrast with the rest of head whichis well preserved, a hallmark of most intention-ally disfigured images. C. Nylander has pointedout that the portrait’s mutilation finds close par-allels to the mutilation of criminals in the NearEast, and in particular of the two Persian pre-tenders Fravartish and Ciçantakhma, whose nosesand ears were cut off and one eye blinded byorder of Darius.71 Nylander also suggests that thedamaged state of much Akkadian hard stonesculpture may be the result of systematic destruc-tion.72 In a relief from Nineveh representing Sen-nacherib, the head of the king has been gougedout, while also at Nineveh, the faces of Ashur-banipal and his queen have been attacked, ashave reliefs of Ummanigash.73 In the case of Sen-nacherib’s representation, the identifying inscrip-tion was also defaced.74 At Persepolis, royal re-liefs have also been attacked. In scenes depictingthe king enthroned and leading processions, thefaces of the king have been obliterated, as havetheir scepters. Animistic beliefs in these imagesas effigies or doubles for the rulers may havemotivated the deliberate disfigurement of royalrepresentations in the Near East, as well as theirabduction by hostile rulers.75 Indeed, the suscep-tibility of Near Eastern royal images to politicallymotivated mutilation prompted many curse in-scriptions, including that of the eighth centuryAssyrian king Sargon who cursed “anyone who

67 See infra and E.R. Varner (2001a).68 M. Pfanner (1989) 218-9; C.B. Rose (1997) 59.69 H. von Heintze in A. Cambidoglou, ed. (1995) 264.

70 Baghdad, Museum; C. Nylander (1980) 330-31 (withearlier literature). For the politically chaotic context of themutilation, see A. Kuhrt (1987) 20-55.

71 C. Nylander (1980) 331-2.72 C. Nylander (1980) 330, n. 6.73 C. Nylander (1980) 331-2; Z. Bahrani (1995) 365-67,

figs. 19, 21; see also T. Beran (1988).74 Z. Bahrani (1995) 366, fig. 19.75 Z. Bahrani (1995) 375-80.

developments, implications, and precedents 13

would alter or damage” the features of his im-ages.76

Pharaonic Egypt

The destruction of royal monuments and imag-es for political reasons was also carried out inEgypt. Representations of Hatchepsut, who ruledas pharaoh together with her nephew and step-son, Thutmoses III, have been extensively mu-tilated and her cartouches often erased.77 In someinstances her name and titles have been replacedby those of Thutmoses III, and in others theyremain blank. These erasures appear to be partof a concerted effort on the part of ThutmosesIII to rewrite the historical record, and he seemsto have been largely successful, as the name ofhis co-ruler Hatcheput is noticeably absent insurviving king lists.78 Images of Hatchepsut werealso deliberately mutilated, as attested by thegreat number of damaged sphinxes bearing herlikeness discovered buried together at the site ofher great mortuary temple.79 The excavator,H.E. Winlock, estimated that there were origi-nally as many as 200 Hatchepsut shpinxes. The

uraeus, symbol of Hatchepsut’s position as king,has been chiseled off many of these representa-tions, and the noses have been attacked and theeyes carefully gouged out. The destruction of thenose and eyes recalls the mutilation of the Akka-dian copper head and also provides striking earlyparallels to the later mutilation of Roman impe-rial images. Monuments celebrating Hatchepsut’sadvisor Senenmut have also been attacked.80

The reign of Akhenaten witnesses severalunusual examples of the transformation of rep-resentations of a royal woman. Reliefs and in-scriptions honoring the pharaoh’s minor wifeQueen Kiya appear to have been regularly al-tered to depict one of his daughters by Nefertiti,Meretaten or Ankhesenpaaten and as a resultKiya has virtually disappeared from the artisticrecord.81 Kiya’s image is often remodeled bysimply altering her headress into a “modifiedNubian wig,” as in two reliefs in Copenhagen,82

and a relief in New York.83 Identifying inscrip-tions were also recut to honor Meretaten orAnkhesnpaaten.84 It is not entirely clear whatprompted the obliteration of Kiya’s memory, butduring her lifetime she appears to have enjoyeda great deal of prominence at Akhenaten’s court,and it is tempting to view the transformation ofKiya’s monuments as an indication of the in-creased importance and influence of Nefertiti andher daughters towards the end of the reign.85

76 Z. Bahrani (1995) 372-5; 378-80; I.F. Winter (1997)368.

77 For the evidence for a “damnatio memoriae” of Hatcehp-sut, see C.F. Nims (1966) 97-100; P.F. Dorman (1988) 46-65; C. Van Siclen (1989) 85-6; G. Robins (1993); J.Tyldesley (1996) 216-229.

78 Omitting Hatchepsut’s name from the king lists wouldcause no noticeable chronological gaps in the record, sinceshe ruled together with Thutmoses III and it would thenappear that the succession passed directly from her hus-band and brother Thutmoses II to his son by another wife,Thutmoses III. The alteration of the historical record asexpressed in inscriptions, reliefs, and statues may have beenintended to suppress Hatschepsut role as a successful kingand discourage other influential royal women from attempt-ing to rule as pharaoh. In this regard it is telling that it isonly representations and inscriptions which celebrateHatchepsut as pharaoh, and not those which celebrate herproper female role as queen consort, which have been tar-geted for obliteration. G. Robins (1993) 51-52; J. Tyldesley(1996) 223-6.

79 The “Hatchepsut Hole” discovered accidentally byH.E. Winlock in 1922-23; Other damaged images ofHatchepsut were discovered by Winlock in 1926-28 at the“Senenmut Quarry,” H.E. Winlock, 23 (1928) 46 and in1927-8 (1928) 1-23.

80 P.F. Dorman discusses the complex problems sur-rounding the destruction of Senemut’s monuments and theevidence, or lack thereof, for a concerted proscription ofhis memory (1988) 141-64.

81G. Robins (1993) 54-55; D. Arnold, J.P. Allen and L.Green (1996) 11, 87-88, 105-6.

82 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, AE.I.N. 1776; D. Arnold,J.P. Allen and L. Green (1996) 106, 132-3, no. 27, fig. 100.

Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, AE.I.N. 1797; D. Arnold, J.P.Allen and L. Green (1996) 87-88, 105-106, 133, no. 28,fig. 79.

83 Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1985.328.8; D. Arnold,J.P. Allen and L. Green (1996) 106, fig. 101.

84 As in one of the Copenhagen reliefs (Ny CarlsbergGlyptotek, A.E.I.N. 1776) whose inscription now reads“daughter of the king of his flesh, his beloved...Meretaten,”but beneath it, the beginning of Kiya’s usual titles are stilllegible: “the wife and [great] beloved of the King of Up-per and Lower Egypt who lives on [Maat],” D. Arnold, J.P.Allen and L. Green (1996) 106.

85 On Kiya, see: R. Hanke (1978)188-96; W. Helck

chapter one14

After his own death, monuments honoringAkhenaten, his family, and references to the newmonotheistic god Aten were systematically de-stroyed as Akhenaten’s new religion was aban-doned and orthodoxy reasserted.86

Sculpted representations of Egyptian rulerswere also transformed and recycled in largenumbers without being politically motivated.Many statues of Rameses II have been refash-ioned from pre-existing images of Amenhotep III,whose sculpted images were produced in fargreater numbers than any of his predecessors. Arepresentation of Amenhotep’s chief wife, QueenTiye may also have been recut, but not until thePtolemaic period when it was reworked into animage of Arsinoe II.87 The drapery of the statuehas been substantially recut, jewelery removed,the bottom edges of the wig narrowed, the eyesretouched, and the modius crown of Tiye modi-fied into an Isis crown. The image of Queen Tiyemay have been deliberately selected by the Ptole-maic artists because of the perceived similaritiesbetween the two popular queens and its rework-ing can then be seen as a kind of positive trans-formation, very different from the generally hos-tile transformations of the Roman period.88 Inaddition, the substantial alterations to the bodyof the statue are not typical of Roman transfor-mations, which are generally concentrated en-tirely on the facial features and coiffure.

Greece and Sicily

Athens, from the late Archaic through the Hel-lenistic periods furnishes a number of close par-allels to the Roman phenomenon of damnatio. Anearly example of the politically motivated destruc-tion or alteration of an artistic monument isprovided by a painted plaque, attributed to

Euthymides, in which the name of Megakles, oneof the Alkmeonidai, in the 6"8@H inscription hasbeen erased, and that of Glaukon substituted.89

In 487, Hipparchos, the son of Charmides wasostracized and his statue on the Akropolis de-stroyed.90 At the end of the fourth century, theAthenians revoked the decrees honoring Dem-etrios of Phaleron and melted down three hun-dred of his metal statues, further denigrating hismemory by refashioning some of them as cham-berpots and throwing others into the sea.91 Aninventory list of statues on the Acropolis compiledunder Lycurgus c. 335 B.C. also provides evi-dence for the destruction and disposal of statuesfor aesthetic, and perhaps religious reasons.92

In 200 B.C., in defiance of Macedon, theAthenians repudiated the public honors accordedto Philip V and Livy describes the destruction ofhis monuments in terms which are intended torecall anachronistically Roman practices ofdamnatio memoriae:

Tum vero Atheniensium civitas, cui odio in Philippumper metum jam diu moderata erat, id omne in auxiliipraesentis sepem effudit...Rogationem extemplo tuleruntplebesque scivit ut Philippi statuae et imagines omnesnominaque earum, item maiorem eius virile ac muliebresecus omnium tollerentur delerenturque diesque festi, sacra,sacerdotes, quae ipsius maiorumque honoris causa institutuaessent, omnia profanarentur; loca quoque, in quibus positumaliquid inscriptumve honoris eius causa fuisset, detestabiliaesse.93

(Then indeed the Athenian state, long restrainedin their hatred of Philip through fear, because helpwas at hand, fully vented their rage...They im-mediately put forth a resolution, and the popu-lace passed it, that all of the statues and portraitsof Philip and their identifying inscriptions, andall those of his ancestors, both men and women

(1980) cols. 422-24; W. Helck (1984) 159-67; A.P. Thomas(1994) 72-81; D. Arnold, J.P. Allen and L. Green (1996)14-5, 105-7; On Nefertiti’s importance towards the end ofAkhenaten’s reign and her possible position as co-regent,see G. Robins (1993) 54 and D. Arnold, J.P. Allen and L.Green (1996) 88-9, and n. 28.

86 D. Metzler (1973) 19-20.87 Miho, Museum. A. Kozloff, xxx.88 A. Kozloff, in J.N. Newland, ed. (1997) 34-37.

89 Athens, Akropolis Museum, GL 1037; Brouskari, TheAcropolis Museum 126-127, no. 67, fig. 241.

90 Lykurg. Leokrat. 117; M. Donderer (1991-2) 271, no.1.

91 Strabo 9.1.20 Plut. Mor. 820E; Dion. Hal. Chron.37.41 (where the number of destroyed statues is given as1500); Diog. Laet. 5.77 (statues thrown into the sea); C.Houser (1987) 269; P. Green (1990) 48; M. Donderer (1991-2) 271, no. 6.

92 D. Harris (1992) 637-52.93 31.44.2-5. See also, P. Green (1990) 309; M.

Donderer (1991-2) 272, nos. 7-8. On the “damnatio” ofPhilip, see H.A. Thompson (1981) 354.

developments, implications, and precedents 15

should be abolished and destroyed and that thefestivals, religious rites, and priesthoods which hadbeen instituted in his honor or that of his ances-tors should be desecrated, and that also the sitesin which any inscriptions or honors had beenplaced should be held as abominable.)

Polybius records that, slightly earlier in 220 B.C.,votive images at Dion, sacred to the Macedonianswere also deliberately attacked and destroyed bythe Aetolians.94 The names of Macedonian kingshave also been erased in inscriptions from theAthenian Agora, and the Athenians passed sanc-tions against the monuments of Philip V ofMacedon and those of his ancestors, c. 200 B.C.Several fragments of a gilded bronze equestrianstatue discovered in a well located in the north-western section of the Agora in 1971 may belongto an image of Demetrius Poliorcetes, one ofPhilip V’s most famous ancestors, destroyedduring the Athenian demonstrations and sanc-tions of 200 B.C.95 The Agora well had been usedas a dump Like the Romans, the Athenians de-stroyed the dwelling places of those convicted ofcrimes agains the polis, a process known as6"J"F6"NZ.96

At Syracuse, after the expulsion of DionysusII, Timolean encouraged the inhabitants of thecity to demolish Dionysus’s citadel, as well asother monuments honoring Dionysus and hispredecessors. Plutarch closely associates the de-struction of these works of art and architecturecommemorating Dionysus with the charges oftyranny leveled against him; in order to under-score the symbolic intent of the destruction,Timolean built law courts on the site of theobliterated monuments, as an architectural em-bodiment of the triumph of justice over tyranny.97

An early fourth century B.C. Greco-Persiansarcophagus discovered at Çan may also present

evidence of non-Roman damnatio from Ana-tolia.98 The body of the polychrome sarcophagus,which seems to have been created for a localruler, depicts a stag and boar hunt. The facialfeatures of one of the horsemen in the stag hunthave been intentionally obliterated from the re-liefs. Evidence for this kind of portrait effacement,in which only the head is attacked is generallyrare for Roman reliefs, but there are comparableinstances for both Domitian and Geta.

The Ptolemies

Several late Ptolemaic portraits have been re-worked for political reasons and stand as impor-tant precursors to the altered likenesses of theRoman imperial period. In particular, three rep-resentations of Ptolemy IX (116-107, 88-80 B.C.)appear to have been remodeled from portraits ofhis younger brother and successor Ptolemy X(107-88) when the former regained control ofEgypt in 88 B.C.99 Iustinus also records the de-struction of images of Ptolemy X by the Alex-andrians.100 A head in Boston which initiallydepicted Ptolemy X Alexander I Physkon hasbeen transformed into a portrait of his elderbrother Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyros byrecarving the eyes and mouth and refashioningthe hair and beard with stucco additions.101 Thegeneral proportions of the facial features havealso been slimmed down from the original rep-resentation of Ptolemy X, whose nicknamePhyskon, refers to his corpulence. The reworkedimage may also have been completed with aneagle headdress which would have linked PtolemyIX, whose epithet was Soter, to the founder of

94 4.62.1-2; M. Donderer (1991-2) 271, no. 3; A.F.Stewart notes that this deliberate destruction of images isan attempt to obliterate “Macedonian historical conscious-ness,” (1993) 25.

95 J.M. Camp (1986) 164-5, fig. 138; C. Housere (1987)255-81, figs. 16.1-6; P. Green (1990) 307; M. Donderer(1991-92) 267, no. 1.

96 W.R. Connor (1985) 79-102.97 Plut. Tim. 22.2-3; 23.7; Dion.Hal. Chron 37.20f ; M.

Donderer (1991-2) 272, nos. 9, 12.

98 See N. Sevinç, et al (2001).99 Late Ptolemaic portraits are notoriously difficult to

identify, but circumstantial evidence based on representa-tions preserved on sealings from Edfu and Nea Paphossuggests that Ptolemy IX and X can be differentiated onthe basis of their facial features, the former usually appear-ing with a distinctive underchin beard and with slimmerfacial features than his younger brother, see R.R.R. Smith(1988a) 95-7.

100 38.8.12; M. Donderer (1991-2) 273-4, no. 274.101 Museum of Fine Arts inv. 59.51, h. 0.46 m.; R.R.R.

Smith (1988a) 167, no. 57, pl. 39.1-2 (with earlier litera-ture).

chapter one16

the dynasty Ptolemy I Soter.102 A portrait in theGetty of Ptolemy IX exhibits similar signs ofreworking (fig. 1).103 The eyes and mouth havebeen recut. Like the Boston likeness, the portrait’soverall volume has been reduced. The neck pre-serves clear evidence of having been cut downand the area below the right ear has been cutback, perhaps to facilitate the addition of anothereagle headdress to the altered image. Chiselmarks are also clearly visible at the back of thehead along a large flat area, perhaps also forsecuring added headgeart, or, alternatively, forrepairs in stucco or marble to damage sufferedduring Ptolemy X’s overthrow. The head hasbeen broken from a statue whose drapery isvisible at the left of the neck. A third portrait ofPtolemy IX in Stuttgart, discovered at Athribis,also appears to have been modified from a like-ness of Ptolemy X.104 The recutting of theseimages predicts the reworking of Roman marbleportraits, although stucco additions are a rela-tively rare form of alteration in the Roman pe-riod.

The Roman Republic

The first recorded example of the destruction ofa Roman honorific monument as a result ofdamnatio occurs in Pliny the Elder: a bronze statueof Spurius Cassius Vecellinus erected in front ofthe Temple of Tellus was melted down by orderof the censors after his condemnation for at-tempted tyranny in 485 B.C.105 The historicalveracity of Pliny’s account is called into questionby three important inaccuracies: namely, true

commemorative portraiture is probably anach-ronistic for early fifth century Rome, the officeof censor had not yet been established in 485, andthe temple of Tellus itself was not dedicated until268.106 Nevertheless, this anecdote is particularlyrevealing because it indicates that Pliny and thecontemporary audiences for whom he was writ-ing, familiar with the damnationes of Gn. Cal-purnius Piso Pater, Livilla, Caligula, Messalina,Nero, and others earlier in the century, expectedsuch a direct link between attempted tyranny,condemnation, and the destruction of portraits.It also underscores the traditional, Republicanprecedents ascribed to the negation of images inthe imperial period. Other early Republicanmanifestations of damnatio assigned to the fifth andfourth centuries document the razing of housesof condemned individuals, including domås be-longing to the same Spurius Cassius, SpuriusMaelius, Marius Manlius Capitolinus, andMarius Vitruvius Vaccus.107 Later, the houses ofM. Fulvius Flaccus, a follower of the Gracchi andLucius Saturninus were similarly destroyed.108

Flaccus’s house, which stood on the Palatine, wasreplaced by a portico constructed by Q. LutatiusCatullus, further canceling Flaccus’s memory.109

The destruction of Cicero’s house on the Palatineordered by Clodius and the partial demolition ofhis villas at Tusculum and Formia can also beviewed as Republican expressions of architecturaldamnatio memoriae.110 The demolition of houses,

102 On the reworking of portraits of Ptolemy IX and Xand the putative eagle headdress, see R.R.R. Smith (1986)74-8.

103 83.AA.330, h. 0.34 m.; R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 167,no. 59, pl. 40.1-2 (with earlier literature).

104 Würtembergisches Landesmuseum, inv. SS.17, h.0.233 m; R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 96, n. 65 (with earlier lit-erature); S. Walker and P Higgs, eds. (2000) 81, no. 1.74,with fig., (with earlier literature).

105 NH 34.30. eam vero, quam apud aedem Telluris statuissetsibi Sp. Cassius, qui regnum adfectaverat, etiam conflatam acensoribus. See also T. Hölscher (1994) 32 and n. 98. Forfurther discussion of Spurius Cassius, see K. Mustakallio(1994) 30-38, and B. Spaeth (1996) 71-3.

106 T. Hölscher (1994) 32; for anachronistic elementsin later accounts of Republican condemnations, see alsoC. W. Hedrick (2000) 100.

107Cic. Dom. 100-102; Val.Max. 6.3.1a-b; Livy 2.7.5-12,2.41.11 (Spurius Cassius), 4.16.1 (Spurius Maelius), 6.20.13(Marius Manlius Capitolinus), 8.20.8 (Marius VitruviusVaccus); T.P. Wiseman (1987) 394 and n. 3; K. Mustakallio(1994) 39-64; J. Bodel (1997) 7-9; C. W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000)100, 102, 105-6.

108 Cic. de.off. 1.138, Dom 102, 114; Val. Max. 6.3.1c;T.P. Wiseman (1987) 393; J. Bodel (1997) 7-8.

109 Cic. Dom. 102; 114 (ut eius qui perniciosa rei publicaeconsilia cepisset omnis memoria funditus ex oculis hominm ac mentibustolleretur [so that every memory of him who had conceivedtreacherous plots against the Republic should be entirelyabolishted); Val. Max. 6.3.1 c; T. Hölscher (1994) 57; J.Bodel (1997) ms. 5..

110 Cic. Dom. 62; Red.Sen 18; Att 4.2.5, 7); J. Bodel (1997)9.

developments, implications, and precedents 17

even those belonging to condemned individualsoutside the imperial family, continued in the earlyempire, as attested by the partial destruction ofa house or houses belonging to Gn. CalpurniusPiso pater under Tiberius as decreed by theSenate and the surviving remains of a domus onthe Caelian destroyed under Nero and likelybelonging to G. Calpurnius Piso, condemned inA.D. 65 for conspiring against the emperor.111

The Roman aristocratic domus functioned as asemi-public monument to the achievements andsocial prestige of its owners, and as a result isclosely bound up with the memoria and fama of itsinhabitants.112 It is not surprising then that thehouse as monument would be a primary targetincluded in the sanctions associated with damnatiomemoriae. This emphasis on the cancellation ofmemory and reputation sharply differentiates theRoman practice of house razing from the Greekpractice, 6"J"F6"NZ, which, as noted earlier,seems motivated more by the desire to removea polluted dwelling from the polis.113

Although it dates to the reign of Tiberius, thesenatorial decree of A.D. 20 concerning thedamnatio of Gn. Calpurnius Piso pater which sur-vives in six (or seven) bronze inscriptions fromSpain, provides important evidence for the treat-ment of the images of condemned individuals andlikely reflects established republican practices.114

Piso, implicated in the death of Germanicus atAntioch in A.D. 19, was accused of maiestas andcommitted suicide in A.D. 20. In addition to thepartial demolition of his domus, the senate ex-pressly ordered the removal of his portraits,wherever they may have been erected and for-bade the display of his imago in any funerals where

it might normally have appeared.115 It is alsonotable that the Senate’s decree concerning thepenalties enacted against Piso’s memory andimages survives in several copies.116 Similar pro-hibitions had been passed against the appearanceof imagines of M. Scribonius Libo Drusus, afterhis condemnation for treason in A.D. 16 andslightly later against G. Silius A. Caecina Largusin A.D. 24.117 Libo’s condemnation also includedthe declaration of public rejoicing on the anni-versary of his death.118 Sanctions against theportraits and imagines of the tyrannicides Brutusand Cassius continued in the early imperial pe-riod, as attested in Tacitus’s description of thefuneral of Junia Tertulla in A.D. 22 which wasremarkable for their conspicuously absent like-nesses.119 Later, under Nero, Cassius Longinuswas prosecuted for displaying an image of hisancestor, Cassius the Tyrannicide.120 This is

111 For Gn. Calpurnius Piso, see J. Bodel (1997) ms. 9;H. Flower (1998) 169-70. These sanctions only targetedadditions made by Gn. Calpurnius Piso to the propery. Onthe destruction of the Caelian domus and its likely associa-tion with G. Calpurnius Piso, see V. Santa Maria Scrinari(1997) 9.

112 T.P. Wiseman (1987) 393-413; B. Bergmann (1994)225-56; J. Bodel (1997).

113 W.R. Connor (1985) 79-102.114 M. Kajava (1995) 201-10; W. Eck, A. Caballos, and

F. Fernandez, eds (1996); H. Flower (1996) 23-28; H.Flower (1998) 158-82.

115 Utiq(ue) statuae et imagines Cn. Pisonis patris, quae ubiq(ue)positae essent, tollerentur .... neue imaginibus familiae Calpurniaeimago eius interponeretur (the statues and portraits of Cn. Piso,the father, should be removed wherever they have beenerected .... nor should his mask be placed among the othermasks of the Calpurnian family); 73-80. The phrase quaeubique positae essent is presumably meant to stress the factthat Piso’s images are to be removed from both public andprivate spaces. The Senate also enacted sanctions againstPiso’s name and ordered his son to change is name fromGnaeus (he seems to have adopted Lucius instead). It wasalso proposed that Piso’s name be erased from the publicrecords (fasti), but this penalty was vetoed by Tiberius andnot carried out; Tac. Ann. 3.17; see also H.I. Flower (1996)28, and n. 45; H. Flower (1998) 160-61.

116 H. Flower makes an important distinction betweenGn. Piso’s condemnation, which actually preserved theprestige of his family and descendants, and the much morepunitive sanctions against defeated political rivals, whichis the norm for condemned emperors. Flower points outthe complex and conflicting motivations which could liebehind post mortem sanctions and sees Piso’s punishment asmore traditional and characteristic of earlier republicanpractices, (1998) 179.

117 Tac. Ann. 2.32.1. As with Piso, sanctions were passedagainst Libo’s name and future Scribonii were forbiddenthe use of the cognomen Drusus. For Silius, see Tac.Ann.11.35. See also H. Flower (1998) 170-71.

118 II ad Ides of September; C. W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000)107.

119 Ann. 3.76. There is some ambiguity as to the treat-ment of Brutus and Cassius’s images under Augustus andhe may have permitted display of their portraits, despitesanctions; see Tac.Ann. 4. 35; Plut. Comp. Brutus and Dio 5;C.W. Hedrick (2000) 111, 126.

120 Suet. Nero 37.1; Tac. Ann. 16.7; H. Flower (1996)317, no. T81.

chapter one18

supported by Dio who claims that in an earlierperiod, possession of a portrait of Cassius hadbeen a capital offence.121 However, by theprincipate of Trajan, sanctions appear to have nolonger been in force against the portraits of bothCassius and Brutus.122

The desecration of corpses as acts of poena postmortem is also attested in the Republican period.Important examples include Antonius’s insistencethat Cicero’s head and hands be cut off and thendraped over the ship’s beaks of the Rostra in theForum Romanum, or Octavian’s order’s that thehead of Brutus be sent from Philippi to Rome andthrown at the feet of a portrait statue of JuliusCaesar.123

Marius and Sulla

Images played a crucial role in the civil war whichMarius and Sulla waged at the beginning of thefirst century B.C. During the ascendancy ofMarius, Sulla was declared a hostis and his houseand possessions destroyed during his campaignagainst Mithradates. It is at this time, as well, thatthe monument put up by the Numidian KingBocchus in honor of Sulla’s Iugurthine victoriesmay have been deliberately damaged.124 Thefaces of the Victories flanking a shield have beenchiseled from the reliefs. The symbolic intent isclear: by mutilating the victory figures, Sulla’smilitary accomplishments are denigrated andinvalidated. When Sulla regained power (after thedeath of Marius), Marius’s portrait statues werepulled down and trophies commemorating his

victories on the Capitoline were destroyed.125

Furthermore, Sulla banned the display of anyimagines of Marius,126 as well as imagines belongingto partisans of Marius who had been condemnedas hostes.127 The first instance of numismaticdamnatio also occurs under Sulla when he restrikes(countermarks) coins issued under Marius.128

Marius’s memory was subsequently rehabilitatedand the Capitoline trophies which included hisportrait were restored and reinstalled by JuliusCaesar in 65 B.C.129

Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra VII

Likenesses of Marcus Antonius were producedand widely disseminated after Caesar’s assassina-tion on 15 March 44 B.C. and especially duringhis struggle for supremacy in the Mediterraneanwith Octavian. Indeed, P. Zanker has demon-strated how the two rivals waged a virtual warof images.130 Representations of Antonius arepreserved on coins and depict him with a fullhead of hair, fleshy face, prominent hooked nose,and thick neck. Nevertheless, no sculpted like-nesses can be identified with certainty as a resultof the removal and destruction of his portraitsfollowing the defeat at Actium in 31 B.C. and hissubsequent suicide in 30. Three portraits fromEgypt, all with a similar coiffure are the bestcandidates as possible representations of Antoniusand if they do depict him, they are likely to havebeen removed from public display and ware-housed.131 Antonius had been declared a public

121 62.27.2.122 Plin. Ep. 1.17.3. Although C.W. Hedrick interprets

the passages relating to the portraits of Cassius and Brutusas reflecting the lack of uniform practices associated withcondemnations, Pliny’s intent seems to be that it is nowpossible to display their images, precisely because anysanctions have been rescinded or are not enforced underthe more enlightened rule of Trajan, (2000) 101, 275, n.36.

123 Cicero: Plut. Cic. 48.6; 49.2, Brutus: Suet. Aug. 13.1;D.G. Kyle (1998) 132.

124 Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo2750; T. Hölscher (1994) 71; S. Nodelman (1987) 83-84;T. Hölscher in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik (Ber-lin 1988) 384-6, no. 214 (with fig.).

125HN 34.20.32; T Hölscher (1994) 50-55.126 Plut. Caes. 5; H. Flower (1996) 68.127 Plut. Caes. 5; H. Flower (1996) 123. The proscribed

imagines were exhibited again at the funeral of Caesar’s auntJulia, the widow of Marius, in 69 B.C.

128 K. Harl (1996) 35; C. W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000) 274,n. 24.

129 Plut. Caes. 6.1-5. For the inclusion of a portrait ofMarius in the resurrected monument: ¦46`<"H...9"D\@L...

ñH •<JÂ BV<JT< –>4@H gÇ0 Ò •<¬D J0yH 9"D\@L FL((g<\"H.130( 1987) 33-78.131 All three portraits have a similar arrangement of

locks over the forehead: limestone statue, Cairo, EgyptianMuseum, inv. JE 42891; a marble head in Alexandria,Société archéologique d’Alexandrie; and a basalt pharaonicstatuette, Cairo, Egyptian Museum, inv. 13/3/15/3; G.

developments, implications, and precedents 19

enemy of Rome (hosti iudicato)132 and Plutarchspecifically states that Octavian, on entering Alex-andria, had Antonius’s statues pulled down.133

Furthermore, both Plutarch and Dio confirm thatthe Senate in Rome ordered Antony’s monu-ments to be effaced or dismantled, his birthdayto be declared a dies nefastus, and his descendantsto be forbidden the use of the praenomenMarcus.134 His birthday was further consideredill-omened (vitiosus).135 The destruction of Anto-nius’s images provides important precedents forthe treatment of representations of overthrownemperors and political rivals in the imperialperiod.

Antonius’s memory and reputation did how-ever undergo rehabilitation. This process wasbegun under Augustus himself. Although ar-chaeological evidence for Augustus’s arches in theForum Romanum is extremely complicated, itappears that, as part of the damnatio, Antonius’sname was deliberately omitted from the list of

consuls which decorated the interior bay ofAugustus’s Actian arch in the Forum Roma-num.136 By 19 B.C., however, when the ActianArch was replaced by a tripled bayed arch com-memorating the return of the Parthian standards,Antonius’s name is reinstated in the new list oftriumphatores.137 The rehabilitation of Antonius’smemory is continued under his direct descen-dants, Caligula and Claudius.138 Antonius’s res-toration prefigures the rehabilitation of thememory of Commodus under Septimius Severusor that of Nero in the 4th and 5th centuries A.C.

As Antonius’s consort and ally, it is Cleopatraagainst whom Octavian technically waged war.Both Dio and Plutarch indicate that Cleopatrawas also declared a hostis, and if so, she is the onlywoman for whom there is historical evidence ofa proclamation as an official enemy of the Ro-man state.139 Indeed, there is a conscious at-tempt made on the part of Octavian and hissupporters to portray the civil conflict against An-tonius as a struggle between Rome and a foreignpower, Egypt. Nevertheless, there is no evidence

Grimm (1989) 348-353, ns. 12, 30, fig. 1, pls. 84-5. It isimportant to point out that these images do not have closecorrespondences to Antonius’s numismatic images and thecoiffures of the basalt portrait in Cairo and the Alexandriahead are not different enough to support Grimm’s asser-tion that they represent two distinct portrait types: type A,Antonius as Triumvir and type B, Antonius as “sole ruler”in the east, respectively. The basalt statuette has also beenassociated with Augustus, Z. Kiss (1984) 31-2, figs. 25-6.R.R.R. Smith has more cautiously identified the limestonestatue in Cairo as simply representing a late Ptolemy(1988a) 168 no.61, pl. 41. Three other portraits often as-sociated with Antonius (Kingston Lacy, the Banks Collec-tion; Brooklyn, Museum of Art, 54.51, and Budapest,Museum of Fine Arts, 4807) all have divergent hairstylesand physiognomies, nor do they have strong similarites withthe three Egyptian images; as a result, they are likely torepresent private individuals, see S. Walker and P. Higgs,eds. (2001) 241, no. 261, 243, no. 263, 254-5, no. 277.

132 Suet. Aug. 17.2.133 Ant. 86.5.134 Cic.49.4: ¦Nz @Þ JVH Jz gÆ6`<"H º $@L8¬ 6"2gÃ8g<

z!<JT<\@L 6"Â J•H –88"H ²6bDTFg J4:VH 6"Â BD@FgR0N\F"J@

:0*g<Â Jä< z!<JT<\T< Ð<@:" 9VD6@< gÉ<"4; Dio 51.19.3;see also D.G. Kyle (1998) 234, n. 47. On the erasure ofAntonius’s name, see Plut. Cic. 49.4; Dio 51.19.3; F.Vittinghoff (1936) 21 and. M. Kajava (1994) 201; see alsoC.W. Hedrick (2000) 104.

135 Fasti Verulani, Caeretaini, Maffaeiani, Praenestini, andAppiani minores; Dio 51.19.3; H. Flower (1998) 171, and n.101; see also II 13.3 ad 14 January and ad Kalends ofAugust and C.W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000) 107.

136 R.A. Gurval reviews the rather sparse numismatic,archaeological, and literary evidence for the Actian archand notes that it is possible that the predecessor to theParthian arch in fact celebrated Augustus’ victory overSextus Pompey at Naulochus in 36 B.C., (1995) 36-47, asearlier proposed by F. Coarelli (1985) 258-308. However,the evidence of the omission of Antony’s name in the listof consuls, which seems to have been part of the earlierarch, would favor an identification of the earlier arch as acommemoration of the victory at Actium rather thanNaulochus, see A. Degrassi (1945-6) 96-7; A. Degrassi(1947) 133-5, 47 B.C., 42 B.C., 37 B.C.; E. Nedergard inE.M. Steinby, ed. (1993) 80-85 (with earlier literature).

137 A. Degrassi (1947) 86-7, 40 B.C. Tac.Ann. 3.18 in-dicates that Antony’s name was visible under Tiberius,further evidence of the rehabilitation. The idea of recon-ciliation and the rehabilitation of Antonius’s memory is alsopresent in the Ara Pacis. The Apolline and Bacchic ele-ments of its acanthus leaf scrollwork can even be read asa kind of numen mixtum reconciling Apollo, the patron de-ity of Augustus and Bacchus, with whom Antony was of-ten identified. On the scrollwork see J. Pollini (1993a) 181-217 and D. Castriota (1995).

138 Suet. Cal. 23.1; Claud.11.5; Dio 59.20.1 and A.Barrett, Caligula 218..

139 Dio 50.4.4 (*¥ 58g@BVJD‘ JÎ< B`8g:@<); Plut. Ant 60.1(R0N\>gJ"4 58g@BVJD‘ B@8g:gÃ<). In the Octavia Nero callsfor his wife to be treated as a hostis, which prompts thepraefect to whom he is talking to respond by wondering ifa woman can really be a hostis 865-6.

chapter one20

to suggest that Cleopatra’s images were system-atically destroyed or removed after her suicide.In the same passage where Plutarch records thedestruction of Antonius’s portraits at Alexandria,he also indicates that Octavian accepted 2000talents from Archibius in order that Cleopatra’simages should not be pulled down. Three sculpt-ed portraits of Cleopatra have survived in theVatican,140 Berlin,141 and Cherchel.142 The Va-tican portrait was reportedly discovered in 1784at the Villa of the Quintilii on the Via Appia. Itmay have been carved during her sojourn inRome with Julius Caesar between 46-44 B.C. andthen eventually incorporated into the extensivesculptural display at the Villa.143 The Berlinportrait is also likely to have come from theenvirons of Rome, perhaps in the vicinity ofAriccia or Genzano, and it too may have beencreated between 46-44.144 In any event, it is ex-tremely unlikely that new images of Cleopatrawould have been created in Rome during her

alliance with Antonius and conflicts with Oc-tavian or after the Battle of Actium. Both Appianand Dio mention the gilded bronze portrait ofCleopatra which Julius Caesar placed in theTemple of Venus Genetrix, and Dio’s accountindicates that the statue was still in situ in theearly 3rd century.145 The statue was apparentlynot removed after Actium, just as her imageswere not destroyed at Alexandria. The site of thisportrait in the Temple of Venus Genetrix and itsstrong associations with Divus Iulius may haveinsured its survival. M. Flory has further sug-gested that Octavian may have added portraitsof Octavia and Livia to the temple in order todeliberately contrast his wife and sister’s romanitasand moral virtue with Cleopatra’s foreignness andperceived moral laxity; thus the three statuestogether would have acted as an exempla ofcorrect versus incorrect female behavior, as validafter Actium as before.146 Posthumous images ofCleopatra do seem to have been produced asevidenced by the Cherchel portrait whose anach-ronistic pin curls framing the face find closecorrespondences in Julio-Claudian coiffures andsuggest that the likeness was produced in thesecond quarter of the first century A.C. Theportrait comes from Iol Caesarea, the capital ofRoman Mauretania, and may have been com-missioned by Cleopatra’s grandson, Ptolemy, thelast king of Mauretania (r. A.D. 23-40).

140 Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 3851, h 0.39 m;R.R.R. Smith (1988a) S. Walker and P. Higgs, eds. (2000)157-8, no. III.2, with figs. (with earlier literature).

141Antiken Museen, 1976.10, h. 0.27 m.; R.R.R. Smith(1988a) S. Walker and P. Higgs (2000) 159, no. III.4, withfigs. (with earlier literature).

142 Museum, S 66 (31); h. 0.31 m.; R.R.R. Smith(1988a) ; S. Walker and P. Higgs (2000) 158, no. III.3, withfig. (with earlier literature).

143 The portrait has also been attributed to the “Tombadi Nerone” near the via Cassia. For the most recent attri-bution to the Villa dei Quinitllii, see S. Walker and P. Higgs(2000) 147, 157, no. III.2.

144 S. Walker and P. Higgs, eds. (2000) 159.

145 App. BC 2.102; Dio 51.22.3146 (1993) 295-6; see also S. Wood (1999) 32.

caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla 21

Caligula’s name has become synonymous withthe excesses and debauchery of the early empire,and indeed he is the first of Rome’s emperors tobe assassinated and to suffer a damnatio memoriae.Gaius Iulius Caesar Germanicus, nicknamedCaligula by the troops of his father Germanicus,was born on 31 August A.D. 12.1 On 18 March37, he succeeded his great-uncle Tiberius as thethird emperor of Rome, at the age of twenty-four.Initially, Caligula’s reign was viewed as a wel-come change from the repressive policies of Tibe-rius.2 However, Caligula’s relations with the sen-atorial aristocracy eventually soured as a resultof the emperor’s increasingly megalomaniacalbehavior. Caligula was assassinated, during theLudi Palatini, on 24 January 41, together withhis wife Milonia Caesonia, and his infant daugh-ter Julia Drusilla.3 Dio adds the additional grue-some detail that some of Caligula’s assassins atethe flesh from his corpse.4

The Senate wished to condemn his memoryofficially, but Caligula’s uncle and successorClaudius, who himself may have been involvedin the plot to murder Caligula, refused to per-mit formal sanctions5 or to declare the day of

Caligula’s death a public holiday.6 However,Claudius did permit the images of his predeces-sor to be removed at night7 and his acts to beannulled.8 As a further mark of his defamation,Caligula’s remains were not interred in theMausoleum of his great-grandfather Augustus,but rather buried in the imperial gardens on theEsquiline.9 Caligula’s exclusion from the Mau-soleum of Augustus stood as a posthumous actof disinhersion from the Julian gens and hadhappened earlier to Julia Maior, Julia Minor, andto Caligula’s mother, Agrippina Maior, as wellas his brothers Nero and Drusus Caesar.10

Claudius had multiple motives for vetoing anofficial damnatio. Clearly, senatorial condemnationof Caligula’s memory would have reflected neg-atively on the entire Julio-Claudian dynasty andultimately on Claudius’s own legitimacy and fit-ness to rule. And in fact, immediately followingCaligula’s murder, the Senate considered abolish-ing the memories of all the Julio-Claudians anddestroying their temples (quidam vero sententiae locoabolendam Caesarum memoriam ac diruenda templa cen-suerint).11 Nevertheless, during his lifetime Caligu-la had enjoyed considerable popularity with other

CHAPTER TWO

CALIGULA, MILONIA CAESONIA AND JULIA DRUSILLA

1 Suet.Cal.8.1; Fasti Vallenses; Fasti Pighiani; Dio.59.6.1;and A. Barrett (1989) 6-7, n. 9 with discussion of conflict-ing evidence for Caligula’s birthplace.

2 A. Barrett (1989) 50-71.3 Suet. Calig. 59; Dio 49.29.7; the murders of Caeso-

nia and Drusilla may have occurred slightly after that ofCaligula, Jos. AJ. 19.190-200. See also J. Scheid (1984) 180,184.

4 59.27.7 (6"\ J4<gH 6"Â Jä< F"D6ä< "ÛJ@Ø ¦(gbF"<J@).5 Suet. Claud. 11.3; Dio 60.4.5-6; On Caligula’s unof-

ficial damnatio, see F. Vittinghoff (1936) 102; J. Bleicken(1962) 104-105; J.P. Rollin (1979) 165; H. Jucker (1982)110; A. Barrett (1989)177. There is no evidence that Caligu-la was declared a hostis, as stated by E. Angelicoussis (1992)57, no. 24.

6 Suet. Claud. 11.3.7 Dio 60.4.5.8 Suet. Claud. 11.3.9 Initially the corpse was only partially cremated and

then hastily buried. Caligula’s spirit was reported to havehaunted the Esquiline gardens and the palace on the Pa-latine until Caligula’s two surviving sisters, Agrippina Minorand Julia Livilla completed the cremation and properly in-terred the remains, Suet. Calig. 59; see also S.R.F. Price(1987) 76.

10 See J. Linderski (1988) 191.11 Suet. Calig. 60. Clearly, many of the temples referred

to were dedicated to Augustus, underscoring the depth offeeling against the Julio-Claudians among the senatorialaristocracy. See also Joseph. AJ 19.173, 187.

chapter two22

segments of the Roman populace, most notablythe Praetorian Guards and the plebs. As a result,Claudius found it to be politically expedient tobring Caligula’s assassins to trial and executethem in order to appeal to lingering sentimentfavorable to Caligula. On the other hand, bycondoning an unofficial, de facto damnatio, whichincluded the removal and replacement of Caligu-la’s portraits and the erasure of his name frominscriptions, Claudius managed to retain favorwith the disaffected senatorial aristocracy whohad come to view Caligula as a deranged anddangerous despot. Despite its unofficial nature,Caligula’s damnatio and the resulting treatment ofhis sculpted images established important prece-dents for the condemnation of future emperors.As was the case with earlier members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty who had been condemned,representations of Caligula were removed frompublic display, deliberately mutilated, or alteredinto other likenesses, most often of Claudius orAugustus.

Caligula’s Portrait Typology

Suetonius presents an unflattering description ofthe young princeps’ physical appearance:

Statura fuit eminenti, colore expallido, corpore enormi,gracilitate maxima cervicis et crurum, oculis et temporibusconcavis, fronte lata et torva, capillo raro et circa verticemnullo hirsutus cetera. Quare transeunte eo prospicere exsuperiore parte aut omnino quacumque de causa capramnominare e criminosum et exitiale habebatur. Vultum veronatura horridum ac taetrum etiam ex industria efferebatcomponens ad speculum in omnem terrorem ac formidinem.Valitudo ei neque corporis neque animi constitit.

He was of tall stature, had a pallid complexion,and a body disproportionately large for his slen-der neck and skinny legs. His eyes were deeplyset, his temples hollow, and his forehead was wideand forbidding. His hair was sparse and he wasbald around the top of his head, although the restof his body was hairy. As a result to view himfrom above as he went by or for any reason atall to name a goat were held as capital crimes.His face was frightful and loathsome by natureand he exacerbated this by practicing all man-ner of terrifying and threatening expressions in

the mirror. Neither his body nor his mind wereimbued with health.12

Suetonius’s unpleasant physical characterizationof Caligula functions as a visual component ofthe author’s negative assessment of the emper-or’s life and character, underscored by the state-ment: valitudo ei neque corporis neque animi constitit.As such, his depiction of the emperor is stronglyinfluenced by ancient physiognomic theory whichwas in vogue during the second century A.C. andtherefor serves a largely rhetorical function andshould by no means be taken literally.13 Caligu-la’s small eyes and bodily appearance denote thepetty, thieving and deceitful character of thepanther as well as the sensual nature of the goat(further underscored in the anecdote about hissensitivity to his baldness); his pale skin is a signof cowardice, while his wide forehead and hol-low temples are further indications of stupidity,foolishness, and madness.14 Clearly, Suetonius’sexaggeration of Caligula’s unattractive physicaltraits is intended to reflect his unwholesome spir-itual and moral qualities.15

12 Cal. 50.1-2.13 For ancient physiognomic theory see: E.C. Evans

(1969); for the use of physiognomic theory in Suetonius’sdescription of the Caesars see: J. Couisson (1953) 246; D.Wardle emphasizes that Suetonius’s description derivesfrom a hostile literary tradition (1994) 326. The discrep-ancies between the surviving sculpted and numismatic like-nesses of Caligula, and the literary portrait provided bySuetonius continue to perplex modern scholars who wishto take Suetonius at face value. E. Bartman has pointedout the problems inherent in giving the literary depictionsof Caligula primacy over the surviving visual evidence andvice-versa, (1994) 341. However, Bartman herself in asubsequent work refers to Caligula’s visual representationsas “sublimating” his unpleasant physical appearance, thustaking Suetonius’s description at face value (1998) 26. Thereis also no objective evidence for Bartman’s speculation thatportraits of Caligula which represented him as “effeminate”or “divine” (and so in keeping with the literary represen-tations) were more “offensive” and thus the first to bedestroyed (1994) 341. In fact, there is no evidence that “ef-feminate” portraits were ever created, and Caligula’s di-vine or heroic portraits were actually reworked to repre-sent Claudius and Augustus (cat. 1.X-X0.

14 E.C. Evans (1969) 54-55; D. Wardle (19940 323-30;Psued.Arist. 812a, 812b, 808b; Pol. 182, 230, 244, 248, 254;Adamant. 377-78, 386, 392; Anon.Physig.Lat. 2.27, 2.29,260, 2.92-4, 2.117, 2120.

15 Caligula’s literary damnatio may have additional con-

caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla 23

In contrast to Suetonius’s literary portrait ofCaligula, the emperor’s surviving numismaticimages present him with handsome and regularfacial features including a smooth and broadforehead, sharply delineated brows, large, deep-ly set eyes, aquiline nose with slightly bulbous tip,well-formed mouth with receding lower lip, anda rounded chin.16 The distinctive numismaticrepresentations of Caligula have facilitated theidentification of forty-eight sculpted and glypticportraits of the emperor.17 D. Boschung hasconvincingly divided the surviving likenesses intotwo types based on the arrangement of commashaped locks over the forehead.18 However Bos-chung’s criteria, which are derived from an elab-orate schematization of individual locks, shouldbe simplified, and the portraits grouped accord-ing to the presence or absence of a central orslightly off-center part. Such a grouping essen-tially follows Boschung’s division. The majorityof Caligula’s sculpted likenesses exhibit a prin-cipal parting of the locks at the center of theforehead, or over the inner corner of the left eye,constituting Boschung’s main type (Hauptty-pus).19 The locks over the temples are oftencombed back towards the center of the forehead.However, in several portraits, the part is omit-ted, or occurs at the extreme left of the forehead;in this type (Boschung’s secondary type [Neben-typus]), most of the locks over the forehead arecombed from proper left to right.20 As the sec-

ondary type exists in far fewer numbers, andthere are no verifiable examples which have beenrecarved, it is likely to have been introduced afterthe main type, probably rather late in Caligula’sprincipate. Additionally, the secondary type por-traits are only found in Italy, suggesting that theyhad not yet been widely disseminated.21 As aresult, the main type is almost certainly type 1,and the secondary type, type 2.

The Mutilation and Destruction of Caligula’s Images

The most dramatic visual evidence for the den-igration of Caligula’s posthumous reputation isprovided by surviving images which were delib-erately mutilated in antiquity as a direct resultof his condemnation. Intentional defacement ofCaligula’s portraits constituted an effective wayof visually and physically dishonoring his mem-ory and, concomitantly, expressing loyalty to thenew emperor, Claudius. Nevertheless, actualmutilation of Caligula’s images is extremely rare.An under life-sized cuirassed bronze bust in aSwiss private collection, a replica of the maintype, received violent blows to the surface of theface from a square hammer and the eyes havebeen gouged out (cat. 1.3. figs. 2a-b).22 Theviolent elimination of the eyes is the first surv-ing instance of an attack on the sensory organs

sequences. It has been suggested that Curtius, the Alexanderhistorian is Q. Curtius Rufus (cos. A.D. 43) and that hisnegative assessment of Alexander and his achievementsis, in fact, a reflection on Caligula, see A. Stewart (1993)17.

16 A.E. Wardman (1967) notes that unlike Plutarch,Suetonius does not explicitly refer to visual representationsof the emperor, such as portraits, in his written physicaldescriptions, 419. This may be because Suetonius is verywell aware that his written descriptions do not correspondwith the visual representations of the emperors.

17 Catalogued by D. Boschung (1989)18 D. Boschung (1988) 31-70.19 Sometimes referred to as the Schloss Fasanerie type,

after a well preserved replica, fig. 30.20 Sometimes referred to as the New Haven type after

the well-preserved replica in the Yale University Art Gal-lery, see D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127. Although Boschung

only recognizes three marble replicas of this type (NewHaven, Yale University Art Gallery, 1987.70.1; Naples,Antiquario Flegreo, no. 68; Fossobrone, Museo), threeadditional marble portraits, classified as the main type byBoschung, should actually be reassigned to the Nebentypuson the basis of the coiffures which are parted at the far leftof the forehead (Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 637ainv. 2687; New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 14.37,and Worcester, Art Museum, 1914.23).

21 R. Grossman is the first scholar to have explored thetypological implictions of the geographical distribution ofCaligula’s surviving portraits in a senior essay at YaleUniversity (2001) written under the supervision of D.E.E.Kleiner.

22 H. .097 m.; H. Jucker (1973) 20; H. Jucker (1982)112; D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12, 49-50, 54-57, 91, 92,100, 115, no. 30, pls. 27.1-4, 45.1 (with previous literature);A. Barrett (1989)178, n. 30; J. Pollini (1993) 425, and n.14; E.R. Varner (2001b) 47.

chapter two24

in imperial portraits and the practice wouldbecome common in deliberately disfigured im-ages. In addition, H. Jucker has plausibly suggest-ed that a marble fragment in Aquileia compris-ing a chin and mouth is derived from an overlife-sized portrait of Caligula which was brokenapart with a hammer following the emperor’sdeath (cat. 1.1; fig. 3).23 Similarly, the uppersection of a colossal head with corona civica fromSaguntum in Spain may be derived from a van-dalized representation of Caligula (cat. 1.2).24

This head was discovered in the forum and pro-vides evidence for the destruction of Caligula’spublic images in the western provinces.

Evidence for the mutilation of Caligula’s like-nesses is limited to these three portraits and sug-gests that such mutilation resulted from sponta-neous demonstrations against his memory, asopposed to officially sponsored sanctions. CassiusDio records such spontaneous demonstrationsoccurring in the chaos which erupted immedi-ately after Caligula’s assassination when some ofthe emperor’s statues were overthrown anddragged from their pedestals (•<*D4V<JgH Jg "ÛJ@Ø6"Â gÆ6`<gH ¦FbD@<J@).25 In addition, the major-ity of Caligula’s portraits in gold, silver, or bronzewould have been melted down for their metalcontent, effectively combining destruction withreuse.

Certain Caligulan coins have also been delib-erately defaced, often with the C for Gaius be-ing hacked out.26 Caligula’s portrait features havebeen intentionally mutilated in aes coinage fromlower Germany,27 while, according to H. Juck-er, approximately 9.5% of certain Caligulan types

have the initial C obliterated.28 Chisels, hammers,and files were all used to mutilate the Caligulancoins.29 The obliteration of Caligula’s praenom-en on coins must be related to one of the earli-est legal sanctions which would have been includ-ed in a damnatio memoriae, namely the prohibitionagainst a family’s continued use of the con-demned individual’s praenomen. Coins wereexpressive and tangible monuments of Caligula’spolicies and propaganda; their random destruc-tion and mutilation effectively denigrated hismemory and could be carried out by privatepersons or soldiers not necessarily acting with amandate from the Senate or princeps. AlthoughCaligulan coins appear to have remained in cir-culation, they were closely connected in thepopular consciousness with the disgraced repu-tation of the overthrown princeps and the bronzeissues were considered worthless.30

Caligula’s coins also suffered official forms ofdefacement. On a series of Caligula’s Vesta aescoinage, the countermark TICA (Tiberius Clau-dius Augustus) has been used to obliterate theinscription C CAESAR. In some instances, coun-termarks obliterate and cancel the emperor’sfacial features.31 A. Barrett has proposed thatthese countermarked coins were used to pay thesoldiers stationed on the Rhine and that thecountermarks acted as assertions of Claudius’snew and legitimate authority.32 If Barrett is cor-rect, it signals that the army is an importantaudience for the mutilation and destruction of

23 Aquilea, Museo Archeologico, inv. 128; h. .012 m.;H. Jucker (1982) 111, pl. 15.1-2; D. Boschung (1989) 120,no. 49, pl. 39.5-6 (with previous literature); E.R. Varner(2001) 48.

24 Museo Arqueológico.25 59.30.1a. A. Barrett sees this as a “limited and spon-

taneous” action on the part of the conspirators, probablytaking place on the Palatine (1989) 178, n. 28.

26 E. Jonas (1936-38) 89-91; H. Hinz, W. Hagen, andD. Haupt (1966) 580 for an as from 37/38 minted at Romewith most of Caligula’s name removed; Jucker (1982) 114-8; A. Barrett (1989)180, n. 45.

27 H. Chantraine (1968) 22; K. Coleman (1988) 230.

28 RIC 23/25 (adlocutio), RIC 26 (Caligula’s three sisters),RIC 27/29 (corona civica), RIC 35/37 (consecratio of theTemple of Augustus), and RIC 42 (Agrippina Maior’s car-pentum). H. Jucker (1982) 117. Based on Jucker’s individu-al breakdown of the types with 410 total coins vs. 39 dam-aged coins.

29H. Jucker (1982) 117.30 plus minus asse Gaiano, Stat. Silv. 4.9.22; K. Coleman

(1988) 230. A. Bay has even suggested that the aes coinagewhich was technically issued by the Senate and prominentlydisplayed SC on the reverses was particularly targetedbecause the Senate did not want to be associated in anyway with Caligula’s memory, (1972) 122.

31 New York, American Numismatic Society, inv.1953.171.1082; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 108-109, cat. 11.

32 A. Barrett (1989)179, n. 42, (with previous literatureon the coins).

caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla 25

monuments from the outset of imperial damna-tiones. In a more sweeping condemnation ofCaligula’s memory, the Senate also ordered inA.D. 43 that his bronze coins be recalled andmelted down.33 This act seems to have been lim-ited to the mint at Rome, but the two years whichintervened between Caligula’s death in 41 andthe passing of the Senate’s decree in 43 highlightthe lingering hatred that the senatorial aristoc-racy still bore towards the memory of Caligula.34

Furthermore, it indicates that there was, in fact,an official aspect to his condemnation, althoughnot enacted immediately after his death. Thedearth of small bronze coinage in the provincesmay also be attributed to an effective numismaticdamnatio.35 On the other hand, local mints in Gaulseem to have continued to mint aes coinage withCaligula’s portrait perhaps as late as A.D. 43, asignificant example of the widely varying respons-es to, and even acceptance of, Caligula’s condem-nation on the part of local municipalities.36 Ingeneral, however, the scarcity of Caligulan coinsin hoards, of both base and precious metals,indicates some kind of official de-monetization.37

The Transformation of Caligula’s Images

Caligula/Claudius

The great number of recut images of Caligulaconfirms that reworking, rather than intentionalmutilation, was the preferred approach to theemperor’s sculpted likenesses once they had beenremoved from public display. Indeed, well overhalf of Caligula’s marble portraits have beenaltered into other likenesses. Reuse was econom-ically, as well as ideologically motivated. In ad-

dition to preserving a costly piece of marble,recutting was a way of visually cannibalizingimages of the overthrown Caligula and physicallydisplacing them with representations of his suc-cessor Claudius, or his revered predecessor,Augustus. Refashioned likenesses of Caligulaprovide the first large body of evidence for therecarving of imperial portraits. This practicewould become the standard approach to imagesof the other two emperors condemned later inthe first century, Nero and Domitian. Indisput-ably, the unofficial damnatio of Caligula suppliedthe impetus for the development of techniquesof recarving. In addition to the technical ramifi-cations for sculptural production and modifica-tion, the recutting of Caligula’s portraits alsosignificantly influenced the style and iconographyof Claudius’s public representations. Indeed,recut images stand as prominent visual markersfor periods of political transition in the first cen-tury.

A majority of Caligula’s recut portraits havebeen refashioned into likenesses of Claudius.Reworking marble portraits of the youthfulCaligula into convincing representations of hismiddle-aged uncle, Claudius posed numerouschallenges to sculptors. Obviously, the chiefobstacle was the greatly reduced volume ofmarble available from which to create the newportrait. In addition, the increasing friability ofmarble as it ages mandated that the sculptorsresponsible for recutting heads had to take spe-cial care when handling protruding elements likenoses and ears. The representations of Claudiusreworked from images of Caligula can be divid-ed into two categories: classicizing likenesseswhich retain youthful elements of Caligula’sportraits, and veristic likenesses which emphasizeClaudius’s more mature physiognomy.

Claudius’s own sculpted portraits divide intotwo types on the basis of their coiffures.38 In themost widely disseminated type (main type/haupt-

33 Dio 60.22.3.34 A. Barrett (1989)178.35 RPC 698-99; A. Savio (1988)13.36 A. Barrett (1989) 178.37 A. Barrett (1989)179 with a list of coin hoards and

the number of Caligulan issues versus those of other reigns.Caligula’s numismatic damnatio has been investigated by C.Clay: “Claudius and the Coinage of Caligula: Numismat-ic Damnatio Memoriae Under the Roman Empire,” (talkpresented at “The Science of Numismatics” Chicago, 27March 1996).

38 Interpretations of Claudius’s portrait typology includeD. Salzmann (1976) 252-64; K. Fittschen (1977a) 55-58,no. 17; H. Jucker (1981a)254-84; Fittschen-Zanker I, 16-17; H.-M. von Kaenel (1986); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 129-35; C.B. Rose (1997) 70-71, no. 23.

chapter two26

typus) created during his principate, Claudius’sgenerally veristic, middle-aged portrait featuresare combined with a hairstyle which is partednear the inner corner of the left eye. Locks at theedges of the forehead are often combed backtowards the part, creating the pincer-like motifwhich is characteristic of this coiffure. An appar-ently earlier type (the so-called Kassel type),perhaps created during the reign of Caligula, orat the outset of Claudius’s own reign has a coif-fure which is usually parted at the right of theforehead, combined with more youthful facialfeatures.39

Significantly, Claudius’s single most veristiclikeness, a replica of his main type, is a recarvedportrait of Caligula in the Palazzo dei Conser-vatori (cat. no. 1.31; fig. 4a-d).40 Numerous de-tails signal the reworking of this image, includ-ing the overly long neck, the receding chin whichhas been carved back from the frontal plane ofthe face, and, most tellingly, the remnants ofCaligula’s main type coiffure. The top and up-per left side of the head have been roughlyworked with a flat chisel in an attempt to removetraces of the original Caligulan coiffure, butCaligula’s pattern of locks remains visible at theright side and rear of the head. Additionally, thelocks over the forehead, although slightly cutback, substantially retain Caligula’s original ar-rangement, with the part occurring over the innercorner of the left eye. The long Caligulan hairon the nape of the neck has also been shortened.Modifications to the coiffure have caused theocciput to be overly large when seen in profile.The ears have been recut to reduce their mass,

with the left ear now appearing considerablyhigher than the right.

In refashioning this portrait, the sculptor hasfocused on creating definitive signs of Claudius’sage as opposed to faithfully rendering the newprinceps’ hairstyle. Vertical and horizontal furrowson the forehead, bags beneath the eyes, sunkencheeks, strong naso-labial lines, and a fleshyunderchin help to make the recut portrait a re-alistic and recognizable likeness of the middle-aged Claudius, who was almost 51 at the timeof his accession. The unflattering realism of thehead is entirely the result of recarving. The sculp-tor has attempted to eliminate any lingering trac-es of Caligula’s facial features in an effort tostrongly differentiate the new portrait of Clau-dius from the original. Indeed, the classicizingelements of the Caligulan likeness have beenentirely subsumed in the Claudian image’s em-phasis on verism. The accentuated signs of ag-ing in this portrait effectively distinguish the newlikeness of Claudius from the youthful visage ofhis overthrown predecessor, and express visual-ly Claudius’s political and ideological distancefrom the unsuccessful regime of Caligula.

A second reworked representation of Claudi-us in Woburn Abbey is also noteworthy for itsexaggerated signs of aging and its physical anom-alies are similar to those of the Conservatori like-ness (cat. no. 1.34; fig. 5). The top of the skull andforehead, which slopes sharply, are abnormallylarge. The face itself is unnaturally flat and doesnot project adequately from the mass of the skull.The mouth is asymmetrical, with the left sidebeing noticeably longer and lower than the right.Much of Caligula’s main type hairstyle remains,including the central part over the forehead.Nevertheless, the artist has entirely refashionedthe physiognomy, adding conspicuous furrows inthe forehead, vertical creases above the nose,deep naso-labial lines, sunken cheeks, and fleshyunderchin. Again, these emphatic signs of agingeradicate all trace of Caligula’s youthful physiog-nomy and create an image of the new middle-aged princeps which is visually distinct from thoseof his overthrown and condemned predecessor.

Thus, two of the most realistic images of Clau-dius, which revive many of the features of veris-

39 The youthful facial features also occur on early nu-mismatic representations. C.B. Rose has proposed a third,posthumous type. According to Rose, this type is charac-terized by more emphatic signs of aging and a triangularfacial structure, reminiscent of Nero’s type 2. He also sug-gests that the corona civica is a standard attribute of this type.However, the coiffure of this type is identical to the maintype, and it should more plausibly be considered a post-humous redaction of the main type, (1997) 71. Posthumousimages of Augustus were also created which added moreemphatic signs of aging to the three types created duringhis lifetime, see infra.

40 Formerly Braccio Nuovo, inv. 2443 (Centrale Mon-temartini 2.74).

caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla 27

tic portraits created in the late republican peri-od, are a direct result of Caligula’s damnatio. Thepolitical implications of such a revival are clear.Claudius cannot have been unaware that theSenate had considered abolishing the memory ofall the Julio-Claudians and reestablishing theRepublic after Caligula’s murder. Those imagesof Claudius which reference the topographicalrealism of late republican portraiture must havebeen designed to appeal to just those citizens whohad republican sympathies. The verism of cer-tain representations of Claudius, which clearlydifferentiated him from his Julio-Claudian pre-decessors prefigures the revival of verism oftennoted in portraits of Vespasian, and indeed wassimilarly motivated.

Although they do not attain the enhancedeffects of verism present in the Braccio Nuovoand Woburn Abbey portraits, additional re-worked examples emphasize similar indicationsof aging in Claudius’s physiognomy: Berlin (cat.no. 1.18),41 Fano (cat. 1.19, fig. 6a-c)42 andHannover (cat. 1.21, fig. 7a-b).43 All of the por-traits are from Italy. The Fano likeness is a co-lossal statue which portrays the emperor with hipmantle in the guise of Jupiter. Although the headis worked for insertion, it appears to belong withthe body and the statue provides important ev-idence for the reuse of Caligula’s full-lengthimages. Furthermore, it confirms that divinerepresentations were created for Caligula duringhis principate and that there was no hesitationin reusing these images as representations ofClaudius.44 Indeed, Caligula is the first livingemperor to be depicted as Jupiter in free stand-ing sculpture, and he appears to have introducedwhat would become the widespread practice ofdepicting the reigning princeps in divine guise.45

The bust in Berlin has been cut down from a full-length statue, which also portrayed the emperor

in an heroic or divine fashion with a nude tor-so.46

In addition to the recarved marble portraitswhich accentuate realistic elements of Claudius’smiddle-aged appearance, a chalcedony cameoportrait in Vienna has been reworked with sim-ilar results (cat. 1.33, fig. 8a-b).47 The Viennacameo is rare example of a reconfigured gemportrait. Indeed, only a very few of cameos orintaglios appear to have been altered as a resultof condemnations. Caligula was initially repre-sented, capite velato, wearing a variation of hismain type hairstyle which is retained in the largemiddle row of locks over Claudius’s forehead.48

A corona civica now encircles Claudius’s head, butthe veil of the Caligulan portrait from which thecorona has been carved is clearly visible at thetop of the cameo. The artist who recarved thisgem has reduced the size of the forehead byadding a second smaller row of locks beneaththose of the original Caligulan portrait. Claudi-us’s age is indicated through the addition of fur-rows in the forehead, sunken cheeks, and verystrong naso-labial lines. Like the Conservatori,Woburn Abbey, Berlin, Fano, and Hannoverportraits, the Vienna chalcedony emphasizesrecognizable traits of Claudius’s aged physiogno-my rather than an orthodox Claudian hairstyle.The recarving of individual locks of Claudius’scoiffure may have proved impossible to carry outon the small, delicate surfaces of the cameo, sothe artist has opted for a practical and workablealternative.

By no means, however, are all or even amajority of Claudius’s portraits veristic. Indeed,many of his images were created in the classiciz-ing and idealizing style established by Augustus.As with the veristic portraits, arguably the mostidealizing representation of Claudius has beenreworked from a preexisting likeness of Caligu-la. This portrait, a colossal head in the Sala

41 Staatliche Museen, Antiken-Abteilung, inv. 1965.10.42 Museo Civico.43 Inv. 1978.15.44 A statue in Zadar reworked to Augustus provides

additional confirmation for such divine or semi-divinedepictions of Caligula, see cat. 1.15.

45 C.B. Rose (1997) 74-5.

46 For the cutting down of the statue see D. Boschung(1989) 113 and H. Jucker (1981a)258-60.

47 Kunsthistorisches Museum 18, inv. IX A 23; h. 14.5cm.; D. Boschung (1989) 51-2, 90, 116, no. 36, sketch 29,pl. 30.4 (with previous literature); J.J. Herrmann, jr. (1991)45.

48 D. Boschung (1988) 116.

chapter two28

Rotonda of the Vatican clearly preserves thestrong classicism and monumentality of the orig-inal likeness of Caligula (cat. 1.X, fig. 9a-b).49 Thehead is worked for insertion and portrays theprinceps wearing the corona civica. The portraitcontains numerous signs of recarving. The sizeof the face is significantly smaller than the greatmass of the hair and corona. Although most of theback of the head is a restoration, when seen inprofile, the face bears no coherent relationshipto the large size of the head. Furthermore, theneck is too massive for the proportions of the face.Most importantly, the hairstyle of Caligula’s maintype, with central part, is still discernable in theupper row of curls above the added locks ofClaudius’s earlier Kassel type which now framethe forehead. Claudius’s forehead is generallylower and broader than that of Caligula and theartist responsible for the recarving of this portraithas attempted to reduce the height of the fore-head by adding the lower row of Claudian locks.The additive technique is the same as that em-ployed in the refashioning of the Vienna cam-eo.50 The recarving process has also rendered thefeatures of the face decidedly asymmetrical,which are even more exaggerated in the SalaRotonda head because of its colossal format.51

While refashioning the image of Caligula, theartist also added new physiognomic elements,consisting of superficial signs of aging in the slight-ly sunken cheeks and the lines around the mouth.However, the smooth forehead, sharply delineat-ed brows, aquiline nose with somewhat bulboustip, essentially unlined face, narrow chin, andoverall air of classicizing youthfulness are deriveddirectly from the portraiture of Caligula.

The Sala Rotonda portrait was found in 1779during the papal excavations of the basilica atOtricoli where it occupied the central apse.52 Theimage was designed as a seated statue, probablydepicting the emperor in the guise of JupiterOptimus Maximus Capitolinus, and indeed, frag-

ments of a seated figure, “di bello stile,” are notedin early accounts of the excavations.53 The orig-inal portrait statue of Caligula, together with arepresentation of Drusilla as Venus Genetirx,54

were added to a cycle of Julio-Claudian statuary,likely commissioned early in the reign of Tiberi-us, which included an heroic statue of Augustusas Diomedes;55 a togate statue of Gaius Ceasar;56

a togate statue of a young Julio-Claudian princewith bulla, perhaps Nero Caesar the son of Ger-manicus and brother of Caligula;57 and a statueof Livia.58 The colossal scale of the Caligula in-dicates that it was intended as the focal point ofthis dynastic group, whose other statues are es-sentially life-sized, or slightly over. Inscriptionalevidence, as well as the architectural plan of theedifice at Otricoli, indicate that the “basilica” waslikely associated with the worship of both Fortu-na Augusta and the Gens Augusta.59 Thus, the spec-ificity of the Sala Rotonda portrait to its ancientsite, its importance as the centerpiece of the stat-uary cycle, and its association with the imperialcult, in conjunction with its colossal size, dictat-ed the image’s reconfiguration, rather than re-moval or disfigurement.60

The important Julio-Claudian statuary groupdiscovered in 1966 at the Collegium of the August-ales of Rusellae also included an image of Clau-dius transformed from Caligula which presents

49 No. 551, inv. 242.50 Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. IX a 23, cat. 1.33.51 As, for instance, the colossal portrait of Maxentius

recarved to Constantine in the Cortile of the Palazzo deiConservatori, cat.9.4.

52 H. Jucker (1981a) 270; D.Boschung (1988) 113.

53 G. Dareggi (1982) 23, n. 195. H. Jucker (1981a) 267posits that the portrait may have belonged to an acrolith-ic statue.

54 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Gabinetto delle Maschere,no. 429, inv. 816; G. Dareggi (1982) 21-22, figs. 32-33 (withprevious literature); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl. 93.

55 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala a Croce Greca, n. 565,inv. 181; G. Dareggi (1982) 12-14, no. 1, fig. 19-20 (withprevious bibliography); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl.88.

56 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala a Croce Greca, no. 597;inv. 199; G. Dareggi (1982) 14-16, no. 2, figs. 21-4 (withprevious literature); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl. 90.

57 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria dei Candelabri 4.93,inv. 2622; G. Dareggi (1982) 16-18, no. 3, figs. 25-29 (withprevious literature); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl. 91.

58 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei Busti, 352, inv. 637;G. Dareggi (1982) 18-21, no. 4, figs. 30-31 (with previousliterature); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl. 89.

59 G. Dareggi (1992) 12, 26.60 In addition, the large scale of the head provides an

optimum amount of marble for recutting.

caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla 29

compelling parallels to the Sala Rotonda head(Cat 1.20, fig. 10).61 Inscriptional evidence sug-gests that this group may have been initiatedduring the reign of Augustus with substantialnumbers of portraits added under Caligula andClaudius, and perhaps a single image of DivusClaudius added by Nero. The Caligulan addi-tions encompassed likenesses of his father andmother, Germanicus and Agrippina Maior, hisbrothers Nero Caesar and Drusus Caesar, hissisters Drusilla (probably as Diva) and Julia Liv-illa, and his grandmother, Antonia Minor.62 Oneof the two preserved representations of Claudi-us, with corona civica., contains clear indicationsthat it has been transformed from a pre-existingimage of Caligula.63 Caligula’s main type coiffure,substantial traces of which remain behind the leftear and on the right side of the neck, has beenmodified into a version of Claudius’s principaltype. Slight signs of aging have been added tothe portrait, including lightly carved horizontalfurrows in the forehead and naso labial lines. Al-though not as youthful as the Sala Rotonda head,the portrait has maintained much of the classi-cizing style of the original likeness.

Another reworked head of Claudius in theVatican preserves the youthful and classicizingair of the original portrait of Caligula (cat. 1.29;figs. 11a-b).64 The ends of the locks over theforehead have all been cut back, creating anunnatural straight line. Nevertheless, Caligula’scoiffure is still visible in this area. The recarvingof the face has imbued the image with someindications of aging appropriate for Claudius.The eyes have been recut to make them slightlysunken, and pouches of flesh have been addedbeneath them. The temples have been moredeeply sculpted in order to accentuate theirhollow quality, while the cheeks have been madeto sag slightly. The chin has been cut back andreduced in size in order to add a fleshy un-

derchin, clearly visible in profile views. This re-cutting of the chin has caused it to recede fromthe frontal plane of the face, a hallmark of re-carved portraits. The reduction of the sculptur-al volume in the head has also caused the ears,which have not been recut, to be overly large,as well as noticeably low on the head. The signsof aging in the Vatican Magazzini head, however,are superficial, and like the colossal portrait fromOtricoli, an idealized and youthful image ofClaudius is the end result, with crisply delineat-ed details and smoothly modeled surfaces. Themore youthful features of the Sala Rotonda andMagazzini heads would have been consonantwith the idealized portraits of Claudius’s earliestnumismatic representations. The importance ofimperial hairstyles as easily recognizable andepistemological emblems of identity is under-scored by the recut portraits which are endowedwith recognizable Claudian coiffures rather thanstrongly individualized portrait features.

A head of Claudius inserted into a statue rep-resenting the emperor in the traveling costumeof a Roman general, with long paludamentumand tunic, now in Aquileia is also remarkable forthe classicizing and youthful elements still presentin the likeness (cat. 1.17; fig. 12).65 The coiffurehas been entirely recut, and the original locks onthe top and back of the head have been chiseledout and not replaced. The arrangement of hairover the forehead is an imprecise rendition ofClaudius’s main type. Light horizontal furrowshave been added to the forehead, pouches havebeen carved beneath the eyes, and naso-labiallines indicated. Nevertheless, the crisp delinea-tion of the upper and lower eye-lids, the handlingof the mouth, and the smooth surfaces of theflesh, all remnants of the original portrait ofCaligula, endow the likeness with a decidedlyidealized appearance. The head is of white Lunamarble, while the body is thought to be of Greekmarble. If the original Caligulan portrait be-longed to this body, the statue would provideimportant evidence for the production of milita-ristic images of Caligula.

61 Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Marem-ma, inv. 97765.

62 C.B. Rose (1997) 116.63 H. Jucker (1981a) 266, n. 91; U. Baldini, M. Cristo-

fani, G. Maetzke (1983) fig. 126; R. Amedick (1987) 50-51; C.B. Rose (1997) 117-8, ns. 8, 15.

64 Magazzini, Inv. 151 65 Aquileia, Museo Archeologico, inv. 108.

chapter two30

A portrait of Claudius as Jupiter from thetheater at Vaison has also been recut from animage of Caligula’s main type and retains muchof the youthful and idealizing aspects of the orig-inal likeness (cat. 1.32).66 The statue is a stand-ing Jupiter type with hip mantel and it providesfurther important evidence for the disseminationof images of Caligula in the guise of Jupiter withcorona civica. The Vaison statue is carved from asingle block of marble, and its recutting hascaused the corona to be much to large in propor-tion to the head, while the head itself is also toosmall in relation to the body. Claudius is repre-sented with his earlier coiffure and youthfulphysiognomy, suggesting that the image wasreworked shortly after his accession.

Numerous other representations of Claudiuswhich have been refashioned from images ofCaligula retain strong elements of youthful ide-alization from the original likeness. Among theseare portraits in the Louvre (cat. 1.26),67 Mantua(cat. 1.24; fig. 13),68 Naples (cat. 1.25; fig. 14),69

Perugia (cat. 1.28; fig. 15a-d),70 and Istanbul (cat.1.22; fig. 16a-b).71 In the Louvre portrait, rem-nants of Caligula’s locks are clearly visible be-neath the Claudian coiffure over the forehead.Shallow naso-labial lines, light furrows in theforehead, and the suggestion of pouches beneaththe eyes added to the likeness give only the faint-est impression of middle age, and the recut im-age maintains the classicism of the original rep-resentation of Caligula. Similarly, cursory signsof aging have been added to the Mantua likeness.The coiffure of the Naples portrait has also beenrecut, and the Caligulan locks on the top andback of the head have been removed with a flatchisel and not replaced. Despite the fact thatsuperficial signs of aging have been added to thehead, including pouches beneath the eyes andnaso-labial lines, the resulting likeness is youth-ful. Emphatic naso-labial lines in the Perugiaportrait are intended to convey Claudius’s mid-

dle age, but they are the only signs of agingpresent in the image and contrast with thesmoothly modeled surfaces of the flesh. Likewise,the Istanbul portrait contains only minimal in-dications of aging.

A second reworked likeness in Istanbul retainsmany of the characteristics of the original rep-resentation of Caligula (cat. 1.23).72 This togatestatue exhibits the central part of Caligula’s maintype coiffure. The hair at the back of the neckhas been shortened and the lower sections of theface substantially recut with the result that thechin recedes noticeably and the head appearsunnaturally wide in profile. Nevertheless, thereworking is rather perfunctory and the result-ing image of Claudius is fairly generic.

Caligula/Augustus

Recutting images of Caligula into youthful andclassicizing representations of Rome’s first em-peror Augustus did not present the same techni-cal difficulties as those inherent in reworkingportraits to Claudius. This fact, coupled with thecontinued popularity and importance of Augus-tus as divus accounts for the great number ofCaligulan portraits which have been altered intolikenesses of Augustus. And in fact, thirteen ofthese portraits have survived.73

While the recut coiffures are primarily ofAugustus’s most common Prima Porta type, oneexample of the later Forbes type is also repre-sented.74 In most of the portraits, the size of the

66 Musée Municipal, inv. 128 B.67 MA 1219.68 Palazzo Ducale.69 Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 150-215.70 Perugia, Museum.71 Archaeological Museum, inv. 87.

72 Archaeological Museum, inv. 4648.73 D. Boschung (1993a) only recognizes six portraits of

Augustus which are recut from images of Caligula (1993a)79-80, an additional seven exhibit clear indications that theyalso have been reworked from likenesses of Caligula, seecat. 1.4-15.

74 Copenhagen 611, inv. 746. D. Boschung has pro-posed a new portrait typology for Augustus which recog-nizes five types: 1) Typus Béziers-Spoleto, 2) Typus LucusFeroniae 3.) Typus Alcuida (essentially the type earlier iden-tified as the Actium or Octavian type, 4) Typus Louvre MA1280 (essentially the type earlier identified as the Forbestype, and 5) Typus Prima Porta, (1993) 11-50. The por-traits which Boschung identifies as replicas of the Beziers-Spoleto and Lucus Feroniae types, should be consideredvariants of his Alcuida type (the old Actium-Octavian type).R.R.R. Smith elucidates the problems inherent in Bos-

caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla 31

head is generally reduced to give the face a thin-ner, more Augustan configuration, the chin mademore square, and the mouth recarved in orderto de-emphasize the receding lower lip which wasa recognizably Caligulan trait.75 One of theserecarved likenesses, currently in the CentraleMontemartini was discovered in 1937 near theTheater of Marcellus (cat 1.11; fig. 17a-b).76 Pos-sibly of Parian marble, the head is worked for in-sertion and is a replica of Augustus’s Prima-Portatype. The coiffure over the forehead has been ex-tensively recarved, but the position of the partover the inner corner of left eye is retained fromCaligula’s main type. The locks themselves havebeen deeply undercut and the forehead slopesback at an unnatural angle. The back of the neckis very flat where Caligula’s longer locks havebeen removed. The top of the head was separate-ly worked and no longer survives. Although it ispossible that the original portrait of Caligula waspieced together, it is more likely that the marbleaddition was part of the sculptural transforma-tion of the likeness.

A second likeness of Augustus from Rome, inthe Museo Capitolino, has been similarly re-worked (cat. 1.10).77 This Prima-Porta type por-trait includes a corona civica. Again, the positionof the part over the inner corner of the left eyeis a remnant of Caligula’s main type coiffure. Thelocks over the forehead themselves have beenrecut, making them unusually shallow and short.The facial features have also been reworked, andsome signs of aging added, including pronouncednaso-labial lines and the suggestion of a doublechin. Such signs of aging occur in posthumousimages of Augustus and may have been addedhere to firmly disassociate the reconfigured im-

age from the original youthful representation ofthe condemned Caligula.78 The Capitoline andMontemartini portraits exemplify the recarvingof Caligula’s likenesses into images of Augustusat the capital and its surroundings.

Also from the environs of Rome is colossalhead of Augustus discovered at Caere which hasbeen refashioned in much the same way as theCapitoline and Conservatori images (cat. 1.12;fig. 18a-b).79 The head, which is worked for in-sertion, has been reduced in volume and is toosmall in proportion to its long, thick neck. Thelocks over the forehead have been completely re-carved into Augustus’s Prima Porta arrangement,although they are not entirely smooth and trac-es of the chisel are still very evident. The browshave been allowed to remain from the originalportrait of Caligula, while the forehead has beencut back in order to make it commensurate withthe reworked coiffure, occasioning very notice-able bulges over the eyes.

The Caere head was part of seated imagedepicting the emperor in the guise of Jupiter,fragments of which were also found in the exca-vations.80 The original image of Caligula formedpart of a cycle of Julio-Claudian portraits deco-rating Caere’s theater and it would have beensimilar to the seated statues of Augustus, Tibe-rius, and Claudius, all also in the guise of Jupi-ter, from the same cycle.81 Furthermore, its re-

chung’s expanded typology, (1996) 30-47.75 The receding lower lip is also a feature of Livia’s

portrait, and it is present in the portraits of her descen-dants including Tiberius, Drusus, Germanicus, and espe-cially in Caligula’s sister, Agrippina Minor, and her sonNero. On the receding lower lip in Agrippina’s portraitsand the orthodontic condition which may underlie it, seeS. Wood (1995) 466-67.

76 Sala degli Orti Mecenaziani 7, inv. 2394 (CentraleMontemartini 1.61).

77 Scala 7, inv. 230.

78 See especially an altar with relief portrait dedicatedto Divus Augustus from Palestrina (Palestrina, Museo Ar-cheologico Nazionale, inv. 23555; D. Boschung (1993a) 138,no. 63, pls. 67.1-3, 221.3; N. Agnoli (2002) 243-9, no.III.9,figs. 9a-f.

79 Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 9953.80 Including a hand, part of an arm, and possibly a knee;

see M. Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani, and P. Santoro eds.(1989) 97, no. 17, and n.1

81 Augustus (Louvre MA 1246; P. Liverani in M. Fuchs,P. Liverani and P. Santoro eds. [1989] 137-43; C.B. Rose[1997] 83-6, cat. 5); Tiberius (Musei Vaticani, MuseoGregoriano Profano inv. 9961; M. Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P.Liverani and P. Santoro eds. [1989] 58-60, no. 2; C.B. Rose[1997] 83-6, cat. 5, pls. 71-2); Claudius (Musei Vaticani,Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 9950; M. Fuchs in M.Fuchs, P. Liverani and P. Santoro eds. [1989] 61-64, no.3; C.B. Rose [1997] 83-6, cat. 5, pls. 73-74). The torso onwhich the head of Claudius is now displayed probably

chapter two32

carving explains how two representations ofAugustus came to be part of the cycle.82 Thehead was discovered with several portrait inscrip-tions commemorating Augustus, Germanicus (orDrusus Minor), Agrippina Minor, an unidenti-fied emperor, and Caligula’s sister, Drusilla. InDrusilla’s inscription, celebrating her as Diva andsister of the emperor, Caligula’s name has beenerased.83 In its original incarnation as a colossalimage of Caligula as Jupiter, the Caere portraitwas an impressive monument and again atteststo his innovations in portrait policy through dis-semination of his own likenesses in divine guise.Furthermore, like the colossal Caligula/Claudi-us in the Sala Rotonda of the Vatican, it was sitespecific within the context of the theater complex,a fact which undoubtedly contributed to its re-configuration, as opposed to wholesale destruc-tion.84

Details of physiognomy and coiffure presentin a head of Augustus in the J. Paul Getty Mu-seum betray its origins as a likeness of Caligula(cat. 1.8; fig. 19a-d).85 The portrait is worked forinsertion into a togate body and was discoveredat Pietrabbondante. Its wide eyes and hollowtemples are clear remnants of the earlier imageof Caligula. In the recarving of the portrait, thecentral, signature locks of Augustus’s Prima Portahairstyle have been emphasized and deeply un-dercut, carved back into the existing mass of theforehead. The reduction of sculptural volume isespecially apparent when the head is viewed inprofile. Although Augustan physiognomic detailshave been included in the portrait, it is theemphatic undercutting of the locks of hair overthe forehead which highlights the Prima Portacoiffure and provides the recarved image with aclearly recognizable emblem of its new identityas a portrait of Augustus. A pronounced horizon-tal furrow in the forehead, as well as the sugges-tion of naso-labial lines have also been added tothe portrait. Although subtle, these signs of age-ing do occur in posthumous images of Augustusand in recarved portraits like that in the MuseoCapitolino (cat. 1.10). Similarly, a head inMantua retains elements of Caligula’s coiffureand iconography (cat. 1.9).86 While the locksover the forehead have been reconfigured toreflect Augustus’s Prima Porta coiffure, the ar-rangement of the hair on the top and back of thehead has not been altered from the Caligulanimage.

A statue of Augustus in Zadar provides addi-tional testimony for the reworking of full-lengthheroic images of Caligula (cat. 1.15; fig. 20a-d).87

This statue, together with the colossal Caligula/Claudius in the Sala Rotonda, the statues ofCaligula/Claudius in Vaison and Fano, and thecolossal Caligula Augustus from Caere, reveal thescope of the heroic and divine images of Caligulacreated during his reign. Caligula’s strong em-phasis on divine imagery may be reflected inSuetonius’s damaging anecdote (likely apocry-

belongs with the head of Augustus in the Louvre; see M.Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani and P. Santoro eds. (1989)61-4 and P. in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani and P. Santoro eds.(1989) 137-43.

82 Louvre MA 1246, cited above; see also, D. Boschung(1993a) 171, no. 152, pls. 88, 223-4 (with earlier literature);C.B. Rose (1997) 86.

83 CIL 11.3598; M. Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani, andP. Santoro, eds. (1989) 106, no. 22, with fig. (with earlierliterature); C.B. Rose (1997) 84.

84 C.B. Rose has suggested that the seated statue ofTiberius from Caere (Museo Gregoriano Profano inv. 9961)has, in fact, been refashioned from an image of Caligula(1997) 85. Rose notes that the head is worked for inser-tion, which is unusual for nude, or partially nude statuebodies, and that the head and body seem to be of differ-ent types of marble. Rose suggests that the original statuewas carved from single block of marble, the head of Caligu-la was removed, a mortis prepared in the body, and a newhead of Tiberius inserted. However, this also would be ahighly unusual form of reuse, and it would be more likelythat the facial features would simply be recut to Tiberiusif the statue was originally of one piece of marble. Delib-erate damage to the facial features of Rose’s hypotheticalstatue of Caligula would make the kind of reuse he positsnecessary, as may have been the case with the Caligula/Claudius and the Messalina/Agrippina Minor statues atVelleia (cat.1.27 and 3.4). However, it is important to keepin mind that the evidence for intentionally mutilated im-ages of Caligula is fairly limited. The Caere Caligula/Augustus was also inserted into a Jupiter statue body, sothis kind of piecing may simply be peculiar to the Caeregroup. If Rose is correct about the Tiberius being reworked,it would further mean that there were two images of Caligu-la as Jupiter from Caere. Although not improbable, thisalso seems unlikely.

85 78.AA.261.86 Palazzo Ducale, inv. 6615.87 Museum.

caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla 33

phal) that the emperor had planned to removethe heads from famous cult images, includingPhidias’s chryselephantine statue of Zeus atOlympia, and have them replaced with his ownlikeness.88 Significantly, Claudius did not aban-don his predecessor’s practice of being depictedwith divine or heroic attributes.89 The head ofthe Zadar statue has been refashioned into areplica of Augustus’s Prima Porta type. The pieceis carved from a single block of marble and, asa result, the recut head is too small in propor-tion to the body. As was also the case with thecolossal Caligula/Claudius in the Sala Rotondaof the Vatican and the statue from Vaison, thecorona civica which the emperor wears is toomassive for the face and the forehead is also toobroad. The statue was discovered in 1777 dur-ing excavations of the Roman Forum at Aenonain Dalmatia and testifies to the reworking ofCaligula’s likenesses in the provinces. Seven otherimages, four female and three male were foundwith the Caligula/Augustus, including a togateportrait of Tiberius.90

Additional provincial representations of Augus-tus which have been recut from Caligula includeportraits in Condeixa-a-Nova (cat. 1.4),91 Copen-hagen (cat. 1.5; fig. 21a-d),92 Cuenca (cat. 1.6),93

Lisbon (cat. 1.7),94 Tomar (cat. 1.13),95 and Tunis(cat. 1.14, fig. 22a-c).96 These portraits cover abroad geographical spectrum: the Condeixa-a-Nova, Cuenca, and Tomar portraits testify to thereconfiguration of Caligula’s images into repre-

sentations of his great grandfather in Spain andPortugal, while the Copenhagen portrait, whichcomes from Sardis, attests to the practice in AsiaMinor, and the Tunis portrait for North Africa.In addition, the Copenhagen image containssome signs of aging, including light horizontalfurrows in the forehead and crows feet at theouter corners of the eyes, like the reconfiguredlikenesses in the Museo Capitolino and the Get-ty. The Lisbon portrait also exhibits indicationsof aging in its partially sunken cheeks and slightnaso-labial lines. The Tunis likeness has also beenreconfigured with superficial signs of aging suchas the horizontal furrow in the forehead andsuggestion of sunken cheeks. The Condeixa-a-Nova head belonged to a togate statue displayedin the Forum, whose base was discovered withit and may have represented the emperor capitevelato. The Cuenca portrait was apparently alsopublicly displayed in the Roman Theater atSegobriga, where it was excavated.

Caligula/Tiberius

Only one of Caligula’s images, in Frankfurt97

appears to have been altered retrospectively intoa representation of Tiberius (cat. 1.16). In theFrankfurt portrait the locks over the foreheadhave been entirely recut, but the remnants ofCaligula’s longer locks parted over the innercorner of the left eye are still clearly visible.Although the facial features themselves have beenslightly altered, the new image of Tiberius isremarkably youthful and generic. The portrait isveiled and originally commemorated Caligula’srole as pontifex maximus. Undoubtedly Tiberius’sown posthumous unpopularity accounts for thefact that this is the only one of Caligula’s por-traits to be refashioned into a likeness of his uncleand predecessor.

Caligula/Titus

Two portraits of Caligula which were not re-carved until the Flavian period provide impor-

88 Calig. 22.2.89 Divine or heroic images of Claudius created during

his reign include the statue of Claudius as Jupiter fromLanuvium (Musei Vaticani, Sala Rotonda, no. 550, inv.243, the bronze nude statue from Herculaneum (Naples,Museo Nazionale Archeologico) and the Claudius as Jupi-ter from the Metroon at Olympia (Archaeological Muse-um 7 125).

90 The whereabouts of the four female statues are nolonger known, C.B. Rose (1997) 135.

91 Museo Monográfico de Conimbriga, inv. 67.388.92 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 611, inv. 746.93 Museo Arquelógico Provincial el Almudi.94 Museu Nacional de Arquelogia e Etnologia, inv.

21520 A..95 Convento de Cristo.96 Musée du Bardo, C 72. 97 Frankfurt, Liebieghaus.

chapter two34

tant physical evidence for the warehousing ofCaligula’s sculpted images. These portraits, inArles (cat. 1.35; fig. 23)98 and Athens (cat. 1.36;fig. 24)99 must have been removed from publicdisplay and stored in secure locations until theywere refashioned into representations of the sec-ond Flavian emperor.100 The coiffure of the Arleslikeness, with central, part, has been retainedfrom the original image, a replica of Caligula’smain type. The chin has been substantially cutback in order to give the likeness the heavyunderchin which is a prominent feature of Titus’sportraiture. The Athens portrait was discoveredin Smyrna. The locks over the forehead alsoreproduce the arrangement of Caligula’s maintype, with central part. The idealized, classiciz-ing features of both heads, markedly differentfrom the more individualized likenesses of Titus,are remnants of the original portraits. The dis-parate find spots of these portraits further attestto the geographical scope of the sculptural trans-formation of Caligula’s images. Both portraits alsoprovide critical evidence for the warehousing ofthe images of condemned emperors. They are thefirst recut likenesses whose reconfigurations werenot carried out for over a generation followingan emperor’s condemnation. The Athens andArles portraits were clearly stored, likely in sculp-tural depots where they were accessible to sculp-tors for reuse several decades after their remov-al from public display.

Caligula/Claudius Gothicus(?)

One image of Caligula, now in the Levy-Whitecollection, was not recarved until the third cen-tury, when it was refashioned into a soldieremperor, perhaps Claudius Gothicus (cat. 1.37;fig. 25a-e).101 The portrait has been substantial-ly recut, but traces of Caligula’s main type coif-fure are clearly visible behind both ears. Thelocks over the forehead have been entirely refash-

ioned, as evidenced by chiseled surfaces directlybelow the corona civica. The eyes and facial fea-tures have also been completely refashioned. Abeard has been carved into the face, an exam-ple of negative modeling. The reduction of thevolume of the face has caused the corona to be toolarge in proportion to the rest of the head. Coinsof Claudius Gothicus depict him with a fullercoiffure combined with short military beard, asin the White-Levy head. Physiognomic details,like the low, broad forehead, shape of the bridgeof the nose, and long thin upper lip combinedwith full, receding lower lip present in the White-Levy portrait also find close parallels in the nu-mismatic portraits of Claudius Gothicus.102 TheWhite-Levy head is another important manifes-tation of the phenomenon of warehousing imagesfor extended periods, in this case over two cen-turies, prior to their reconfiguration.

Caligula/Deity

A head in Algiers formerly depicting Caligula isthe only surviving likeness of a condemned em-peror which seems clearly to have been trans-formed into the image of a deity (cat. 1.38).103

The head is colossal in scale and most of Caligu-la’s coiffure has been removed. Nevertheless,traces of the original hair are still visible on thenape of the neck. The shape of the mouth andbroad eyes are also Caligulan. The hair aroundthe face has been drastically worked away andholes drilled into the head for the attachment ofa wreath or perhaps radiate crown. The headcomes from Iol Caesarea the capital of Mauret-ania, making it possible that it has been refash-ioned into a representation of the city’s patronthe sun god, Sol.104

98 Musée Réattu, Cellar Depot.99 National Museum, Roman Collection, inv. 348.100 For a full discussion of Titus’s portrait typology, see

infra.101 New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection.

102 RIC 211-37, pl. 5.76-82, pl. 6.83-92.103 Museum.104 D. Kreikenbom has suggested that a fragmentary

and badly weathered Julio-Claudian portrait in Sardis(Depot, NOEX 60.12) may be a private portrait recut fromCaligula. The piece is too poorly preserved to secure anidentification as Caligula, or to be certain that it has, infact, been reworked, (1992) 223, no. 4.2.

caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla 35

The Removal of Caligula’s Images

Suetonius’s statement that Caligula’s images wereremoved on Claudius’s behest finds further sup-port in surviving unaltered portraits. Many arewell-enough preserved, or have archaeologicalcontexts which confirm that they were removedfrom public display and warehoused as a conse-quence of the unofficial condemnation. Indeed,as a group, the unreworked images of Caligulaare astonishingly well-preserved and, ironically,have largely escaped use as building material orbeing burned in medieval lime kilns because oftheir burial, disposal, or storage in secure loca-tions.

The find-spots of two portraits from Cumae,105

as well as North African likenesses in Sabratha106

and Tunis (fig. 26a-b)107 provide archaeologicalconfirmation for the storage of Caligula’s portraitsfollowing their removal from public display. Oneof the heads from Cumae is a replica of Caligu-la’s main type and was discovered in the “cryp-ta romana”. The nose of the portrait is missing,but there is little other damage. The head waslikely detached from its original context, andstored in the crypta following Caligula’s damna-tio.108 The other head from Cumae was discov-ered in 1952 at the south side of the Forum.109

The portrait is worked for insertion into a togatestatue and depicts Caligula with a corona civica.The likeness is likely to have been displayed in

the Forum or its environs during Caligula’s prin-cipate. After his downfall, the head was removedfrom its statue and stored in the area of theForum. The head from Sabratha is colossal inscale and was intended for an acrolithic statue,which formed part of the monumental decora-tion of the city’s basilica.110 Although the portraitis badly weathered, it preserves most of its fea-tures intact, including the nose. The other NorthAfrican image was discovered behind the so-called Temple of Fortuna Augusta at Mustis(modern El Krib) in the nineteenth century.111

The head is well preserved. The rims of the earsare broken off, as is the forepart of the nose.There are some abrasions on the brows, cheeks,and chin. Ostensibly, the portrait was removedfrom the statue into which it was inserted, andstored or buried in the vicinity of the templefollowing Caligula’s overthrow.

An over life-sized togate statue, a replica ofCaligula’s main type from Rome, and now inRichmond provides additional persuasive evi-dence for the removal and warehousing of theemperor’s likenesses.112 The portrait is carvedfrom a single block of Luna marble and is report-ed to have been discovered in the vicinity of theTheater of Marcellus at Rome.113 The headexhibits very little damage: the rims of both earsare chipped, the tip of the nose has broken off,and there are additional chips on the chin. Bothforearms are missing, as is the front of the leftfoot. In fact, major damage is limited to the frontof the statue which suggests that the image may

105 Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 150 226, h.0.245 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 62, n. 41, 69, 84, 100, 120,no. ?47, pl. 38.1-4 (with earlier literature).

Antiquario Flegreo, no. 68, h. 40 cm; D. Boschung (1989)29, note 19, 58-60, 87, note 193, 90, 117, no. 38, sketch31, pl. 33.1-4 (with earlier literature).

106 Museum, 650, h. O.72 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29,note 15, 35-38, 55, 63, 108, no. 6, sketch 6, pl. 6.1-4; D.Kreikenbom (1992) 195-6, no. 3.57, pl. 13d.

107 Institut National d’Archeologie et d’Art, formerly inCarthage, h. 0.48 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, note 12, 38-42, 50, 54-57, 110-11, no. 14, pl. 14.1-4 (with earlier lit-erature).

108 A portrait of Tiberius was also discovered in the“crypta,” and it is possible that the portrait of this unpop-ular emperor was also removed from display.

109 M.E. Bertoldi (1973) 42; D. Boschung (1989) 117.

110 The head was discovered during excavations of thebasilica. H. Sichtermann AA (1962) 505-6, 510-11; D. Bos-chung (1989) 108.

111 D. Boschung (1989) 110.112 Richmond, Virginia Art Museum, accession no. 71-

20, h. 2.032 m, head, 0.27 m.;.D. Boschung (1989) 29, n.12, 38, 53-55, 61, 89, 109-10, no. 11, sketch 11, pls. 11.1-4, 42.1-4, 43 (with earlier literature); H.R. Goette (1989)32, n. 138, 119, no. 106; N.H. and A. Ramage (1991) 110,fig. 4.8; The sculpture was on display at the Palazzo Col-onna in Rome until the end of the nineteenth century andwas purchased by the Virginia Museum in 1971.

113 Although there is a break in the neck, technicalanalysis has confirmed that the head does in fact belongwith the body, see, J. Ternbach (1974) 29.

chapter two36

have been violently overturned, just as CassiusDio reports in his account of the general confu-sion following Caligula’s murder.114 After it wastoppled the portrait must have been removedfrom public display and stored while awaitingsome form of reuse.115

A bust in Trieste was originally part of anothertogate likeness of Caligula carved from a singleblock of marble.116 The portrait belongs to theemperor’s main portrait type and appears to havebeen found in a fragmentary state and cut downto its current form in the modern period.117 Thelikeness may have been found at Aenona, like theheroic Caligula/Augustus in Zadar reworked toAugustus (cat. 1.15; fig. 20a-d). The brows arechipped, the tip of the nose is missing, the lipsare abraded. The chin contains some modernrestorations in plaster and there are chips to thesurfaces of the face and neck. It is possible thatthe original statue was toppled, like the Rich-mond togatus, and this may explain its damagedand fragmentary state. The fragments of the stat-ue may then have been stored for eventual re-use.

The fine state of preservation of numerousother images of Caligula, suggest that they, too,were removed from public view and ware-housed.118 This group of portraits consists of bustsin New York119 and Paris;120 heads worked forinsertion and now in, Los Angeles (fig. 27),121

Venice,122 and Worcester (fig. 28);123 and headswhich have been cut or broken in the area of theneck: in Copenhagen,124 New Haven (fig. 29),125

Paris,126 Schloss Fasanerie (fig. 30),127 and the

114 59.30a. See also, H. Jucker (1973) 19.115 In addition to the damage to the front of the stat-

ue, there is a deep chisel gouge where the base of the neckand upper chest border the toga along the right side as aresult of an attempt in antiquity to separate the neck andhead from the body and thus reuse the statue, see H. Jucker(1973) 19. The chips along the edges of the break in theneck, which Jucker identifies as chisel blows, appear muchtoo fresh to be part of any ancient damage to the statue.These chips are also fairly random, and are probably in-cidental damage, and not caused by chisel or hammerblows. The attempt to reuse the statue may have taken placein a sculptor’s workshop. And indeed, the reported find-spot of the piece lies in the Campus Martius, an area ofthe city in which has yielded much evidence for sculptors’workshops, A. Claridge (1998) 180. Most important in thecontext of damnatio memoriae is the site of the discovery ofthe Cancelleria reliefs, believed by many scholars to be asculptors’ or marble masons’ workshop. See F. Magi, (1945)54. In any event, the attempt to reuse the statue was aban-doned. Perhaps the damage to the portrait rendered itunsuitable and impracticable for reworking into a portraitsuitable for the new emperor, Claudius; and so the entirestatue must have been stored to await some other form ofreuse.

116 Museo Civico, inv. 2177, h. 0.52 m.; D. Boschung(1989) 29, 25, 37, 54-56, 89, 109, no. 9, sketch 9, pls. 9.1-4, 46.1.

117 D. Boschung (1989) 109.

118 A portrait from Cártama is so badly weathered thatit is impossible to determine whether the extensive dam-age to the facial features is the result of deliberate mutila-tion in antiquity, or simply incidental destruction; Mala-ga, Museo Arqueológico Provincial, inv. 553, h. 0.34 m.;D. Boschung (1988) 29, n. 12, 40-41, 52, 55, 57, 111, no.17, sketch 16, pl. 16.1-3 (with earlier literature).

119 Metropolitan Museum of Art, acc. no. 1914.37,Rogers Fund, h. 0.51 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 28, 29, 46,60-62, 86, 119, no. ?46, sketch 36, pls. 37.1-4, 47.1; H.Meyer (2000) 91, fig. 180.

120 Musée du Louvre, MA 1234, h. 0.47 m.; D. Bos-chung (1989) 29, 38-39, 54-56, 72, 87, 100, 110, no. 13,sketch 13, pls. 13.1-4, 46.4 (with previous literature).

121 J. Paul Getty Museum, acc. no. 72 AA 155, h. 0.43.m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, note 12, 38-9, 53-57, 90, 110,no. 12, sketch 12, pl. 12.1-4 (with earlier literature); H. Bornand K. Stemmer (1996) 97, fig. 41; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000)96-99, cat. 4.

122 Museo Archeologico, inv. 142, h. 0.42 m.; D. Bos-chung (1989) 28, 32, 36, 46, 53-56, 61, 63, 108, no. 4, pl.4.1-4 (with earlier literature); I. Favoretto and G.L. Rav-agna, eds. (1997) 208, no. 76.

123 Worcester Museum of Art, acc. no. 1914.23; h. 0.486m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, 43-45, 51, 52, 55-57, 60-61,72, 90, 112, no. 20, sketch 19, pls. 20, 21.1-4 (with earlierliterature); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 126, fig. 102; H. Meyer(2000) 94, figs. 185-86. Although this portrait has beendated to the Neronian period by Jucker ([1973] 20) its styleis perfectly consonant with other Caligulan pieces, espe-cially the Getty and Venice heads.

124 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 637a, Inv. 2687; h. O.31m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, 41-, 51, 52-3, 54-, 60, 86, 100,111-12, no. 18, sketch 17, pls. 17, 18.1-4 (with earlier lit-erature); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127, fig. 104; F. Johansen(1994) 1, 136-7, no. 56, (with figs., with previous literature);H. Meyer (2000) 96, fig. 195.

125 Acc. no. 1987.70.1, h. 0.33 m.; D. Boschung (1989)29, note 1, 58-60, 116-117, no. 37, sketch 30, pls. 31, 32.1-3 (with earlier literature); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127, fig.103; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 96-99, cat. 5.

126 MA 1267, h. 0.33 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 28, note2, 29, note 11, 32-5, 53-55, 61, 63, 107, no. 2, sketch 2,pl. 2.1-4. The head is currently mounted on a seated to-gate statue to which it does not belong.

127 FAS.ARP 21, h. 0.365 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29,n. 11, 32-36, 53-55, 60-61, 63, 108, no. 5, sketch 5, pl. 5.1-

caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla 37

Villa Albani,128 as well as a miniature bronze bustdepicting the emperor with bare chest and palu-damentum, atop a globe in Brooklyn (fig. 31)129 andtwo miniature bronze heads in the MetropolitanMuseum of Art (figs. 32-33).130 The New Yorkbust, a version of Caligula’s secondary type wasdiscovered (together with the head worked for in-sertion in Worcester [fig. 28]) in an area of im-perial holdings at Marino near Lake Albano. Thebust is extraordinarily well-preserved, with dam-age limited to the rim of the left ear. Most of theancient surfaces are intact. Likewise, the Worces-ter head (also a replica of the secondary type ) isin a similarly fine state of preservation, withdamage essentially limited to the rim of the rightear.131 Claudius would have had no reason tocontinue to display images of Caligula on theimperial estates. Both portraits may have beenremoved and stored together, thus ensuring theirprotection. The Louvre bust, a replica of themain type, is reputedly from Thrace and exhib-its the light beard of mourning which Caligulaadopted after the death of his sister Drusilla on6 October 38. Also uncommonly well-preserved,it is likely to have been removed from public viewand warehoused in a secure location followingCaligula’s assassination.132

Two other heads worked for insertion, now inLos Angeles and Venice, are also singularly well-

preserved. As part of the Grimani bequest of1586, the Venice portrait is likely to be fromRome or its vicinity where, judging from itsimpressive scale and workmanship, it was animportant public commemoration of Caligula.133

The Malibu likeness, said to be from Asia Mi-nor, is worked for insertion into a togate imageof the emperor. It, too, is so well preserved thatit must have been removed from its statue bodyand warehoused in safe location.134

The portraits in Copenhagen, New Haven,Paris, and the Schloss Fasanerie are also so well-preserved that they are likely to have beenwarehoused or buried following Caligula’s over-throw.135 Formerly part of the Campana Collec-tion, the Paris portrait is said to have come fromRome. The head in the Schloss Fasanarie is alsofrom Italy, and its high artistic quality, as wellas that of the Copenhagen portrait, may indicatea metropolitan Roman provenance for both piec-es.136 The Copenhagen likeness even preservesthe painted pupils, irises, and lashes of the lefteye, further underscoring the likelihood of itsstorage in a protected location following its re-moval from public display. In contrast, the Yalehead which was discovered near the Ponte Mil-vio in Rome, is covered by extensive root marks,suggesting that it may have been buried at somepoint after Caligula’s overthrow.137 Although notas well preserved as the preceding images, a

4 (with previous literature). D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127.128 Portico, no. 54, h. 0.26 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 111,

no. 15 (with earlier literature). R. Bol (1990) 148-51, no.192, pls. 86-89.

129 Brooklyn Museum, Department of Ancient Art, acc.no. 21.479.12, h. 0.142 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 120, no.?48 (with previous literature); E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 102-3, cat. 9, with fig.

130 23.162.23, h. 0.255 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 115, no.31, pls. 28.1-4, 47.2; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 102-3, no. 7,with figs.; and 25.78.35, h. 0.068 m.; D. Boschung (1989)114-15, no. 29, pl. 26.5-8; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 102-3,no. 8.

131 D. Boschung sees this portrait as a reflection of themain type ([1988] 43-5) but it should rather be groupedwith the secondary type, as the part occurs at the far leftof the forehead.

132 There is some damage to the rims of both ears, nowrepaired in plaster. A section of the back of the head, atthe left is missing, and may have been worked separately.The bust is cracked across the upper chest. The draperywhich covered the left shoulder is no longer extant, andmay have been worked separately.

133 The Venice portrait, currently mounted on a mod-ern bust, is well over life-sized. Modern restorations to thehead include the rims of the right ear, most of the left ear,the tip of the nose, and the lower lip. The portrait has alsobeen subjected to an extensive modern cleaning. The an-cient sculpture in the Grimani collection was largely ac-quired in Rome where the family had a vigna and a resi-dence on the Quirinal, in the vicinity of the later PalazzoBarberini. Presumably some of the ancient sculpture camefrom their vigna. On the Grimani and their collection, seeI. Favoretto (1990) 84-92.

134 The head has suffered very minor damage, includ-ing chipping of the rims of both ears, and abrasions on thetip of the nose and chin.

135 The damage to all three portraits is limited in na-ture; remarkably, as in so many of the warehoused por-traits of Caligula, the noses are intact.

136 Despite the fact that the Copenhagen piece waspurchased in Istanbul, it has been recognized as a prod-uct of a metropolitan Roman workshop. See C.C. Vermeule(1967) 387, no. 2, and F. Johansen (1987) 97.

137 I would like to thank Dr. Susan B. Matheson, Cu-

chapter two38

portrait in Fossombrone exhibits no signs that itwas intentionally mutilated in antiquity and wasalso almost certainly removed from public displayand perhaps warehoused after Caligula’s over-throw.138 In addition, the miniature bronze bustin Brooklyn may have originally been displayedin a public or domestic shrine from which itcertainly would have been removed following theemperor’s assassination.

The removal of Caligula’s images is also at-tested at the Julio-Claudian Basilica at Velleia,where a likeness of Caligula was replaced by oneof Claudius (cat. 1.27; fig. 34a-b).139 The trans-formation presents a nearly identical scenario tothat of the group dedication at Rusellae. C. B.Rose has persuasively argued that the Basilicawas originally constructed under Caligula, atwhich time portraits of Augustus, Tiberius, Ger-manicus, Tiberius Gemellus, Caligula, Drusilla,Agrippina Maior, and Livia were created.140

Drusilla’s statue, apparently posthumous and de-picting her with a “Demeter/Kore” body type,is now headless but was accompanied by an in-scription proclaiming her status as Diva.141 The

surviving portrait of Claudius is the tallest in thecycle and exhibits many signs that it is a substi-tution for an earlier head.142 The tenon of thecurrent head of Claudius does not fit closely intothe body, leaving a visible gap between neck andchest. A large chunk of marble which is missingfrom the toga at the area of the back of the neckand the top of the shoulders provides furthercrucial evidence; chipping in this area has beencaused by hammer blows, prompting C. Salettito conclude that the original portrait was carvedall of one piece of marble and that the head wasknocked from the statue by blows from therear.143 This damage is not visible from the front.All of the portraits from Velleia are very flat andsummarily worked at the back, confirming thatthey were not intended to be seen from the rear.Following Caligula’s death, his portrait was at-tacked, perhaps disfigured, and eventually thehead was severed from the body and a mortis wasprepared in the chest to receive the new, sepa-rately worked likeness of Claudius.

In contrast to those portraits whose fine statesof preservation indicate that they were stored insecure locations, the archaeological find spots offive images of Caligula suggest that they weredisposed of in a much more violent manner. Aportrait in Huelva was discovered among thedebris of a Roman well in Tharsis.144 The badlycorroded surfaces of the head indicate that it hassuffered long immersion in the water of the well,

rator of Ancient Art of the Yale University Art Gallery forallowing me access to the file on the Yale Caligula whichincludes information on its provenance in correspondencefrom the late Frank Brown, the former owner of the por-trait.

138 Museo, h. 0.33 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12,38, 58-60, 87, n. 193, 100-101, 117, no. 39, sketch 32, pl.34.1-4 (with previous literature); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127.

139 Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichitá, no. 1, inv. 280(1870), 834 (1952).

140 C.B. Rose (1997) 122-3. An additional togate por-trait, often identified as L. Calpurnius Piso, also seems tobe part of this initial phase (Parma, Museo Nazionaled’Antichità, inv. 835). Rose intriguingly suggests that thisportrait may have been recut from a representation ofDrusus Caesar, the son of Germanicus, into Nerva (1997)124 . However, the coiffure of the portrait exhibits noneof the principal characteristics of Nerva’s hairstyle in iden-tified original and reworked image. The physiognomy alsoexhibits no close parallels to extant portraits, and the shapeof the face of the Velleia portrait is much more square thanmost of Nerva’s images. C. Saletti had originally proposeda Tiberian date for the initial phase of the Basilica (deco-rated by portraits of Augustus, Tiberius [?], Drusus Maior,Drusus Minor, Lucius Calpurnius Piso, and Livia), followedby the addition of three more statues under Caligula(Caligula, his mother, Agrippina Maior, and his sister,Drusilla [1968] 87-90).

141 DIVAE DRUSIL [LAE]/GERMANI [CI]/ CAE-

SARI [S F](ILIAE), C. Saletti (1968) 68; C.B. Rose (1997)122.

142 C. Saletti (1968) 45-7; H. Jucker (1973) 19, n. 6.143 C. Saletti (1968) 46. C.B. Rose has proposed that

the head itself has in fact been recut from Caligula intoClaudius (1997) 122. He bases this on the “proportions ofthe head and relative placement of the facial features(which) match the portraits of Caligula (while) the bangs,lips, nose and forehead have been recut to conform to thephysiognomy of his successor.” However, I can see no overtsigns that the head has been recut (there, are, for instanceno discernible traces of Caligula’s coiffure) and while thesmaller proportions of the head would support Rose’s ar-gument, it seems more likely, given the poor fit of the tenonand mortis and the high join between the sections of veilat the left, that Saletti and Jucker are correct and the headis an ex novo creation for a statue that was originally carvedfrom a single block of marble.

144 Museo Provincial, h. 0.402 m.; D. Boschung (1989)

caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla 39

into which it may have been thrown as an actof denigration against the overthrown princeps.Similarly, four miniature images of Caligula aresaid to have come from the Tiber and they mayhave been hurled into the river in order to de-fame Caligula’s memory. The deliberately dam-aged cuirassed bust, discussed above, is report-ed to have been discovered in the Tiber, as is alsothe case with a bronze bust which portrays theemperor with bare chest and paludamentum, (fig.35)145 The disposal of these busts in the Tiber isa forceful statement of denigration rendered thatmuch more dramatic by the fact that the bronzefrom which they were fashioned was inherentlyvaluable and it would certainly have been morepractical and economical to melt them down. Afourth miniature bust, also with bare chest andpaludamentum, but in marble, was found in theTiber in 1886 during construction of the river’sembankments (fig. 36).146 The small scale of thisbust, with little available marble for recarving,may also account for its having been discardedrather than reused.

It is certainly significant that almost half ofCaligula’s surviving miniature portraits are reput-edly from the Tiber. On account of their minia-ture format, many of these busts can be associ-ated with sacra privata, as decoration for householdlararia, or with sacra publica, as part of the wor-ship of the emperor’s genius.147 As such, theseminiature images are powerful symbols imbued

29, note 12, 40-41, 52, 55-56, 90, 111, no. 16, sketch 15,pl. 15.1-4; M. Donderer (1991-2) 264, no. 9.

145 New York, White Levy Collection (formerly Zurich,Coll. R. Schinz-Rüesch); H. 0.199 m.; D. Boschung (1989)29, 46, 48-9, 54-57, 60 72, 92, 93, 100, 114, no. 27, sketch,27, pls. 25.1-4, 46.2 (with previous literature).

146 Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massi-mo alle Terme, inv. 4256, h. 0.16. m.; B. Di Leo, Mus-NazRom I.9.1 141-43, no. R98; D. Boschung (1989) 41-44,51, 54-57, 60, 72, 86, 92, 100, 112, no. 19, pls. 19.1-4, 46.3(with previous literature); M. Donderer (1991-2) 222, n. 126;B. Germini in A. La Regina, ed. (1998) 48 (with fig.).The treatment of the facial features, especially in the de-tails of the narrow pointed chin and shape of the mouththe mouth with overbite are nearly identical to a minia-ture bronze bust of Caligula’s sister, Agrippina Minor,created during the reign of Claudius (Chieti, Museo, with-out inv. no.).

147 B. di Leo, MusNazRom 9.1, 143. For the associationof miniature busts with sacra publica see B. Schneider (1979)

with religious meaning. Following his downfall in41, it would no longer have been permissible oreven desirable to display portraits of Caligula ineither sacra privata or sacra publica.148 The act ofhurling images of Caligula into the Tiber was ademonstrative way of blackening the murderedprinceps’ memory, canceling any devotional as-pects of the portrait, and at the same time ex-pressing loyalty to Claudius and his new regime.Furthermore, the violent disposal of these bustsis charged with overtones of poena post mortem,associated with the disposal (and denial of prop-er burial) of the corpses of capital offenders, noxiikilled in the arena, and later, even certain con-demned emperors.149 Water also functioned as atraditional place for the disposal of polluted orthreatening objects rejected by society; further-more, salt water was held to have properties es-pecially efficacious in purifying accursed objects,and, as D.G. Kyle notes, the Tiber eventuallydeposited any items thrown into it in the sea.150

As is the case with the miniature busts and thehead in Huelva, the weathered states of portraitsin Athens151 and Málaga152 suggests that they

31. For the association of miniature busts with sacra privatasee L. Polacco (1955) 185.

148 In addition, H. Jucker has suggested that the smallbronze cuirassed bust which has been deliberately attackedwith a hammer, may have originally topped a legionarystandard (cat. 1.3). As such, it may have been damaged andthrown into the Tiber during the demonstrations whichoccurred in the brief period of disquiet preceding the ac-clamation of Claudius, H. Jucker (1982)113.

149 On the disposal of corpses of dead noxii and capitaloffenders in the Tiber, see D.G. Kyle (1993) 306; D.G. Kyle(1998) 213-28. After Ceasar’s assassination, certain Sena-tors wished to have his body dragged through the streetsand thrown in the Tiber (Suet. Iul. 82.4). Following thedeath of Tiberius, the disaffected common people of Romewanted to throw his body into the Tiber, shouting “Tibe-rium in Tiberim” (Suet.Tib. 75.1). Vitellius’s corpse was, infact thrown in the Tiber and there was an unsuccessfulattempt to do the same thing with the body of Commo-dus after his murder (Suet. Vit. 17.2; HA. Comm. 18-19, andinfra.). The remains of Elagabalus were dragged throughthe Circus Maximus and the streets of Rome and ultimatelystuffed into the sewers which emptied into the Tiber (HA.Elag. 17.6, and infra.).

150 D.G. Kyle (1998) 214.151 National Museum, Warehouse, inv. 3590, h. 0.26

m.; D. Boschung (1989) 35, 37-39, 53-55, 109, no. 10,sketch 10, pl. 10.1-4 (with earlier literature).

152 Museo Arqueológico Provincial, inv. 553, h. 0.34 m.;

chapter two40

were not stored in secure locations, but discard-ed in a more summary fashion following Caligu-la’s death, The Athens head is broken off at thearea of the chin and there is further damage tothe forehead, brows, nose, cheeks and lips. Thefacial features of the head in Málaga, discoveredat Cártama, have been substantially obliteratedthrough weathering.

A representation of Caligula in relief, now inTrieste, has also survived.153 The fragmentaryrelief, from Kula in East Lydia, depicts Caligulaon a rearing horse and a standing figure ofGermania. The inscription reads:

'"4\å 'gD:"<46è "ÛJ@- 'gD:"<\"6DVJ@D4 5"\F"D4 6"2g4gDäJ"4B"̄H Ò *0:`F4H J`B@H

The relief attests to Caligula’s commemorationin the remote provinces. As the inscription is noterased, it is likely that the relief was removed fromdisplay following his overthrow. A pharaonicimage of Caligula and accompanying cartouchehave also survived at Dendera.154

In addition to the surviving images in marbleand bronze, at least fourteen cameo or intaglioportraits of Caligula are extant. The gems depictCaligula in a variety of attributes and attireincluding the laurel crown of the triumphator,155

cuirass and laurel crown,156 and capite velato withscepter.157 These glyptic likenesses may survive

as a result of their value as gems, which precludedthem from being destroyed, as well as the diffi-culty inherent in recutting them as attested by theCaligula/Claudius chalcedony cameo in Vienna(cat. 1.33). Imperial portrait gems functioned aspresentation pieces, and it is possible that the gemportraits of Caligula remained in private collec-tions and perhaps were even valued as curiosi-ties or souvenirs of an unpopular and infamousreign.158 A chalcedony cameo of Caligula en-throned with the goddess Roma (or possiblyDrusilla in the guise of Roma) in Vienna159 ap-pears to have been copied in antiquity as evi-denced by a blue glass cameo in the DumbartonOaks Collection (fig. 39).160 Boyhood likenessesof Caligula are also presumably preserved on theblue glass phalerae distributed to the troops of hisfather Germanicus. The phalerae depict bustlength portraits of Germanicus, together withsmall busts of three children, likely includingCaligula.161 As the primary honorand in thesephalerae is Germanicus, the three children withGermanicus are generic, often indistinguishablein terms of gender and coiffure, and thus it is notsurprising that there has been no attempt todestroy them our cancel out the representationsof Caligula.162 However, more mature portraits

D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12, 40-41, 52, 55, 57, 111, no.17, sketch 16, pl. 16.1-3 (with earlier literature).

153 Museo Civico, inv. 2228, 0.63 x 0.60 m.; D. Bos-chung (1989) 92, 120-21, no. 51, pl. 40.3 (with earlier lit-erature).

154 D. Boschung (1989) 92-121, no. 52 (with earlier lit-erature).

155 Florence, Museo Archeologico, onyx, inv. 14539; A.Giuliano (1989) 239, no. 165, with figs.; Florence, MuseoArcheologico, inv. 14540, onyx, A. Giuliano (1989) 239,no. 166, with figs.; Ionides Collection, onyx, 0.013 x 0.011m.; Boschung (1989) 116, no. 35, pl. 30.3; and Switzerland,Private Collection, sardonyx, h. 0.02 m.; Boschung (1989)117-8, no. 41.

156 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 11.195.7,onyx, 0.043 x 0.0305 m.; Boschung (1989) 115, no. 32, pl.29.1-2, E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 112-13, cat. 13.

157 Musei Vaticani, Biblioteca, inv. 5268, sardonyx,

0.049 x 0.038 m.; Boschung (1989) 115-6, no. 33, pl. 29.3.158 On gem collecting in Rome, see Pliny, NH 37.11;

J.M. Padgett (1995) 3-22.159 Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. IX a 59, h. 11 cm.,

w. 10 cm.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12, 51-2, 69, 72, 87-88, 92, 95-6, 100, 116, no. 34, pl. 30.1-2 (with previousliterature); T. Mickoki (1995) 184, no. 226, pl. 23; H. Meyer(2000) 67, 81, figs. 130, 164, 169; S. Walker and P. Higgs,eds. (2000) 186-7, no. 3.45 (with figs) (with earlier litera-ture).

160 Acc. no. 46.10, H. 14 cm.; G.M.A. Richter (1956)66-9, no. 47, pl. 23.a (probably ancient); F. Eichler (1970)71; H. Kyrieleis (1970) 492-8, figs. 2 & 7 (ancient); G.M.A.Richter (1971) 101, no. 485; W.R. Megow (1987) 185; D.Boschung (1989) 121, no. *55 (not ancient); E.R.Varner,ed. (2000) 112-3, no. 14, with fig.

161 For example, London, British Museum, PRB 1870.2-24.2 and Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. AS XIB8; D. Boschung (1987) 248-54, nos. 35-42, figs. 7-9, 11-12, 83-91; C.B. Rose (1997) 24, pl. 16.

162 Although D. Boschung has suggested that thesephalerae depict Claudius with his three children, they rath-er appear to represent Germanicus, probably with his threesons, Nero and Drusus Caesar, and Caligula, (1987) 248-54.

caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla 41

of Caligula do survive on at least two phaleraecreated during his reign.163 They lack securearchaeological contexts, but they may have sim-ply been discarded after his overthrow. A min-iature seated cuirassed statue in green chalcedonymay also have originally represented Caligula,judging from its style and the type of cuirass withcingulum.164 The image is headless and lacks itslower legs and arms. If it indeed depicted Caligu-la, some of the statuette’s damage may have beenthe result of intentional disfigurement at the timeof the damnatio.

Caligula’s name was erased in inscriptions,canceling his epigraphic identity in a manneranalogous to the removal of his portraits frompublic display. Claudius removed his predeces-sor’s name from the Theater of Pompey, whoserestoration had been completed under Caligu-la.165 In one instance, Caligula’s name and titleswere even replaced by those of Claudius (just ashis sculpted portraits were replaced by, or re-carved to, images of Claudius): on an inscriptionfrom an arch at Thugga in North Africa, con-structed to honor Caligula, his name and titleshave been replaced by those of Claudius.166 There-inscription was executed so hastily that Clau-dius is given the praenomen Imperator which henever actually used.167 Other erased inscriptionsare known from Milan, Bologna, Pompeii, Dal-matia, Samos, Alexandria, and Cyzicus.168 A very

unusual example of the erasure and recutting ofa Caligulan inscription was discovered at theTheater at Thera.169 The inscription, belongingto statue base apparently from the theater’s scaenaefrons, has been erased and recut in honor of Ves-pasian. The Caligulan statue base was original-ly part of a group dedication which included theemperor’s parents, Germanicus and AgrippinaMaior.170 Caligula’s name is not erased on theirstatue bases and the erasure of his own inscrip-tion (and removal of the accompanying portrait?)may not have occurred immediately after Caligu-la’s overthrow, and perhaps not until Vespasian’sprincipate.171 Caligula’s name is allowed to re-main in certain other inscriptions as well, includ-ing the epitaph of Agrippina Maior from theMausoleum of Augustus, which suggests that theexcision of his name was not always a necessarycomponent of the condemnation.172 Two bound-ary tones from Dalmatia illustrate the ambigu-ous treatment of Caligula’s inscriptional identi-ty: in one his name has been erased,173 and inthe other it has been left intact.174 The rathersparse evidence for epigraphic erasure further un-derscores the fact that Caligula’s portraits werethe primary targets of the damnatio.

Other forms of denigration included Claudi-us’s refusal to complete some of Caligula’s build-ing products, such as the amphitheater begunnear the Saepta Julia in Rome.175 Claudius alsopiously discontinued the Caligula’s purported useof the Temple of Castor and Pollux as a vesti-bule or annex which allowed access from theForum to the imperial buildings on the Pa-latine.176 Claudius repaired the Aqua Virgo,

163 London, British Museum, 1972.1-26-1; inv. PS284008, diam. 3.7 cm. D. Boschung (1987) 243-5, no. 26,figs. 72-3; C.B. Rose 35, pl. 23; Mainz, Romanisch-Ger-manisches Zentral Museum, B. 30431, diam. 3.8 cm.; D.Boschung (1987) 243-5, no. 37, fig 74 (from south Nori-cum or north Pannonia?.

164 The Art Museum, Princeton University, Loan ; J.M.Padgett (1995) 9, fig. 7; H. Meyer (2000) 88-91.

165 In A.D. 21, the theater was burned (Heiron. a.Abr.2037); restoration was begun by Tiberius (Tac.Ann 3.72;Vell.Pat. 2.130.1); Caligula completed the restoration (Suet.Calig. 21) and Claudius dedicated it (Suet. Claud.21.1; Dio60.6.8); Dio (60.6.8) reports that Claudius placed the nameof Pompey once again upon the theater, which suggests thatCaligula replaced Pompey’s name with his own when hecompleted the restoration. see also, A. Barrett (1989)178and L. Richardson, jr. (1992), “Theatrum Pompeii,” 384.

166 L. Poinsott (1913) 45, n. 35; A. Barrett (1989)178,n. 31.

167 M. Stuart (1939) 611.168 A. Barrett (1989)178, note 31; Milan (ILS 194),

Bologna (ILS 5674), Pompeii (ILS 6396), Dalmatia (ILS

5948); Samos (IGR 4.1721), Alexandria (IGR 1.1057), andCyzicus (IGR 4.146).

169 IG 12.3, suppl. 1294; C.B. Rose (1997) 160-1, cat.97.

170 IG 12.3 suppl. 1392-3; C.B. Rose (1997) 160.171 C.B. Rose (1997) 160.172 CIL 6.886.173 CIL 3.8472 = ILS 5948; C.W. Hedrick (2000) 112.174 CIL 3.9832 = ILS 5949; C.W. Hedrick (2000) 112.175 Suet. Calig. 21; E.S. Ramage (1983) 205; L. Rich-

ardson, jr. (1992) 6-7.176 Dio.60.6.8; Recent archaeological excavation in the

area of S. Maria Antiqua seems to confirm this; see: H.Hurst, G. Morganti, and F. Scoppola (1986) 470-78; H.Hurst (1988) 13-17; A. Barrett (1989) 209, n. 57; H. Hurst

chapter two42

which was claimed to have fallen into disrepairunder Caligula, a fact explicitly mentioned in aninscription commemorating the Claudian repairs:Aquae Virginis disturbatos per C. Caesarem.177 Ancientauthors such as Suetonius generally classifyCaligula’s building projects as tyrannical excesses.For instance, Suetonius’s accounts of Caligula’ssacrilegious remodeling of the Temple of Castorand Pollux in the Forum Romanum as a vesti-bule for his Palace on the Palatine, or the bridgehe constructed to link the residences on thePalatine with the Temple of Jupiter OptimusMaximus on the Capitoline may be intentional-ly distorted or misinterpreted to reflect Caligu-la’s tyrannical nature.178 In addition, Claudius’sown choice of coin types may have been subtlydesigned to defame the memory of Caligula.179

The Continued Display of Caligula’s Images

In stark contrast to those portraits of Caligulawhich were mutilated, recut, or warehoused asa result of his overthrow, the archaeological con-text of certain images strongly suggests that theywere allowed to remain on public view in groupdedications. One of these likenesses, now in Iesi(fig. 40)180 formed part of Caligulan dynasticcommemoration at ancient Aesis, which includ-ed representations of Augustus181 and Tiberius.182

The portraits, worked for insertion, were discov-ered in 1784 in the courtyard of the Conventodi S. Floriano together with fragments of fivetogate statues, 2 draped female statues, and sev-

eral inscriptions.183 Although the portrait ofCaligula is broken into two pieces and a largechunk of marble is missing from the left side ofthe head, the facial features are entirely intact andthe image has not been intentionally disfigured.The flat back of the head indicates that it orig-inally depicted the emperor capite velato in his roleas pontifex maximus.

A second image of Caligula, from Gortyna onCrete also formed part of a dynastic group andappears to have remained on public view.184 Thehead, worked for insertion into a draped statuecapite velato, was discovered during the excavationsof the Agora at Gortyna, carried out by theArchaeological Institute of America in 1893-94in the area of the “Great Inscription.” It wasfound with representation of Tiberius,185 Livia186

and Gaius Caesar,187 all similarly worked forinsertion. The portraits are remarkably well-pre-served and essentially intact. The fine state ofpreservation of the Caligulan likeness and itsdiscovery together with the other Julio-Claudi-an portraits, indicates that it, like the Iesi image,is unlikely to have been removed at the time ofCaligula’s damnatio. The entire group is Caligu-lan in date and must have decorated the agoraor an adjacent public building.188

in E. M. Steinby, ed. (1995) 106-8 (Domus Gai).177 ILS 205, E.M. Smallwood (1967) 83, no. 308 b, and

E.S. Ramage (1983) 205, and A. Barrett (1989) 178.178 Suet. Calig. 22.2. C. Edwards (1993) 146-7; see also

Suet.Calig. 37.2-3 for Caligula’s other extravagant build-ing programs.

179 E.S. Ramage (1983) 202-6.180 Palazzo della Signoria, h. 0.34 m.; D. Boschung

(1989) 29, n. 14, 35-6; 54-56, 63, 89, 96, 108-9, no. 7, sketch7, pl. 7.1-4 (with earlier literature);C.B. Rose (1997) 81, cat.1, pl. 57.

181 D. Boschung (1993a) 40, 47-8, 66, 72, 154, no. 105,pl. 86, 149.1; C.B. Rose (1997) 81, cat. 1, pl. 55.

182 C.B. Rose (1997) 81, cat. 1, pl. 56; see also H. Jucker(1981a) 262-66.

183 CIL 11.6199-6202.184 Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 64, h. 0.393

m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, 32-6, 52-57; 61, 63, 89, 98-99, 107, no. 1, sketch 1, pl. 1.1-4 (with earlier literature);H.R. Goette (1989) 34, n. 147c; Rose (1997) 152-3, cat.no. 85, pl. 194.

185 Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 65, h. 0.43m.; D. Boschung (1989) 107; Rose (1997) 152-3, cat. 85,pl. 195.

186 Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 67, h. 0.40m.; D. Boschung (1989) 107; Rose (1997) 152-3, cat. 85,pl. 196.

187 Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 66, h. 0.442m.; D. Boschung (1989) 98-99, 107; Rose (1997) 152-3, cat.85, pl. 197.

188 L. Fabbrini (1966-7) 142. According to Fabbrini, theoriginal statue body for which the head of Caligula wasintended may also have been discovered at Gortyna. Therear portion of a togate statue, whose size and style arecomparable to the portrait of Caligula, and three cuirassedtorsos of Julio-Claudian date are known from old photo-graphs once belonging to R. Paribeni. (1966-67) n. 55. Thehead of Gaius appears to be Augustan in date, but trans-formed in the Caligulan period into a veiled portrait to con-

caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla 43

The Agora at Gortyna also yielded anotherwell preserved image of Caligula, a full lengthveiled togate portrait.189 A replica of the maintype, the Gortyna statue is carved from a singleblock of marble and exhibits very little damage.Much of the nose, which was worked as a sepa-rate piece, is missing, both forearms are gone, andthe tip of the right foot is also missing. There arechips and abrasions to the drapery. In view ofthe evidence of the Gortyna group dedicationwith Tiberius, Livia and Gaius, the togate stat-ue may also have continued to be displayedpublicly after the damnatio.190 If this is indeed thecase, the Cretan portraits and the Iesi likenessunderscore the great degree of autonomy whichindividual cities possessed in responding to direc-tives from the capital concerning Caligula’s un-official damnatio as sanctioned by Claudius. Theseimages may have escaped removal in part be-cause they belonged to series of imperial portraitsand the series itself as a representation of impe-rial continuum was often deemed to be of moreimportance than the eradication of any individ-ual member from the series whose memory hadbeen disgraced and dishonored.191 In addition,the survival of Caligula’s representations on Cretefurther suggests that the de facto damnatio was notrigidly enforced on the island.192 In general, thecontinued display of Caligula’s images as part ofa group dedications may have been intended tosignal the uninterrupted dynastic stability of theJulio-Claudians. In addition, because Caligula’sdamnatio was not officially mandated (at leastoutside the realm of the coinage), municipalitieslocated at some distance from the capital mayhave enjoyed greater latitude in their responseto and treatment of the emperor’s images, justas they were free to honor the emperor and his

family with portrait dedications on their owninitiative.

A portrait of Caligula discovered at ancientLuna in Italy together with a representation ofa Julio-Claudian female presents more ambigu-ous evidence concerning its removal or contin-ued display (fig. 41).193 The head is worked forinsertion. Although the rims of both ears arebroken, the brows have been damaged, as has thechin, and most of the nose has broken away, thereis no evidence that the image has been intention-ally mutilated. The female head is most likely arepresentation of Diva Drusilla, depicted withdiadem and infula.194 The portrait is very simi-lar to an image of Drusilla in New York, althoughit omits the characteristic pin curls which framethe face in all other images of Drusilla.195 Bothportraits may have been removed from theiroriginal statues following Caligula’s assassination,although Drusilla’s images seem to have gener-ally been allowed to remain in group dedications,as for instance at Caere, Otricoli, and Velleia.A third portrait representing Agrippina Maior,simplified in its forms like the possible Drusilla,appears to be from the same workshop and mayhave been part of the same dedication, althoughit was not found with the other two. Possibly, theCaligula and Drusilla were removed and ware-housed, while the Agrippina remained on view,thus accounting for the dissociation. Alternatively,all three images may have continued to be dis-played publicly, like those from Gortyna. Thefemale portrait probably depicting Drusilla hasalso been associated with Livia. If Livia, it hasbeen deliberately fashioned to resemble her great-granddaughter Drusilla.196 Although it is less like-

form with the other male images, C.B. Rose (1997) 153.189 Gortyna, Antiquarium, h. 2.04 m.; D. Boschung

(1989) 29, note 12, 35-37; 52, 54-57, 63, 89, 109, no. 8,sketch 8, pls. 8.1-3 and 41.1-2 (with earlier literature); H.R.Goette (1989) 34, n. 147 b, 38, n. 176, 119, no. 105, pl.7.6.

190 L. Fabbrini, (1966-7) 140; H. Jucker (1973) 19.191 See S.R.F. Price (1984) 161-2 for the imperial se-

ries at Boubon which does not seem to have been disturbedby damnationes.

192 L. Fabbrini (1966-67) 142-43.

193 Genoa-Pegli, Museo, inv. 614; h. 0.295 m.; A. Fro-va (1988) 307; D. Boschung (1989) 29, n 12, 32-35, 53-55,61, 63, 107-108, no. 3, sketch 3, pls. 3.1-4 (with previousliterature); C.B. Rose (1997) 94, cat. 20, pl. 84.

194 Genoa-Pegli, Museo Civico, inv. 609; C.B. Rose(1997) 94, no. 20, p. 85.

195 Hispanic Society; S Wood (1995) 475-6, figs. 22-3.The Geno-Pegli head exhibits the same long almond shapedeyes, similar mouth and over all configuration of the faceas the New York portrait.

196 Both S. Wood (1999) 223-5, 239-40 and E. Bartman(1999) 223, no. 11 assign the portrait to Drusilla. Woodfeels that the diadem and infula help secure the identifica-

chapter two44

ly that the portrait represents Livia rather thanDrusilla, an identification as Livia would stronglysuggest that both portraits did indeed remain ondisplay.

J. Pollini has recently proposed that a statueof an imperial genius from Pozzuoli was intend-ed specifically as a representation of Caligula’sgenius.197 The coiffure does contain the centralpart of Caligula’s main portrait type, and thefacial features, although very idealized, might wellreflect Caligula’s physiognomy. However, theimage is certainly generic enough that it couldhave been re-used quite easily by changing itsCaligulan context or any accompanying inscrip-tion. Indeed, L. Curtius earlier identified thestatue as representing the genius of Caligula’sfather, Germanicus.198

The Collateral Condemnations of Milonia Caesoniaand Julia Drusilla

Any images which had been produced of Caligu-la’s last wife, Milonia Caesonia and infant daugh-ter Julia Drusilla were removed and destroyedtogether with those of the emperor. And indeed,there are no surviving sculpted portraits of eitherCaesonia or Julia Drusilla.199 Caesonia’s ownillustrious familial connections through her moth-er Vistilia to many of the leading families of theperiod, Caligula’s avowed affection for her, andher very public presence in Rome may have beenadditional factors which ensured that she wasmurdered with her husband and that her mon-uments suffered a damnatio. Because of her influ-ence and connections, Caligula’s assassins couldnot afford to let Caesonia survive and she waseven accused by some contemporaries of culpa-bility in the failures and excesses of her husband’sprincipate.200 Julia Drusilla’s position as Caligu-

tion, although Bartman states that “it could plausibly beLivia.”

197 Berlin, Museum SK 157, h. 2.05 m; H. Kunckel(1974) 78, no. A 3, pls. 8.2, 9.2 (with earlier literature); J.Pollini (forthcoming).

198 (1948) 71.199 E.R. Varner (2001a) 44-45.200 Joseph. AJ. 19.193.

la’s only direct descendant would have mandat-ed her assassination. Suetonius’s statements thatJulia Drusilla had inherited her father’s savagetemperament are probably additional productsof anti-Caligulan propaganda designed to justi-fy the infanticide.201

Conclusion: Paradigms and Precedents

Although not officially voted by the Senate,Caligula’s de facto damnatio memoriae effectivelyestablished appropriate paradigms for the de-struction and alteration of the visual representa-tions of condemned emperors which would en-dure for the next three centuries of the empire.In rare instances, Caligula’s portraits were at-tacked and disfigured. Mutilated portraits suchas the miniature bronze cuirassed bust in Swit-zerland or the fragmentary likenesses in Aquile-ia and Saguntum attest to the violence enactedagainst Caligula’s images after his overthrow.Caligula’s coins were also disfigured throughinscriptional erasure and countermarking.

Significantly, recycling, rather than mutilation,was the preferred methodology for the repressionof Caligula’s sculpted representations. After hisassassination, Caligula’s portraits were no long-er publicly or politically useful objects, and as aresult, the majority of his images have beenphysically altered to represent other individualsor deities. For the remainder of the first centuryand into the second, marble images of con-demned emperors and empresses would contin-ue to be reconfigured on a vast scale. The recy-cling of Caligula’s portraits crucially impacted thestyle of his successor Claudius’s images, result-ing in examples of extreme realism, as well asrestrained classicism. Subsequent transformationsof Nero and Domitian’s portraits would similar-ly reflect both veristic and classicizing trendsincorporated in the representations of Vespasianand Nerva.

As sculptors grappled with the novel techni-cal challenges inherent in refashioning Caligula’simages, creating convincing likenesses of the

201 Calig. 25.4.

caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla 45

middle-aged Claudius may have presented themost difficulties. It was undoubtedly easier toreconfigure Caligula’s portraits into idealizedrepresentations of his great grandfather Augus-tus, or even the second Flavian emperor, Titus.Significantly, most of the refashioned Claudianimages come from Italy or Rome, while portraitsrecut to Augustus or Titus are far more geograph-ically diverse, and are found in Gaul, Spain,Portugal, North Africa, and Asia Minor. Theproximity of the altered portraits of Claudius toRome as a center of imperial portrait production,and consequently technical expertise, may not becoincidental, but in fact the result in the difficultyposed by the sculptural transformation of Caligu-la into Claudius.

The reuse of Caligula’s portraits also had se-rious implications for developing iconography ofimperial imagery. As C. B. Rose has noted,Caligula was the first of Rome’s emperors to havehimself portrayed as Jupiter in marble statuaryduring his lifetime.202 Several of these divineimages, including portraits from Caere, Otrico-li, Vaison, and Zadar were refashioned into rep-resentations of Augustus, and more significant-ly, the new ruler, Claudius. From this period on,emperors would routinely depict themselves asJupiter.

The mutilation of Caligula’s images also re-veals patterns of sculptural disfigurement in whichthe sensory organs are traumatized, while the restof the image is left in tact. The small cuirassedbronze in a Swiss private collection perfectly il-lustrates the practice, with hammer and chiselblows damaging the facial features and the eyesgouged out of their sockets. Such mutilationunderscores the function of imperial images aseffigies, and, on an important anthropologicallevel, acted as a substitute for corpse abuse (poe-na post mortem).

Caligula’s portraits were also warehoused invast numbers and highlight the Roman practiceof sculptural storage. Portraits could also be dis-posed of in more destructive ways, often beingthrown into bodies of water, such as rivers orwells. In particular, the disposal of Caligula’simages in the Tiber, like the miniature bronzein the Levy-White collection, or the miniaturemarble portrait in the Palazzo Massimo, haveadditional intimations of corpse abuse, mirror-ing the disposal of bodies of dead capital offend-ers, arena victims and other noxii at the capital.The various and variable responses to Caligula’sartistic representations triggered by his condem-nation also reveal the flexible and adaptablenature of damnatio memoriae, which embraced awide variety of censorship practices includingwarehousing, disfigurement, destruction, andtransformation.202 (1997) 74-5.

chapter three46

Like Caligula before him, Nero has become aparadigm of the decadent and tyrannical empe-ror, corrupted absolutely by his absolute power.1

Nero was born at Antium on 15 December A.D.37.2 Originally named Lucius Domitius Aheno-barbus, the future emperor was the son of GnaeusDomitius Ahenobarbus and Agrippina Minor. InA.D. 49, Agrippina married the reigning princeps,her uncle Claudius. Shortly thereafter in A.D. 50,she persuaded Claudius to adopt her son underthe names Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus.On 13 October A.D. 54, at the age of sixteen,Nero succeeded his great-uncle and adoptivefather as Augustus.

Initially Nero ruled under the close supervi-sion of Agrippina, but by A.D. 55 her influencebegan to wane and his praefectus praetorio, SextusAfranius Burrus and his tutor, Lucius AnnaeusSeneca came to dominate.3 Under their guid-ance, Nero apparently governed well during theearly years of his reign; but in 62, Burrus diedand Seneca was dismissed from the emperor’sservice. Nero’s increasingly autocratic tendencies,as well as his overriding interest in artistic pur-suits, began to alienate the traditionally mindedmembers of the senatorial aristocracy.4 Relationsbetween the emperor and Senate grew steadily

worse and alleged plots against Nero’s life led towide scale persecutions of prominent citizens atRome. The devastating fire of A.D. 64, coupledwith several disturbances on the borders of theempire, contributed to a general decline in Nero’spopularity, especially among the military. Dur-ing the last years of his reign, Nero failed torestore public confidence in his administrativecapabilities. In March of A.D. 68, the governorof Gallia Lugdunensis, Gaius Julius Vindex, re-volted against the princeps. Shortly thereafter,Servius Sulpicius Galba, governor of HispaniaTarraconensis, and Lucius Clodius Macer, legatusin Africa, did likewise. Nero took no immediateaction against the usurpers and was unable tocontrol the situation. Consequently, abandonedby most of the army and the Senate, Nero com-mitted suicide with the aide of his freedmanEpaphroditus on 9 June A.D. 68 and Galbasucceeded as the new princeps.5

Nero’s body was not mutilated after his deathand in fact his funeral was carried out at a ratherenormous cost of 200,000 sesterces.6 He wascremated in white robes embroidered with gold,and his nurses, Alexandria and Egloge, as wellas his mistress Acte, placed his ashes in the tombof his paternal ancestors the Domitii, whosefunerary complex was situated on the CollisHortulorum (the modern Pincio). His monumentconsisted of a porphyry container for his ashes(solium), surmounted by an altar of Luna marble,all of which was surrounded by an enclosure ofThasian marble. Despite these elaborate funeraryarrangements and furnishings, Nero’s remainswere not deposited in the Mausoleum of Augus-tus. Like Julia Maior, Julia Minor, Agrippina

CHAPTER THREE

NERO AND POPPAEA

1 For a review of historical attitudes towards Nero, seeJ. Elsner and J. Masters in J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds.(1994)2-8.

2 As established by the AFA; M. Griffin (1984) 21, n.11.

3 The decline of Agrippina’s influence is mirrored onthe Roman coinage. Agrippina initially appears in a fac-ing profile with her son, and then iugate, with Nero in theforeground, and after 55 she disappears entirely. Never-theless, Agrippina continues to prominently feature on theprovincial coinage at Alexandria, Caesarea, Nicea, Antioch,and Thessalonika, and until her death in 59.

4 On Nero’s conflict with the aristocracy and their re-sponse to the princeps, see V.A. Rudich (1992).

5 Suet. Nero 47-49; Dio 63.27; J. Scheid (1984) 180-81,184-85.

6 See Suet. Nero 50.

nero and poppaea 47

Maior, Nero and Drusus Caesar, Caligula, andAgrippina Minor before him, Nero’s exclusionfrom the Mausoleum constituted a posthumousand highly symbolic revocation of his member-ship in the Julian gens, into which he had beenformally adopted by Claudius, and served as aneffective denigration of his memory and reputa-tion.

Nero was the first emperor to be officiallydeclared a hostis by the Roman Senate: se hostema senatu judicatum et quaeri ut puniatur more maiorum.7

The Senate sought to execute Nero in the man-ner traditionally reserved for hostes, which man-dated that the offender was stripped, held by aforked stick, and then beaten to death with rods.Suetonius includes a detailed description of thistraditional punishment in his account of Nero’sfinal moments8 The declaration of Nero as a hostisnecessarily included posthumous sanctionsagainst his monuments and inscriptions. Pliny theElder also records that Nero’s “crimes” werecondemned (damnatis sceleribus illius principis).9

Suetonius indicates that Nero’s publicly dis-played images also played important roles in theevents leading up to his overthrow. A placard wasaffixed to one of his statues which read in Greek“Now there will be a true contest, and you willfinally surrender.”10 A second placard, also af-fixed to a portrait of Nero proclaimed that theemperor “deserved the sack,” referring to thetraditional punishment for parricide, the poenacullei in which the condemned was sewn into asack with a dog, a monkey, a snake and a roosterand thrown into a body of water.11 The referenceto parricide recalls the murder of Nero’s mother,Agrippina Minor, and may also be intended tometaphorically invoke Nero’s “murder” of theRoman fatherland, the patria. The historicalsources and the surviving archaeological evidence

confirm that this destruction of Nero’s portraits,monuments, inscriptions, and coins was aggres-sively carried out under Galba and Vespasian.12

During the revolt of Vindex, the troops of RufusGallus overthrew and destroyed Nero’s statues,prefiguring the destruction of the emperor’simages following his death.13 Immediately afterNero’s death, the mob also demonstrated againstthe dead emperor and dragged his statuesthrough the Forum Romanum.14 Tacitus quotesNero’s successor Galba as saying that there wasno prior precedent for the condemnation of aprinceps (neque erat adhuc damnati principis exemplum).15

Nero’s Portrait Typology

Like his unflattering portrayal of Caligula, Sue-tonius’s physical depiction of Nero was pro-foundly affected by Nero’s damnatio and the en-suing defamation of his memory. Suetoniusdescribes Nero’s physical appearance in the fol-lowing terms:

Statura fuit prope iusta, corpore maculoso et fetido, subflavocapillo, vultu pulchro magis quam venusto, oculis caesiset hebetioribus, cervice obesa, ventre proiecto, gracillimiscruribus...comam semper in gradus formatam.

He was well-proportioned, but his body was spot-ted and malodorous. His hair was tawny. Hisfeatures were pretty rather than pleasing, with eyesthat were blue, but dull. His neck was heavy andhis stomach hung over his skinny legs. (He wore)his hair always arranged in waves.16

The physical details of heavy neck and wavyhairstyle are indeed present in Nero’s later

7 Suet.Nero 49.2; K.R. Bradley (1978) 277-78.8 Suet.Nero 49.3.9 HN 34.18.4510 nunc demum agona esse, et traderet tandem, Nero 45.2. This

pasquinade is undoubtedly meant to refer ironically to thesupposedly rigged contests in which Nero participated duringhis Greek tour. See also A.P. Gregory (1994) 93.

11 R. Bauman (1996) 30.

12 Suet.Galba 15.1,; Tacit.Hist. 1.20, 1.78; Plut.Galba 16.1-2, Otho 3.1; F. Vittinghoff (1936) 102; J. Bleiken (1962)104-5; J. P. Rollin (1979) 165; E. S. Ramage (1983) 201, 209-10, n. 22; A. Barrett (1989) 177, n. 25.

13 6"Â @Ê FJD"J4äJ"4 J•H :¥< J@Ø;XDT<@H gÆ6`<"H 6"2gÃ8@<

6"Â FL<XJD4R"<, Dio 63.25.1.14 Plutarch reports that the gladiator Spiculus was thrown

beneath the statues as they were being torn down. Galba8.5 (EBÃ68@< :¥< @Þ< JÎ< :@<@:"P`< •<*D4VF4 ;XDT<@H

©86@:X<@4H ßB@$"8`<JgH ¦< •(@D” *4XN2g4D"<).15 Tacit. Hist. 1.16. The statement also essentially con-

firms the unofficial, ad hoc nature of Caligula’s condem-nation.

16 Nero 51; K.R. Bradley (1978) 281-85.

chapter three48

sculpted and numismatic portraits, but Suetoniusdeliberately exaggerates the unattractive aspectsof Nero’s appearance in order to deprecate theemperor’s character. As with his description ofCaligula, contemporary theories of ancient phy-siognomics clearly influenced Suetonius’s descrip-tion.17 Nero’s spotted body (corpore maculoso) lik-ens him to the panther, who is petty, thieving,and deceitful.18 The spindly legs are character-istic of the monkey, and betray an evil, intem-perate and lustful nature.19 His weak eyes aresigns of cowardice and timidity,20 while his pro-truding stomach denotes “deceitfulness, insensi-tivity, drunkenness, and debauchery.”21

Nero’s surviving sculpted likenesses corre-spond closely with his datable numismatic imagesand can be divided into four distinct portraittypes each marking significant events in the em-peror’s career.22 The earliest type celebratesNero’s adoption by Claudius and appears oncoins minted during from A.D. 51-54. This typedepicts the future emperor with a coiffure of longcomma shaped locks parted near the center ofthe forehead.23 Lengthy sideburns curl in frontof the ears. The facial features are smooth andregular. Well formed, almond shaped eyes, withcrisply delineated upper and lower lids are setbeneath straight brows. The nose is aquiline. The

mouth consists of full upper lip and recedinglower lip. The chin is rounded and the ears pro-trude from the head which continues to be acharacteristic physical trait in the three subse-quent types.

A new portrait type was created for Nero uponhis accession to the throne in A.D. 54. Coinsissued from 54-59 depict the young princeps withthe same centrally parted hairstyle, but the fa-cial features are significantly more mature. Thissecond type is often referred to as the accessiontype or Cagliari type, after a well-preserved rep-lica.24

Nero’s third type marks a significant departurefrom the two earlier types. The numismatic por-traits of A.D. 59-64 depict the emperor withmuch heavier facial features; the face is broader,the neck thicker, and there is a visible underchin,details which conform more closely to Suetonius’sdescription of the princeps. The coiffure is gener-ally longer and more full than the earlier hair-style and is made up of locks which are carefullyarranged over the forehead in parallel curvesmoving from right to left. These locks reversedirection over the outer corner of the right eye.The hair which covers the top of the head iswaved in an incipient version of the waved comain gradus formata hairstyle mentioned by Suetonius.The locks grow long on the nape of the neck andare swept forward. Long sideburns still curl infront of the ears. Only one sculpted example ofthis type, now in the Museo Palatino, has sur-vived (fig. 82a-c).25 It conforms closely to the nu-

17 T. Barton elucidates the connections between physi-ognomical and Suetonius’s rhetorical invectio against Neroin J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds. (1994) 57-58.

18 Phgn. 810a.6-9; K.R. Bradley (1978) 283; T. Bartonin J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds. (1994) 57.

19 Phgn. 810b.3-5; Polemo F.1.194.10, 270.17; Anon.§ 71, § 91, § 112; T. Barton in J. Elsner and J. Masters,eds. (1994) 57.

20 Phgn 807b.8; K.R. Bradley (1978) 283-84; T. Bartonin J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds. (1994) 57; Pliny the Elderalso describes Nero’s dull eyes as a sign of his weak andcowardly nature, HN 11.141-45.

21 Polemo F.1.210.7-12; Ps. Pol. 361.16-362.10; Anon§ 64, 93, 112; Adam. F.1.361.5-362-2; T. Barton in J. Elsnerand J. Masters, eds. (1994) 57.

22 U. Hiesinger (1975) remains the fundamental sourceon the Nero’s portrait typology. subsequent refinementsinclude, M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 321-32; H.Jucker (1981a) 284-309; Fittschen-Zanker I, 17-19; and S.Maggi (1986) 47-51; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 135-39.

23 U. Hiesinger has divided the portraits of these yearsinto two separate types: an “Adoption Type” dated 50-51and an “Heir Apparent Type,” (1975) 117-118. However,

the coiffures and physiognomies of these two types arebasically identical and they should certainly be consideredthe same type. M. Bergmann and P. Zanker have proposedthat the portraits of Hiesinger’s Heir Apparent type areactually an official “Neufassung” of the earliest type, (1981)321-22.

24 Accession type: U. Hiesinger (1975)118; Cagliari Type:M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 321-22. As in the firstportrait type, the placement of the part is subject to slightvariation; In one example over the inner corner of the righteye, Cagliari, Museo Nazionale, inv. 35533; and in fourexamples over the inner corner of the left eye, Rome, MuseoCapitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 4, inv. 418; Rome,Museo Palatino, ex Terme, inv. 616; Rome, Musei Vaticani,Sala dei Busti 385, inv. 59; Syracuse, Museo Nazionale,inv. 6383.

25 Museo Palatino, ex Terme, inv. 618.

nero and poppaea 49

mismatic images, but includes a lightly incisedbeard. The type was introduced to mark thequinquennalia of Nero’s reign in A.D. 59.26

Nero’s fourth and final type is similar to thethird type, with even more insistent modeling ofthe corpulent facial features, and a more ornatelyconstructed coiffure. This type is introduced oncoins in A.D. 64 and continues until Nero’s deathin 68. The hair is still arranged in curving locksacross the forehead, but the right to left orienta-tion of these locks remains unbroken as there isno longer a change in direction of the hair overthe outer corner of the right eye. The waves ofhair on the top of the head are much more pro-nounced than in the third type; this final coiffureresemble most closely the hairstyle which Sue-tonius refers to as coma in gradus formata.27 Thefourth type was created to commemorate Nero’sdecennalia in A.D. 64.28 The heavier, emphaticallymodeled facial features of Nero’s final two por-trait types are clearly modeled on the images ofHellenistic rulers, especially Ptolemaic portraits.29

These fleshier faced images are intended to com-municate the concept of JDLNZ or luxuria (royalluxury and beneficence).

The Mutilation and Destruction of Nero’s Images

Mutilated images of Nero are graphic remind-ers of the damnatio pronounced against him. Four

surviving portraits were intentionally vandalizedafter his overthrow. The most dramatically dam-aged is a likeness of the second type from theisland of Cos (cat. 2.2).30 The portrait was exca-vated at the island’s agora, where the image islikely to have been publicly displayed. The brows,eyes, nose, and lips and chin have all been at-tacked with a chisel. The resulting damage to thesensory organs is T-shaped and occurs in otherdeliberately defaced imperial portraits. Whileextreme, it still renders the likeness recognizable.Like the bronze cuirassed bust of Caligula inwhich the eyes have been gouged out (cat. 1.X),the violent destruction of the sensory organsstands as an anthropomorphic attack on theimage as an artistic effigy of the emperor and hasclose conceptual ties to post mortem corpse abuse(poena post mortem).31 After its mutilation, the im-age must have been stored or buried in the vi-cinity of the agora. Prior to its removal, thedefaced portrait may have remained on publicdisplay for a time as a visible signifier of Nero’sposthumous denigration. The head providesrather surprising evidence for the mutilation ofNero’s images in the Greek speaking areas of theEmpire where he is known to have enjoyed greatpopularity during his lifetime. However, theGreeks’ former enthusiastic support for Nero asthe emperor who “liberated” the province ofAchaea may have produced an anti-Neronianbacklash and probably necessitated prominentpublic displays of repudiation like the mutilationof the Cos portrait.32

A portrait of Nero in Cagliari has also beendeliberately defaced (cat.2.1; fig. 42).33 The bustis said to have been acquired on the mainland.34

It has undergone severe damage to the brows,eyes, nose, lips, and chin, echoing the T-shapeddestruction of the Cos portrait. Two X’s havebeen carved at each clavicle and VICTO

26 U. Hiesinger (1975)124.27 H.P. L’Orange stressed this coiffure’s relationship to

Hellenistic ruler portraits and its ultimate derivation fromimages of Alexander the Great, (1947) 55-63. J.M.C.Toynbee set forth an alternative suggestion that Nero’shairstyle is an imitation of the coiffures worn by aurigae; (1947)137 (followed also by Bartman [1998] 25). This seems highlyunlikely; the reverse should rather be the case, with Nero’sevocation of Hellenistic hairstyles influencing the charioteerswith whom he was popular.

28 U. Hiesinger (1975)124.29 See, for instance, a portrait of Ptolemy I Soter in the

Louvre, (MA 849, R.R. Smith [1988] 164, no. 46, pl. 34.1-3) and later, fatter faced physkon portraits: Ptolemey XIIAuletes (?) (Louvre, MA 3449, R.R. Smith [1988a] 168,no. 62, pl. 42.1-2); the Getty Physkon (83.AA.205, R.R.Smith [1988a] 168, no. 63, pl. 42.2-4); and the BrusselsPhyskon (Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, inv. E1839,R.R. Smith [1988a] 93-94, no. 73, pl. 47.1-2).

30 Museum, inv. 4510.31 E.R. Varner (2001b) 48.32 On Nero’s relationship to the Greeks and their re-

sponse to him, see S.E. Alcock in J. Elsner and J. Masters,eds., (1994) 98-111

33 Museo Nazionale, inv. 6122.34 U. Hiesinger (1975)115, n. 10.

chapter three50

scratched on the right breast. The X’s may beancient or modern markers, preparatory to re-moving the head and neck from the torso.35 Theinscription VICTO (to the conquered) is an ironicreversal of the dedication used for victoriousathletes or performers, VICTORI (to the victor),and is especially caustic in light of Nero’s ownathletic and artistic pretensions. The ironic im-plications of the graffito also directly recall thepasquinade proclaiming that there would now bea true contest (agona) in which Nero would finallybe defeated.

A badly damaged statue from the Romantheater at Vicenza (ancient Vicetia) may also bean intentionally mutilated representation of Nero(cat. 2.4).36 The portrait, discovered in 1839represents an emperor with bare torso and hipmantle as Jupiter. The face of the portrait hasbeen shorn away and the damage appears to bedeliberate. The long locks which are swept for-ward on the nape of the neck are characteristicof Nero’s type 2, 3, and 4 portraits. If the statuedid depict Nero, it provides important evidencefor the violent destruction of his publicly dis-played images in Italy. The damaged statue couldthen have been stored somewhere in the theateror its substructures

Two other marble portraits may owe theirextremely fragmentary state to destruction car-ried out as a consequence of Nero’s damnatio. Atype 2 portrait from Syracuse (cat. 2.2; fig. 43)37

and a type 4 portrait from Vienne (cat. 2.5; fig.44)38 are both only partially preserved. The Syra-cuse fragment depicts the emperor with a coronacivica and was found in the city’s Forum. Like theportrait from Cos, it may have originally beendisplayed in the public context of the Forum, andstored or buried there following the destructionof the image. The Vienne portrait was excavatedat the city’s Odeum and may have been part of

the building’s sculptural decoration. Its destruc-tion should perhaps be associated with the eventssurrounding the revolt of Vindex in Gaul. Sub-sequently, the fragment was stored or buried nearthe Odeum. It has also been suggested that afragmentary marble eagle discovered in an areaof ancient refuse disposal at Exeter may be aremnant of an vandalized portrait of Nero asJupiter.39 The scattered find-spots of the damagedlikenesses suggests that their destruction was likelythe result of spontaneous demonstrations againstNero’s memory. These must have been fairlyimmediate responses to the news of the emperor’soverthrow and death, and were intended to de-fame Nero’s character and reign, as well as todemonstrate support for Galba’s new regime. Thesurprising paucity of surviving damaged marbleportraits, in comparison to the enormous num-ber of portraits which were recarved or un-touched , confirms that removal and reuse, ratherthan intentional mutilation, was the standardresponse to Nero’s damnatio and is consonant withthe earlier evidence established by Caligula’ssurvivng marble and bronze images.40

Nero’s numismatic portraits were also defaced,and many of his coins were countermarkedthroughout the Empire. A laureate portrait ofNero on a tetradrachm from Alexandria has beendestroyed and the accompanying legend: NEPK7AK KAIE EEB 'EP AKT has been obliter-ated.41 A coin from Thessalonika also has a de-faced laureate portrait of the emperor and apartial erasure of the legend: NE /////// EBAETOE KAIEAP.42 A deep chisel mark has beencut into Nero’s neck on an as discovered at Sil-chester (Roman Calleva Atrebatum).43 A dupondius

35 I thank T.J. Luce for first suggesting this possibility.The removal was obviously never carried out, and recallsthe unfinished attempt to remove the head and neck fromthe togate body of the Richmond Caligula, see supra.

36 Vicenza, Museo Civico, inv. EI-19.37 Syracuse, Museo Nazionale, inv. 6383.38 Vienne, Musée archéologique.

39 J.M.C. Toynbee (1979) 130-2, pl. 20.44; P. Stewart(1999) 186, n. 24.

40 D. Kreikenbom has indentified fragments of a seatedcolossal image from Lugundum Convenarum (St. Bertrand)as a replica of Nero’s last type (St. Bertrand de Comminges,Musée Municipal; [1992] 206, no. 3.75). However thepreserved sections of the coiffure are too fragmentary topermit a secure identification.

41 R. Mowat (1901) 449-50; rev. bust of Octavia facingright, OKTAO IA EBA TO and LE, dated to the fifth yearof Nero’s reign, A.D. 58.

42 L. Ruzicka (1924) 354-55.43 G.C. Boon (1974) 11, fig.; the coin was discovered

between 1890 and 1909.

nero and poppaea 51

from Rome has been disfigured by the counter-mark SPQR which has severed the neck, meta-phorically “decapitating” Nero’s image (fig. 45).44

Nero’s portraits have been overstruck in provin-cial issues in bronze or brass from Teos,45

Sardis,46 and Smyrna.47 Nero’s coiffure has beenremoved with a chisel on a duopondius in Bonn48

and a sestertius in Hamburg.49 The resulting baldimages were likely intended to make the over-thrown princeps appear ridiculous.50 In both coins,Nero’s names and titles have not been erased. Onthe other hand, a small bronze coin from Cymehas had Nero’s name carefully erased,51 as dosestertii from Rome and Lyon,52 and a [bronze]issue from Patras.53 Like the mutilation of hissculpted portraits, the defacements of Nero’scoins are isolated events, individual expressionsof denigration intended to signal loyalty to thenew princeps.54 Significantly, the mutilation ofNero’s numismatic images is limited to the lessvaluable issues, with no examples on aurei.55

Nero’s coins were also frequently counter-marked.56 During the rebellion of Vindex, SPQRwas stamped on the obverses of Neronian aesfrom Lyon, usually on the emperor’s neck.57 At

Tripolis, Nero’s issues were countermarked suc-cessively with the monograms of Galba, Otho,and Vespasian.58 And 'A7BA is countermarkedon various obverses,59 often obliterating Nero’sfacial features, as for instance on bronze and brassissues at Perinthus,60 Nicea,61and Nicomedia.62

In Spain, Galba’s province, a denarius of Nero wascompletely overstruck.63 At Tripolis, in additionto Galba’s countermark, there are countermarkswith the names of Otho or Vespasian.64 Thessa-lonika, Prusa, Caesareia in Samaria, and Nysa-Scythopolis all countermarked Nero’s coins witheach city’s respective name.65 Nero’s coinage mayalso have been recalled by the local Senate ofNicopolis.66 The extensive use of countermarkswas intended to revalidate Nero’s coinage, as wellas to announce the sovereignty of the new em-peror to the citizens of the Empire.67 Addition-ally, the countermarking of Nero’s coins was apractical, as well as economically viable alterna-tive to the wholesale recalling of his issues, whichwould have necessitated the creation of entirelynew emissions. The Othonian countermark fromTripolis is especially intriguing, given theemperor’s rehabilitation of Nero’s memory at thecapital, and it further underscores the relativeautonomy local mints must have enjoyed in re-sponding to condemnations.44 New York, American Numismatic Society, inv.

1953.171.1308; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 126-31, with figs.45 RPC 53, 425.46 RPC 53, 495, no. 3045.47 RPC 53, 420-21, no. 2490.48 Bonn, Rheinische Landesmuseum, inv. 6783; from

Neuss; V. Zedelius (1979) 20-21; H. Jucker (1982) 124 pl.42; D. Salzmann (1984) 295, n. 5, fig. 1.

49 Kunsthalle; P. Postel (1976) 124, no. 612, pl. 42; D.Salzmann (1984) 295-96, fig. 2.

50 D. Salzmann suggests that the coma in gradus formatahairstyle may have been objectionable in itself since Sue-tonius refers to it as shameful (pudendus, Nero 51) (1984) 298,n. 15.

51 T.O. Mabbot (1941) 398.52 Removed from obverses showing Nero’s arch in Rome,

F.S. Kleiner (1985) 118, no. 67b (Rome), 133, no. L71 a(Lyon).

53 RPC 53, 261, no. 1263.54 D. Salzmann proposes that the alteration of these coins

may have made them more acceptable in the marketplace,as was certainly the case with countermarked coins; how-ever the scarcity of defaced or altered coins speaks againstSalzmann’s theory (1984) 298.

55 D. Salzmann (1984) 298.56 R. Mowat (1901) 448; C.J. Howgego (1985) 5-6.57 G.C. Boon (1974) 11.

58 C.H.V. Sutherland (1940) 266; BMC Greek Coins ofPhoenicia nos. 39, 41, 42; C.J. Howgego (1985) 6, 222-223,nos. 592, 594-95, pl. 23.

59 D.W. MacDowall (1979) pl. 21 d, k; C.J. Howgego(1985) 205-6, nos. 525-7, 222, no. 591, pls. 20, 23; F.S.Kleiner (1985) 118, nos. R71 b & c, 126, L8 a.

60 RPC 53, 319-20, nos. 1752, 1758-61.61 RPC 53, 348-9, nos. 2050, 2052, 2057, 2060-61.62 RPC 53, 351, nos. 284-85.63 C.H.V. Sutherland (1940) 266.64 RPC 53, 647, no. 4520.65 C.J. Howgego (1985) 6, 209-10, no. 537, pl. 21

(Thessalonica), 214, nos. 556-7, pl. 21 (Prusa), 211, no. 543,pl. 21 (Caesareia in Samaria), 213, no. 555, pl. 21 (Nysa-Scythopolis), 228, no. 619, pl. 24 (Corinth?); see also RPC52.

66 T. O. Mabbot (1941) 358.67 R. Mowat (1901) 449, n. 1.

chapter three52

The Transformation of Nero’s Images

Nero/Vespasian

Over forty surviving marble portraits which origi-nally represented Nero have been recarved intoimages of other emperors. Sixteen of these por-traits have been reworked into likenesses ofVespasian, who, as victor in the civil conflicts of68-69, established the Flavian dynasty. Theseecarved portraits encompass both portrait typesemployed by Vespasian during his reign, a moreyouthful, idealized type (secondary type), and anolder, more veristic type (main type).68 The mainportrait type recalls republican portraiture withits ruggedly realistic portrayal of the agingemperor’s physiognomy. Vespasian is depicted asbalding, with little or no hair on the top of thehead. The thinning locks at the temples arecombed towards the back of the head. The faceis massive and square. Deep vertical furrows markthe forehead, with horizontal furrows above thenose. The eyes are heavily lidded with bags be-neath them and crows feet are often included attheir corners. The nose is hooked and the bridgeis very pronounced. Sunken cheeks, the sugges-tion of jowls, and strong naso-labial lines arefurther elements of aging included in theemperor’s physiognomy. The mouth is long andthin and the lower lip does not recede. Wrinklesare often carved on the neck as further indica-tions of age. This is the most widely disseminatedof Vespasian’s two portrait types and appears oncoins minted throughout his reign.

The secondary type agrees with the main typein the essentials of physiognomy, but the signs ofaging are minimized or suppressed. The emperoris represented as considerably more youthful.

Wrinkles are eliminated or less emphaticallycarved. Vespasian is endowed with a fuller headof hair, often with a row of coma shaped locksacross the forehead. This portrait type is classi-cizing in tone and looks back to the idealizationof Julio-Claudian portraiture rather than to re-publican verism. The more youthful type appearsto have been in use simultaneously with the maintype, although not produced in such great num-bers. It also appears on coins minted through-out Vespasian’s reign.69 There is, however, someconflation between the two types: portraits of themain type can gloss over some of the signs ofaging and achieve a less harshly veristic ap-proach, while portraits of the secondary type caninclude more dramatic signs of aging and thusbe more realistic in their handling of Vespasian’sfacial features.

As is to be expected, images of the youthfulNero were more often refashioned into likenessesof Vespasian’s secondary idealizing type. Ten ofthe portraits recarved to Vespasian, have beenreworked into the secondary type, in spite of thefact that this type was produced in far fewernumbers than the much more widely dissemi-nated main type. It would have been substantiallyeasier for artists to recarve Nero’s youthful andrelatively classicizing images into Vespasian’s ownmore youthful portrait type. Indeed, as was alsothe case with the portraits of Claudius recon-figured from Caligula, the most idealizing imagesof Vespasian have been recut from pre-existingrepresentations of Nero. In fact, Vespasian’s mostclassicizing portrait has been refashioned from alikeness of Nero (cat. 2.22; fig.46a-d).70 The headwas excavated at Lucus Feroniae in 1953 nearthe temple in the Forum, where it is likely to have

68 For discussions of Vespasian’s portrait typology, see:J.J. Bernoulli (1891) 21-28; G. Förschner (1959) 3-10, 26(1960) 25-32; B.M. Felletti Maj 1966) 1147-48; M. Wegner,G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 9-17, 72-84; A. DeFranciscis (1975) 211-24; V.P. Giornetti in MusNazRom I.1,279-80; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)332-49; H.Jucker (1981b) 697-702; G. Paladini (1981) 612-22; J. Pollini(1984) 549-51; D. Salzmann (1984) 295-99; K. Fitt-schen and P. Zanker (1985) 33, nr. 27; A. Amadio inMusNazRom I.9.1, 186-87; D..E.E. Kleiner (1992) 172-3.

69 The secondary type may be based on a portrait ofVespasian created before his elevation to the principate,or it may simply be a classicizing response to the more veristictype. In any case, since both types were in use simultaneously,the main veristic type may have been judged appropriatein certain contexts, while the secondary classicizing typein others. Patrons who commissioned imperial portraits andindividual artistic workshops also must have played a rolein determining the degree of classicism or verism includedin each portrait.

70 Lucus Feroniae, Magazzini, formerly Rome, MuseoNazionale di Villa Giulia.

nero and poppaea 53

been displayed. It is worked for insertion into atogate statue. The longer hair on the nape of theneck is a remnant of the original likeness of Nero.The eyes and brows do not appear to have beensubstantially recarved and strongly recall portraitsof Nero’s fourth type, especially the replica inMunich.71 The Lucus Feroniae portrait deviatesfrom the other replicas of Vespasian’s secondarytype in the in that indications of aging are almosttotally suppressed. The brows and cheeks arerelatively smooth and the naso-labial lines andwrinkles on the neck are not pronounced. Theportrait has maintained much of the youthfulnessand classicism of the original likeness of Nero,and as such, is directly comparable to the ideal-izing representations of Claudius which retain theclassicism of Caligula’s likenesses.

Another remarkably youthful portrait ofVespasian, in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, hasbeen similarly refashioned from an earlier like-ness of Nero (cat. 2.19; fig. 47a-d).72 The piecewas acquired in Rome and is likely to have beendiscovered in the city or its environs. The por-trait portrays the emperor with a corona civica andis worked for insertion into a draped statue. Theeyes and the brows remain basically intact fromthe original portrait of Nero’s second type. Thereceding lower lip has also been retained, as hasthe fleshy underchin. The artist has added super-ficial signs of aging to the portrait, including lighthorizontal furrows in the forehead and verticalcreases above the nose. Nevertheless, the over-riding classicism of the image is a clear remnantof the original Neronian likeness.

Although they are not as highly idealized asthe Lucus Feroniae and Cophenhagen portraits,five other recut representations of Vespasian,formerly at the Villa Borghese (cat. 2.26; fig.48),73 in Baltimore (cat. 2.15,74 Cleveland (cat.

2.17; fig. 49a-e),75 London (cat. 2.21; figs),76 andtwo portraits in Seville (cat. 2.27-28)77 exhibitfundamentally classicizing approaches to theemperor’s physiognomy that are direct legaciesof the Neronian originals. Signs of aging havebeen added to the Borghese portrait includinghorizontal furrows on the forehead, verticalcreases above the nose, crows feet at the cornersof the eyes, slightly sunken cheeks, naso-labiallines, and wrinkles on the neck. These signs ofaging notwithstanding, the recarved image ofVespasian is extremely idealizing in appearanceand has maintained much of the youthful char-acter of the original Neronian likeness. TheBaltimore portrait is reported to have come fromPergamum. The long, rectangular shaped tenonis unusual and indicates that the head is workedfor insertion into a semi-nude heroic portraitbody, with cloak or paludamentum draped over theright shoulder. The classicism of the image, whichhas been essentially retained from the youthfulportrait of Nero, stands in the tradition ofheroized representations of Roman emperorsparticularly popular in the Greek speaking East.78

The Seville portraits, one discovered at Écija in1972 and the other from Italica, as well as theLondon likeness, discovered at Carthage between1835-36, provide additional evidence for ideal-ized representations of Vespasian refashionedfrom images of Nero in the provinces.

Three other replicas of Vespasian’s secondarytype, in Copenhagen (cat. 2.18),79 Grosseto (cat.2.20),80 and the Vatican (cat. 2.25; fig. 51a-e)81

represent fundamentally different approaches tothe recutting of Nero’s images. While they areversions of Vespasian’s more youthful type, theseportraits reject the classicism of the original like-nesses in favor of an emphasis on realistic signsof aging. The Vatican portrait is symptomatic of

71 The Nero/Vespasian in Cleveland (Cat. 2.17) alsosubstantially retains the eyes and brows of Nero’s fourthtype; J. Pollini (1984) 551.

72 No. 463, inv. 1979.73 The original was formerly displayed the right of the

Villa’s entrance, and is now replaced by a concrete copy.The original is currently on display, with other sculpturefrom the Villa’s facade at the Palazzo dei Conservatori.

74 Walters Art Gallery, inv. 23.119.

75 Art Museum, inv. 29.439a.76 British Museum, inv. 1890..77 Museo Arquelógico, inv. 7.906 and Museo Arque-

lógico, inv. 1060.78 P. Zanker (1983) 23-24, 47-48; J. Pollini (1984) 553.79 National Museum, inv. 3425.80 Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Maremma.81 Galleria Chiaramonti, 7.9, inv. 1291.

chapter three54

this group. The head, presumably from Rome orits vicinity, has been recut from a preexistingportrait of Nero’s fourth type. Numerous signsof aging have been added to the likeness andinclude deep horizontal furrows on the foreheadand vertical creases above the bridge of the nose,sunken eyes set beneath heavy lids, naso-labiallines, and several wrinkles on the neck. The hairover the forehead has been recut, and the top ofthe head has been worked over with a chisel. Thelocks over the left ear are unaltered from Nero’sfourth portrait type.82 The longer hair on theright side of the head, and on the nape of theneck are also remnants of Nero’s fourth type, asis the slightly receding lower lip. The wrinkles onthe neck do not accurately take into account theturn of the head and are clearly a product ofthe reworking.83 The indications of aging sharp-ly distinguish the new portrait of Vespasianfrom more idealized images of the disgracedNero.

Significantly, only five of the portraits of Ves-pasian recut from likenesses of Nero have beenreworked into Vespasian’s more realistic, maintype. One of these portraits, in the Terme, wasdiscovered in 1908 near Castel Porziano and isremarkable for the marked exaggeration of itsaged facial features, which make it, without adoubt, the most realistic of Vespasian’s images(cat. 2.23; fig. 52a-d).84 The furrows in the fore-head are insistently modeled. The small eyes arenearly swallowed by the heavy lids and surround-ing folds of flesh. The cheeks are sunken and thenaso-labial lines are deeply carved. The recuttingof the facial features has resulted in strikingasymmetricalities. The left eye is considerablysmaller than the right and the handling of theupper eyelids has given a triangular shape to botheyes. The treatment of the eyebrows is vastlydifferent. All trace of Nero’s full lips have beenremoved and, consequently, the mouth of theportrait is reworked as a sunken gash in the face.

The under life-sized scale of the head is a directresult of the reduction in marble occasioned bythe recutting. A second recut portrait in thePalazzo Massimo, also achieves similarly exag-gerated effects of aging which emphatically dis-tance the new representation of Vespasian fromthe images of Nero (cat. 2.24., fig. 53a-e).85

Whereas in many reworked portraits the physi-ognomic asymmetricalities occasioned by therecarving often appear anomalous, in these twoportraits the exaggerated effects are well suitedto the revival of Republican topographical verismespoused in Vespasian’s main type.

Although they fail to attain the level of real-ism present in the Terme portraits, two otherexamples of Vespasian’s main type in Tunis (cat.2.29; fig. 54)86 and Turin (cat. 2.30; fig. 55a-b)87

have been refashioned from likenesses of Nero.In the Tunis portrait, Nero’s locks have beenentirely smoothed over, but the mass of the origi-nal coiffure is still present and bulges out unnatu-rally behind Vespasian’s ears. The brows are re-tained from Nero’s second type. The wrinkles andfurrows which have been cut into the forehead,above the nose, and around the mouth have beenrendered in a harshly linear manner which ischaracteristic of much of the sculpture producedlocally in North Africa. The result is a moreabstract handling of the veristic details ofVespasian’s main type than in the metropolitanRoman or Italian examples. The head is workedfor insertion into an over life-sized togate statueand was discovered in the temple of Apollo atBulla Regia. The image may have been associ-ated with the imperial cult and, in addition to theLondon portrait, provides important evidence forthe dissemination of Nero’s likenesses in NorthAfrica and their subsequent reworking after hisoverthrow.88 A colossal laureate portrait fromVerria in Macedonia has also been recut into a

82 M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 337.83 M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 337.84 Inv. 38795.

85 Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alleTerme, inv. 53.

86 Tunis, Musée du Bardo, inv. C 1025.87 Museo di Antichità, inv. 244.88 A statue of Minia Procula, identified by inscription

as a priestess of the imperial cult was also discovered atthe temple of Apollo; A. Beschaouch, R. Hanoune, Y.Thébert (1977) 131, fig. 130.

nero and poppaea 55

markedly veristic likeness of Vespasian, withstrong horizontal wrinkles added to the forehead,pouches beneath the eyes, as well as deep naso-labial lines (cat. 2.31).89 Traces of Nero’s longerand fuller hair (from type 3 or 4) are visible atthe back of the head. The insistent signs of ag-ing have been cut into the head, rather thanbeing fully modeled, giving the likeness a kind ofwood-cut effect. The Verria head provides im-portant evidence for the transformation of Nero’slikenesses in Greece.

A small chalcedony bust of Vespasian in Bos-ton has also been refashioned from a represen-tation of Nero (cat. 2.16).90 The portrait depictsthe emperor wearing a paludamentum and is an im-portant instance of a miniature military image ofNero being recut into a likeness of Vespasian.Traces of Nero’s longer locks are still clearlyvisible at the sides and back of the head.

A Neronian sestertius once on the art marketin Munich is a unique example of a reworkednumismatic portrait.91 The coin is dated by itsreverse, which depicts a congiarium, to A.D. 64-66. The obverse depicts a laureate portrait of theemperor and the legend reads: NERO CLAVDIVSCAESAR AVG GERM P M TR P IMP P P. Nero’scoiffure and beard from his third portrait type,as attested in an unaltered versions of the coin,have been carefully chiseled away.92 In addition,the nose has been chiseled in at the bridge, andthree diagonal cuts have been made in theemperor’s fleshy underchin. Apparently, thesealterations were an attempt to transform Nero’slikeness into that of Vespasian. Interestinglyenough, Nero’s name and titles have not beenerased or altered. The combination of the re-worked portrait of Vespasian with the names andtitles of Nero makes a forceful statement regard-ing Nero’s overthrow and Vespasian’s ultimatesuccess in replacing him as the head of the Ro-man state. Because it is unique, the reworkedsestertius is likely to have been the spontaneous

work of an individual who intended to defamethe memory of Nero and proclaim his loyalty tothe new regime.

Nero/Titus

Several likenesses of Nero have been refashionedinto images of Vespasian’s eldest son, Titus. Onthe basis of numismatic parallels, Titus’s sculpt-ed portraits have been divided into two types.93

The first is the most widely disseminated of histypes. The coiffure of this type is combed forwardfrom the occiput, with longer locks at the backof the head and relatively short curly locks fram-ing the face. The hair recedes at the temples andis arranged in a curved segment over the fore-head. The locks over the forehead are brushedfrom left to right, with a few locks over the righteye reversing this direction. The face is full andsquare, with a forehead that is broad and oftenmarked by horizontal furrows. The brows aresomewhat arching and the eyes are marked bywell-defined upper and lower lids. The nose ishooked and the cupid’s bow mouth is full. Thelower lip does not usually recede. The chin isrounded and often cleft and combined with afleshy underchin. The main replica of this type,after which it is often called, is a cuirassed stat-ue discovered at Herculaneum.94 The secondtype differs from the first chiefly in the way inwhich the locks are arranged over the forehead.These locks are less randomly ordered than inthe Herculaneum type and are combed from leftto right, sometimes having one or two curls re-versing this direction over the outer corner of theleft eye. The hair over the forehead is also lesscurved than in the first type. The second type hasbeen referred to as the Erbach type after animportant replica preserved in that collection.95

Significantly, most of the images of Titus trans-

89 Museum, inv. 373.90 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 98.768.91 D. Salzmann (1984) 295-99, figs. 3, 5.92 A. Banti and L. Simonetti (1979) 138- 53, nos. 784-

805, figs; D. Salzmann (1984) 296-7, n. 10, figs. 4,6.

93 See M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966)18-29; K. Fittschen (1977) 63-67; Fittschen-Zanker I, 33-34.

94 Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 6059.95 See D..E.E. Kleiner (1992) 172-6, figs. 141-2, for a

discussion of Titus’ portrait typology and illustrations of theHerculaneum and Erbach images.

chapter three56

formed from pre-existing images of Nero havebeen adapted to Titus’s first type, suggesting thatthese reconfigurations took place earlier in theprincipate of Vespasian, rather than later orduring the principate of Titus himself. A cuirassedportrait from the Metroon at Olympia, originallya type 3 replica of Nero has been refashioned intoa conflation of Titus’s two portrait types (cat.2.37).96 Nero’s type 3 coiffure is evident on thetop of the head and behind the left ear where itis swept forward. The long, curving locks whichremain from Nero’s hairstyle contrast starkly withTitus’s more heavily modeled short curls addedover the forehead. The cuirass is decorated withmarine imagery, including dolphins and a Nereidriding a hippocamp. This particular motif mayhave been created by Neronian artists.97 In ad-dition the statue attests to the dissemination ofmilitaristic images of Nero in Greece, specificallyOlympia, the site of his panhellenic victories inathletics and recitation. Furthermore, the portraitconfirms both a Neronian and Flavian phase forthe portrait cycle at the Metroon, as the origi-nal portrait of Nero would have been added tothe existing Claudian group of Divus Augustus,Claudius, and Agrippina Minor.

Two portraits of Titus’s first type have beenadapted from replica’s of Nero’s second type.These likenesses, in Hannover (cat. 2.36)98 andCastle Howard (cat. 2.33),99 still exhibit remnantsof Nero’s type 2 hairstyle at the back of the head.The smooth modeling of the surfaces in theHannover likeness reveals the underlying classi-cism and idealization which are characteristic ofNero’s type 2 images. On the other hand, themore realistic details of the Castle Howard por-trait have entirely eliminated any trace of Nero’syouthful facial features. In contrast, two addi-tional replicas of Titus’s first type, in Paris (cat.2.38)100 and Alexandria (cat. 2.32),101 have been

altered from Nero’s fourth type and consequentlyare more exuberant and baroque in the model-ing of the physiognomy. In both portraits thelower profiles closely match Nero’s type 4 por-trait in Munich (fig. 83). The Alexandria portraitof Titus provides further corroboration for therecarving of Nero’s likenesses in the provinces,and additionally attests to the dissemination ofNero’s images in Egypt, a province which inter-ested Nero greatly. A badly weathered type 1image of Titus in Copenhagen also appears tohave been refashioned from a type 3 or 4 por-trait of Nero (cat. 2.34; fig. 36a-d).102 Like theParis and Alexandria heads, it exhibits a moreemphatic modeling of the heavy facial features.The small, fleshy eyes are remnants of theNeronian portrait. Nero’s longer locks have beencut down behind the ears and on the nape of theneck.

Representations of Nero were also reworkedinto Titus’s secondary (Erbach) type, as attestedby two examples, in the Villa Borghese (cat.2.39)103 and the Uffizi (cat. 2.35; fig. 57).104 TheBorghese head was recarved from a type 2 like-ness of Nero and retains some of the classicizingfeel of the original. As part of the Borghese col-lection, the head is likely to have been discov-ered in Rome or its vicinity. The Uffizi portraithas been recarved from a replica of Nero’s thirdor fourth type. Like the Borghese piece, it prob-ably comes from Rome or its vicinity, as it wasoriginally part of the Ludovisi collection sold toFerdinando II, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, in1669.105 The discrepancies of coiffure and physi-ognomy occasioned by the recarving have re-sulted in a likeness of Titus which deviates con-siderably from other replicas of his second type.A portrait from the Roman theater at Trieste ofTitus has also been reconfigured from an exist-ing image of Nero (cat. 2.40; fig. 58).106 Theportrait is worked for insertion, likely into a

96 Museum, no. 144.97 Two additional cuirasses display identical imagery,

in the Louvre (inv. 3384) and Durres, inv 4415 (earlier 825)see infra.

98 Sammlung des Herzogs von Braunschweig.99 Castle Howard (Forschungsarchiv für römische Plastik

Köln, neg. no. 1025/05, 1025/06, 918/10).100 Musée du Louvre, MA 3562.101 Alexandria, Museum, inv. 26958.

102 664a, inv. 1843.103 Sala del Ermafrodito 171, inv. 748.104 Inv. 1914.126.105 B. Palma, MusNazRom 1.6, 104.106 Museo Civico di Storia e Arte, inv. 3139.

nero and poppaea 57

cuirassed statue, and represents the emperorwearing a laurel crown. The hair behind thecorona has been worked away, but the longerlocks brushed forward behind the ears are clearremnants of Nero’s type 3 coiffure. As a resultof the reworking, the crown is too large for theshape of the face, and the neck is unnaturallythick at its base.

Nero/Domitian

Vespasian’s younger son, Domitian shared super-ficial similarities in age, physiognomy, and coif-fure, with Nero and as a result more portraits ofNero were altered into representations of Domi-tian, than have been transformed into eitherVespasian or Titus. All three of Domitian’s por-trait types are represented among the reworkedimages, spanning the years A.D. 69-96. Domi-tian’s earliest type is attested on coins from A.D.72-75. The young prince is shown with a fullhead of curly hair which is arranged in curvinglocks over the forehead, combed from right toleft, with a section of locks often reversing direc-tion over the right eye. Domitian has a hookednose like his father and his face is broad. Hismouth is full, and the lower lip recedes slightly.The chin is firm and somewhat square in shape.Domitian’s second portrait type is used on coinsbeginning in 75. In this portrait type, the hair iscurlier over the forehead and at the temples.Some of these locks can be treated as full cork-screw curls. The curving locks over the foreheadcontinue to be brushed right to left, but the re-versed locks are placed over the left eye ratherthan the right. The third and final portrait typefirst appears on coins in A.D. 81, the year ofDomitian’s accession. The long strands of hairare now brushed in waves, forward from theocciput.107 Again, the curving locks are careful-ly arranged over the forehead and are orientedright to left, with the locks over the right templereversing this direction.

Four full length portrait statues of Domitianoriginally represented Nero. Three of these arecuirassed likenesses, including a statue recut toDomitian’s first type in the Braccio Nuovo of theVatican (cat. 2.53; fig. 59).108 The likeness retainselements of Nero’s type 2 coiffure, but M.Pfanner has conclusively demonstrated that theoriginal facial structure belonged to Nero’s thirdportrait type: the profile of the Braccio Nuovohead matches exactly the profile of Nero’s onlysurviving type 3 portrait in the Museo Palatino(fig. 82a-c).109 Thus, the original portrait of Nerowas a conflation of types 2 and 3, datable to A.D.59-64. The Braccio Nuovo statue is one of threeNeronian likenesses which exhibit such con-flations.110

The reworked image of Domitian retains thecalm, classicizing authority of the original andconsequently is a flattering representation of theyoung Caesar. The statue recalls the Prima Portastatue of Augustus, depicting the emperor incuirass and hip mantle. Like the Prima Portaportrait, the imagery on the cuirass, a cupidriding a bull, a nereid, a triton, and a dolphin,imbues the likeness with additional iconographi-cal meaning, placing the rule of the princeps in alarger cosmological setting and proclaiming hisdomination over the sea. In addition, the statue’smarine imagery closely relates it to the Nero/Titus from the Metroon at Olmpia (cat. 2.37). Asa representation of a victorious imperator the statuealso provides invaluable evidence for militaristicimages of Nero produced in Rome. Such imageswere undoubtedly created to capitalize on theRoman military successes in Armenia, engineeredby Gn. Domitius Corbulo, as well as to publiclyrepresent Nero in the traditional role of populararmy commander (like his maternal grandfatherGermanicus), despite the emperor’s lack of mili-tary experience.

107 According to Suetonius, Domitian combed his hairforward in order to cover his premature baldness, Dom. 18.2.

108 126 (formerly 129), inv. 2213.

109 (1989) 219, fig. 35.110 A bronze portrait from the Via Babuino has the same

combination of type 2 hair with type 3 facial features (Palazzodei Conservatori, [formerly] Sala dei Bronzi, inv.2385[Centrale Montemartini 1.25b), while a portrait in Oslocombines a type 4 coiffure with the leaner facial featuresof type 2 (Nasjonalgalleriet, 1248).

chapter three58

A second reworked cuirassed portrait ofDomitian provides additional evidence for mili-taristic representations of Nero (cat. 2.58; fig. 60a-b).111 The statue was discovered at the Romantheater in Vaison-la-Romaine, together with theCaligula/Claudius as Jupiter (cat. 1.32). Theanomalies of the reworked portrait, namely theunfinished hair on the top and sides of the headand the asymmetrical eyes, would not have beenvisible if the portrait was displayed high up in thescaenae frons or wall of the theater. The originalstatue of Nero is likely to have been specificallycommissioned for the theater. On the cuirasswinged victories in short chitons flank the palla-dium associated with Minerva, Vesta and theearliest cults of Rome, and the entire ensembleis designed to underscore the emperor as sempervictor.112 Although variations on this motif becamecommon on Flavian and Trajanic cuirasses, itsearliest appearance is on the Vaison statue sug-gesting that the resonant combination of Victoryfigures and the palladium was a particular inno-vation of the Neronian period.113

A third cuirassed portrait, discovered on 17June 1761 during the excavations of the Julio-Claudian Basilica at Velleia, provides an unusualexample of an image of Nero which has under-gone two recuttings (cat. 2.50; fig. 61a-e).114 Theportrait was initially a replica of Nero’s fourthportrait type, then recarved into a likeness ofDomitian, and ultimately reworked into an im-age of Nerva (cat. 5.13). The decoration on thecuirass is strikingly similar to the Vaison statue,with nearly identical winged victories in shortchitons flanking a thymeterium, instead of a palla-dium. Like the motif on the Vaison statue, the

variation with thymeterium may be an innovationof the Neronian period, designed, through thesacral symbol of the thymeterium, to underscore thedivinely sanctioned nature of Nero’s position asvictorious imperator. 115 The pteryges are embossedwith lions heads alternating with pairs of doubleelephant heads, perhaps intended as allusions thevictories in Armenia. The statue body is of ex-tremely high quality, with much care lavished onthe details of the cuirass and sandals.116 Theoriginal portrait must have been created betweenA.D. 64 and 68 and may have been designed tooffset the perception of Nero as an artist andphilhellene, which was especially prevalent dur-ing the later years of his reign. In addition to theBraccio Nuovo and Vaison-la-Romaine statues,the Parma portrait provides further evidence fora militaristic component of Neronian visual pro-paganda. Indeed, martial representations of Neromay have been especially susceptible to reuseunder the Flavians, who all stressed their rolesas military leaders and victors.

Another full length portrait of Domitian’s firsttype has been entirely transformed from an ear-lier likeness of Nero. The statue is now in Munichand the body, adapted from a 4th century pro-totype of Diomedes by Kresilas, depicts theemperor nude, with mantle draped over his leftshoulder and a balteus across his chest (cat.2.46;

111 Vaison-la-Romaine, Musée Municipal, inv. 300.315.112 As a further statement of the invincible and heroic

nature of the emperor, he is presented barefoot. The ap-pearance of the palladium on the cuirass also associates theimage with the cult of Vesta, which Nero promoted, asevidenced particularly by his rebuilding and expansion ofthe Temple and Atrium Vestae in the Forum Romanumafter the fire of A.D. 64; see F. Coarelli (1980) 83.

113 On the motif, see K. Stemmer (1978) 77, n. 227,155, and table between pages 152 and 153.

114 Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 146 (1870),827 (1954).

115 K. Stemmer cites the Parma cuirass, which he datesto the early Claudian period, as the first appearance of themotif of victories flanking a thymaterium or candleabra; 8-10, no. I 4, table between pages 152 and 153. Stemmercites only three instances which predate the Neronian periodand they are dated to the Claudian or late Claudian peri-ods; none of these survive with their original portrait headsto permit more secure dating (formerly Sikyon Museum,[1978] 19, no. I 18, pl. 9.4; Schloss Ehrbach 20 [1978] 24,no. II 2, pl. 11.2-3; Berlin, Staatlich Museen 368 [1978]60, no. V 8, pl. 36.4; see also Sassari, Museo Sanna 7890[1978] 87-88, no. VII 23, pl. 61.3, which is listed in thetable between pages 152 and 153 as late Claudian, but inthe catalogue entry as Neronian). Stemmer’s dating crite-ria are probably too rigid, and it is certainly within the realmof possibility that these three cuirasses are Neronian or later.Significantly no Neronian cuirasses are included inStemmer’s table on the types and chronology of cuirassdecoration.

116 C. Saletti (1968) 54-5.

nero and poppaea 59

fig. 62a-e).117 The statue was discovered in 1758at Labicum, in the excavations of a villa whichmay have belonged to one of Domitian’s freed-men. This heroic image of the emperor was origi-nally a replica of Nero’s third type. Although theDiomedes body type is attested in the early im-perial period, it was not especially popular forimperial portraits during the first century.118 TheMunich statue documents the dissemination ofheroic, classicizing images of Nero, fully in keep-ing with the emperor’s philhellenic tastes. Inaddition, the combination of classicizing bodywith a head rendered in the more baroque styleof Nero’s third portrait type would have lent aneclectic tension to the original.

Additional portraits of Domitian have beenreworked from likenesses of Nero, and, as mightbe expected a substantial majority were refash-ioned into replicas of Domitian’s first portrait typemaking them datable to the initial years ofVespasian’s principate, as also seems to be thecase with portraits reconfigured into representa-tions of his brother Titus . Images from Romeor its environs include a portrait altered from type2 likeness in Madrid (cat. 2.44)119 as well as por-traits refashioned from type 4 likenesses in theTerme (cat. 2.52; fig. 63a-d),120 the MuseoCapitolino (cat. 2.51),121 in Munich (cat. 2.47),122

and Boston (cat. 2.47; fig. 64a-c).123 Of uncer-tain provenance, another type 1 portrait ofDomitian in Stuttgart has been recut from areplica of Nero’s third portrait type (cat. 2.57).124

The carving of the Boston head is of the highestartistic quality and is remarkable for a recut im-

age. The sculptor responsible for refashioning thispiece has concentrated his efforts on redoing thehair over the forehead and the preexisting massof Nero’s coiffure has allowed the artist to dra-matically undercut the new locks. The resultingexuberant play of light and shadow contrasts withthe smooth classicism of the face and recalls simi-lar virtuoso contrasts in the best metropolitan Ro-man portraits from the Flavian period.125 Indeed,the sculptor has masterfully translated the exist-ing image of Nero into the emerging Flavianartistic idiom.126

In contrast, a type 1 likenesses in Vasto, alsorefashioned from a type four replica of Nerorepresents an entirely different stylistic approach(cat. 2.59; fig. 65).127 The stiff, linear handlingof the coiffure, the emblematic treatment of thealmond shaped eyes, and the blank, unmodeledsurfaces of the face suggest that the originalportrait of Nero and the subsequent recarvingstrongly reflect local Apulian taste and workman-ship apparently characterized by a preference forschematized and abstracted sculptural renderings.

Provincial variants of Domitian’s first portraittype, from Cologne (cat. 2.42)128 and Munigua(cat. 2.56),129 have also been reworked from rep-resentations of Nero. The Cologne likenessretains small narrow eyes and the part over theright temple of Nero’s type 3 images. The por-trait was discovered at Cologne, ancient ColoniaAgrippinensis, and is worked for insertion into atogate statue, capite velato. The city’s close connec-tion to Nero’s mother Agrippina Minor may have

117 Munich, Glyptothek, 394 (formerly 249).118 Louvre MA 1251 and Louvre MA 1215 are early

imperial replicas of the type. Other variations on the typewhich predate the Neronian image include: Pompey (MuseoTorlonia, C. Maderna [1988] 199, no. D3); Agrippa (Venice,Museo Archeologico 11, C. Maderna [1988] 198, no. D2);Augustus (Musei Vaticani, Sala a Croce Greca, inv. 181,C. Maderna [1988] 199-200, no. D4, pl. 18.3).

119 Prado, inv. 321 E.120 Museo Nazionale Romano. Palazzo Massimo alle

Terme, inv. 226.121 Stanza degli Imperatori 14, inv. 427.122 Glyptothek, 418.123 Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 88.639.124 Württembergisches Landesmuseum, 64/28.

125 As is especially evident in female portraiture of theperiod whose elaborate coiffures provided ample opportu-nities displaying such sculptural talents, as, for example,in the well known Fonseca bust in the Stanza degliImperatori of the Museo Capitolino 15, inv. 434, Fittschen-Zanker III, 53-54, no. 59, pls. 86-7 (despite P. Zanker’sattempts to date the bust to the late Trajanic or earlyHadrianic period).

126 The head was discovered at Tusculum in the ruinsof Domitian’s villa in the nineteenth century. M. Comstockand C.C. Vermeule (1976) 217. Evidently the recarvedlikeness was sufficiently appreciated in antiquity to be dis-played at the imperial villa.

127 Museo Civico.128 Römisch-Germanisches Museum.129 122. Seville, Museo Arqueológico Provincial, inv.

1996/8.

chapter three60

occasioned the creation of the original Neronianlikeness. The Munigua image was discovered inan ancient well together with other sculpturalfragments. The orientation of the locks, as wellas the broad facial features have been retainedfrom the original type 4 likeness of Nero. TheCologne and Munigua portraits testify to thetransformation of Nero’s representations intoimages of Domitian as Caesar in the western andnorthern provinces.

An unusual example of Domitian’s secondportrait type in Naples has been recut from areplica of Nero’s own second type (cat. 2.48).130

The coiffure of the Naples head has been largelyrecarved. However, Nero’s longer locks areclearly visible on the left side of the head, espe-cially at the nape of the neck where they areswept forward. The locks on the right side of thenape of the neck have been made shorter, butthe projecting mass of the original coiffure is stillclearly visible in this area.

Three replicas of Domitian’s third portraittype, in Naples (cat. 2.49; fig. 66a-b),131 Rome(cat. 2.55; fig. 67),132 and Madrid (cat. 2.43),133

have been recut from images of Nero. Thesethree recut images of Domitian provide signifi-cant evidence for the warehousing of Nero’sportraits, since they could not have been re-worked any earlier than A.D. 81, the year inwhich Domitian’s third portrait type was intro-duced to mark his accession. The Naples likenessretains elements of Nero’s own third portrait type.The portrait in Rome is well over life-sized inscale, and displays remnants of Nero’s type 3coiffure over the right ear. The Madrid likenesshas also been refashioned from a type 3 portraitof Nero. In addition to the Munigua portrait, andthe Nero/Vespasians in Seville, it provides fur-ther evidence for the warehousing and rework-ing of Nero’s images in Roman Iberia.

A fragmentary relief portrait of Domitian’sthird type in the Museo Gregoriano Profano ori-

ginally represented Nero (cat. 2.54; fig. 68).134

Elements of Nero’s third portrait type coiffure stillvisible in the relief indicate that it was createdbetween 59 and 64, while the use of Domitian’sthird portrait type, indicates a date of 81 or laterfor the recutting. The period of over a decadewhich elapsed between the creation of the monu-ment and its alteration is puzzling and suggeststhat the relief may have been stored in the in-tervening years, or alternatively never installedon the monument for which it was intended, asseems to also be the case with the CancelleriaReliefs (cat. 5.17).

Several of Nero’s glyptic likenesses were alsoreworked, including a type 2 likeness of Nero ona sardonyx cameo in Minden recut to a portraitof Domitian’s third type (cat. 2.45; fig. 69).135 Theemperor wears a corona civica and the coiffure andfacial features have been extensively recarved,causing a reduction in the overall proportions ofthe head. Consequently, both the neck and co-rona are too large for the current size of the head.Nero’s longer locks have been cut back over theforehead, in front of the ears and on the nape ofthe neck, but traces of the original coiffure arestill clearly visible in these areas. The locks ontop of the head have also been reworked intoDomitian’s waved arrangement. Nero’s aquilinenose has been made hooked by recarving thebridge of the nose.

Like the reconfigured type 3 marble portraitsof Domitian in Naples and Madrid, the Mindencameo could not have been recarved any earlierthan A.D. 81. Cameo portraits of Vespasian orTitus are fairly rare, which suggests a decline inboth production and demand for such gemsduring their reigns. The recutting of the Mindencameo may have been occasioned by the renewedinterest in gem portraits under Domitian. Theinherent value of the Minden portrait as a semi-precious stone and object d’art, must have insuredthat it was not destroyed as a result of Nero’sdamnatio. But the fact that the effort was made toreuse this cameo underscores its political signifi-

130 Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 5907.131 Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 6061.132 Villa Margherita (American Embassy) wall along the

Via Boncompagni.133 Madrid, Museo Arqueológico, inv. 2770.

134 no. 644, inv. 4065.135 Domschatz.

nero and poppaea 61

cance as a presentation piece, redesigned to ex-alt the reigning emperor, Domitian.

The great number of sculpted portraits of Nerowhich were reworked into images of the threeFlavian principes Vespasian, Titus, and Domitianmay also have been occasioned by economicnecessity as well as convenience. Following Nero’sfinancial excesses and the enormous costs of thecivil wars, Vespasian inherited an imperial trea-sury which was substantially depleted. Certainly,reworking preexisting portraits of Nero into like-nesses of the new dynasts would have been moreeconomically feasible than destroying the formeremperor’s representations altogether.136

Nero/Augustus

As was also the case with Caligula, several im-ages of Nero were retrospectively recycled intorepresentations of Augustus. The continued pop-ularity of the first princeps transcended the changein regime, while the physical similarities betweenNero and his great-great grandfather would havefacilitated the reworkings. Seven of these refash-ioned portraits have survived and all of them areversions of Augustus’s Prima Porta type.137

Three likenesses, in the Palazzo Colonna (cat.2.11; fig. 70),138 Padua (cat. 2.9),139 and St.Germain-en-Laye (cat. 2.12)140 were originallyreplicas of Nero’s second type, the closest toAugustan portraits in terms of style, iconography,and coiffure. In all three Nero’s central part hasbeen replaced with the three lock arrangementcharacteristic of Augustus’s Prima Porta hairstyle.

Nevertheless, Nero’s long curving locks are stillapparent, at the edges of the forehead and overthe ears. The physiognomy of the Colonna por-trait has been very little altered from theNeronian likeness, and is a pertinent reminderof the homogenous nature of much Julio-Claudian portraiture and the endurance of theAugustan iconographic legacy. In the Padua andSt. Germain images, the facial features have beenrecut, especially in the area of the forehead,cheeks and mouth. The Padua portrait includesslight signs of aging, the suggestion of sunkencheeks and naso-labial lines. As already noted,veristic signs of aging can be a feature of Augus-tus’s posthumous images, and here they may havebeen additionally intended to distance therecarved image from the original Neronian like-ness, as with so many of the portraits altered toVespasian. Indeed, the recutting of Padua headis likely contemporary with the transformation ofimages of Nero into Vespasian and reflects similarstylistic intentions. The St. Germain portrait wasdiscovered in Marseilles and attests to the rework-ing of Nero’s images in Gaul.

Nero’s type 3 portraits were also refashionedinto representations of Augustus, as evidenced bylikenesses in Aquilea (cat. 2.7; fig. 71),141 theVatican (cat. 2.10; fig. 72a-b),142 and Alexandria(cat. 2.6).143 The Aquilea portrait, a full lengthtogate statue capite velato (carved from a singleblock of marble) was discovered near the Romancircus at Aquilea, together with the Caligula/Claudius with long paludamentum (cat. 1.17; fig.12). The portrait retains much of Nero’s full coif-fure, but the face has been substantially recut andagain, signs of aging often present in Augustus’sposthumous likenesses, have been added. Thestatue, testifies to the dissemination of traditionalimages of Nero, capite velato, intended to celebratethe emperor’s religious role as pontifex maximus.144

The Vatican portrait is especially significant

136 Vespasian’s thrifty personality and concern witheconomy are illustrated by several anecdotes recorded bySuetonius, Vesp. 16, 23.2-4.

137 D. Boschung recognizes six recarved likenesses inhis catalogue of Augustus’s portraits (Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, inv. 24.043; Aquileia, Museo ArcheologicoNazionale, inv. 12; Luni, Antiquario, CM 1033; Padua,Museo Civico, inv. 819; Palazzo Colonna, fid. no. 54; St.Germain-en-laye, Musée des Antiquités Nationales, inv.63734). However, details of physiognomy and coiffure in-dicate that a portrait in the Vatican is also recarved (Saladei Busti 274, inv. 715).

138 Fid. no. 54.139 Museo Civico, inv. 819.140 Musée des Antiquités Nationales, inv. 63734.

141 Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 12.142 Sala dei Busti 274, inv. 715.143 Greco Roman Museum, inv. 24043.144 As also in the unreworked type 2 capite velato por-

trait of Nero in the Museo Palatino, ex Terme (inv. 616),see infra.

chapter three62

for its attribute, the corona spicea. Nero’s thirdcoiffure has been left largely intact, with theexception of the central locks over the foreheadwhich have been recut to Augustus’s Prima Portaarrangement. The small eyes, broad facial fea-tures, and full, retreating lower lip are all lega-cies of the Neronian portrait. And in fact, theprofile of the Vatican image closely matches thatof the Palatine portrait of Nero. The Vaticanhead marks the first appearance of the corona spiceain conjunction with male imperial portraits.145

This distinctive crown is multivalent in its asso-ciations with Ceres, Triptolemus, the EleusinianMysteries, as well as the fratres arvales.146 Thecorona spicaea is also used extensively by Nero’smother, Agrippina Minor in her numismaticimages issued under Claudius. The associationwith the fratres arvales is likely stressed in theVatican image, as it may have been discoveredat the Arval sanctuary at Magliana.147 The rec-ognition of this piece as a recarved portrait ofNero changes significantly the initial ideologicalimplications of the image. The portrait is not aproduct of Augustus’s wish to associate himselfwith Ceres as guarantor of agricultural abun-dance,148 but rather a testament to Nero’s closeinvolvement with the fratres arvales.149

The colossal image in Alexandria is worked forinsertion into an acrolithic statue. Nero’s typethree hairstyle is plainly visible at the edges ofthe forehead and in the traces of long sideburnsover the ears. The long arching brows and full,receding lower lip have also been retained fromthe Neronian likeness. Indeed, the brows them-selves project unnaturally from the forehead andare remnants of the sculptural volume of theNeronian original. The insistent modeling of thecoiffure and facial features, also clear vestiges ofthe original, combine to make this one the mostbaroque of Augustus’s images. The portrait wasdiscovered at Athribis, and attests to the creationof colossal images of Nero in Egypt, probably tobe associated with the imperial cult.

A fragmentary relief portrait of Augustus fromLuni was modified from a replica of Nero’s fourthportrait type (cat. 2.8; fig. 73).150 Likely formingpart of the sculptural decoration of an importantpublic monument at Luna, the portrait featureda separately worked radiate crown (in metal). Theradiate crown is an important Neronian innova-tion within the context of imperial visual imag-ery. Previously, its use had been essentially limit-ed to representations of deities like Apollo-Helios,Hellenistic rulers, as for instance Ptolemy IV, anddivi, most notably Augustus.151 If the radiatecrown is a feature of the original Neronian por-trait, as seems probable, its appearance on theLuni relief may actually have dictated thereconfiguration of the image as Divus Augustus,for whom it was already and established attributeLike the Nero/Domitian in the Museo Grego-riano Profano, the portrait provides important,albeit tantalizing, evidence for the production andappearance of Neronian relief monuments andtheir subsequent alteration under the Flavians.Both of the likenesses are also the first chrono-logical instances of reconfigured portraits on

145 Prior to the Neronian period, the corona spicea, chieflyassociated with Ceres, was used in conjunction with repre-sentations of female members of the imperial family includ-ing Livia, Antonia Minor, and Agrippina Minor; see B.S.Spaeth (1996) 171, no. 1.10, 172, nos. 1.16, 1.21, 173, nos.1.23-26 (Livia); 173, nos. 2.1-2 (Antonia Minor); 175, nos.6.4, 6.6-9 (Agrippina Minor).

146 P. Liverani favors an association with the ArvalBrotherhood (1990-91) 165, as does C. Chirasi-Colombo(1981) 423-5; B. Spaeth, following A. Alföldi (1979) 582-3,cites the piece in the context of Triptolemus and Ceres (1994)92 and (1996) 23, n. 123, 47, n. 94.

147 J. Scheid (1990) 572, n. 36.148 As proposed by B.S. Spaeth (1996) 23, 47, n. 94.149 At Nero’s request, the Brotherhood made an annual

sacrifice on the birthday of his father, Gn. DomitiusAhenobarbus (11 December) in front of the ancestral homeof the Domitii Ahenobarbi (Suet. Nero 9; Tac. Ann.13.10;J. Scheid [1990] 412, 416). The Arvals gave thanks for thediscovery of a “wicked plot” against Nero between Mayand September of 66 (Suet. Nero 36; AFA Henzen 34 =Smallwood 26; Griffin [1984] 178, n. 75). They also madevows for safe return of Nero and Statilia Messalina fromGreece (25 September 66; Philost. Life of Apollonius 5.7; Eus.,ed. Schoene, 154-57; Griffin [1984] 126, n. 162). Later

emperors are also shown with this crown as frater arval, asfor instance, portraits of Antoninus Pius and Lucius Verusin the Louvre, MA 1180, MA 1169 (K. de Kersauson [1996]198-99, 270-71, nos. 84, 121).

150 Antiquario, CM 1033.151 M. Bergmann (1998) 13-79 for the Hellenistic ma-

terial.

nero and poppaea 63

Roman imperial reliefs which may have beencommemorative or historical in nature.

Nero/Claudius

One colossal portrait of Nero originally a replicaof Nero’s third or fourth type, now in Baltimore,was altered into a likeness of his uncle and pre-decessor, Claudius (cat. 2.13).152 Deep naso la-bial lines and strong wrinkles around the mouthhave been added in order to transform the im-age of the youthful Nero into a middle agedrepresentation of Claudius. Such realistic signs ofaging are consonant with the revived interest inverism which marks the early Flavian period. Allthree Flavian emperors honored the defiedClaudius, whose cult may have been neglectedduring the later years of Nero’s reign.153 Theretrospective reconfiguration of the Baltimoreportrait into Claudius is unique but it stands asa clear expression of the pietas which the Flaviansevinced towards the memory of Claudius.

Nero/Galba

A sardonyx cameo in Paris representing Galbahas been recut from a type 3 portrait of Nero (cat.2.14; fig. 74).154 The cameo presents the emperorwith corona civica and aegis. The locks which framethe face have been shortened, but their arrange-ment has essentially been retained from Nero’scoiffure. Horizontal furrows on the forehead andemphatic naso-labial lines, which appear onGalba’s numismatic portraits, have been includedin the recarved cameo likeness. The remnants ofthe original likeness, namely the full Neroniancoiffure and the divine attribute of the aegis, are

extremely inconsistent with Galba’s numismaticiconography. Galba’s coin portraits stand in starkcontrast to those of his predecessor. Galba isusually depicted with a short, military coiffure,his features are realistically aged, in the traditionof Republican verism, and he eschews all divineattributes. Galba’s portraits were distinctly in-tended to differentiate his character and policiesfrom those of Nero and they are an importantprecursor of similarly motivated Flavian veristiclikenesses. However, the discrepancies of therecarved Paris cameo may have been viewed asless incongruous in the medium of glyptic por-traits, which often present the emperor or mem-bers of the imperial family with divine at-tributes.155

Nero/Trajan

A fragmentary sardonyx cameo in Berlin hasbeen somewhat cursorily reworked into a likenessof Trajan (cat. 2.60; fig. 75).156 The emperorwears the laurel crown of the triumphator. Nero’stype 3 coiffure remains essentially intact, althoughshallow locks have been engraved on the fore-head beneath the Neronian locks in order tochange their orientation from right-to-left to left-to-right.157 A notch has been carved into theforehead just below the hair to make it bulgeslightly, a physiognomical trait of Trajan’s por-traiture. Naso-labial lines have been added andthe lips and chin recarved. The reconfigurationof this cameo was delayed at least 30 years, as itcannot have been recut before Trajan’s accessionin 98.

Nero/Antinous

In contrast to the Nero/Trajan cameo in Berlin,a sardonyx in Paris has been more plausibly152 Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, inv. 23.118.

153 Vespasian is credited with completing the hugecomplex containing the Temple of Divus Claudius on theCaelian, parts of which was used as a nymphaeum in thepark of Nero’s Domus Aurea (Suet. Vesp. 9.1), Claudius isalso featured on coins of Titus and Domitian (BMC 2, 289-90, nos. 297-307, 417, no. 512, pls. 56.1, 56.3, 56.5, 83.3).Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis is an extreme example of the deni-gration of Claudius which took place under Nero; see alsoJ. Pollini (1984) 552-53, n. 45.

154 Bibliothèque National, Cabinet des Médailles 251.

155 Cameos of Galba in Florence represent him bare-headed, without attributes and with a laurel crown (MuseoArcheologico invs. 14543 and 14656), A. Giuliano (1989)242, no. 173, with fig. (with earlier literature); A. Giuliano(1989) 244, no. 174, with fig. (with earlier literature).

156 Staatliche Museen, inv. no. 1983.11.157 Trajan’s Type 1 coiffure is characterized by a ma-

jority of forehead locks which are combed right to left.

chapter three64

refashioned into an image of Antinous (cat. 2.61;fig. 76).158 Antinous wears a corona civica andpaludamentum. The hair around the face has beenrecarved into Antinous’s profusely curly coiffure,although the straight locks of Nero’s type 2 hair-style remain on the occiput, and Nero’s centralpart is still discernible amidst the reconfiguredhairstyle over the forehead. The corona andpaludamentum of the Paris cameo are remnants ofthe original Neronian image. As elements ofostensibly imperial iconography, they are unusualamong portraits of Antinous, which tend to havedivine or heroic attributes. As most portraits ofAntinous were produced between 131, the yearof his death, and 138, the year of Hadrian’sdeath, this cameo, like the Nero/Trajan cameoin Berlin, was not reworked until considerablyafter Nero’s own death and damnatio.

Nero/Gallienus

Nero’s sculpted images could also be warehousedfor centuries as evidenced by a portrait in Co-lumbia, Missouri which was not recarved untilthe middle of the third century, when it wasaltered into a likeness of Gallienus (cat. 2.62; fig.72a-d).159 The portrait comes from Egypt and isworked for insertion into a togate statue, capitevelato. The togate statue to which this head origi-nally belonged was almost certainly reused afterNero’s portrait head had been removed. Theinsertion of a new head, probably a Flavian like-ness, would have transformed the statue into anew and serviceable portrait. In the head itself,the long curving locks of Nero’s third coiffureremain visible behind the ears and over the fore-head. The mouth retains the Neronian full re-ceding under lip; but the upper lip has beenrecarved, giving it the pronounced central dipcharacteristic of Gallienus’s likenesses. Moreover,the profile with its fleshy underchin is an unmis-takable feature Nero’s last two portrait types. A

stippled beard has been added to the portrait, andthe hair over the forehead has been recut intoGallienus’s arrangement of comma shaped lockswhich are clearly intended to recall Julio-Clau-dian coiffures.160 The resulting image combinesthe shorter beard of Gallienus’s first portrait type,with the fuller coiffure of his later types.161 Therevival of Julio-Claudian coiffures which occurredunder Valerian and Gallienus, combined with thepolitical and economic instability of the period,would have rendered the Columbia portrait es-pecially suitable for reuse at this time.162 Like theNero/Augustus and the Nero/Titus in Alexan-dria, the Columbia head also provides importantevidence for the kinds of Neronian images dis-played in Egypt, in this instance a veiled portraitinvoking Nero’s role as Pontifex Maximus.

Nero/Constantinian Emperor

A colossal head in the Terme provides additionalimportant evidence for the warehousing of Nero’simages for long periods of time (cat. 2.63; fig.

158 Bibliothèque National, Cabinet des Médailles, 238,5.9 x 4.8 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 97, n. 294, 111, 113-14, 308, no. E6, pl. 42.10 (with previous literature).

159 University of Missouri, Museum of Art and Archae-ology, acc. no. 62.46.

160 S. Wood (1986) 101.161 Gallienus’s first portrait type dates to the period of

co-rule with his father Valerian (253-60), while the threelater types (“Terme,” “Louvre,” and “Lagos,” all date tohis reign as sole emperor (260-68); On Gallienus’s portraittypology see Fittschen and Zanker I, 134-139, nos. 112-115, pl. 142; K. Fittschen (1993). The Columbia head findsclose parallels to a replica of the Lagos type in the PalazzoQuirinale, Sala delle Quattro Stagioni SM 5071; M.E.Micheli in L. Guerrini and C. Gasparri (1993) 92-5, no.33, pl. 32; K. Fittschen (1993) 212, pls. 27b, 29b, 35b.

162 M. Fuchs suggestion that the Nero/Gallienus is atype 4 Nero with beard reworked from a portrait of Caligula,(1997) 88 does not seem persuasive. The likeness preservesno traces of a pre-existing Caligulan likeness. Indeed, de-tails such as the fleshy underchin and the girth of the por-trait in profile are features of Nero’s representations andnot Caligula’s and would be virtually impossible to add interms of sculptural volume to a recut image. The stippledbeard is more typically a third century feature. In Nero’stype 3 portrait in the Museo Palatino, the slight beard underthe chin is incised as a series of long, curving locks, notstippled. The beard of the gilded bronze portrait now inan American private collection (fig. 87a-b) is fully modeled.The beards on Neronian and later Hadrianic private por-traits which Fuchs sites are also fully modeled rather thanstippled (Hannover, private collection, and Budapest,Szépmüvészeti Múzeum, inv. 3942, M. Fuchs [1997] 88-89, pls. 9-10).

nero and poppaea 65

78).163 The portrait, originally of Nero’s fourthtype, was not recut until the fourth century. Likethe Columbia Nero/Gallienus, the Terme headmust have been accessible and well enough pre-served to make its reuse viable. The over life-sizedscale of the Terme portrait virtually assures thatit was reused as an imperial likeness. The prov-enance of the Terme head is unknown, but it islikely to have been discovered in Rome or itsvicinity. Despite the portrait’s poor state of pres-ervation, the remains of Nero’s type IV coiffureare discernible. The hair over the forehead hasbeen recarved, but Nero’s hairstyle, with itsparallel arrangement of curving locks across theforehead, from right to left, has been substantiallyretained. The resulting arrangement closely re-sembles a colossal marble portrait in the Cortileof the Palazzo dei Conservatori, representing oneof the sons of Constantine.164 The classicism ofthe Terme image would also be consistent witha Constantinian date for its recarving. The eyesof the image have been recut in order to makethem larger. The pupils have been drilled as halfcircles, with the irises incised around them, apattern also consistent with other Constantinianportraits.165 The Constantinian period witnessesa resurgence in the practice of recarving impe-rial images, especially in the city of Rome, asattested by several portraits of Maxentius refash-ioned to represent Constantine and the recutrelief portraits from the Great Trajanic Frieze,the Hadrianic tondi, and originally the Aurelianpanels on the Arch of Constantine. The Con-

stantinian period also evinces a predilection forover life-sized and colossal imperial images.

Nero’s Images Altered into Private Individuals

In addition to the recarved portraits of Vespasian,Domitian, Titus, and Claudius, an unidentifiedchild’s portrait in Hannover may have been re-worked from a likeness of Nero (cat. 2.64).166 Theportrait was discovered in Rome in the eighteenthcentury and traces of Nero’s type I coiffure arestill visible on the back of the head and on thenape of the neck. The recarved arrangement ofthe hair, with its comma shaped locks is foundin private portraits from the Julio-Claudianthrough the Trajanic periods. K. Fittschen hassuggested that the reconfigured image was in-tended to represent one of the sons of Vitellius,whose likenesses appear on some of their father’scoins, but whose names are not recorded.167

Given Vitellius’s very public rehabilitation ofNero’s memory, this seems unlikely and thepossibility that this portrait was recarved into anunknown private individual should not be dis-counted. In any case, the Hannover portraitremains a unique (and puzzling) example of arecarved replica of Nero’s first type.

A portrait in the Yale University Art Gallerymay also have been recarved into a representa-tion of an unknown private individual of theHadrianic period (cat. 2.65; fig. 79a-d).168 Thearrangement of the locks over the forehead, witha part in the hair over the outer corner of theright eye recalls the type 3 replica in the Terme.The slightly wavy treatment of the hair on thetop of the head also clearly resembles the comain gradus formata coiffures of Nero’s last two por-trait types. Additionally, the small, fleshy eyes findparallels in Nero’s type 3 and 4 likenesses. If theportrait is, indeed, a recarved portrait of Nero,then it is another unusual example of an impe-rial image reworked into the likeness of a priv-ate individual. The Yale piece may have been

163 Inv. 126279164 Inv. 2882, H. 0.65 m.; K. Fittschen and P. Zanker

(1985) 156-58, no. 125, pl. 156.165 This treatment of the pupils and irises occurs in other

Constantinian portraits; for example and marble portraitof a son of Constantine in Sara, San Donnato, H.P.L’Orange (1984) 138, pl. 61c-d; a marble portrait ofConstantine in Carthage, Museum, inv. C 0032, H.P.L’Orange (1984) 87, 121-22, pl. 56a-b; and three recarvedportraits from the Hadrianic tondi of the Arch ofConstantine: a recarved portrait of Constantine on thenorthwest (left) medallion, lion hunt, H.P. L’Orange (1984)43, 45, 124, pl. 33a-b, two recarved portraits of Licinius,on the northeast side, offering to Apollo, and northwest side,offering to Hercules, H.P. L’Orange (1984) 43-45, 116-17,pls. 28a-b, 29a-b.

166 Sammlung des Herzogs von Braunschwieg.167 K. Fittschen in Die Skulpturen der Sammlung Wallmoden

(Göttingen 1979) no. 27.168 Inv. 1961.30.

chapter three66

removed from public display following Nero’sdamnatio and warehoused, its reuse occasioned bythe continued popularity of coiffures inspired byNero’s coma in gradus formata arrangement into theHadrianic period.169 The long span of time be-tween Nero’s overthrow and the Yale image’sputative transformation suggests that the portraitwas warehoused in a safe location prior to itsreuse. If the Hannover and Yale portraits are infact representations of Nero reworked into pri-vate individuals, then, like the altered head ofCaligula in Algiers (cat. 1.38), they are extremelyrare examples of imperial images which have notbeen transformed into representations of otheremperors.

The Colossus

The Colossus is perhaps the most famousNeronian image to have undergone transforma-tion in antiquity.170 Nero commissioned the re-nowned sculptor Zenodorus to design a ca. 100-120 Roman foot talll bronze representation of thesun-god, Sol/Helios with Neronian facial fea-tures, ultimately intended to be the spectacularcenterpiece for the atrium of the Domus Aureaon the Velia which allowed access to the villa/palace complex from the Forum Romanum.171

The Colossus, however, was clearly unfinished atthe time of Nero’s suicide in A.D. 68,172 and wasonly eventually erected on the Velia in c. A.D. 75,when it was dedicated as an image of the Sun.173

Cassius Dio suggests that the portrait features ofthe Colossus may have been altered to resembleTitus (JÎ gÉ*@H @Ê μ¥< JÎ J@Ø ;XDT<@H @Ê *¥ JÎ J@Ø

I\J@L §Pg4<).174 Hadrian had the statue relocatedto a position closer to the Colosseum in order toclear the Velia for construction of the Temple ofVenus and Roma.175 In the later second century,the Colossus was altered into an image of Her-cules with the portrait features of Commodus.176

The Commodan alterations were removed fol-lowing his death and damnatio. Finally, in the earlyfourth century the Colossus was rededicated tothe memory of Maxentius’s deified son, Romu-lus.177 Despite the changes of its location, at-tributes, and portrait features, the Colossus con-tinued to be associated with Nero throughout its

169 For instance, a portrait of a private Hadrianic manin the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 544, inv. 1641, F. Johansen(1995a) 166-7, with figs. (with earlier literature); For pri-vate versions of Nero’s coiffures, see P. Cain (1993) andM. Fuchs (1997).

170 P. Howell (1968) 291-99; C. Lega, (1989-90) 339-78; M. Bergmann (1993). C. Lega (1993); F. Albertson (1996)802-3; M. Bergmann (1998) 189-201, fig. 3 ; S. Ensoli inS. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds. (2000) 66-71; R.R.R. Smith(2000) 532-8; F. Albertson (2001). S. Ensoli’s attempt toidentify the bronze colossal head of Constantine from theLateran (Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala degli Orazi eCuriazii, [ex Sala dei Bronzi] inv. 1072; h. 1.77 m.; K.Fittschen and P. Zanker (1985), as belonging to the colos-sus of Nero are largely unconvincing as it is far smaller thanthe ancient descriptions of the colossus itself. If theConstantinian bronze has been modified from an earlierportrait, It seems much more likely that it has been alteredfrom an earlier portrait of Trajan, as suggested by thearrangement of the hair at the back of the head.

171 Pliny, NH 34.18.45; Suet. Nero 31.1. R.R.R. Smithhas recently raised a note of scholarly caution concerning

the Colossus as a portrait of Nero (2000) 536-7. AlthoughSmith claims that the notion of the Colossus as a portraitof Nero is derived solely from the Pliny and Suetoniuspassages, Dio 65.15.1 also entertains the notion of Neronianportrait features and the three passages taken together seemfairly unequivocal. Smith is surely right, however, in rais-ing the possibility that the Colossus was not, in fact, in-tended by Nero as a portrait of himself as the sun god, butrather the sun-god with facial features resembling those ofNero. The image would then have been intended to invokethe concept of Sol Augustus (or Apollo-Helios-Augustus).

172 P. Howell (1968) 293-4 was the first entertain thepossibility that Colossus was not completed during Nero’sprincipate by pointing out that Pliny’s description of thestatue as destinatum illius principis simulacro (intended as alikeness of that emperor [Nero] implied that it was notcompleted in that form. Similarly Howell noted Suetonius’suse of staret to describe the placement of the Colossus inthe vestibule of the Domus Aurea (in quo colossus CXX pedumstaret ipsius effigie [in which would stand the 120 foot tallColossus as a representation of him{Nero}])suggesting thatthese were Nero’s intentions, rather than the statue’s ulti-mate outcome. See also M. Bergmann (1993 [1994]) 9; F.Albertson (1996) 803; M. Bergmann (1998) 190; R.R.R.Smith (2000) 537; F. Albertson (2001).

173 Suet. Vesp. 18; Dio 65.15.1; P. Howell (1968) 294with supporting evidence from later Chronicles.

174 65.15.1.175 HA.Had. 19.12.176 HA. Comm. 17.9-10; Dio 72(73).22.3; Herod. 1.15.9;

ChronPasch (Bonn ed.I 492) A.D. 187.177 195. A. Cassatella and M.I. Conforto (1989) 41; P.

Peirce (1989) 404; M. Cullhed (1994) 61; S. Ensoli in S.Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds. (2000) 86.

nero and poppaea 67

history. The Colossus may also have been re-flected in a painted portrait of Nero, also 100Roman feet tall, which was displayed in the HortiMaiani and destroyed by lightning before Nero’sdeath.178

The Removal of Nero’s Images

Portraits of Nero were removed and then ware-housed under Galba, as corroborated by Sueto-nius in the Life of Otho: Certe et imagines statuasqueeius reponi passus est (It is certain that he [Otho]allowed his [Nero’s] portraits and statues to bere-erected).179 Suetonius’s use of the verb reponere(literally to set up again) is extremely significantbecause it indicates that images previously re-moved during Galba’s brief tenure as princeps werereadily accessible and survived in suitable con-dition to be returned to public display.180 Tacitusalso confirms that portraits of Nero were dis-played under Otho (Et fuere qui imagines Neornisproponerent).181

Most surviving representations of Nero werenot intentionally vandalized after his death. Onthe contrary, like the portraits of Caligula beforehim, they were removed and stored in securelocations. Two of these surviving images are full-length, togate statues, replicas of Nero’s earliestboyhood type, in Detroit,182 and the Louvre (fig.80).183 The Louvre portrait, originally part of the

Borghese Collection, was discovered at Gabii,and was likely stored there following Nero’sdamnatio.184 In contrast, the Detroit statue, saidto be from Asia Minor, provides evidence for theremoval and storage of Nero’s boyhood imagesin the provinces.

The upper half a nude type 4 portrait with achlamys draped over the shoulder has also sur-vived.185 The images’s current whereabouts areunknown, but it depicted the emperor n withDiomedes body type. Like the Nero as Diomedesstatue in Munich reconfigured as Domitian (cat.2.46; fig. 62a-c) the lost portrait provides furtherimportant evidence for the association of Nerowith the Greek hero at Troy in visual art.

Sixteen surviving marble heads representingNero have clearly been removed from their origi-nal context as a consequence of the damnatio. Inthe case of heads worked for insertion, the stat-ues to which they originally belonged would havebeen reused with the addition of new likenesses,undoubtedly depicting the same individuals as hisreworked portraits, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian,Claudius and Augustus. Two of Nero’s well-pre-served portraits were discovered in a cryptopor-ticus beneath the Temple of Apollo complex onthe Palatine where they must have been storedfollowing his overthrow.186 The Neronian headswere discovered with other sculptural remnants,including an under-life-sized Julio-Claudian fe-male portrait, and heads of an Isiac priest andan ephebe.187 The earlier portrait of Nero is atype 2 replica worked for insertion and depictsthe emperor capite velato (fig. 81a-c).188 Like the178 Pliny, HN 35.33.51; M. Cima, in M. Cima and E.

La Rocca, eds. (1986) 39.179 Suet.Otho 7.1.180 Reponere is also used by Tacitus in conjunction with

the statues of Poppaea which were returned to public dis-play under Otho (Hist 1.78) as part of the emperor’s cam-paign to rehabilitate the memories of Nero and Poppaea.

181 Hist. 1.78.182 Institute of Arts, acc. no. 69.218, H. 1.40 m.; H.R.

Goette (1989) 39, n. 180, 125, no. 249, pl. 11.3; E.R. Varnerin D.E.E. Kleiner and S.B. Matheson, eds. (1996) 63, no.15 (with earlier literature); J.M. Croisille (1999) 398, fig.4. The portrait head of the statue in Detroit has been brokenoff at the neck and reattached. The statue lacks its left footand there is slight damage to the ears, nose, right hand anddrapery folds.

183 Louvre, MA 1210, h. 1.38 m.; K. de Kersauson (1986)210-11, no. 99, figs. (with earlier literature); S. Maggi (1986)50, n. 15; H.R. Goette (1989) 37-38, 124-125, no. 245, pls.

10.4, 94.3; H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 70-71, figs.18-19; J.M. Croisille (1999) 398, fig. 2. The statue exhibitsminimal signs of damage; the left hand and sections of bothfeet are restorations.

184 H.R. Goette (1989) 124.185 H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 72, 94-5, 102, fig.

34.186 The likenesses were discovered by Pietro Rosa in 1869

during his excavations for Napoleon III; see M.A. Tomei(1990) 85 and M.A. Tomei (1997) 78, 79, nos. 53 and 55;M.A. Tomei (1999) 171.

187 M.A. Tomei (1999) 171, fig. 110 (Julio ClaudianFemale Portrait, Museo Palatino, inv.115176.

188 Museo Palatino, Sala 7; formerly Museo Nazionale

chapter three68

veiled statue in Aquileia reworked to representAugustus, or the Nero/Gallienus in Columbia,this portrait celebrates Nero’s position as PontifexMaximus. The second Palatine likeness is the onlysurviving replica of Nero’s third portrait type (fig.82a-c).189 These two extremely well-preservedrepresentations were likely displayed somewherewithin the context of the structures covering thePalatine, perhaps the Temple of Apollo Palatinuscomplex or Nero’s palaces (the Domus Transi-toria and the Domus Aurea), and were ware-housed following Nero’s overthrow. Indeed, thereare surprisingly few imperial images which areknown to have come from the Palatine, and thewarehousing of these portraits must account fortheir survival on the hill.190 In addition, the por-

traits’ possible association with the Temple ofApollo Palatinus is intriguing, given Nero’s iden-tification with Apollo and the solar iconographyof many Neronian images.

Well-preserved likenesses in the Museo Capi-tolino,191 the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek,192 theVatican,193 Munich (fig. 83),194 Worcester (fig.84a-b)195 and a Swiss private collection,196 fur-

Romano delle Terme, inv. 616, h. 0.43 m.; E. Talamo,MusNazRom 1.1, 273-74, no. 169, with fig. (with earlierliterature); Bergmann and Zanker (1981)322; Fittschen-Zanker I, 17-18, n. 5; S. Maggi (1986) 50, n. 15; H.R. Goette(1989) 39, n. 179, 2b; M.A. Tomei (1990) 85; H. Born andK. Stemmer (1996) 72, 92-3, 102-3, fig. 22; M.A. Tomei(1997) 78, no. 53 (with fig.); J.M. Croisille (1999) 399, fig.11; M.A. Tomei (1999) 171, fig. 111.

189 Museo Palatino, Sala 7, formerly Museo NazionaleRomano delle Terme, inv. 618, h. 0.31 m.; E. Talamo,MusNazRom 1.1, 272-3, no. 168, with fig. (with earlier lit-erature); K. Vierneisel and P. Zanker (1979) 101, fig. 11.1;M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 322-326, fig. 5.Fittschen-Zanker I, 19, n. 4; M.A. Tomei (1990) 85; N.H.and A. Ramage (1991) 111-12, fig. 4.10; D..E.E. Kleiner(1992) 138, fig. 112; H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 72-3, 102-3, figs. 23-4; M.A. Tomei (1997) 80, no. 55 (withfig.); J.M. Croisille (1999) 400, fig. 14; M..A. Tomei (1999)171, fig. 109; H. Meyer (2000) 131-2, fig. 242; A. La Regina,ed. (2001). The occiput, nape of the neck, and a portion ofthe neck are now missing from the portrait and may havebeen worked separately. A rectangular channel in the topof the head suggests ancient modifications or repairs (pos-sibly for the addition of a radiate crown), which perhapsmitigated against recarving the portrait. The tip of the nosehas been broken off and there is damage to the chin. Othertype 3 portraits apparently survived but their whereaboutsare no longer known. Modern portraits in Modena andFlorence are based on ancient replicas of type 3 which arenow lost, and a fragmentary portrait, whose whereaboutsare also currently unknown, was a type 3 replica as well(EA 5063, DAI neg. 3074) M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981)324-26, figs. 6a-c, 7, 8a-d.

190 Images which remained on display on the Palatinewould have fallen prey to the same kind of despoliation whichafflicted the architectural structures on the hill. Otherimperial portraits from the Palatine include a deliberatelydamaged head of Maximinus Thrax (Museo Palatino, Sala8, formerly Museo Nazionale delle Terme, inv. 526817, cat.

8.4); a bust of Antoninus Pius (Museo Palatino, Sala 7,formerly Museo Nazionale delle Terme, inv. 1219, M.A.Tomei [1997] 84, no. 58 (with fig.) (with earlier literature);and a portrait of Julia Domna (Museo Palatino, Sala 8,formerly Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv. 12438,M.A. Tomei [1997] 94, no. 67 (with fig.) (with earlier lit-erature), and a replica of the Lepcis-Malta type (Julia Livilla),Museo Nazionale Romano di Palazzo Massimo alle Terme,inv. 620.

191 Stanza degli Imperatori 4, inv. 418, H. 0.32;Fittschen-Zanker I, 17-18, no. 17, pl. 17 (with earlier lit-erature); S. Maggi (1986) 50, n. 15; G. Legrottaglie (1999)80, pl. 19.d-e; H. Meyer (2000) 50, fig. 90. The portrait, atype 2 replica, has been attached to a modern bust anddisplays signs of modern reworking. Restorations includethe tip and bridge of the nose, the right cheek, portions ofboth ears, and portions of the neck.

192 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 628, inv. 750, h. 0.27 m.;V. Poulsen (1962) 99 no. 65, pl. 110-11 (with earlier litera-ture); U. Hiesinger (1975)116, n. 20, pl. 20.28; M. Bergmannand P. Zanker (1981)322, n. 7; S. Maggi (1986) 48, 50, n.15, fig. 5. F. Johansen (1994) 158, no. 67 (with figs.); J.M.Croisille (1999) 398, fig. 6; The head is a type 1 replicaand has suffered abrasions to the brows, cheeks lips andchin and the nose is no longer extant. The piece was pur-chased in Rome, and should be considered a metropolitanreplica of Nero’s initial portrait type.

193 Museo Gregoriano Profano 595, inv. 10198, H. 0.27m.; A. Giuliano (1957) 13, no. 16, pl. 11 (with earlier lite-rature); U. Hiesinger (1975)116, n. 18. The portrait is atype 1 replica. Restorations in stucco include the nose, aportion of the chin, the brows, sections of the hair, andportions of the ears.

194 Glyptothek, 321, h. 0.44 m.; J.J. Bernoulli (1886) 399,no. 40, pl. 23; A. Furtwängler (1910) 346, no. 321; K.Vierneisel and P. Zanker, eds. (1979) 101; M. Bergmannand P. Zanker (1981)326, figs. 9a-d; Fittschen-Zanker I, 18-19, n. 4, 35, n. 2; H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 73, 92,94, figs. 25-29; H. Meyer (2000) 128-30, figs. 239-244. Theportrait is from Rome, originally in the Palazzo Ruspoli.The surface of the portrait is somewhat weathered and theright cheek is slightly chipped. The portrait has been cutor broken from the bust or statue to which it originallybelonged.

195 Art Museum, acc. 1915.23, h. 0.38 m.; Bergmannand Zanker (1981)326-31, figs. 10a-e; H. Jucker (1981a) 307-9; C.C. Vermeule (1981) 298, no. 254, with fig. (with ear-lier literature); Fittschen-Zanker I, 18-19, nr. 18, n. 4; N.Hannestad in N. Cambi and G. Rizza, eds., (1988) 327;D..E.E. Kleiner (1992) 138-39, fig. 113 (photo reversed);

nero and poppaea 69

ther attest to the removal and storage of Nero’simages at Rome and its environs. The Capitolineportrait was discovered at Tusculum in 1818 byLucien Bonaparte, while the other portraits aresaid to come from Rome. The Munich andWorcester likenesses are type IV replicas (andboth include holes for the addition of radiatecrowns). The Worcester portrait has been up-dated from a type 2 or 3 image, which probablyprecluded further recutting after Nero’s condem-nation.197

Images from elsewhere in Italy were also re-moved and warehoused, including likenesses inCagliari,198 and Mantua,199 The Cagliari portrait

may have been displayed on the extensive impe-rial holdings on Sardegna which included ce-ramic and brick factories.200 A generally wellpreserved type 1 portrait in Stuttgart has beenbroke from a statue or bust of Luna marble andit, too is likely from Rome or elsewhere in Italy.201

Evidence for the removal of Nero’s images inGaul is provided by a type 1 likeness in Gene-va.202 The portrait depicts the young princewearing the corona civica and possibly comes fromVienne. If so, it suggests that Nero’s images wereremoved at Vienne, in addition to being attackedand damaged as attested by the fragmentary type4 portrait from the Odeum (cat. 2.5; fig. 44).

An unusual portrait of Nero from Rome, nowin the Sala dei Busti of the Vatican was alsoremoved from public display and stored (fig.85).203 This likeness is unique in that it has beenreworked from a preexisting portrait of GaiusCaesar, the eldest grandson and one of the pre-sumptive heirs of Augustus.204 Like the Worces-

Johansen (1994) 21, fig. 21; H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996)73, 93-5, figs. 30-33; J.M. Croisille (1999) 401, fig. 16. Thehead has been broken from a bust or statue. Sections ofthe shoulders are still preserved. There is damage to thenose and the chin.

196 Aniken-Sammlung Ennetwies, h. 0.325 m.; H. Juckerand D. Willers, eds. (1982) 101, no. 40, with figs.; I. Jucker(1995) 23-24, no. 10, pls. 21-22; The portrait, a type IIreplica, has been cut or broken from a statue or bust. Thenose has been restored in plaster, and the left ear is miss-ing. There are slight abrasions to the brows, nose, cheeksand chin. The portrait was originally attached to a togatestatue to which it did not belong and displayed in gardensat the junction of the Via Flaminia and the Via di VillaGiulia in Rome.

197 Punch marks which are still visible on the right sideof the neck indicate that the hair on the nape of the neckwas cut back in antiquity. The ears of the portrait werealso removed and square holes cut into the head, presum-ably for the attachment of new ears. Two rows of smallholes, some still containing the remnants of metal dowels,were drilled in the hair, in order to affix an metal crownor diadem to the portrait. This evidence for the reworkingof the Worcester head suggests that an earlier portrait ofNero was reworked in an effort to update the image of theemperor from replica of type 2 or 3.

198 Museo Nazionale, inv. 35533, h. O.42 m.; U.Hiesinger (1975)114-15, pl. 21.33-34 (with earlier literature);Z. Kiss (1975) 11, 144-45, 147-48, 154, figs. 502-3; H. Jucker(1981a) 287-88, skizze 4; Bergmann and Zanker (1981)321-22, fig. 2a-b; J. Pollini (1984) 553-54, pl. 73.13-14; Fittschen-Zanker I, 17, no. 17; S. Maggi (1986) 47-48, 50, n. 10; C.Saletti (1989) 79, pl. 7; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 138, fig. 111;H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 71-2, 92-3, figs. 20-21;J.M. Croisille (1999) 399, fig. 9; H. Meyer (2000) 30, 46,figs. 47, 82-3. The portrait, said to be from Olbia, has beeninserted into a modern bust. The head is exceedingly wellpreserved; only the right ear has been restored.

199 Palazzo Ducale h. 0.24 m.; A. Levi (1931) 58, no.111, pl. 64b (with earlier literature); R. Bianchi Bandinelli(1932) 159, no. 7; V. Poulsen (1951) 120, no. 6; U. Hiesinger

(1975)113-15, pl. 22.35-36; Z. Kiss (1975) 143-44; H. Jucker(1981a) 289, figs. 63-64; Bergmann and Zanker (1981)321-2; Fittschen-Zanker I, 18, n. 7; S. Maggi (1986) 47-51, figs.1-3; J.M. Croisille (1999) 399, fig. 10. The portrait has beenattached to a modern bust. The right ear is broken. Thenose, portions of the lips, the right half of the chin, andpart of the left ear are restorations. The portrait originallyformed part of the collection of antiquities accumulated bythe Gonzaga in their villa at Sabbioneta. The piece wascertainly discovered in Italy and may have come from thearea around Mantua (alternatively, the Gonzaga may havepurchased it in Rome).

200 C. Saletti (1989) 79. Saletti also notes a dedicatoryinscription from a Temple of Ceres erected by Nero’smistress, Acte, discovered on Sardinia, n. 62.

201 Würtembergisches Landesmuseum, inv. arch. 65/11, h. 0.22 m.; U. Hausmann (1975) 30, no. 7 123, fig. 18-20, 24; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)321, n. 6; S.Maggi (1986) 50, n. 10; J.M. Croisille (1999) 398, fig. 5.

202 Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, inv. C 186, h. 0.122.; I.Rilliet-Maillard (1978) no. 9; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981)321, n. 6; S. Maggi (1986) 48, n. 19, fig. 7. H. Juckerand D. Willers, eds. (1982) 103, no. 41, with figs.; J.M.Croisille (1999) 398, fig. 7. Much of the nose and chin ofthe Geneva portrait have been restored in marble and thereis slight damage to both ears.

203 385, inv. 591, H. 0.28 m; J. Pollini (1987) 13, 62,66-67, 101, no. 20 (with earlier literature); J.M. Croisille(1999) 405, fig. 26; H. Meyer (2000) 56, fig. 102.

204 The locks over the forehead have been recut intoNero’s characteristic type 2 arrangement with central part.

chapter three70

ter head, the fact that the portrait had alreadybeen subjected to recarving, with adjustments tothe coiffure, eyes, and mouth, and general reduc-tion in the volume of marble, probably precludeda second transformation after Nero’s death anddamnatio.

A bronze portrait discovered in 1880 duringthe construction of the Anglican Church on theVia Babuino in Rome furnishes additional com-pelling archaeological evidence for the storageof Nero’s images (fig. 86).205 The portrait, a con-flation of Nero’s second and third portraittypes,206 formed part of a cache of bronze Julio-Claudian busts207 which included two portraitsof Augustus,208 a portrait of Gaius Caesar,209 and

an unidentified Julio-Claudian prince.210 Theportraits comprised a collection of Julio-Claudianimages which were displayed in a first centuryA.C. villa located to the east of the Via Flaminiain the Campus Martius. The portraits were dis-covered in a subterranean passage of the villa,where they may have been deposited for safe-keeping during the chaos which ensued in Romefollowing Nero’s death and the subsequent civilwars.211

A gilded bronze type 4 head now in an Ameri-can private collection, has also been severed fromits original statue (fig. 87a-b).212 Damage sustain-ed to the back of the neck is the result of a blowor blows which beheaded the image. The bronzein the damaged area has aged differently than un-damaged areas and is chemically consistent withancient depredations. The quality and style of theportrait suggest that it was produced in Rome.213

Significantly, the image was not melted downafter its decapitation, but perhaps ritually bur-ied or disposed of in a more cursory fashion. Thefact that the valuable metal content of the head

Although Gaius’s original forehead locks, a reversed ver-sion of Augustus’s Prima Porta coiffure, are currently vis-ible, they were probably covered over with stucco whenthe portrait was reused. The eyes have been slightly recarved;the inner corner of the left eye has been more deeply cutthan the outer corner and the entire reworking has causedthe left eye to appear smaller than the right. The inner cornerof the mouth has also been more deeply cut as a result ofthe reworking. The reuse of the bust was not occasionedby a damnatio memoriae but rather for economic or practicalreasons. In the Neronian period, likenesses of Gaius (andhis brother Lucius) would no longer have held the propa-gandistic importance which they had during the Augustanperiod and the typically Julio-Claudian classicism with whichthe facial features of Gaius were imbued, as well as thecomparable ages of Gaius and Nero would have renderedthe bust especially appropriate for reuse.

205 The face of the portrait is preserved in the CentraleMontemartini while the remainder is in the Walters ArtMuseum in Baltimore. Sala dei Bronzi (Vitrine), inv. 2835(Centrale Montemartini 1.25b) and Walters Art Gallery,23.104, total h. 0.433 m.; Fittschen-Zanker I, 18-19, no.18, pl. 18 (with earlier literature); C.B. Rose (1997) 115,cat. 43.4, pl. 121.

206 The hairstyle with its central part is clearly derivedform Nero’s second portrait type, but the heavy facial fea-tures, with addition of a light beard, are characteristic ofhis third type. The cuirassed portrait of Nero recarved torepresent Domitian in the Braccio Nuovo of the Vaticanoriginally exhibited a similar combination of type II coif-fure and type III physiognomy. See cat. 2.X.

207 NSc (1880) 467 (Dec.); R.Lanciani BullCom 9 (1881)30.

208 Augustus (Prima Porta type), Baltimore, Walters ArtGallery, inv. 23.105; D. Kent Hill (1939) 401-2; figs. 3, 6-7; C. Pietrangeli (1946-48) 58, fig. 1; Fittschen-Zanker I,24, n. 1a; C.B. Rose (1997) 115, cat. 43.1, pl. 117. Augustus(?) (Forbes Type?), private American collection, R. Lanciani,BullCom 9 (1881) 246, no. 1/2, pl. 1.3; D. Kent Hill (1939)407, fig. 2; C. Pietrangeli (1946-48) 59; Fittschen-Zanker

I, 24, n. 1b; C.B. Rose (1997) 115, cat. 43.5, pl. 118.209 Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Centrale

Montemartini 1.252, inv. 2171; Fittschen-Zanker I, 21-25,no. 20, pls. 20-21; C.B. Rose (1997) 115, cat. 43.3, pl. 120.

210 Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery, inv. 23.190, D. K.Hill (1939) 404-5, figs. 4, 8-9; C. Pietrangeli (1946-48) 58,no. 2; Fittschen-Zanker, I, 24, n. 1c; C.B. Rose (1997) 115,cat. 43.2, pl. 119.

211 As first suggested by D. K. Hill (1939) 408-9; seealso, D. von Bothmer in L. Bonfante and H. von Heintze,eds. (1976) 158. None of the finds postdate the Neronianperiod.

212 Connecticut, Private Collection (W. Conti); h. 0.377m.; H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996), figs. 1-17, 105-14.Both the technique of gilding and the corrosion of the bronzeargue in favor of the head’s authenticity; see H. Born andK. Stemmer (1996) 163-7. The height of the original statueis estimated between 2.15-2.25 m., H. Born and K. Stemmer(1996) 125.

213 The thickness of the bronze is remarkably consis-tent for ancient bronze working and the artists have takengreat care to add additional feeding channels so that themolten bronze could reach complicated areas of the coif-fure and head, all of which indicates that the workshopresponsible for the piece was operating at the highest lev-els, likely producing imperial commissions. I would like tothank Renee Stein, Conservator at the Michael C. CarlosMuseum for sharing her invaluable insights and expertiseconcerning the production and chemical properties of thehead.

nero and poppaea 71

was not recuperated indicates that the act ofmutilation overrode any economic considerationsin this instance. The original statue body, possi-bly cuirassed may, have been reused through theaddition of a new head. Both the scale and qualityof the original portrait suggest that it wasan important and probably highly visible monu-ment.

A bronze statuette in Venice, has also beendissociated from original context following Nero’sdamnatio.214 The statuette depicts the emperorcuirassed and seated. He extends his right armin gesture of clementia. This small bronze mayreflect the statue of Nero in Armenia to whichTiridates surrendered his crown in 63, prior toreceiving it back from the Nero’s own hand inRome in 65. Although L. Sperti has attemptedto link this statuette to the elaborate ceremoniessurrounding Tiridates visit to Rome in 66, theuse of Nero’s second portrait type, in use from54 to 59 probably precludes the statuette’s asso-ciation with these events. The image comes fromOpitegerium and its small scale suggests that itmay have been associated with a shrine, or wasa fitting for furniture or horse trappings.

A portrait of Nero originally inserted into acuirassed portrait from Caere has also been re-moved (fig. 88).215 The head itself no longer sur-vives, but the imagery on the cuirass suggests thatit was originally combined with a portrait ofNero. On the upper portion of the breastplate,Apollo-Helios, driving the chariot of the sun, isrepresented with facial features and coiffure as-similated to Nero’s with type 4 portrait type. Thisimagery evokes the decoration of the purple andgold covering designed for the Theater ofPompey during the visit of Tiridates in 66.216 Theassociation with the events of 66 is further con-

firmed by the kneeling Arimaspes, who werelegendary one eyed people from central Asia,offering bowls in submission to winged griffins,the creatures of Apollo (and by extension Nero),which occur directly below the scene of Nero/Helios. Despite its specifically Neronian conno-tations, the cuirassed statue body is of extremelyhigh artistic quality and was likely reused withthe insertion of a new portrait head. The origi-nal representation of Nero provides additionalimportant evidence for the production ofNeronian military images, which also draw onsolar iconography. The portrait further attests toNero’s inclusion among the important cycle ofJulio-Claudian statues at Caere. A nearly iden-tical cuirass in Turin discovered at Susa, nowcompleted with a private third century likenessmay have originally been another military rep-resentation of Nero from which the head wasremoved.217 The conflation of Neronian portraitfeatures and solar imagery also recalls the Co-lossus, as well as the altar of Eumolpus, a slaveat the Domus Aurea, which is dedicated to Soland Luna and includes a representation Sol withNeronian type 4 facial features and coiffure.218

A cuirassed statue in Istanbul, whose head hasnot been preserved, survives together with itsplinth and dedicatory inscription: ;gDT;"

58"L*4< 1g@L 58"L*4L 5"4FgD@F L4@<.219 Thestatue was discovered at Tralles and the head hasbeen cut or broken from the body. Because theinscription has not been erased or altered, it isclear that the statue was either removed entirely

214 Museo Archeologico, Sala 18, vetrina b, inv. 276;h. .011 m.; L. Sperti (1990) (with earlier literature).

215 Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv.9948; h. 2.30 m.; M. Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani, P.Santoro, eds. (1989) 68-70, no. 5, with figs. (with previousliterature); R. Gergel (1994) 196-97; C.B. Rose (1997) 83-6, cat. 5, pl. 64 (identification as Germanicus).

216 Dio 53.6.2. The imagery also has obvious parallelswith the Colossus. See M. Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani,P. Santoro, eds. (1989) 69.

217 Turin, Museo di Antichità, without inv. no., h. 1.95m.; K. Stemmer (1978) 96, pl. 64.1-2; C.B. Rose (1997)85, and n. 17.

218 Florence, Museo Archeologico, inv. 86025; CIL6.3719=31033; ILS 1774; M. Bergmann (1993[1994]) 9,pl. 5.3; M. Bergmann (1998) 194-201, pl. 38; R.R.R. Smith(2000) 539. Eumolpus apparently oversaw the imperialfurnishings at the Domus Aurea (a suppelectile Domus Auriae).

219 Istanbul, Archaeological Museum, 584, h. ; G. Mendel(1914) 315-16, no. 584, with fig.; G. Mancini (1922), no.22; F.W. Goethert (1935) 137, pl. 52.3; H. Muthmann (1951)50-51, 211, pl. 8; G.M.A. Hanfmann and C.C. Vermuele(1957) 232; C.C. Vermeule (1959) 43, no. 76; J. Inan andE. Rosenbaum (1966) 69; C.C. Vermeule (1968) 43, 389,no. 6; K. Stemmer (1978) 17, n. 62, 171, no. 185; H. Bornand K. Stemmer (1996) 100, 102, fig. 36; M. Fuchs (1997)92-3.

chapter three72

from public display to await some form of even-tual reuse, or conversely, it may have been al-lowed to remain on view. It is also within therealm of possibility that the portrait continued tobe displayed publicly, although without its head,in order to denigrate Nero’s memory. The men-tion of the deified Claudius in the inscriptionsuggests that the statue was dedicated early inNero’s reign and that the original portrait was areplica of Nero’s second type in use until A.D.59.220

Two fragmentary cuirassed statues in theLouvre221 and Durres (fig. 89)222 have nearlyidentical relief decoration to the Nero/Titus inOlympia, and, as a result, appear to have origi-nally represented Nero. Other extant cuirassedstatues which are Neronian in date and may havebeen combined with portraits of the emperorinclude a statue in Grosseto from the Julio-Claudian group dedication at Rusellae 223 andone restored as a portrait of Fabrizio Colonna inthe Palazzo Colonna in Rome.224 The Grossetocuirass is nearly colossal in scale and remarkablefor its sculptural quality. The imagery on thecuirass is striking and unique. A trophy is de-picted above an eagle with outstretched wings.To the trophy’s left is a seated mourning femaleforeigner looking frontally out of the relief. Tothe right, an adult male rushes towards the tro-phy with cloak flying behind and a child clutchedin his arms. Both the adult and male look up

towards the trophy and the portrait head thatoriginally completed the statue. The PalazzoColonna cuirass also includes a foreign child, atthe feet of a bound foreigner beneath a trophy.Additional cuirasses which are possibly Neronianin date include Schloss Erbach,225 Berlin,226

Sassari,227 and formerly Sikyon.228 Unfortunately,none of these statues survives with its originalhead, but taken together with the Istanbul andCaere statues, the Venice bronze statuette andthe cuirassed portraits altered to represent Titusand Domitian (Olympia, Vaison, and theVatican), they attest to the surprising breadth andvitality of militaristic representations of Nero, aswell as experimentation and innovation in cui-rass imagery.

In contrast to the warehoused images, the cor-rosion suffered by a head in Oslo suggests thatit was thrown into a body of water after it wasremoved from the togate statue to which it origi-nally belonged.229 This type four likeness waspurchased in Rome and is presumably from thecapital or its surroundings.230 Although details ofits discovery are lacking, the image may comefrom the Tiber, where it would have been thrownfollowing Nero’s suicide and damnatio in an actof poena post mortem similar to disposal of the threeminiature busts of Caligula.231 The treatment ofimages related to post mortem corpse abuse mayalso explain the discovery of a bronze portrait ofNero in the River Alde at Rendham nearSaxmundham in Sussex, (fig. 90).232 The head,

220 It seems highly unlikely that the statue is Antonineand represents a revival of Nero’s portraits in the secondcentury, as suggested by K. Fittschen (1970), K. Stemmer(1978) 17, n. 62, and M. Fuchs (1997) 92-3. Indeed, theunusual combination of patrician calcei with a cuirass alsooccurs in the Nero and Agrippina panel from Aphrodisiasand the small seated bronze in Venice (Museo Archeologico276) and seems to be a characteristic of certain Neronianmilitary imagery.

221 inv. 3384, h. 1.20 m.; G. Koch (1995) 324-6, pl. 74.3(with earlier literature).

222 inv 4415 (earlier 825) h. 1.67 m.; G. Koch (1995)321-6, pls. 71-74.1 (with earlier literature).

223 Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Maremma; K.Stemmer (1978) 28, no. 11a 3, pl. 14.3; C.C. Vermeule(1980b) 16; H.R. Goette (1988) n. 36; A. Kuttner (1995)166, n. 16: C.B. Rose (1997) 118.

224 K. Stemmer (1978) 393; C.C. Vermeule (1980b) 93,fig. 53; A. Kuttner (1995) 166, n. 17.

225 No. 20; Stemmer (1978) 24, no. II.2, pl. 11.2-3.226 Staatliche Museen, 368; Stemmer (1978) 19, no. V.18,

pl. 36.4.227 Museo Sanna 7890: Stemmer (1978) 87-88, no. 7.23,

pl. 61.3.228 Museum; Stemmer (1978) 19, no. I.18, pl. 94.229 Nasjonalgalleriet, inv. 1248, h. 0.385 m.; from the

Hartwig collection in Rome; S. Sande (1991) 48-50, no.35, pl. 35 (with earlier literature); H. Born and K. Stemmer(1996) 71, 94-5, fig. 35.

230 The more youthful facial features of the likeness area contamination from Nero’s second portrait type; M.Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)232.

231 The Hartwig collection was assembled in Rome atthe end of the nineteenth century, during which time, greatquantities of sculpture were being recovered from the Tiberas a result of the construction of the river’s embankments.

232 London, British Museum, PRB, inv. 1965.12-1.1; h.

nero and poppaea 73

perhaps originally from ancient Comilodunum,has been decapitated from its original statue andits disposal in the Alde provides an illuminatingprovincial counterpart to the disposal of imagesand corpses in the Tiber.233 A badly weatheredtype 2 likeness in the Louvre, whose provenanceis unknown, may also have been disposed of ina similarly destructive fashion.234

Relief portraits of Nero from the Sebasteionat Aphrodisias present conflicting approaches toNero’s images. The Sebasteion complex, begunduring the reign of Tiberius and finished underNero, was dedicated to Venus-Aphrodite, theTheoi Sebastoi, and the Demos.235 The complexwas entered through an arch and consisted of twomonumental three-storied porticoes on the northand south which enclosed a long rectangularopen space culminating in a temple of Venus-Aphrodite. The entire complex stressed the city’sclose ties to the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Sculptedrelief panels, set between the columns of theupper two stories of the colonnade, honoredmembers of the dynasty and depicted mythologi-cal scenes (many having to do with Aeneas), thevarious Ethnoi of the empire, as well as othergeographical and chronological personifications.Nero appeared in three of the imperial panels,two of which are extant, and, in the mythologi-cal series, Aeneas is represented with portrait-likefeatures resembling Nero’s last two types in a

0.33 m.; U. Hiesinger (1975)116, n. 17; H. Jucker (1981a)307-9, figs. 75-6 (with earlier literature); S. Maggi (1986)50, n. 15; M. Donderer (1991-2) 260, no. 6; A. Oliver (1996)152. Although it is has been variously identified as Claudiusor even Trajan, the head is clearly a provincial variant ofNero’s second type with centrally parted hair; see H. Jucker(1981a) 307-9.

233 H. Jucker, compares the portrait’s disposal in theAlde to the proposed disposal of Tiberius’s corpse in theTiber in 37 at which time the Roman mob shouted “Tiberiumin Tiberim!.” Jucker speculates that the inhabitants of Ro-man Britain may have shouted the equivalent of “‘In dieAlde mit Nero!’,” (1981a) 308-9.

234 Musée du Louvre, MA 3528, h. 0.26 m; K. deKersauson (1986) 214-15, with figs. (with earlier literature);M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)322, n. 7; S. Maggi(1986) 48, 50, n. 10, fig. 4. The portrait has suffered dam-age to the forehead, nose, and lips and the back of the headis missing.

235 R.R.R. Smith (1987) 90.

panel depicting the hero fleeing Troy withAnchises and Ascanius/Iulus.236 One of the re-liefs presents Nero at the proper right, wearinga cuirass, while Agrippina stands to his left as aconflation of the goddesses Roma and Concordiaextending the laurel wreath of the triumphator (fig.91).237 The depiction of Nero and Agrippina ismodeled on the cult group from the temple ofRoma and Augustus at Pergamum, as depictedin Claudian cistophoroi.238 The use of Nero’s sec-ond portrait type in the relief and the prominentdivine iconography for Agrippina and her depic-tion as the guarantrix of Nero’s imperium indicatesthat the relief was created after Nero’s accessionin A.D. 54, but probably not long afterAgrippina’s diminishing political prominencewhich commenced c. A.D. 55. Although the cir-cumstances surrounding the fate of the relief afterNero’s downfall are somewhat enigmatic, it wasremoved from the colonnade and used, facedown, as a paving slab in one of the north shopsat the Sebasteion’s ground level.239 The panelcontains clear indications of secondary use, in-cluding the loss of its upper corners, smoothingof the picked surfaces at the back, two cuttingsnear the top, and a hole cut through the back-ground emerging above Agrippina’s right arm.The relief is generally well preserved, and this,together with the signs of secondary use, suggestthat the panel was reused sometime after Nero’scondemnation in 68.240 The panel may have

236 R.R.R. Smith (1990) 97, fig. 9; C.B. Rose (1997) 167.237 K.T. Erim (1986) 4 (with fig.), 30 (fig.), 122 (with

fig.); R.R.R. Smith (1987) 127-32, pls. 24-26; R.R. Smith(1988b) 53; T. Mikocki (1995) 181, no. 210; C.B. Rose (1997)164-7, no. 105.10, pl. 207; S. Wood (1999) 302-3, fig. 142;H. Meyer (2000) 28, fig. 44. Agrippina appears in a simi-lar guise, as the guarantor of Nero’s auctoritas and militaryvictory, in a cameo in Cologne (Cathedral, Dreiköni-genschrein I B a 17, W.R. Megow (1987) 213-4, no. A 98,pl. 35.1-2).

238 RPCi 2221-2; BMCRE 1, 196, no. 228; RIC2 1, 131,no. 120; CNR 14.130-48; R. Mellor (1975) 140-1; C. Fayer(1976) 110; S.R.F. Price (1984) 182, 252, no. 19; L. Sperti(1990) 10, plate 13, fig. 30; C.B. Rose (1997) 47, pl. 208.

239 Room 9 of the north portico; R.R.R. Smith (1987)128.

240 R.R. Smith (1987) 128. Alternatively, the panel couldhave been reused much later, after the collapse of the northportico, which occurred much earlier than the south. If so,then the Nero and Agrippina panel would have remained

chapter three74

come from the north portico, whose primarydecoration consisted of geographical (and tem-poral) personifications, which would make itunique, as all of the other imperial panels arefrom the south. The humble, utilitarian reuse ofthe panel with its grandiose military and divineimagery stands as a potent reminder of Nero’sposthumous denigration in the city which hadsuch close ties to his dynasty.

In contrast, the second Neronian panel, fromthe south portico, was never removed from thecolonnade (fig. 92a-c).241 In another explicitlymilitaristic scene, the emperor, helmeted andnude with a paludamentum draped over his shoul-ders, supports the slumping figure of Armenia inhis arms.242 Although Nero’s portrait featureshave not been damaged or recut, the inscriptionhas been altered.243 The inscription originally read:

!C9+;3! [;+CS; (3 )]57!K)3?G

)C?KE?G

5!3E!C E+#

!EI?G '+C

9!;35?G.244

NEPON(I) in the second half of the top line waserased. The altered inscription thus refers to

57!K)3?G )C?KE?G 5!3E!C E+#!EI?G

'+C9!;35?G, rather generic Julio-Claudiannames which could be linked with other mem-bers of the dynasty.245 The use of Nero’s secondtype on the relief, and its great similarity to ear-lier Julio-Claudian likenesses, allowed the reliefto remain in situ, the only modifications neces-sary for reuse being the alteration to the accom-panying inscription. Dio Chrysostom attests tothis kind of reuse of portrait statues by simplychanging the dedicatory inscription.246 Neverthe-less, the erasure of Nero’s name from the inscrip-tion also constitutes a posthumous, and highlyvisible, denigration of his memory at Aphrodisias.

A third imperial panel also depicts Nero in hissecond portrait type; the emperor is nude andholding a globe in his extended left hand (fig.93).247 Nero’s raised right hand presumably helda scepter and he wears a paludamentum over hisright shoulder. A diminutive male foreigner is atNero’s right. The relief was discovered in theremains of rooms 9-10, together with a paneloften identified as “Augustus by Land andSea.”248 This panel more likely representsClaudius, perhaps as divus, suggesting that bothreliefs may have been created early in Nero’sreign. Like the Nero and Armenia panel, the ar-chaeological context of the Neronian panel sug-gests that it was never removed from display.Again, the rather generic Julio-Claudian appear-ance of the portrait features may have allowedit to be re-interpreted following Nero’s downfallby redacting the inscription. Indeed, the portraithas often been associated with Nero’s father,Germanicus.249

Inscriptional evidence suggests that there wasa fourth panel from the imperial cycle depictingNero and Helios.250 The inscription has been

on display, as did the Nero and Armenia panel. This seemshighly unlikely given the very specific Neronian imageryof the Nero and Agrippina relief, combined with its rela-tively good state of preservation and the secondary signsof reuse. In addition, none of the other panels seems to havebeen reused in this way.

241 K.T. Erim (1986) 116-17 (with fig.), 180 (fig.); R.R.R.Smith (1987) 117-120; H. Meyer (2000) 30-32, figs. 45-6,48. Like the remains of other reliefs from the south por-tico of the Sebasteion, the fragmentary portrait head of Neroand the slab itself were discovered above the latest pavinglevels of the complex, indicating that the relief remainedin place until the ultimate collapse of the south portico inthe Late Roman Period; R.R. Smith (1987) 119-20.

242 The composition has iconographic parallels with thePasquino group as well as coin reverses and is intended toshow the emperor aiding or succoring the province, ratherthan merely conquering it. On these and similar scenesrepresenting parocinium, see A. Kuttner (1995) 77.

243 Although the head is fragmentary and the facialfeatures are now missing, there is no evidence that thedamage to the head is intentional; R.R.R. Smith (1987) 119-120.

244 R.R.R. Smith, (1987) 117-18. The superfluous iotain Nero’s name may have been removed immediately af-ter the inscription was first carved.

245 R.R.R. Smith (1987) 118.246 Or.31. Additionally, such reuse may have been more

liable to occur in the provinces, where the imperial imagewas not as widely disseminated as at Rome, and wherediscrepancies in portrait typologies were more likely to beoverlooked.

247 R.R.R. Smith (1987) 110-11, no. 4 (with fig.).248 R.R.R. Smith (1987) 104-6, no. 2 (with fig.); D.E.E.

Kleiner (1992) 138, fig. 133.249 R.R.R. Smith (1987) 110-11.250 SEG 31 (1981) no. 919; J. Reynolds (1981) 324, no.

9; C.B. Rose (1997) 48, 165, no. 105.

nero and poppaea 75

altered in an identical manner to the Nero andArmenia panel, with Nero in the first line erased:

[;+CS;] 57!K)3?G /73?G

)C?KE?G 5!3E!C

E+#!EI?G

'+C9!;35?G

As with the other panels, it seems that Nero’simage was left intact, with only the most individu-alized part of his nomenclature obliterated. 251

In addition to his sculpted, bronze, and reliefportraits, Nero’s image has survived on ten cam-eos. Although there is much scholarly controversyconcerning its date, the Grand Camée de Francewas likely created under Claudius to commemo-rate his adoption of Nero (fig. 94).252 H. Juckerhas convincingly identified the principal figureson the gem; the central band depicts, from properright to left, Providentia (?), Nero, Germanicus,

Agrippina Maior (whose Scheitelzopf coiffure is alater restoration), Tiberius enthroned as Jupiter,Livia enthroned as Ceres, Claudius, and Agrip-pina Minor seated on a throne decorated withsphinxes; above the central register, Augustus,veiled, wearing a radiate crown and holding ascepter, is carried aloft on the back of Apollo-Mithras or Aeneas. Augustus is flanked on hisright by Drusus Minor and on his left by Erosand Drusus Maior.253 The Grand Camée clearlylinks the reigning princeps Claudius with his illus-trious relatives, and furthermore, honors thedistinguished lineage of Claudius’s adopted sonNero, through Agrippina Minor and Maior. Thecameo’s central scene alludes to Tiberius’s adop-tion of Nero’s grandfather Germanicus, the char-ismatic general whose memory continued to berevered and whose name Nero took at the timeof his adoption into the gens Iulia. Tiberius’sadoption of Germanicus is implicitly comparedto Claudius’s adoption of Nero.254 Furthermore,the prominence of the two Agrippinae stressestheir importance for the continuum of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, and strongly suggests that theGrand Camée may have been created for, or atthe instigation of, Agrippina Minor.255 AlthoughNero appears on this gem, the Claudian contentof the cameo, as well as its complicated iconog-raphy, may have precluded any recarving underthe Flavians and its value as a precious stone andwork of art may have prevented outright destruc-tion. Agrippina Maior’s Scheitelzopf is a resto-ration or adaptation, likely carried out in the thirdor the fourth century and suggests that the cameocontinued to be an important part of some col-lection.256 The Grand Camée may have remained

251 Nero may also be represented in a fifth imperial panel,together with Britannicus. The panel depicts two boys, nudeand wearing paludamenta. The boy at the right of the reliefis clearly singled out as being of higher status because heholds an aplustre (ship’s rudder) and globe, symbols of domi-nation over sea and land. C.B. Rose has proposed that therelief depicts Nero and Britannicus after Claudius’s adop-tion of Nero, with Nero’s senior status reinforced by theattributes he holds (1997) 164-8, no. 105.8, pl. 205. WhileRose’s theory is attractive and logical in terms of Claudiandynastic propaganda, the coiffure of the proposed Nerofigure lacks the characteristic central part of Nero’s estab-lished type I portraits and an identification as Gaius andLucius may be more tenable, R.R.R. Smith (1987) 124-5.Smith has also noted in conversation that its placement onthe portico after the other Neronian reliefs gives it a likelyNeronian, rather than Claudian, context, making the ap-pearance of Britannicus highly unlikely.

252 Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, 264,31.0 x 26.5 cm.; K. Jeppesen (1974); W.R. Megow (1987)1, 4, 9, 24, 31-2, 42, 49, 51-2, 80, 84-5, 88, 99, 103-4, 123,130-4, 139, 142-44, 146, 202-07, no. A85, pls. 32.5-10, 33(with previous bibliography); D. Boschung (1989) 64-6, 85,88, 92, 95-6, 119, no. 4, pl. 35.6; D. D. Boschung (1993a)195, no. 215, pl. 205.4; N.B. Kampen (1991) 235, fig. 13;D..E.E. Kleiner (1992) 149-51, fig. 126; K. Jeppesen (1993)141-75, pl. 34; C. Mango in M. Henig and M. Vickers,eds. (1993) 59, 62, fig. 4.11; C. White in M. Henig and M.Vickers, eds. (1993) 79-82, figs. 5.1-2; A. Kuttner (1995)166, n. 18; T. Mikocki (1995) 157-8, no. 45,pl. 8; H. Bornand K. Stemmer (1996) 97, fig. 50; H. Guiraud (1996) 116-21, figs. 81a-b; C.B.Rose (1997) 24; E. Bartman (1999) 112-4, fig. 90; S. Wood (1999) 308-13, fig. 145.; E. Borea andC. Gasparri, eds. (2000) 558, no. 44, with fig.; H. Meyer(2000) 11-28, figs. 1-11, 13, 16, 18-19, 21, 23, 25-26, 28-30, 35, 39-43.

253 H. Jucker (1976) 211-50; for a review of the schol-arship on the Grand Camée and the stylistic and icono-graphic reasons which support a Claudian date for thecreation of the gem, see W.R. Megow (1987) 203-7. K.Jeppesen’s attempts to identify the figures on the gem onthe basis of age and body type are entirely unconvincingand fail to accurately recognize the youthful cuirassed fig-ure as Nero, with a clear version of his type I physiognomyand coiffure (1993) 141-75. See also infra.

254 W.R. Megow (1987) 206.255 See S. Wood (1988) 409-26 for Agrippina Minor’s

manipulation of her mother’s image in order to legitimizeher own and Nero’s position within the dynasty.

256 H. Jucker (1981b) 674-5.

chapter three76

imperial property for a considerable time as it waseventually given by the Byzantine emperor,Badouin II to Louis IX of France for the SainteChapelle.257

Nero’s profile appears nine times on gems,including: two type I likenesses on sardonyxcameos in the British Museum;258 four laureatetype 2 likeness in St. Petersburg,259 in Bonn, 260

in the British Museum,261 and the Content Col-lection;262 and two type 4 replicas in Berlin,263 andGeneva.264 Nero also appears as a small headrising from a cornucopia with Agrippina Minoron a sardonyx cameo in Paris.265 These portraitsare likely to have survived because of their in-trinsic value as gems and/or their perceivedworth as collectors’ items.

Two additional glyptic portraits survive oncameos with more complicated iconography. Asardonyx cameo in Cologne depicts Nero en-throned with the attributes of Jupiter; at his leftstands Agrippina Minor again in the guise ofRoma-Concordia, crowning her son with the

laurel crown of the triumphator.266 As in theSebasteion relief, Agrippina appears as theguarantrix of Nero’s auctoritas and victory. Asardonyx cameo in Nancy, with a type 3 portraitof Nero, also represents the emperor in overtlydivine guise.267 Nero is shown in a scene of apo-theosis, borne heavenward on the back of aneagle. Nero appears as Jupiter, with hip mantle,sandals, aegis and laurel crown. The emperorholds a figure of victory extending a wreath inhis right hand and cradles a cornucopia in his left.The divine symbolism and inflated visual rheto-ric of the Cologne and Nancy gems may havebeen judged as iconographically inappropriate forthe first two Flavian emperors, Vespasian andTitus, and thus unsuitable for recutting duringtheir principates. In any case, these images un-doubtedly survived because of their value as semi-precious stones, as objects d’art, or as curiosities.

In addition to the cameos, Nero’s image sur-vives on three intaglios. A chrysolite in London,268

a carnelian in Paris,269 and a another carnelianin New York (fig. 95),270 are all based on Nero’s

257 J.J. Bernoulli (1886) 275; and K. Jeppesen (1993) 174,n. 160.

258 3621, inv. no. R.P.K. 21, 2.2 x 1.3 cm.; ex PayneKnight Coll.; W.R. Megow (1987) 88, 99-101, 212-13, no.A 96, pl. 34.7 (with earlier literature). 3618, h. 3.2 x 2.4cm.; ex Blacas Coll.; W.R. Megow (1987) 98, 141, n. 438,215, no. A 101, pl. 34 (with earlier literature).

259 Sardonyx cameo; Ermitage, inv. J 275, 2.0 x 1,8 cm.;W.R. Megow (1987) 215-16, no. A 103, pl. 34.11 (with earlierliterature).

260 Fragment from a sardonyx cameo; Private collection,2.3 x 1.8 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 212, no. A 94, pl. 34.9-10 (with earlier literature).

261 Fragment from an onyx cameo; 3600, inv. 68.5-20.2,2.8. x 2.1 cm; ex Pulsky Coll.; W.R. Megow (1987) 88, 96,100, 113, n. 353, 212-13, no. A. 95, pl. 34.4-5 (with ear-lier literature); H. Born and K. Stemmer, 97, fig. 58.

262 Sardonyx cameo, 3.03 x 2.8 x .52 cm,; M. Henig(1990) 34, no. 59.

263 Fragmentary sardonyx cameo; Staatliche Museen, inv.30219.710, h. 2.15 cm; ex von Gans Coll.; W.R. Megow(1987) 96, 98, 215, no. A100, pl. 35.4 (with earlier litera-ture); H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 97, fig. 56.

264 Glass cameo; Musée d’Art et d’Histoire 224, 1.7 x1.3 cm.; ex Fol Coll.; W.R. Megow (1987) 215, no. A 102,pl. 35.5 (with earlier literature).

265 Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, inv.276, 8.3 x 7.6 cm; S. Wood (1999) 305-6, fig. 133; T. Mickoki(1995) 39, 180, no. 203 (with earlier literature); W. Megow(1987) 27-8, no. A86, pl. 27.3.

266 Dom, Dreikönigenschrein I B a 17, 8.0 x 6.4 cm.;W.R. Megow (1987) 4, 96, 101-2, 109, 137, 143, 149, 213-14, no. A 98, pl. 35.1-2; T. Mikocki (1995) 182, no. 213,pl. 14; H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 72, 100, fig. 51.Nero wears a mantel draped across his hips, holds a scep-ter in his raised right hand and an ornamented ship’s stern(aphlaston) in his left hand. He wears a laurel crown and astar, an attribute of solar divinity, rises from his head. Aneagle decorates his throne. Agrippina holds aloft a secondlaurel crown in her right hand and cradles a cornucopia inher left arm. She wears a tunica with a palla draped aroundher hips. She, too, wears a laurel crown. Three sheaves ofwheat spring from her head.

267 Bibliothèque Publique, h. 7.1 x 6.0 cm.; W.R. Megow(1987) 86, n. 265, 96, 101-3, 114, 142, n. 440, 144, 214-15, no. A 99, pl. 35.3 (with earlier literature); J. Arce in S.Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds. (2000) 551, no. 295 (Caracalla).The profile, coiffure and beard closely resemble the sculptedreplica of Nero’s third portrait type in the Terme. The Nancygem has been identified with Caracalla, but the coiffuredoes not correspond to any of Caracalla’s hairstyles.

268 British Museum, Blacas 497, 16 x 13 mm; G.M.A.Richter (1971) 109, no. 523, fig. 523 (Nero in his youngeryears)(with earlier literature).

269 Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, 17x 13 mm; Chabouillet, Cat, no. 2083; G.M.A. Richter (1971)109, no. 524, fig. 524.

270 Metropolitan Museum of Art, 41.160.762, 14 x 12mm.; G.M.A. Richter (1971) 109, no. 525, fig. 525 (with

nero and poppaea 77

fourth portrait type. Intaglios were often used asseals for important documents and clearly, Nero’simage would no longer have been appropriate forsuch a use after his damnatio. Because they arecarved in negative relief, in very small-scale,intaglios are virtually impossible to recarve andindeed only one surviving intaglio seems to havebeen reconfigured as a result of Geta’s condem-nation (cat. 7.9). They may simply have beendiscarded, or again, valued as curiosities or pre-served by Nero’s former partisans after his death.

A graffito from an arched room in the sub-structures of the “Domus Tiberiana” in Romemay have been intended a caricature of Nero’sthird portrait type.271 The grafitto is signedTVLLIVS ROMANUS MILES and depicts an in-dividual in right profile. The light beard, shortaquiline nose, and slope of the underchin recallNero’s third portrait type. The handling of thehair over the forehead parodies Nero’s carefullyarranged coiffures. If the graffito is indeed a like-ness of Nero, it lies far outside the realm of of-ficial portraits of Nero. This humorous imagewould have been exempted from the damnatio asa result of its satiric and unflattering nature. Theroom in which it was found lies in an area of thePalatine used as barracks for soldiers and sleep-ing quarters for slaves.272

The removal of Nero’s public images repre-sents an attempt to obliterate him from the his-torical record and communal consciousness,comparable to the erasure of his name in inscrip-tions and the destruction, dismantling, or appro-priation of his commemorative monuments andworks of architecture. Not surprisingly, no ar-chaeological trace remains of the triumphal archwhich was erected in Nero’s honor on the Arx ofthe Capitoline Hill, but its appearance can bereconstructed on the basis of numismatic evi-dence.273 The arch, which was vowed by the

Senate in 58 and begun in 62, commemoratedGn. Domitius Corbulo’s victories in Parthia, forwhich Nero took credit. The arch was demolishedunder Galba or Vespasian274 Despite themonument’s destruction, it had an enormousimpact on subsequent arch design.275

Nero was a prodigious builder, and his mainbuilding projects were either demolished or ex-propriated.276 The Domus Aurea, the sprawlingvilla/palace which Nero built linking the Palatineand the Esquiline outraged the Senatorial aris-tocracy on account of its lavish decoration andthe extent of its grounds in the heart of Rome.277

Although Otho lived in the Domus Aurea anddevoted substantial sums to its completion, thepalace was subsequently destroyed or transformedand the elaborately landscaped grounds werereclaimed by Vespasian for other purposes.278

The great artificial lake was drained and theAmphitheatrum Flavium erected on its site. Thesurviving Esquiline wing of the palace was incor-porated into the substructures of the baths ofTrajan. It is likely that the Baths of Titus on theOppian represent modifications to the pre-exist-ing baths of the Domus Aurea, opened to thepublic in A.D. 80.279 The works of art which haddecorated Nero’s palace were expropriated byVespasian for public display in the nearbyTemplum Pacis.280 Like the destruction of the

earlier literature); K.M. Dickson in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000)132, no. 25, with fig .

271 L. Correra (1894) 89-90, pl. 2.4; R. Lanciani (1897)147, fig. 55; W. Binsfeld (1956) 31; H. Jucker (1963) 87-88, fig. 8.

272 R. Lanciani (1897) 146.273 F.S. Kleiner (1985); S. de Maria (1988) 283-84; F.S.

Kleiner in E.M. Steinby, ed. (1993) 101.

274 Both Otho and Vitellius were sympathetic towardsNero’s memory. F.S. Kleiner (1985) 70-72. The arches ofDomitian were similarly destroyed, F.S. Kleiner (1985) 94.

275 F.S. Kleiner (1985) 94-6.276 On Nero’s building projects and their negative pre-

sentation in hostile literary sources, see J. Elsner in J. Elsnerand J. Masters, eds. (1994) 112-27.

277 The palace is censured in a contemporary epigramrecorded by Suetonius: “Rome is becoming a house; emi-grate to Veii, Romans, unless that house takes over Veii,too” (Roma domus fiet; Veios migrate, Quirites, Si non et Veios occupatista domus, Nero 39.2). And later, Martial quips “One housetook up the whole of Rome,” (Lib.Spect. 2.4).

278 Suet. Otho 7.1; L.F. Ball has also distinguished post-Neronian phases of construction in the Esquiline wing ofthe Domus Aurea, portions of which he assigns to modifi-cations carried out under Otho, (1994) 226-27 and (2003)168-69.

279 F. Coarelli (1974) 203; L.F. Ball (forthcoming) 249-53.

280 Pliny, NH 35.120. On the political implications ofthe Templum Pacis as a reaction against the Domus Aurea,see C. Kerrigan (1996) 359 (abstract).

chapter three78

house of Julia Minor earlier in the first century,or the destruction of the house of C. CalpurniusPiso under Nero himself, the dismantling, demo-lition, and reconfiguration of the Domus Aureareflects the earlier republican practice of razingthe houses of individuals subjected to a damnatio.281

The Esquiline wing of the Domus Aurea, notincorporated into the Baths of Trajan until it wasravaged by the fire of A.D. 104, was degradedby alterations which turned its grand publicrooms and spaces into utilitarian barracks orstorerooms.282 The modified Esquiline remnantof the Palace, in a semi- ruinous and highly vis-ible state near the Colosseum would have func-tioned as yet another pertinent manifestation ofNero’s disgrace and downfall. The combinationof Neronian ruin with the new Flavian architec-tural showpiece would have been extremely ef-fective visual propaganda for the new regime.The circus which was begun by Caligula andcompleted by Nero in the valley of the MonsVaticanus may also have been given over topublic use following Nero’s death and damnatio.283

Interestingly, Nero’s greatest public buildingproject, the Baths which he constructed in theCampus Martius continued to be known as theBaths of Nero despite his damnatio.284

Nero’s name has been erased in the majorityof his inscriptions.285 In addition to the expectederasure of the princeps’ name in portrait dedica-tions and other commemorative inscriptions, abronze inscription, honoring Nero which wasadded to the architrave of the Parthenon in A.D.61-2, was entirely removed from the temple.286

The inscription was inserted between the bronzeshields which had been affixed below themetopes, probably under Alexander. 287 Indeed,of the seven (or possibly eight) inscriptions fromAthens which originally mentioned Nero, hisname has been erased on all but two.288 Nero’sname has also been erased in an important publicinscription from Akraiphia in Boetia, which re-corded the speech delivered by the emperor atthe time of the liberation of Achaea and addi-tionally honored the emperor as Nero Zeus Eleu-

281 F.C. Albertson (1993) 139; V. Santa Maria Scrinari(1997) 9.

282 Plans for the baths on the Oppian may have beeninitiated late in the reign of Domitian. L.F. Ball (1994) 227-28.

283 The circus was begun by Caligula. It’s dimensionswere comparable to the Circus Maximus. Caligula wasresponsible for bringing the obelisk, now in the piazza ofSan Pietro, to the circus. Claudius continued work on thecircus and Nero completed it. Both Caligula and Nero usedit as a private venue for their own chariot racing. No re-liable references to races, games or performances held inthis circus postdate the Neronian period. After the deathof Nero, the area may have been used as public gardens.Tombs eventually encroached on the area of the circus. HA,Elag. 23.1 mentions Elagabalus racing in this circus, butthe reference is probably fictional, designed to link thecharacter of Elagabalus with those of Caligula and Nero.See A. Barrett (1989) 200 and J. Humphrey (1986) 550-54.

284 For instance, ILS 5173 (thermis...Neronis); and Mar-tial (2.48.8 [thermas...neronianas]; 3.25.4 [Neronianas...therms]; 7.34.9-10 [Neronianas thermas]; and his famous

quip “Quid Nerone peius? Quid thermis melius Neronianis?(7.34.4-5).

285 M. Stuart lists portrait dedications which originallyhonored Nero (1939) 609. Stuart’s list is reproduced here:ROME: CIL 6.927, 31288, 921 = Dessau 222, 4; REGIOI: Casinum (CIL 10.5171); Pompeii (CIL 10.932); REGIOII: Aeclanum (CIL 9.1108); REGIO IV: Aequiculi (CIL9.4115); REGIO VII: Luna (CIL 11.1331 = Dessau 233,1332, 6955 = Dessau 8902); BAETICA: Marchena (CIL2.1392); Salpensa (CIL 2.1281; LUSITANIA: Olisipo (CIL2.183,184); Emerita (EphEpigr 8 (Hisp) 24); AQUITANIA:Mediolanum Santonum (CIL 13.1040); LUGDUNENSIS:Metiosedum (CIL 13.3013); BRITANNIA: Regni (CIL 7.12plus EphEpigr 9, 24; NORICUM: Virunum (CIL 3.4825);MACEDONIA: Hripishta (AE [1914] 216); ACHAEA:Delphi (AE [1937] 52 = Sylloge3 808); Athens (IG 2-32 3277-3278); Megara (IG 6.68); Sparta (IG 6.1, 376); Messene (IG5.1, 1449-1450); Olympia (Olympia 5.373, 375, [374?]);BOSPORUS: Panticapaeum (IGR 1.876); ASIA: Ilium (IGR4.209d); Alexandria Troas (CIL 3.382); Pergamum (IGR4.330); Halasarna (IGR 4.1097); Cos (IGR 4.1053); Hippia(IGR 4.1090); Aphrodisias (CIG 2740); Tralles or Nysa (CIGaddendum 2942d); Omarbeili (AE 1891, 151); LYCIA ANDPAMPHYLIA: Sagalassus (IGR 3.345); CYPRUS: Salamis(IGR 3.986); Curium (IGR 3.971); EGYPT: Talit (IGR1.1124).

286 K.K. Carroll (1982) 59-63; Carroll argues per-suasively that the inscription did not commemorate the dedi-cation of the Parthenon in toto to Nero, nor did it commemo-rate a statue set up to Nero in or near the Parthenon.

287 The channels cut for the attachment of the bronzeletters are still visible and allow the text of the inscriptionto be reconstructed. The bronze letters themselves wereremoved in their entirety following the damnatio.

288 K.K. Carroll (1982) 31.

nero and poppaea 79

therios.289 The inscription also mandated theerection of portraits of Nero and his third wifeSatilia Messalina in the temple of Ptoan Apollo.Significantly, Statilia Messalina’s name is allowedto remain in the inscription. Given the relativelyshort period which elapsed between the Nero’sliberation of Achaea and his death in 68, it isunlikely that these honorific images were ever setup. However, if they were, Nero’s would un-doubtedly have been removed from the temple.Nero’s name has also been excised from anotherprominent provincial monument, the JupiterColumn at Mainz. The column was originallydedicated PRO SALUTE NERONIS, but after theemperor’s death and condemnation his name waseradicated from the inscription.290 In addition,Nero’s name has been erased in an honorificinscription from the imperial cult building atBoubon in Turkey.291 Although not a portraitinscription, the erasure of Nero’s name and titlesat Boubon suggest that his statue was also re-moved from the cycle of imperial images whichdecorated the building.292

The Continued Display of Nero’s Images

In contrast to those images which were mutilated,transformed, or removed, a third full-lengthtogate statue of Nero’s first type in Parma mayhave remained on public display (fig. 96).293 Thestatue was discovered substantially intact in theJulio-Claudian Basilica at Velleia on 11 June1761 in the colonnade where the representationsof other members of the Julio-Claudian familywere also uncovered. Like the two portraits ofCaligula excavated at Gortyna on Crete, thediscovery of the Parma portrait of Nero in theVelleian Basilica, together with numerous otherJulio-Claudian representations, strongly suggeststhat it was never removed from public view. Asalready noted, the original cycle of portraits wascreated under Caligula and included portraits ofAugustus, Tiberius, Germanicus, Tiberius Ge-mellus, Caligula, Drusilla, Agrippina Maior, andLivia. Subsequently, the portrait of Caligula wasreworked to an image of Claudius (cat. l.32; fig.34a-b) and a portrait of Messalina was added tothe cycle and ultimately transformed into animage of Agrippina Minor (cat. 3.4; fig. 100a-c),at which time the statue of Nero was alsoadded.294 Like the Julio-Claudian Basilica at Otri-coli, the Velleian Basilica was dedicated to theworship of the imperial gens. It is especially sig-nificant that the boyhood image may have been

289 SIG3 814; T. Pekary (1985) 62; S.E. Alcock in J. Elsnerand J. Masters, eds. (1994) 99; C.B. Rose (1997) 136-38,cat. 67.

290 G. Bauchhenss and P. Noelke (1981) 162-3; G.Bauchhenss (1984).

291 SEG 27 (1977) 916; J. Inan and C. Jones (1997-98)268-95; S.R.F. Price (1984) 160, 263-64; C.B. Rose (1997)171, cat. 109.

[erased line ca. 20 characters][erased line ca. 20 characters][erased line ca. 20 characters]#@L$T<XT< º #@L8¬ 6"4 Ò *0y

:@H •N4XDTFg< *4• '"\@L !4

64<\@L 9@L64"<@Ø BDgF

$gLJ@Ø [;XDT<@H] Gg$"FJ@Ø

•<J4FJD"JZ(@L292 A portrait inscription contemporary with the erased

inscription honoring Nero which commemorates Poppaeawas also found at Boubon (SEG 27 (1977) 917). The inscrip-tion is not erased and seems to date between A.D. 62, theyear of Poppaea’s marriage to Nero and 63, the year inwhich she was awarded the title of Augusta, see C.B. Rose(1997) 171, cat. 109. The lack of erasure in the portraitinscription may indicate that her image was not removed,but rather allowed to remain on public display.

293 Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 826, H. 1.53 m.;C. Saletti (1968) 49-52, 91-2; 122-23, pls. 35-38 (with ear-lier literature); 14; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)321,n. 6; H.R. Goette (1989) 33, 37, 125, no. 246 (reworkedportrait of Britannicus?)(with earlier literature); D..E.E.Kleiner (1992) 136, fig. 110; F. Johansen (1994) 21, fig. 20;C.B. Rose (1997) 122-3, cat. 48.13, plates 133, 150-51;S.Wood (1999)195 . There is slight damage to the tip ofthe nose, the edges of the ear and the top of the skull andboth forearms are missing. Rose has suggested that the bodyis reused from an earlier image. He notes the awkward joinbetween head and neck and the fact that the back is notnearly as summarily worked as the other statues in the groupand lacks the flat profile of the others. However, the dis-crepancies between the statue of Nero and the other twoClaudian portraits, those of Claudius and Agrippina Mi-nor may simply reflect the fact that the Nero has beencreated ex novo in the Claudian period, whereas the Claudiusand Agrippina Minor have been reworked from pre-exist-ing images of Caligula and Messalina.

294 C. Saletti (1968) 91-2.

chapter three80

retained in the Velleian group dedication whichpresents ample evidence of adult alterations asthe result of damnatio including the transformedCaligula/Claudius and Messalina/ Agrippina.295

The impressive statuary cycle displayed at theCollegium of the Agustales of Rusellae whichyielded the likeness of Caligula recut to Claudiusand the Neronian cuirass also included a twoheadless togate portraits of boys, one of whichis likely to have depicted Nero.296 C.B. Rose hasintriguingly suggested that the togatus which in-cludes a partially hidden bulla, as a sign of incipi-ent manhood, belonged to a portrait of Nero andstressed his seniority over Britannicus, whosecorresponding statue has a prominently displayedbulla.297 This large dedication appears to havebeen initiated under Augustus with substantialadditions under Caligula and Claudius, andperhaps two images added under Nero. Evidenceconsisting of portrait heads and statue bodies arepreserved for seventeen and are likely to repre-sent Germanicus (head and body), AgrippinaMaior (body), Diva Drusilla (body), Julia Livilla(head and body), Nero Caesar (head), DrususCaesar (head and upper torso), Antonia Minor(head), Divus Augustus (body), Diva Livia (headand body), Caligula/Claudius (head; cat. 1.20),Nero as Caesar (body), Britannicus (body/headand body), Claudia Octavia (head and body),Divus Claudius (head) and Nero as imperator(body), as well as an unidentified cuirass andunidentified togate boy.298

The Rusellae dedication presents tantalizingparallels to the Velleia group. Naturally, many

of the same imperial personages are commemo-rated, including Diva Drusilla. In addition, bothcontained images of Caligula transformed toClaudius, as well as a boyhood togate portraitsof Nero with bulla, and cuirassed portraits of Neroas imperator. Like the cuirassed statue of Nero fromRusellae, the togatus with hidden bulla lacks itshead so it is impossible to confirm its ongoingpublic display. Alternatively the statue exhibitsan unusual large rectangular cutting in themarble on the upper chest below the mortis andthis appears to be an area of repair to the drap-ery which possibly indicate an attack on theimage after Nero’s suicide.

Inscriptional evidence, however, seems toconfrim that Nero’s boyhood portraits were al-lowed to remain in important group dedications.Nero’s name has not been erased from an inscrip-tion belonging to a group dedication set up nearthe Britannic Arch of Claudius in Rome.299

Nero’s portrait may not have been removed fromthe statuary group, given the fact that his nameand titles have not been effaced. Nero may alsohave been present in another Claudian groupdedication, which included a gilded bronze imagoclipeata of Agrippina Maior with an inscriptionidentifying her as the grandmother of Nero.300

The survival of boyhood images of Nero in thecontext of Julio-Claudian statuary cycles suggeststhat the continuum of imperial auctoritas as em-bodied in group portraits may, in isolated cases,have been deemed more important than dishon-oring the memory of condemned emperors.301 Inaddition boyhood portraits of Nero, which natu-rally were created prior to his accession, mayhave been seen as less threatening and less rep-resentative of Nero as tyrannus.295 S. Wood (1999) 195 notes the discrepancies in en-

forcing condemnations present at Velleia. The third alteredadult image, the cuirassed portrait of Nero himself recutto Domitian and ultimately transformed into a representa-tion of Nerva was apparently not an original part of theJulio-Claudian dedication, but added later, after its trans-formation.

296 Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Marem-ma; C.B. Rose (1997) 116-18, no. 45.6.

297 C.B. Rose (1997) 118. The portrait of Octavia is alsoremarkable for its similarities of coiffure and physiognomyto Nero’s type 1 portraits.

298 Inscriptional evidence suggests that the earliest phaseof the cycle included representations of Augustus as em-peror, Agrippa, and Lucius Caesar C.B. Rose (1997) 116.

299 CIL 6.921; S. de Maria (1988) 112-3, 280-2, no. 69;E. Rodríguez Almeida in E.M. Steinby ed. (1993).85-6; thisinscription has often been assumed to belong to the arch,but C.B. Rose has pointed out that this is impossible andthat the inscription belongs to a nearby, perhaps contem-porary group dedication, (1997) 113-5, no. 42, pl. 116 (withearlier literature).

300 C.B. Rose (1997) 90, no. 13; S. Wood (1999) 237.301 On the importance of continuity in the context of

the imperial cult, see S.R.F. Price (1984) 161.

nero and poppaea 81

Portrait dedications from which Nero’s namehas not been erased may also suggest the con-tinued display of his images. Nero and Poppaeawere honored with two portrait groups at Luna,one including their deified infant daughterClaudia,302 and a highly unusual group dedica-tion from Amisus originally honored Nero, Pop-paea and Britannicus.303 The lack of erasure inthe Luna dedications may simply indicate that thestatues and their bases were removed (or de-stroyed) in toto, but the appearance of Britannicusin the Amisus group suggests that it may haveremained on display.

The Rehabilitation of Nero’s Memory

Following Nero’s official condemnation underGalba, Otho attempted to rehabilitate his me-mory in an effort to curry favor with the plebs.304

As noted earlier, Otho ordered Nero’s portraitstatues returned to public display, allowed him-self to be called Otho Nero, allocated large sumsfor continued work on the Domus Aurea, andcourted Nero’s widow Statillia Messalina.305 Othoalso forced the Senate to re-erect the statues ofPoppaea, who had been Otho’s wife before shemarried Nero.306 Upon his accession, Vitelliuscontinued Otho’s policy of honoring Nero’smemory.307 Vitellius offered sacrifices to Nero’smanes, had his songs performed in public, andgenerally wished to imitate him.308 In fact, nu-mismatic portraits of both Otho and Vitelliusdepict them with versions of the coma in gradusformata coiffure which function as recognizablevisual links to Nero.309 Dio even praises Vitellius

for retaining the coinage of all three of his im-mediate predecessors, Nero, Galba and Otho.310

However, Nero’s rehabilitation was short-lived,for his damnatio was once again actively enforcedVespasian.311

Despite his damnatio, the memory of Nerocontinued to be esteemed by the plebs after hisdeath. Loyal followers frequently decorated histomb with flowers and displayed togate images(imagines praetextatae) and edicts of the emperor onthe Rostra in the Forum Romanum, “as if hewere still living” (quasi viventis).”312 It is unclearwhether imagines refer to sculpted or paintedportraits, but the context of Suetonius’s statementsuggests that these portraits were not heavymarble or bronze likenesses; rather, it is morelikely that they were easily transportable paintedor small scale images. Nero’s posthumous popu-larity also led to imposters.313 Interestingly, all ofthe known Nero imposters seem to have comefrom the eastern portions of the empire, wherethe emperor would only have been largely knownthrough his images and not through actual per-sonal appearances. Dio Chrysostom, writing atthe end of the first century, was able to claim:“Even now his subjects wish he were still aliveand most men believe he is,”314 More alarmingly,the Sibylline Oracle prophesied that in A.D. 195Nero would return and Rome itself would fall.315

In the mid third century, Nero was again invokedwhen the Neroniana, the games he had institutedin 60, were revived under Gordian III.316

In the late fourth and early fifth centuries,Nero’s memory was again rehabilitated when hisportrait was introduced on contonoriate medal-

302 CIL 11.1331; C.B. Rose (1997) 95, no. 22; CIL11.6955; C.B. Rose 94-5, no. 21.

303 G. Bean (1956) 213-6; SEG (1959) 748; C.B. Rose(1997) 161, no. 98.

304 Tacit. Hist. 1.78.305 Suet. Otho 7.1, 10.2, Tacit. Hist. 1.78 (imagines Neronis

proponeret), Plut. Otho 3, see supra xxx.306 Statuas Poppaeae per senatus consultum reposuit, Tacit. Hist.

168, and see infra.307 Vitellius and Otho seem to have played on the plebs’

nostalgia for Nero, M. Griffin (1984)186.308 Dio, 64.7.3; Suet. Vit. 11.2.309 See infra.

310 64(65).6.1.311 In addition, Vespasian also denigrated Nero and his

reign through his choice of coin reverses, E.S. Ramage (1983)201, 209-10.

312 Suet. Nero 57.1; see also C. Wells (1992) 168.313 Suet. Nero 57.2; Tacit. Hist. 2.8-9; Dio 66.19.3; B.W.

Jones (1983) 516-21, Jones believes that the execution ofG. Vettulenus Civica Cerialis, Domitian’s proconsul in Asia,in 88 might be tied to the appearance of the third of thesepretenders.

314 Disc. 21.10.315 OrSib 8.139ff; R. Syme (1958) 773; A. Birely, Septimius

157.316 F. Friedländer (1907) vol. 2, 120, vol. 4, 548-9; B.W.

Jones (1992) 103.

chapter three82

lions.317 Nero is often represented in a chariot andis invoked as a famous patron of the CircusMaximus.318 These contorniates were minted byRome’s elite and have a predominantly paganiconography. Presumably distributed at the gamesheld in the Circus, they are often used as evidencefor the existence of a “pagan aristocracy” dur-ing this period at Rome.319 Nero’s later reputa-tion as a persecutor of Christians may haveinstigated his appearance on the staunchly pa-gan contorniates. A chalcedony cameo which iscontemporary with the contorniates also repre-sents him with circus regalia .320 Nero is depictedfrontally in a quadriga. He wears a paludamentumand the radiate crown of Apollo. He holds amappa in his right hand and a scepter in his leftand is accompanied by the inscription: NEPVNA O/ VCTE (Neron Auguste). Significantly, all ofthe late portraits of Nero include accurate, al-though stylized, versions of the coiffures andphysiognomies of his third and fourth portraittypes, which indicates that Nero’s portrait iconog-raphy was still known into the fifth century. Theseremarkably accurate details of Nero’s portraiturewere likely transmitted to the late Roman die andgem cutters via coins and gems themselves.

During the Renaissance and later, the scarci-ty of unaltered portraits of Nero led to the cre-ation of numerous modern forgeries and copiesof his likeness.321 These modern portraits reflectNero’s last two portrait types. Modern portraits,like those in Florence and Modena, are fairlyclose copies of ancient originals which are nowlost.322 Or they can be freer adaptations, stronglyreflecting the artistic tastes of the period in whichthey were created, as in the examples in the

Uffizi,323 the Louvre,324 the Vatican 325 theMuseo Capitolino,326 the Palazzo Corsini,327 thePalazzo Quirinale328 the Villa Borghese,329 Palaz-zo Mattei,330 and Palazzo Farnese331 which rangein date from the 16th to the 19th centuries. In theRenaissance and Baroque periods, the majorityof these modern portraits were probably notintended as forgeries, but rather to fill gaps incollections, especially series of the twelve cae-sars.332 However, an unusual portrait of Nero inthe British Museum does appear to have beenfashioned as a forgery, created with the expresspurpose of deceiving its buyer that it was an

317 See, W. Jakob-Sonnanbend (1990).318 A. Alföldi and E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum (1976) pls. 58.1-

9, 73.2-3, 87.3-12, 88.1-4, 94.6-8.319 C.W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000) 59.320 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles

129, 287, diam. 3.4 cm.; E. Babelon (1897) 149-50, nr. 287,pl. 32; O. Neverov (1986) 192, fig. 8; W.R. Megow (1987)216, no. A104, pl. 35.6; M. Fuchs (1997) 94; S. Ensoli inS. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds. (2000) 68, fig. 6.

321 H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 117; on the rela-tionship of the post-antique portraits to surviving replicas,see J.M. Croisille (1999).

322 See supra.

323 Inv. 1914.123; G.A. Mansuelli (1961) 68-69, no. 62,fig. 61a-b (ancient). U. Hiesinger (1975)122 (modern); J.M.Croisille (1999) 404, fig. 24.

324 MA 1222, ex Coll. Borghese; K. de Kersauson (1986)239, no. 120, with figs; M Fuchs (1997) 83-96, pl. 7.1-4;J.M. Croisille (1999) 403, fig. 22 . While Fuchs considersthis portrait to be a revival of the Gallienic period, theemphatic modeling of the facial features and the dramaticundercutting of the stiffly arranged coiffure over the fore-head is not consonant with such a date betrays the image’spost antique origins. Gallienic sculpture is more oftencharacterized by smoothly modeled and classicizing features.In addition, portraits of Gallienus and private individualscreated during his reign do not have nearly as strong a visualcorrespondence to Neronian portraits as Fuchs suggests. Noris there any historical, epigraphic, or numismatic evidencefor the Neronian revival under Gallienus which Fuchs posits.

325 Bilblioteca K. Kluge and K. Lehmann-Hartleben(1927) 25-30, fig. 4 (ancient); B.M. Felletti Maj (1963) 425-26, fig. 555 (ancient); Helbig4I, nr. 476 (ancient); U. Hiesinger(1975) 120, n. 34 (modern); G. Lahusen and E Formigli,(1993); J.M. Croisille (1999) 403, fig. 31. The head is docu-mented as belonging to the Mattei in 1613 and wasentered the Vatican collections in 1770 under ClementXIV.

326 Stanza degli Imperatori, ex Albani collection B 167;H. Stuart Jones (1926) 191, no. 15.

327 Scalone, 2nd pianerottolo, nicchia a destra e nicchiaa sinistra, De Luca, 135, nos. 75, 76, pls.

328 Sala del Bronzino, DP 100; M.E. Micheli in L.Guerrini and C. Gasparri eds. (1993) 209-11, no. 84, pl.61 (19th century).

329 Porphyry and marble portrait, Sala IV; I. Faldi (1954)16-17, fig. 11h; P. Moreno and C. Stefani (2000); Marblebust, Salone del Ingresso; I. Faldi (19540 49-51; P. Morenoand C. Stefani (2000) 59.

330 Modern type 3 head on an ancient statue, F. Carinciin L. Guerrini, ed. (1982) 115-7, no. 7, pl. 23.

331 type 4; Sala delle Guardie (del Ercole Farnese); partof a cycle of 18 imperial busts.

332 Such Suetonian displays were particularly importantin the 17th century and less so in the 18th; J. Fejfer (1997)12-13.

nero and poppaea 83

authentic ancient likeness of Nero.333 The por-trait is said to have been purchased by Dr. An-thony Askew in 1740 in Athens where it was recutfrom an ancient portrait of Hadrian; the scarci-ty of authentic representations of Nero motivat-ed the forgers to create an image of Nero fromone of the numerous surviving likenesses ofHadrian.334

The Collateral Condemnation of Poppaea Sabina

Poppaea’s images suffered a similar fate to thoseof her husband, and as a result, securely identi-fied sculptural representations of the empress arecompletely lacking.335 Poppaea was married ini-tially to Rufius Crispinus and then to the futureemperor Marcus Salvius Otho.336 While stillmarried to Otho, Poppaea became Nero’s mis-tress, sometime in A.D. 58.337 Nero and Poppaeawere finally married in A.D. 62, only twelve daysafter Nero’s divorce from Claudia Octavia.338 Atthat time Poppaea was awarded the title of Au-gusta. She bore Nero one child, Claudia Augusta,who died in infancy.339 Poppaea’s death in 65 wasrumored to have been caused by a miscarriageinduced when Nero kicked her in the stomach.340

Although Poppaea was deified after herdeath,341 her apotheosis was rescinded in 68 whenher memory was collaterally condemned togetherwith that of Nero. During the reign of Galba,Poppaea’s images, like those of Nero, were re-moved from public display and warehoused.342

Upon his accession Otho reversed Galba’s poli-cies and had the statues of his former wife re-turned to public display, expressly by order of theSenate: ne tum quidem immemor amorum statuasPoppaeae per senatus consultum reposuit.343 As was thecase with Nero’s likenesses, the use of the verbreponere (literally, to set up again) indicates thatstatues of Poppaea were accessible and well pre-served during Otho’s principate. Vitellius, con-tinued Otho’s practice of honoring the memoriesof Nero and Poppaea.344 However, during theprincipate of Vespasian, portraits of Poppaea andNero were once again removed from public dis-play as their damnationes were re-enforced.345

Although images of Poppaea, celebrating herposition as Augusta and later as diva were cre-ated and disseminated under Nero, her damnatiohas ensured that no sculpted portraits are ex-tant.346 Her likeness is, however, preserved on

333 BM GR 1805.7-3.246; B.F. Cook (1985) 27; P.Craddock in M. Jones, ed. (1990) 270-72, no. 301, with fig.;E. Köhne, C. Ewigleben, and R. Jackson, eds. (2000) 22,no. 7, with fig.

334 P. Craddock in M. Jones, ed. (1990) 270-72.335 See E.R. Varner (2001a) 45-47.336 M. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987) 523-24, no. 646. On

her marriage to Crispinus, see Suet. Nero 35.5; Tac. Ann.13.45; Plut. Galba 19.4; on her marriage to Otho, see Suet.Otho 3.1-2; Tac. Ann. 13.46; Tac. Hist. 1.13; Dio 61(62) 11.2.

337 Suet. Otho 3.1; Tac. Ann. 13.46; Tac. Hist. 1.13; Dio61(62).11.2; Plut. Galba 19.4-5.

338 Suet. Nero 35.2. On Octavia Augusta, see infra.339 Poppaea was given the title of Augusta, at the time

of Claudia’s birth in 63, see Tac. Ann. 15.23; CIL 10.6787= ILS 3873; CIL 11 1331 a = ILS 233; CIL 11. 6955 = ILS8902; Suet. Nero 35.3; Claudia Augusta was deified afterher death; Tac. Ann. 15.23, 16.6; M. Raepsaet-Charlier(1987) 198-199, no. 213.

340 Suet. Nero 35.3; Tac. Ann. 16.6; Dio 62.28.1. Thisincident should probably also be read in the light of anti-Neronian rhetoric which informs all of these authors.

341 CIL 11.1331a = ILS 233; Tac. Ann. 16.21.342 Poppaea’s images were also targeted in A.D. 62,

during demonstrations against Octavia’s banishment anddivorce, (Effigies Poppaeae proruunt, Tac. Ann. 14.61, Octavia684-7. See also, S. Wood (1999) 3 and E.R. Varner (2001a)45-6, n. 33.

343 Tac. Hist. 1.78. See also M.B. Fory (1993) 303-4,344 Suet. Vit. 11.2; Dio 65(64).7.3.345 Nero’s image was not revived again until the late

fourth century when his portrait is appears on contorniatemedallions minted in Rome; A. Alföldi and E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum (1976) pls. 58.1-9, 73.2-3, 87.3-12, 88.1-4, 94.6-8.

346 Three portrait inscriptions have survived from A.D.63-66; CIL 11.6955 (Luna, A.D. 63); CIL 11.1331 (DivaPoppaea, Luna, A.D. 66); Türk Tarih Kurumu Belleten 20 (1956)213-15, pl. 1 (Amissus, A.D. 63-65); Several sculpted por-traits have been associated with Poppaea, most notably amarble head worked for insertion, now in the Terme, inv.124129; V. Picciotti Giornetti, MusNazRom 1.1 286-7, no.178, with fig. While the heavier treatment of the facial featuesin the Terme portrait, together with the treatment of theeyes find parallels in Nero’s last two portrait types and wouldlend support to an identification as Poppaea, the hairstyleof Terme head, with its formal arrangement of two rowscurls, pin curls framing the forehead, and heavy shoulder

chapter three84

coins issued by eastern mints347 and two cameosin Florence348 and Bonn349 which are nearly iden-tical representations of Poppaea as diva (figs. 97-98). The coiffure seen on the cameos, with threerows of large curls massed over the forehead andrunning back over the top of the head, as wellas the physiognomy with large almond shapedeyes, arching brows, long oval face, and grace-ful neck are paralleled on the numismatic like-nesses.350 These cameo’s highly unusual use of theaegis as a headdress equates the Poppaea withJuno-Isis and underscores her role as diva.351 The

Bonn cameo has been quite literally defaced; thenose, lips, and chin have all been entirely de-stroyed as a dramatic repudiation of her deifica-tion. In addition, the destruction of the cameomay be intended to deprive the piece of anymagical or supernatural qualities believed toreside in the gem itself. The virulent mutilationof the Bonn cameo is all the more remarkableas it is one of only two cameos with imperialportraits to have been vandalized.352 Unlike theirsculpted counterparts, imperial gems were notpart of the public visual discourse, and so layoutside the scope of usual condemnation prac-tices. In addition, they were presumably designedfor more partisanal audiences, such as membersof the imperial family and entourage.353

Conclusion: Rome’s First Official Imperial Condemnation

Although Caligula’s condemnation had an offi-cial implication in terms of the senatorial recallof his coinage, it was essentially a de-facto damnatio.The repression of Nero’s memory was, however,officially sanctioned by the Senate and initiatedwhen he was declared a hostis while still living.The senatorial measures passed to restore hisimages, as well as those of Poppaea, underscorethe official nature of the initial sanctions. Nerois the first princeps whose memory was officiallycondemned and his damnatio follows the proce-dural precedents set for Caligula’s condemnationand included the outright destruction, mutilation,transformation, and warehousing of his sculptedlikenesses. His coins were also effaced and coun-termarked and his name erased in honorific in-scriptions.

As with Caligula, the bulk of the evidence forNero’s damnatio is centered around a vast num-

locks does not appear in Poppaea’s numismatic likenesses.The portrait may, in fact be Poppaea’s predecessor, OctaviaAugusta. For a brief discussion of the problems surround-ing Poppaea’s portraiture, see D. Boschung (1993b) 77. Inaddition to sculpted, glyptic, and numismatic representa-tions of Poppaea, Dio mentions posthumous theatrical maskswhich bore the likeness of Poppaea, 62(63) 9.5 (and Suetonius21.3 where Poppaea is not mentioned by name; see also S.Bartsch.(1994) 47. I would like to thank Niall W. Slater forbringing these masks to my attention.

347 J.J. Bernoulli (1886) 417, pl. 35.20 (unspecified AsiaMinor mint). Alexandrian issues: A. Geissen (1974) 58, nos.155, 157-59, 60, nos. 168-69.

348 Florence, Museo Archeologico, inv. 14519, 2.6 x 1.8cm; A. Giuliano, ed. (1989) 274, no. 229 (with figs.) (withearlier literature); E.R. Varner (2001b) 48, fig. 1.

349 Private collection, 2.4 x 1.5 cm.; W.R. Megow (1973)244-45, no. 393, pl. 181; Megow (1987) 260-61, no. B 28,pls. 34.14-16.; T. Mickoki (1995) 188, no. 257, pl. 24; H.Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 30, 97, fig. 57; S. Wood (1999)289; E.R. Varner (2001) 48. E.R. Varner (2001 a) 48, fig.2. Wood suggests that the portrait might in fact representOctavia Claudia, but the coiffure is much closer to theAlexandrian coins of Poppaea and the divine assimilationand Egyptianizing implications of the headdress seem moresuited to Poppaea.

350 While Poppaea’s coiffure is similar to that of hermother-in-law Agrippina Minor, the curls massed over theforehead are larger and run much farther back over thetop of the head, as is especially visible in the Alexandrianissues. The braids on the back of the head are gatheredtogether and looped back up, forming a long and thick ponytail on the nape of the neck. Poppaea’s ears are usually shownuncovered, and she is depicted with a long, fairly straightshoulder lock. In addition, Poppaea’s face and neck arelonger than that of Agrippina Minor. It is likely thatPoppaea’s hairstyle is closer to those popular in the earlyFlavian period, for instance, that worn by Domitia in herfirst portrait type, ca. A.D. 71, see E.R. Varner (1995) 189-93, figs. 1-2.

351 The aegis headdress may also be meant to recall theheaddress of the Egyptian goddess Hathor. I would like tothank Gay Robins and Saskia Benjamin for alerting me tothe Egyptian implications of this headdress.

352 A sardonyx cameo with facing portraits of Macrinusand Diadumenianus has suffered similar mutilation of thefacial features, Bonn, Rheinishces Landesmuseums, inv.32300; cat. 7.11.

353 Thanks are due to M. Koortbojian for perceptivecomments on this gem and its relationship to mutilatedsculpted images. On the more flamboyant imagery andrestricted audiences of imperial cameos, see R.R.R. Smith(2000) 542.

nero and poppaea 85

ber of portraits which have been recycled, usuallyinto representations of the succeeding Flavianemperors, but also into his great-great grand-father, Augustus, as well as Claudius, Galba,Trajan, Antinous, and Gallienus. Indeed theNeronian material is the chronological, as wellas qualitative and quantitative fulcrum for the fullblown practice of sculptural transformations.More portraits of Nero were reconfigured thanfor any other emperor and into a wider varietyof new identities. Nero’s images which have beenrecycled into likenesses of Vespasian had thesame critical stylistic impact on the developmentof portraiture as Caligula’s images refashionedinto Claudius. Vespasian’s most insistently veristicrepresentations, as well as his most cooly classi-cizing, are the products of sculptural recycling.Vespasian’s revival of verism with its republicanconnotations clearly signaled a period of transi-tion from the Julio-Claudian to the Flavian re-gimes. On the other hand, his continued use ofclassicizing representations promoted his legiti-macy by visually connecting him to the founderof the Empire, Augustus. The simultaneous useof two oppositional portrait modes underscoresthe potentially volatile nature of style, especially

in periods of political transition as a new regimeattempts to establish power. In addition, theexistence of two stylistic possibilities implies atleast two distinct audiences for the imagery; theveristic images likely resonated with the disaf-fected senatorial aristocracy who had entertainedthe possibility of dismantling the principate afterCaligula’s overthrow, while the more classicizinglikenesses, with their intimations of continuitywith the Julio-Claudians would have appealed tothose who had benefitted under their rule.

Nero was not only the first princeps to be of-ficially condemned, but also the first whosememory and images were subsequently rehabili-tated, first under Otho and Vitellius, and muchlater in the mid third and the end of the fourthcentury. Nero’s rehabilitations, as well as thephenomenon of the “false Neros” which contin-ued into the second century, underscore his con-tinued posthumous popularity and highlight thecomplexities of the condemnation process. Thepractice itself necessarily had to be remarkablyflexible, but it also had to take into accountwidely differing assessments, both negative andpositive, of the overthrown ruler and regime.

chapter four86

Julia Maior

In addition to the damnationes leveled againstCaligula and Nero, the Julio-Claudian periodwitnessed several other condemnations of mem-bers of the imperial family. Julia, Augustus’s onlychild by his second wife Scribonia, is the first ofthe imperial women whose memory was con-demned.1 Julia was born in 39 B.C. and marriedher cousin M. Marcellus in 25 B.C.2 Marcellusdied in 23 B.C., and in that same year Juliamarried M. Vipsanius Agrippa and ultimatelybore him five children.3 Their two eldest sonsGaius and Lucius Caesar were formally adopt-ed by Augustus as his heirs.4 Following Agrippa’sdeath, Julia married Augustus’s stepson, Tiberi-us, in 11 B.C.5 The couple had one son, Clau-dius, who died in infancy.6 Their marriageproved unhappy, however, and Tiberius leftRome for retirement on Rhodes in 6 B.C. WhileTiberius was absent from Rome, Julia was ac-cused of adultery and banished by Augustus toPandateria in 2 B.C.7 Upon his accession, Tibe-rius refused to end Julia’s exile, and further re-stricted her liberty, which reportedly hastened herdeath from starvation, in A.D. 14.8

Although charges of adultery were leveledagainst her, Julia’s exile was more likely motivat-ed by her involvement in political intrigues

against Augustus.9 Pliny explicitly links the charg-es of adultery and conspiracy: adulterium et consil-ia parricidae palam facta and the two need not bemutually exclusive.10 Also implicated in the plotwere Sempronius Gracchus, Appius Claudius,Quintus Crispinus, Scipio, and Iullus Antonius,the second son of M. Antony and Fulvia.11 Dioreports that Iullus was executed for attemptingto seize the principate.12 The charges of adulteryand sexual promiscuity leveled against Julia ef-fectively blackened her reputation and destroyedher political influence. Indeed sex and politics areinextricably bound together in the rhetoric sur-rounding Julia’s downfall and two of the localesof her alleged assignations, the Statue of Mars-yas and Rostra in the Forum Romanum, are

CHAPTER FOUR

OTHER JULIO-CLAUDIANS

1 E. Meise (1969) 3-34; M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier(1987)358-59, no. 421; E.R. Varner (2001a) 57-60.

2 Suet. Aug. 63.1; Vell.Pat. 2.93.2, Dio (48.34.3; 53.27.5;54.65, 8.5, 18.1, 31.1-2, 35.4; 55.2-4, 10.14;

3 Gaius, Lucius, Julia Minor (Vipsania Julia), Agrippi-na Maior (Vipsania Agrippina), and Agrippa Postumus,Suet. Aug. 65.1., Cal. 7.1.; Vell.Pat. 96.1.

4 Suet. Aug. 64.1.; Vell.Pat. 96.1.5 Dio 54.35.4.6 Suet. Tib. 7.3.7 Suet. Aug. 54.1; Tac. Ann 1.53; Vel.Pat. Hist. 2.100.8 Tac. Ann 1.53.1-2; Dio 57.18.1a. On the political mo-

tives behind Tiberius’s actions, see J. Linderski (1988) 198.

9 B. Levick (1976) 306. G. Williams also links the char-ges of adultery with “other transgressions, in D.E.E. Klei-ner and S.B. Matheson, eds. (1996)128, 133. A. Ferril deniesthat there was a plot, but does not adequately explainPliny’s explicit statement and Julia’s known involvementwith other conspirators who were condemned for maiestas.Ferril also neglects to account for subsequent charges ofadultery against imperial women involved in conspiraciesagainst the reigning princeps, nor does he acknowledge thatelite male historians might have deliberately suppressed,minimalized, or trivialized the roles of powerful imperialwomen who attempted to overthrow the current regime(1980)332-46. In his study of maiestas, R.A. Bauman alsoreviewed the evidence concerning Julia, and felt that therewas no full blown conspiracy (1967) 198-206 and (1992)108-119. Nevertheless, in his later study of maiestas in theearly empire, he fully acknowledges the use of accusationesadulterii as substitutions for charges of maiestas in referenceto Valeria Messalina, (1974) 177-88. K.A. Raaflaub andL. J. Sammons II review the ancient evidence and modernscholarship concerning Julia’s involvement in a conspira-cy, and suggest that it may have been a kind of internalpalace intrigue revolving around the succession, in K.A.Raaflaub and M. Toher, eds. (1990) 428-30; E.R. Varner(2001a) 58.

10 HN 7.45; S. Wood (1999) 138-40.11 Vel.Pat. Hist. 100.4-5.12 Dio 55.10.15.

other julio-claudians 87

politically charged prominent public spaces.13

Ultimately accusations of sexual improprietywould become the standard way of discreditinglater imperial women embroiled in political in-trigues against the reigning emperor.14 Juliaherself continued to be a potential threat to herfather even in exile.15 Late in A.D. 7, or early 8,a conspiracy was formed to liberate Julia and herson Agrippa Postumus, who had been exiled inA.D. 7, and bring them to disaffected troopsstationed nearby.16

In addition to formally requesting the Senateto banish his daughter, Augustus forbade herinterment in his Mausoleum and formally disin-herited her in his will, thus revoking her mem-bership in the gens Iulia.17 After 2 B.C., it wouldno longer have been politically expedient tocommemorate the emperor’s daughter with por-traits. Nevertheless, before her banishment, Julia’sportrait honors are attested by seven survivinginscriptions from the Greek speaking east.18

Julia’s likeness is preserved on a lead tessera with

an accompanying inscription,19 on coins, includ-ing a group portrait with her two sons on theobverse of a denarius minted in Rome in 13 B.C.,20

on a bronze issue from Pergamum where she isidentified as Julia Aphrodite,21 and possibly ona scabbard with Gaius and Lucius.22 Indeed, theonly inscriptional evidence for Julia’s inclusion ingroup dedications comes from the eastern por-tions of the empire.23 While it is conceivable thather image was allowed to remain on view in theeast, most of her portraits must have been de-stroyed or warehoused following her condemna-tion.24 Although attempts have been made toidentify likenesses from Béziers and in Kiel asJulia, these portraits are more plausibly associ-ated with Livia.25 Similarly, C.B. Rose’s sugges-

13 Sen. Ben 6.32.1; Pliny HN 21.6.9; Dio 55.10.12; S.Wood (1999) 37-40.

14 Julia was even accused of adultery with the actor, De-mosthenes and such accusations of adultery with actors andother lower class males, served as a kind of literary and bio-graphical topos used to denigrate the reputations of impe-rial women. (Macr. Sat. 1.11.17); see M.P. Vinson (1989)440.

15 Dio 55.12.1; B. Levick (1976) 310; A. Richlin has spe-culated that Julia’s well known witticisms preserved by Ma-crobius, may function as a form of subversive humor indi-cative of her personal opposition to the status quo (1992)74-9.

16 Suet. Aug.19.2; B. Levick, (1976) 337-38; J. Linders-ki, (1988) 198. B. Levick has further suggested that Juliathe Younger may have been responsible for the attemptto free her mother and brother, (1976) 337-38.

17 On the letter to the Senate, see, Plin. NH 21.9; OnAugustus’s refusal to allow Julia’s burial in his mausoleum,see, Suet. Aug. 101.3; Dio 56.32.4) on Julia’s disinherison,see J. Linderski (1988) 190.

18 D. Boschung (1993b) 48, n. 50 and C.B. Rose (1997)61. Julia’s seven surviving inscriptions are: Delphi, SIG 779A, B, D (14-2 B.C., together with Agrippina Maior, Lu-cius and Gaius(?), C.B. Rose [1997] 139-40, cat. 70; Ephe-sus, Forsch.Ephes 3.52 = ILS 8897 = IvEph 3006, Mithrada-tes tower (4 B.C., together with Augustus, Livia, Agrippa,and Lucius Caesar; C.B. Rose [1997] 172-4, cat. 112);Lindos, C. Blinkenberg (1941) no. 385 (9-2 B.C., togetherwith Tiberius and Drusus Maior; C.B. Rose [1997] 153-

4, cat. 87); Palaephahus, IGR 3.943, BSA 42 (1947) 228,no. 12 (together with Tiberius; C.B. Rose [1997] 156, cat.91; Sestos, IGR 1.821 (together with Agrippa; C.B. Rose[1997] 180, cat. 122); Thasos, IG 12.8.381 = ILS 8784 =IGR 1.835 (12-2 B.C., together with Livia and Julia Mi-nor; C.B. Rose [1997] 158-59, cat. 95; Thespiae, BCH 50(1926) 447, nos. 88-89 (after 14 B.C., together with Livia,Agrippa, Gaius and Lucius, and Agrippina Maior; C.B.Rose [1997] 149-51, cat. 82}.

19 Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme; thelead tessera is very badly deteriorated, but its inscriptionreads (IV)LIA AVGVSTI and Julia is depicted with a no-dus coiffure, wide eyes, and aquiline nose; see G.Grimm(1973) 279, pl. 87.2 (with earlier literature); C.B. Rose(1997) 61; S. Wood (1999) 69.

20 Minted by G. Marius; BMCRE 1.2, nos. 106, 108-9,pl. 4.3,5; RIC 1,76, nos. 166,166a, pl. 2.19; 10J.B. Girard(1976) 111, pl. 25.529; P. Zanker (1988) 216, fig. 167a-b;C.B. Rose (1997) 14-15, pl. 8; S. Wood (1999) 63-8, fig.20.

21 London, British Museum 096524; J. Pollini, in K.Raaflaub and M. Toher, eds. (1990) 354, fig. 31; S. Wood(1999) 64, 69, fig. 21.

22 Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum; P. Zanker (1988)218, fig. 172; A. Kuttner (1994) 174-75, fig. 114; E. Bartt-man (1999) 12, 20, 82-3, 95, 96, n. 9; 98, n. 69; S. Wood(1999) 106-7; E.R. Varner (2001a) 59. An aes from Perga-mum, c. 11 B.C., may represent Livia on the obverse asHera, and Julia on the reverse as Aphrodite, Paris Biblio-thèque Nationale, no. 1195; W.H. Gross (1962) 29, n. 17,pl. 4, figs. 6-8; M.L. Anderson (1987) 130, fig. 4.

23 C.B. Rose (1997) 20-21; S. Wood (1999) 20.24 S. Wood (1999) 27, 30; E.R. Varner (2001a) 59-60.25 D Boschung (1993) 48-50 identifies the Béziers-Kiel

type as Julia; see also J.C. Balty in Lo sguardo di Roma 204,no. 143;. R Winkes correctly assigns to type to Livia (1995)112-13, no. 38, 181, no. 104; C.B. Rose (1997) 126-8, cat.42, pl. 161, and E. Bartman (1998) 145, 167, no. 47, fig.92. Wood’s identification of the female portraits in the Be-

chapter four88

tion that another portrait from the Beziers group,as well as a portrait in Copenhagen reputedlyfrom Caere represent Julia, seems unlikely.26

These portraits bear a strong physical resem-blance to Agrippa, and S. Wood is certainlycorrect to identify them as Agrippa’s daughter,Vipsania Agrippina who was also married toTiberius and the mother of his heir, DrususMinor.27 Ultimately, a portrait from Corinth isthe most likely candidate as representation ofJulia, and it was apparently produced by the samesculptural workshop as the well known statues ofAugustus, Gaius and Lucius from the Basilica.28

If the head does depict Julia, as seems probable,then it was presumably removed from its origi-nal context and stored or buried in the vicinityof the basilica and forum. The absence of Juliain a large Julio-Claudian group dedication fromVelia, which included in its initial phase repre-sentations of Gaius, Lucius, Octavia and Liviamay further indicate that Julia’s likenesses wereremoved after her condemnation in 2 B.C. 29 Theportrait group appears to have decorated somekind of medical collegium and may have beencommissioned in honor of Gaius’s taking of thetoga virilis in 5 B.C.30

Grave difficulties surround the secure identi-fication of Julia on the greatest dynastic monu-ment of the Augustan period, the Ara PacisAugustae, and indeed she appears to be conspic-uously absent as a result of her banishment andconsequent condemnation. Although the AraPacis preserves no evidence for the excision ofany figure from the monument, Julia may have

been refashioned into someone else. The ques-tion of Julia’s appearance on the altar, or erasureor alteration are further compounded by themonument’s current alignment, which, as D.Conlin has amply demonstrated, has mis-restoredand missing figures.31 Although Julia has beenrecognized as the female figure wearing a ricin-ium, the traditional fringed cloak of the Romanwidow, on the north frieze of the Ara Pacis (N36), the identification is not especially persuasiveand as the figure is headless, the question of apossible reconfiguration of the portrait featuresremains open.32 Attempts to identify the femalefigure behind Agrippa on the South Frieze (S 32),usually identified as Livia, as Julia are similarlyunconvincing and present even more insurmount-able interpretive difficulties.33

Agrippa Postumus

The youngest child of Julia and Agrippa, Agrip-pa Postumus was adopted by his grandfatherAugustus, together with Tiberius, in A.D. 4, fol-lowing the death of his eldest brother Gaius. Justthree years later, in A.D. 7, Ausgustus had hisonly surviving grandson banished, first to Surren-tum, and later to the island of Planasia off thecoast of Etruria, where he was also placed un-der guard (insuper custodia militum).34 Upon theaccession of Tiberius in A.D. 14, Postumus wasmurdered by one of his guards; the orders for themurder are variously attributed to Tiberius, Livia,or, posthumously, to Augustus.35 Although Sue-tonius attributes his downfall to his sordid and

ziers group as Livia, Vipsania Agrippina, Antonia Minor(?), and a prominent local woman seems most convincing(1997).

26 Toulouse, Musée St. Raymond, inv. 30.004; C.B.Rose (1997) 61, 126-8, cat. 52, pl. 45, 159; Copenhagen,Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, inv. 1282; C.B. Rose (1997) 61,pls. 43-5. See also E. Bartman (1999) 215-6.

27 It seems inconceivable that images of Augustus’ onlychild would not stress her resemblance to him as S. Woodhas noted (1999) 187-88.

28 E. de Grazia Vanderpool (1994) 285; J. Pollini (forth-coming).

29 C.B. Rose (1997) 120-21, cat. 49, pls 122-31; E. Bart-man (1999) 80, n. 47.

30 C.B. Rose (1997) 121.

31 D.A. Conlin (1992) 209-5; G. Koeppel (1992) 216-8; D.A. Conlin (1997) 45-56.

32 See C.B. Rose (1990) 463, R. Billows (1993) 91 andA. Kuttner (1995) 100; E. Bartman (1998) 44; see also E.Simon (1967) 21 on the controversy surrounding the iden-tification of this figure and the nature of the ricinium seeJ.L. Sebesta in J.L. Sebesta and L. Bonfante, eds. (1994)50 and E.R. Varner (2001a) 60.

33 A. Bonnano (1976) 28. D. Boschung (1993b) 49; forthe difficulties inherent in maintaining an identification ofS 32 as Julia rather than Livia, see E.R. Varner (2001a)60-61.

34 Suet. Aug. 65.4; Tac. Ann.1.3.35 Suet. Tib. 22; Tac.Ann. 1.6.

other julio-claudians 89

ferocious temperament36 and Tacitus claims thathe had been convicted of no crimes37 Postumus’sexilium and eventual relagatio ad insulam may, infact, have been politically motivated, as suggest-ed by the plot to liberate him, as well as hismother, late in A.D. 7 or early in A.D. 8.38

Postumus also seems to have been somehow in-volved in the intrigues which led to his sisterJulia’s downfall and banishment in A.D. 8.39 Inaddition, a plot to avenge Agrippa was led by hisslave Clemens and it is enumerated by Suetoniustogether with the sedition of Lucius ScriboniusLibo whose brother M. Scribonius Libo Drususwas eventually condemned for maiestas in A.D.16), and mutinies in Illyricum and Germany atthe outset of Tiberius’s principate.40

Agrippa Postumus’s image appears on coinsminted at Corinth in A.D. 5.41 In addition, astatue base of Agrippa Postumus at a buildingassociated with the Augustales at Lucus Feroniaeattests to the creation of his portraits,42 and heis honored as a boy of 7 at Forum Clodii in 5B.C. in a group dedication which included isbrother Lucius, and almost certainly his oldestbrother Gaius as well.43 His name occurs on analtar together with Gaius and Lucius at Ephesus,also probably erected c. 5 B.C,44 as well as aninscription from Samos.45 The memory and rep-utation of Postumus appears to have been reha-bilitated under his nephew, Caligula as his nameappears on an altar together with those of hisfather and Caligula’s siblings.46 The linkage ofAgrippa Postumus with Caligula’s brothers, Neroand Drusus Caesar, suggest that he was being

reclaimed and celebrated posthumously, likethem, as victims of Tiberius.

After his banishment, Agrippa Postumus wasnaturally excluded from group dedications, in-cluding one set up in A.D. 8 at Eresus on Les-bos.47 There is no surviving evidence for Agrip-pa Postumus’s appearance in any of theJulio-Claudian group dedications in the East.48

Agrippa Postumus is conspicuously absent froma group dedication set up on the Acropolis atAthens.49 The base for the statues consists of areused 3rd century B.C. inscription and honorsAugustus, Tiberius, Drusus Minor, and German-icus. There is a base for a fifth honorand, possi-bly Agrippa Postumus, which was never used.The portraits were erected after the adoption ofTiberius and Agrippa Postumus in A.D. 4, andTiberius’s adoption of Germanicus in that sameyear. It may originally have been intended tohonor the male members of the Julian gens as theyexisted in A.D. 4, namely the emperor, his twoadopted sons, Agrippa Postumus and Tiberius,and Tiberius’s natural son, Drusus Minor, andadopted son Germanicus. News of Agrippa Pos-tumus’s condemnation and banishment may haveinterrupted the erection of this group and ulti-mately precluded his inclusion, thus accountingfor the empty base, which was left vacant untilthe reign of Trajan, when an image of thatemperor was added to the ensemble.

Julia Minor

Shortly after Agrippa Postumus’s exile, in A.D.8 his eldest sister Julia Minor (Vipsania Julia), wasalso banished. 50 As was the case with her mother,Julia Minor may also have been involved with ananti-Augustan faction. Most tellingly, shortly afterJulia’s banishment to the Island of Trimerus, herhusband Lucius Aemilius Paullus was actually

36 Suet. Aug. 65.1 (ob ingenium sordidum ac fercox).37 Tac. Ann. 1.3 (nullius tamen flagitii conpertum).38 Suet. Aug.19.2; B. Levick, (1976) 337-38; J. Linderski,

(1988) 198.39 E. Meise (1969) 37.40 Suet.Tib. 25.1.41 RPC 252, no. 1141 (as); F. Salviat and D. Terner

(1982) 237-41.42 L. Sensi (1985-86) 284, no. 5; AE (1988) 548; C.B.

Rose (1997) 93.43 C.B. Rose (1997) 88, no. 10.44 I. Ephesos 253; C.B. Rose (1997) 221, n. 97.45 IGR 4.1718; C.B. Rose (1997) 224, n. 148.46 IG 12.2.172; IGR 4.78; C. Hanson and F.P. Johnson

(1946) 399; C.B. Rose (1997) 35, 233-4, n. 63

47 C.B. Rose (1997) 152.48 C.B. Rose (1997) 20, 157.49 C.B. Rose (1997) 138, no. 66.50 E. Meise (1969) 35-48; M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier

(1987)635-6, no. 813; D.E.E. Kleiner in E.R. Varner, ed.(2000) 48; E.R. Varner (2001a) 60.

chapter four90

executed on charges of maiestas.51 As alreadynoted, Agrippa Postumus may also have beenimplicated at an earlier stage in the conspiracy,and possibly Ovid as well.52 Julia survived in exilefor twenty years, and finally died in A.D. 28.53

In addition to ordering her banishment, Augus-tus commanded that the child Julia Minor wasexpecting was to be exposed at birth: ex nepte Iuliapost damnationem editum infantem adgnosci alique vetu-it.54 Like her mother befor her, Julia Minor wasrefused burial in the Mausoleum of Augustus,55

and so symbolically disinherited her from theJulia-Claudian family for all posterity.56 In ad-dition, Augustus ordered one of Julia’s villa’srazed to the ground, an act which would havehad strong conceptual resonances with the de-struction of domås belonging to condemned indi-viduals in the Republic.57 Inscriptional evi-dence confirms the inclusion of Julia Minor’sportraits in group dedications, but, as a directconsequence of her disgrace and downfall, nosurviving sculpted representations can be iden-tified with certainty.58

Agrippina Maior

Julia Minor’s sister, Agrippina Maior, was pub-licly condemned for her outspoken opposition toher uncle, Tiberius. Agrippina was born c. 14B.C., married to Germanicus in A.D. 5, and borehim nine children.59 After the death of German-icus, under mysterious circumstances involvingGn. Calpurnius Piso, at Antioch in A.D. 17,Agrippina Maior returned to Rome with herchildren. Agrippina’s position as the widow of theenormously popular Germanicus, whom Tiberiushad formally adopted, and the granddaughter ofAugustus, insured her an elevated position at thecapital, but relations between the emperor andAgrippina quickly deteriorated.60 Tiberius refusedto let her remarry, perhaps fearing that anyhusband of Agrippina could stand as a potentialrival to his own son, Drusus Minor, for the suc-cession.

In A.D. 29, Tiberius finally prevailed upon theSenate to exile Agrippina to Pandateria whereshe eventually starved herself to death in A.D.33.61 After her death, Tiberius officially com-memorated his merciful treatment of Agrippinafor refraining from having her strangled and hercorpse thrown down the Gemonian steps in anact of poena post mortem.62 Agrippina’s exclusionfrom the Mausoleum of Augustus posthumouslycanceled her membership in the imperial fami-ly, as had happened to her mother and sisterbefore her. Agrippina’s memory was furtherpublicly dishonored when her birthday was pro-

51 nupta Aemilio Paulo, cum in maiestatis crimine perisset, abavo relegata est, post revocata cum semet vitiis addixisset perpetuodamnata est supplicio, Schol.Iuv. 6.158; Suet. Aug. 19.1; Tac.Ann 3.24; 4.71; Pliny HN 7.45.149; Schol.Juv. 6.158.

52 On Ovid’s involvement, see R. Syme (1955) 488; andE. Meise (1969) 47. B. Levick has further suggested thatafter Agrippa Postumus’s banishment late in A.D. 7, Juliamay have formed a plot to rescue her brother and motherfrom exile, ultimately ensuring her own banishment (1976)337-38. Again, K.A. Raaflaub and L.J. Sammons II sug-gest that any intrigue may have centered on the questionof the succession in K.A. Raaflaub and M. Toher, eds.(1990) 430-31.

53 Tac. Ann. 4.71.54 Suet. Aug. 65.4.55 Suet. Aug. 90.3.56 J. Linderski (1988) 191.57 Suet. Aug.72.3; C. Edwards (1993) 166, n. 74; M..

Bergmann (1994) 225-226, n. 4; J. Bodel (1997) 10; P.J.E.Davies in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 38; E.R. Varner (2001a)61.

58 Thasos, IG 12.8.381 = ILS 8784 = IGR 1.835 (withthe elder Julia), C.B. Rose (1997) 158-9, no. 95 and supra.E.R. Varner (2001a) 61; Julia Minor may also have beenpresent in a dedication at Delphi, but it seems likely thatthe fragmentary inscription refers to her mother; SIG3

779.A, B, D; C. B. Rose (1997) 139-40, no. 70.

59 For their marriage, see CIL 6.886 = ILS 180; CIL6.4387, 5186, 5772, 17146 CIL 9. 2635; CIL 11.167 = ILS179; AE (1968) 476 = IvEphes. 256; AE (1980) 874; ZPE 55(1984) 58.1.7; 59.1.21; Suet. Aug. 64.1; Tac. Ann.1.33. Forthe children, see Suet. Calig. 7; Plin. HN 7.13.57.

60 Tiberius is said to have remarked to Agrippina, “Isit your opinion, my little daughter, that you have been un-justly treated if you are not completely in charge?.” “Si nondominaris,” inquit, “filiola, iniuriam te accipere existimas?” Suet.Tib. 53.1.

61 Suet. Tib. 53.2. Suet. Cal. 10; Tac. Ann. 25; Dio58.22.4-5. Tiberius apparently also accused her of impudi-citia and adultery with Asinius Gallus, Tac. Ann 25; see alsoM.P. Charlesworth (1922) 260-1; E.R. Varner (2001a) 61-2.

62 Suet. Tib. 53.2; Tac. Ann. 25; D.G. Kyle (1998) 232,n. 34.

other julio-claudians 91

claimed a dies nefastus, an act against her memo-ry with profound political implications.63 Agrip-pina’s images had been widely disseminated and,indeed, had played an important role in theprotests on her behalf when her supporters car-ried her representations and those of her sonNero around the Curia while the Senate deliber-ated whether to pass sanctions against her (Simulpopulus effigies Agrippinae ac Neronis gerens circumsis-tit curiam faustisque).64 Following her condemna-tion, however, it would no longer have beenappropriate or prudent to display Agrippina’slikenesses in either public or domestic contexts.Subsequently, after Agrippina Maior’s memorywas rehabilitated by her children Caligula andAgrippina Minor, new images were created forher. In fact, one of Caligula’s first public acts asemperor was to retrieve Agrippina’s ashes, togeth-er with those of his brothers Nero and Drusus,and inter them in the Mausoleum of Augustus,thus rescinding their disinhersion and restoringthem to their rightful membership in the Julio-Claudian gens.65 The production of new repre-sentations in the Caligulan and Claudian peri-od suggests that many of her portraits had beendamaged or destroyed under Tiberius, and infact, the majority of her surviving portraits areposthumous.66 As part of her rehabilitation, theproclamation of her birthday as a dies nefastus wasalso rescinded.67

Nero and Drusus Caesar

Agrippina’s two eldest sons, Nero and DrususCaesar also suffered in their mother’s downfall.Nero was born in A.D. 6, and Drusus in A.D. 7.Under Tiberius, both boys were declared hostes.Nero was exiled to Pontia, where he was starvedto death in 31, and Drusus was imprisoned onthe Palatine, and also starved to death in 33.68

In an act of poena post mortem, both of their corpseswere dismembered and so thoroughly scatteredthat they could scarcely be gathered up (amborumsic reliquas dispersas ut vix quandoque colligi possent).69

Their remains were also denied burial in theMausoleum of Augustus. When their youngerbrother Caligula attained the principate, he re-habilitated their memories together with Agrip-pina, and also deposited their ashes in the Mau-soleum.70

Based on extant inscriptions and literary sourc-es, portraits of Drusus and Nero Caesar werecreated in three separate phases: in 19, just af-ter the death of their father Germanicus; between23 and their downfall in 29; and under Caligu-la.71 During the 8 year period after their condem-nation in 29 and prior to Caligula’s accession in37, continued display of their images would havebeen discouraged and existing portraits may havebeen removed or destroyed. Many of the surviv-ing images convincingly identified by C.B. Roseas Nero and Drusus appear to be posthumousand date to the principate of Caligula, as forinstance a cuirassed portrait of Nero Caesar fromthe theater at Caere or a statue of Drusus inheroic nudity from Rusellae.72 As with their63 AFA 49.1-4 = Smallwood 9.11-15; Suet. Tib. 53.2;

A. Barrett (1989) 62.64 Tac. Ann. 5.4.65 Suet. Cal.15.1.66 As, for instance, the well known bust in the Museo

Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperiatori 7, inv. 421, h. 0.31m., Fittschen-Zanker III, 5-6, no. 4, pls. 4-5; S. Wood (1999)221-2, figs. 91-2.. On Caligula and Agrippina Minor’s reha-bilitation of their mother’s memory, see S. Wood (1988)409-26; S. Wood (1999) 178. Under Caligula, a portraitof Agrippina Maior was also added to the cycle of Julio-Claudian statuary in the Basilica at Velleia (Parma, Mu-seo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 828); a portrait from theDomus dei Moasaici at Rusellae may also be posthumous,either Caligulan or Claudian (Grosseto, Museo Archeolo-gico e d’Arte della Maremma, inv. 1729148).

67 AFA (Scheid) 221.3; AFA (Smallwood) 9.11-15; Bar-rett (1996) 51.

68 iudicatos hostes, Suet. Tib. 54.2; Neronem et Drusum se-natus Tiberio criminante hostes iudicavit, Suet. Cal. 7.

69 Suet.Tib. 54.2.70 Suet.Cal. 15.1; S. Wood (1999) 208.71 C.B. Rose (1997) 66.72 Nero Caesar: from Caere, Musei Vaticani, Museo

Gregoriano Profano, inv. 9963, C.B. Rose (1997) 67, 83-6, cat. 5.4, pls. 67-8; from Rusellae, Grosseto Museo Ar-cheologico e d’Arte della Maremma; C.B. Rose 67, 116-8, cat. 45.5; from Velia, Marna di Ascea, SoprintendenzaArcheologica, inv. 3994 (17486), C.B. Rose (1997) 67, 120-21, cat. 49.7, p. 128; Drusus Caesar, from Rusellae, Gros-seto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Maremma, C.B.Rose 66, 116-8, cat. 45.6. The dedicatory inscription toDrusus has also survived:

chapter four92

mother, these new Caligulan images may havebeen intended to replace damaged or destroyedlikenesses.

Sejanus

Lucius Aelius Sejanus was appointed co-Praefectof the Praetorian Guard, together with his father,Lucius Seius Strabo, at the accession of Tiberi-us in A.D. 14.73 Not long afterward, Strabo wasnamed Praefect of Egypt, and, as sole PraefectusPraetorio, Sejanus wielded considerable power.Sejanus initiated a series of persecutions againstthe supporters of Agrippina Maior in the capi-tal, and in 29, was instrumental in engineeringher banishment to Pandateria. Sejanus, in con-junction with the emperor’s niece and daughter-in-law, Livilla, appears to have been planning toseize the principate from Tiberius, but the em-peror was warned of the plot by Antonia Minorand Sejanus was executed for treason, by orderof the Senate in 31; in an extended example ofpoena post mortem, the populace of Rome is report-ed to have abused his corpse for three days be-fore throwing it into the Tiber.74 Sejanus is thefirst person to suffer a damnatio memoriae in theimperial period whose corpse was so publiclydesecrated and then discarded in the Tiber.75 Hischildren were also killed and his wife, Apicata,committed suicide.76

The Senate’s pronouncements against Sejan-us included sanctions against his memory andmonuments and mandated that the day of hisdeath was to be celebrated with public rejoicing.77

Dio vividly describes the destruction of the prae-fect’s images in Rome while the Senate was de-

liberating his fate: JVH Jg g\6`<"H "bJ@Ø BVF"H

6"JX$"88@< 6"Â 6"JX6@BJ@< 6"Â 6"JXFLD@< ñH 6"\

"ÛJÎ< ¦6gÃ<@< "Æ64>`:g<@4.78 The anthropomor-phic implications are clear: attacks on Sejanus’portraits were carried out as if they were attackson his own person. Significantly, Sejanus witness-es the anthropomorphic attacks on his images,thus forced to be a spectator to acts which pre-figure and parallel his own execution and the sub-sequent defilement of his remains.79 Furthermore,Juvenal’s description of the burning of Sejanus’sbronze portraits is linked to partial cremation,another form of corpse abuse and he further deni-grates his memory by emphasizing the transfor-mation of Sejanus’s portraits into commonplaceand derogatory objects such as pitchers, fryingpans, and slop pails.80 As an additional conse-quence of the damnatio, Sejanus’s name is erasedin inscriptions.81 No securely identified sculptedlikenesses of Sejanus exist,82 but honorary por-

DRVSO CAESARIGERMANICI CAESARISF TI CAESARIS AVG NDIVI AVG PRONEPOTIEX DD PP

73 On the career of Sejanus, see D. Hennig (1975).74 Dio 58.11.5; see also D.G. Kyle (1998) 221-2.75 On post mortem corpse abuse of imperial individu-

als, see E.R. Varner (2001b).76 Tac. Ann 5(6).9; Dio 58.11.5-6.77 Dio 58.12.2.

78 58.11.3. Juvenal also describes the destruction of Se-janus’s images in graphic terms, 10.56-64: Quosdam praeci-pitat subiecta potentia magnae/invidiae, mergit longa atque insignishonorum/pagina: descendunt statuae restemque sequuntur,/ipsasdeinde rotas bigarum inpacta securis/caedit et inmeritis frangunturcrura caballis;/iam strident ignes, iam follibus atque caminis/ ar-det adoratum populo caput et crepat ingens/ Seianus; deinde ex fa-cie toto orbe secunda/ fiunt urceoli pelves sartago matellae.

79 D.G. Kyle (1998) 221.80 10.61-4 And the head of powerful Sejanus, adored

by the people, is crackling in the flames and out of thatface, just now second in the whole world, are made pitchers,bowls, frying pans & chamber pots; also 10.81-2; D.G. Kyle(1998) 183, n. 106.

81 R. Cagnat (1914) 173.82 K. Jeppesens’ attempt to identify the imperator who

stands in front of Tiberius in the Grand Camée de Franceas Sejanus, rather than Germanicus is entirely unconvin-cing (1993) 141-75. Jeppesen’s conclusions stem largely fromhis unwillingness to see the scene as retrospective (i.e, com-bining both living and deceased figures in the same sce-ne). However, retrospective combinations of living and de-ceased individuals can be found in other monuments, forinstance the Gemma Claudia, which has facing portraitsof Claudius and Agrippina Minor vs. Germanicus andAgrippina Maior (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 19,inv. IX a 63), or, in the following century, the inclusion ofFaustina Maior in the joint apotheosis scene on the baseof the Column of Antoninus Pius, despite the fact that shehad died and been divinized in A.D. 141, 20 years beforethe death of her husband. Additionally, Jeppesen’s identi-fications fail to accurately take into account the coiffures

other julio-claudians 93

traits, known to have been created in great num-bers, were removed from public display anddestroyed in the capital and elsewhere in theEmpire.83

As a mark of his denigration and the wide-spread nature of his damnatio, Sejanus’s tria nom-ina have been eradicated from the reverses of twocoins from the mint of Bilbilis in Spain.84 Theobverses of these coins depict laureate profileportraits of Tiberius, while the reverses commem-orate the joint consulship of Tiberius and Seja-nus in 31. The reverses depict a laurel wreath,originally surrounded by the legend NV AUGUS-TA BILBILIS TI CAESARE V L AELIO SEIANO.Sejanus’s names have been removed in bothcoins, as has COS within the laurel wreath in oneof the coins. The appearance of Sejanus’s nameon the Tiberian coins attests to his extraordinaryprominence and influence during his tenure aspraefect. The erasure of his names from the coinsis the earliest example of numismatic damnatio inthe imperial period and dramatically underscoreshis precipitous fall from power and prefigures therandom destruction of numismatic images andinscriptions of later emperors beginning withCaligula.85

Livilla

Livilla, Sejanus’s accomplice in the plot to over-throw Tiberius was also condemned.86 Livilla wasborn sometime between 14 and 11 B.C., the onlysurviving daughter of Drusus Maior and Anto-nia Minor.87 She was first married to Augustus’sgrandson, Gaius Caesar, and after his death, shemarried Tiberius’s son Drusus Minor (DrususIulius Caesar), to whom she bore one daughterJulia, and twin sons, Germanicus Julius Caesarand Tiberius Gemellus.88 Drusus died in A.D. 23,allegedly poisoned by Livilla and Sejanus.89 Af-ter the death of Drusus, Sejanus, although onlyof equestrian origins, wished to marry Livilla.90

Tiberius, however, refused to permit the mar-riage91 and, as already noted, Sejanus was even-tually executed for plotting against the emperorin A.D. 31.92 Charges of adultery with Sejanusand complicity in the murder of Drusus Minorwere then brought against Livilla and she waseither executed or forced to commit suicide.93

and portrait iconography of the figures depicted in theupper two registers. In fact, the gem must be Claudian, ce-lebrating Nero’s adoption by Claudius in A.D. 50, as pro-posed by Jucker (1976) 210-50.

83 Sejanus’s portraits are attested in a remarkable va-riety of sources: Sen. Dial. 6.22.4 (Decernebatur illi statua inPompei theatro ponenda, quod exustum Caesar reficiebat: exclama-vit Cordus tunc vere theatrum perire); Suet. Tib. 65.1 (et imaginesaureas coli passim videret); Tac. Ann. 3.72 (et censuere patres ef-figiem Seiano quae apud theatrum Pompei locaretur); Ann 4.2 (utsocium laborum non modo in sermonibus, sed apud patres et popu-lum celebaret colique per theatra et fora effigies eius interque princi-pia legionum sineret); Ann.4.7.2 (cerni effigiem eius in monumentisCn. Pompei); Ann 4.74.2 (effigiesque circum Caesaris ac Seianicensuere); Dio 57.21.3 (JÎ< *¥ *¬ Ggï"<Î< .ä<J" X< Jè 2gV-

JDå P"86@Ø< §FJ0Fg. 5•6 J@bJ@L B@88"Â :¥< ßBÎ B@88ä<

g\6`<gH "bJ@Ø ¦B@4Z2F"<); Dio 58.2.7 (JÎ (VD J@4 B820y@H

Jä< V<D4V<T< ô< » Jg $@L8¬ 6"Â º ÂBB"H "Ë Jg ML8"Â 6"Â @Â

—<*DgH @Ê BDäJ@4 ¨FJ0F"< "bJ@Ø, @b*g X>0D\2:0Fg< –< J4H);Dio 78.7.1 (V<*D4V-<J@H J4<ÎH "bJ@Ø). See also C.B. Rose(1997) 31.

84 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médail-les, Espagne, no. 444; R. Mowat (1901) 444-46; K. Regling(1904) 144; RPC 1, 129, nos. 398-99 (for the coin type).

85 Sejanus’s downfall and subsequent condemnation pre-

figures that of another powerful praetorian praefect, Plau-tianus, at the beginning of the third century; see infra.

86 E. Meise (1969) 49-90; M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier(1987)216-8, no. 239.

87 Suet. Claud. 1.6.88 On the birth of the daughter see, Suet. Aug.99.1; Tac.

Ann. 3.29.3; and Raepsaet-Charlier; On the twin sons, see,Tac. Ann. 2.84; CIL 5.4311 = ILS 170; Forsch.Eph. 4.3.37= IvEph 4337; Germanicus Julius Caesar died the same yearas his father, in A.D. 23; Tiberius Gemellus was killed atthe outset of Caligula’s reign in 37 .

89 Suet. Tib. 62.1; Tac. Ann. 4.3, 4.10; Dio. 57.22.1-4.90 Undoubtedly in order to strengthen his ties to the im-

perial house and legitimize his own claims as a successorto Tiberius’s imperium; Tac. Ann.4.3, 4.40.

91 There is a slight possibility that the two were be-trothed or even married prior to their deaths. Sejanus istwice referred to as the son-in-law (generum) of Tiberius inTacitus, Ann. 6(5).6, 6.8; and Dio refers to Sejanus as ha-ving married Julia, daughter of Drusus, prior to his down-fall. Perhaps Livilla (Claudia Livia Julia), the daughter ofDrusus Maior is meant here. Alternatively, Livilla’s daugh-ter Julia Drusilla, the daughter of Drusus Minor and wifeof Nero Caesar may also be intended although Nero Cae-sar himself did not die until A.D. 31, so it is uncertain ifthis Julia was even available for marriage prior to Sejanus’sdeath on 18 October A.D. 31, Fasti Ostiensis; see also K.Jeppesen (1993) 173 and n. 158.

92 Suet. Tib. 62.1; Dio 58.11.5-7.93 Suet. 62.1; Dio 58.11.6-7; Octavia 941-43. Dio also

chapter four94

Livilla was clearly complicit in Sejanus’s plot tooverthrow Tiberius, and as a result, Livilla is thefirst imperial woman against whom the Senatebrought formal sanctions, voting to condemn hermemory and decreeing the destruction of herimages (atroces sententiae dicebantur, in effigies quoqueac memoriam eius).94

Livilla’s position as the widow of the emper-or’s son, and mother of a potential heir, Tiberi-us Gemellus ensured her commemoration withnumerous portraits. But after her condemnation,the senatorial sanctions mandated the erasure ofher name in inscriptions and the destruction ofher images.95 A portrait type (the Lepcis-Maltatype) which survives in at least eight replicas hasbeen associated with Livlla (and also with Anto-nia Minor and Julia Livlla), but there are manydifficulties in maintaining the identification asLivilla.96 With one exception, a portrait fromTindari which has a crack through it, none of theportraits exhibits any signs of deliberate damagewhich could be associated with damnatio.97 Theportrait of this type in Lepcis was part of theJulio-Claudian group dedication at the Templeof Roma and Augustus and does not appear tohave been removed from public display, despitethe fact that her name has been erased from thededicatory inscription.98 Similarly, a replica fromthe Julio-Claudian cycle at Rusellae appears tohave remained on public view.99 The vehement

nature of Livilla’s damnatio should argue againstthe identification of the type as Livilla.100 Indeed,no surviving sculptural portraits can be securelyassociated with her as a direct result of her con-demnation.

Glyptic images of Livilla are less problemati-cal and her likeness has survived on thirteencameos.101 These gem portraits are remarkablyconsistent in their portrayal of Livilla, depictingher with a waved and centrally parted coiffure.102

The hair at the back of the head is rolled or

records the alternative story that Livilla was not executedshe was forced to starve to death by her mother AntoniaMinor.

94 Tac. Ann. 6.2; see also M.B. Fory (1993) 303-4; E.R.Varner (2001a) 63.

95 The erasure of Livilla’s name in the portrait inscrip-tions from the Temple of Roma and Augustus at LepcisMagna indicates that her portrait was also likely eradica-ted from the group diedication; H. Donner and W. Röllig(1968) 128, no. 122.

96 S. Wood reviews the complicated evidence (1999)190-6. Wood has further demonstrated that another por-trait in a Swiss private collection, identified by D. Kasparas Livilla (H. Jucker and D. Willers, eds. [1982] 91, no.35), is actually a Caligulan likeness of her niece, Agrippi-na Minor (1995) 465, n. 45.

97 Palermo, Museo. S. Wood (1999) 193.98 H. Donner and W. Röllig (1968) 128, no. 122; C.B

Rose (1997) 182, no. 125, 238, n. 44.99 C.B. Rose (1999) 117-8.

100 K. P. Erhart (Mottahedeh) (1978) 202-204; C.B.Rose (1997) 68-9, 117-8; S. Wood (1999) 193.

101 As identified by W.R. Megow: 1.) Aquileia, MuseoArcheologico, (1987) 298-99, no. D 27; T. Mikocki (1995)170, no. 136 ; 2.) Berlin, Staatliche Museen 11096, (1987)295-96, no. D 22, pl. 12.7; 3; T. Mikocki (1995) 34-5, 174,no. 161, pl. 4; S. Wood (1999) 196-7, fig. 79; 3.) Cambridge,Fitzwilliam Museum, (1987) 300-301, no. D 32, pl. 14.4;4.) London, British Museum 3434, inv. no. 1923.4-1.946,(1987) 297, no. D 26, pl. 12.9; 5.) London, British Museum,3581, inv. 72.6-4.1420, (1987) 293-94, no. D 19, pl. 10.4;6.) Paris, Bibliothèque National, Cabinet des Médailles 131,(1987) 299-300, no. D 30, pl. 12.8; 7.) Paris, BibliothèqueNational, Cabinet des Médailles 242, (1987) 296, no. D 24,pl. 12.5; T. Mikocki (1995) 175, no. 164; 8.) Paris, Bibli-othèque National, Cabinet des Médailles 243, (1987) 296,no. D 23, pl. 12.6; T. Mikocki (1995) 174, no. 162, pl. 4;S. Wood (1999) 196-7, fig. 78; 9.) Paris, BibliothèqueNational, Cabinet des Médailles 244, (1987) 296-97, no.D 25, pl. 12.3; 10.) Schaffhausen, Museum zu Allerheili-gen, (1987) 298-99, no. D 29, pl. 12.1,2,4; T. Mikocki (1995)175, no. 165, pl. 11; 11) Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Mu-seum, inv. XI 1160, (1987) 293, no. D 18; 12) Vienna,Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 1821.161. no. 45, (1987)300, no. D 31; 13.) Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 23,inv. IX a 34, (1987) 298, no. D 28; T. Mikocki (1995) 174-5, no. 163, p. 4. Although Megow identifies two additio-nal cameos as likenesses of Livilla, the coiffure is slightlydifferent, with the ears covered, and these are more likelyto be representations of Antonia Minor (Paris, Bibliothè-que National, Cabinet des Médailles 260, (1987) 294, no.D 20, Pl. 7.18; Paris, Bibliothèque National, Cabinet desMédailles 261, (1987) 294, no. D 21, Pl. 7.17); see also T.Mickoki (1995) 174-5, nos. 163-5, pls. 4, 11 and B.S. Spaeth(1996) 121, 146, 173-4; E.R. Varner (2001a) 63-4. It is alsoimportant to note that these glyptic images are not repli-cas of the Lepcis-Malta type, S. Wood (1999) 195.

102 K. Jeppesen misreads the coiffure of the seated fe-male at the left of the Grand Camée which leads him toidentify her as Livilla; however, the coiffure is not a ver-sion of Livia’s later, centrally parted hairstyle, but rathera version of Agrippina Minor’s Claudian coiffure with rowsof pin curls framing the face, (1993) 148 and n. 22. Thefigure also clearly displays Agrippina Minor’s recedinglower lip.

other julio-claudians 95

twisted into a small chignon. The ears are leftuncovered, or with only the very tops covered.The facial features are regular with an aquilinenose, small mouth with pronounced downwardcurve at the outer corners, and a distinctive full,rounded chin. Two of the cameos emphasizeLivilla’s prominence as the producer of potentialheirs for Tiberius, showing her with her twinsons, Tiberius Caesar Gemellus and GermanicusCaesar.103 In another of the cameos, Livilla isshown in the guise of the goddess Pax.104 Thegreat quantity of glyptic likenesses of Livilla whichhave survived contrasts vividly with the completelack of marble or bronze portraits and under-scores the eradication of her public images as aresult of the senatorial sanctions.

Valeria Messalina

Like Livilla, Valeria Messalina, the third wife ofClaudius was officially condemned by the Senatefor her role in a conspiracy against the reigningemperor.105 Well-connected within the Julio-Claudian family, Messalina was a great-grand-daughter of Octavia through both her father,Marcus Valerius Mesalla Barbatus and her moth-er, Domitia Lepida. Messalina married the futureemperor Claudius in A.D. 38 or 39, and pro-duced two children, Tiberius Claudius CaesarBritannicus and Claudia Octavia.106 In A.D. 48Messalina was involved in an intrigue with theconsul designate, Gaius Silius, culminating in thecelebration of a marriage ceremony between thetwo.107 This “marriage” was likely designed tolend legitimacy to Silius, who hoped to replaceClaudius as emperor, and also to restrain the

growing power of Claudius’s freedmen and hisniece, Agrippina Minor.108 Informed of the cer-emony while in Ostia, Claudius immediatelyreturned to Rome and Silius, Messalina, as wellas eight of their associates were executed.109

Tacitus specifically records that Messalina’sportraits (as Livilla’s had been before her) wereincluded in the senatorial sanctions: nomen et ef-figies privatis ac publicis locis demovendas.110 Tacitus’sstatement is supported by extant inscriptions inwhich Messalina’s name is erased including afunerary inscription belonging to one of herfreedmen111 and from the Forum of Augustus inRome, as well as honorific inscriptions fromLepcis Magna, Lindos, and Arneae which havebeen damaged or reused in other contexts.112 Theerased inscription from Lepcis also attests to theremoval of Messalina’s portrait from the Clau-dian group of portraits at the Temple of Romaand Augustus, just as Livilla’s image had beenremoved and her name erased from the earlierTiberian dedication.113 Messalina’s damnatio waseven extended to coins as attested by issues fromTralles that have her name intentionally chiseled

103 Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. 11096; Paris, Bibli-othèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, inv. 243; S.Wood (1999) 196-7, figs. 78-9.

104 Schaffhausen, Museum zu Allerheiligen, 9.5 x 7.8cm.

105 M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)606-8, no. 774; E.R.Varner (2001a) 64-68.

106 Suet. Claud. 27.1, 39.2; Tac. Ann. 11.26, 32, 34, 38;Dio, 40.12.5.

107 Tac. Ann. 11.25-38; Suet. Claud. 26.2; Juv. Sat.10.329-45; Dio 60.31.35; Aur.Vict. Caes. 4. 11.

108 Tac. Ann. 11.28, 30 suggests that Silius was aimingfor the principate, while Dio indicates that Messalina wis-hed to place Silius on the throne, 60(61).31.5 . On the plot,see also, M. Griffin (1984) 27-29; B. Levick(1990) 64-7; S.Wood (1992) 233-4; S. Wood (1999) 255.

109 Suet. Claud. 26.2, 39.1; Tac. Ann. 11.28-38; Dio60(61).31.5; The others executed were: Titius Proculus, Vet-tius Valens, Pompeius Urbicus, Saufeius Trogus, DecriusCalpurnianus, Sulpcius Rufus, Iuncus Vergilianus, and theactor Mnester. Mnester was widely reported to have beenMessalina’s paramour and Dio suggests that Messalina hadrecalled coins of Caligula converted into bronze images ofMnester 60.22.3; If such images were in fact produced, theywould have been subject to sanctions after the actor’sexecution.

110 Ann. 11.38.3. The Senate’s specification of public andprivate locations signals the sweeping nature of the sanc-tions against Messalina’s representations.

111 CIL 6.4474.112 Forum of Augustus Inscription: CIL 6.6918 = ILS

210 (Palazzo dei Conservatori, Museo Nuovo inv. 6944)and H. Flower in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 61, fig. 3; Forthe reused inscriptions see AfrIt 8 (1941) 34 (Lepcis Mag-na); IGR 4.1146 = IG 12.1.806 (Lindos); TAM 2.3.760 (An-reae, Lycia); C.B.Rose (1997) 41, and n. 43; S. Wood (1999)274-5.

113 J. Reynolds and J.B. Ward-Perkins (1952) no. 340;C.B.Rose (1997) 184, no. 126.

chapter four96

off.114 C.B. Rose has also plausibly suggested thatMessalina may have originally appeared in theRavenna relief (and the statue group it may re-flect) and if so, her image would have been re-moved, replaced, or recut.115

As a direct result of her damnatio memoriae andthe virulence of the feeling against her, Messal-ina is the first empress for whom there is extantphysical evidence for the deliberate mutilation ofher images. Two portraits of Messalina, in theGalleria Chiaramonti of the Vatican (cat.3.2; fig.99),116 and Dresden (cat. 3.1)117 were vandalizedwith hammers or chisels. Both portraits representMessalina with complex divine attributes. TheChiaramonti head combines a crested helmet,reminiscent of that of the Athena Parthenos anddecorated with the Augustan symbols of the grif-fin of Apollo and the winged horse of Mars, witha turreted crown associated with, Cybele, Tyche,and Roma.118 Restorations to the nose and lipsof the portrait conceal intentional mutilations andthe headdress itself has suffered extensive dam-age. The corrosion of the portrait’s surfaces in-dicate that it may have been thrown into a bodyof water following its defacement. Substantialblows to the Dresden portrait have split the imageinto four sections. It combines a turreted crownwith a laurel or olive wreath. The overt divineiconography of the Chiaramonti and Dresdenrepresentations may have provoked the violentdepredations which each image has suffered, astangible signs of the empress’s denigration.119

The removal of Messalina’s images is con-firmed by a full-length portrait in the Louvrewhose generally excellent state of preservationindicate that it was warehoused following the

empress’s downfall.120 The statue depicts Messal-ina cradling a male infant in her left arm. Al-though the head of the infant is a modern resto-ration, it originally must have representedMessalina’s son Britannicus. The pose of bothmother and child are intended to evoke the Eir-ene and Ploutos of Kephisoditos, while the tuni-ca and palla which the empress wears, and hergesture of raising to right hand to the veil cov-ering her head are clearly intended to evoke herrole as traditional Roman matrona. As a power-ful piece of Claudian dynastic propaganda, theLouvre portrait would have been entirely unsuit-able for display after Messalina’s condemna-tion.121 A papyrus in London preserves a letterwritten by Claudius granting permission for agroup of portraits to be erected in Alexandria,including representations of Claudius, Messalina,Antonia Minor, Britannicus, Octavia Claudia,and Claudia Antonia.122 Like the Louvre statue,Messalina’s image was undoubtedly removedfrom the Alexandrian group dedication.

Messalina’s portrait has also been removedfrom a full length statue in the Julio-ClaudianBasilica at Velleia, and replaced with a likenessof Claudius’s fourth wife, Agrippina Minor (cat.3.4; fig. 100a-c).123 After her damnatio, Messali-na’s head was severed from the statue and thebody prepared for the insertion of the new like-ness of Agrippina. The pendant statue of Clau-dius from the Velleian cycle was transformed inan identical manner from a pre-existing likeness

114 RPC 2654; BMC Lydia 345, no. 124. See also,C.B.Rose (1997) 41, and n. 43.

115 Rose (1997) 102.116 Galleria Chiaramonti 39.9, inv. 1814.117 Albertinum, Skulpturensammlung, cat. 358.118 S. Wood (1992) 225, and n. 18.119 Three portraits, in Dresden (Albertinum, Skulptu-

rensammlung, 352), Munich (Glyptothek, inv. 316), SchlossFasanerie (cat. no. 23) have been identified as a second typefor Messalina, but these likenesses should be assigned toDrusilla. S. Wood (1995) 471-82, figs. 18-19, 24-26.

120 MA 1224, h. 1.95 m.; K. de Kersauson (1986) 200-1, no. 94, with earlier literature; S. Wood (1992) 219-34,figs. 1-4; D. Boschung (1993b) 71, no. 166; T. Mikocki(1995) 45, 187, no. 245; S. Wood (1999) 276-80, pls. 123-5; E.R. Varner (2001a) 65, fig. 7. Because the portrait hasbeen restored from several large pieces, S. Wood has sug-gested that the statue may have been deliberately attacked,thus accounting for its fragmentary nature. However, theface has not been mutilated and it is likely that the dama-ge which caused the statue to be broken is incidental, rat-her than a deliberate act resulting from damnatio.

121 S. Wood has also suggested that the portrait mayowe its good state of preservation to protection by a pri-vate owner, presumably a partisan of Messalina or her son(1992) 334.

122 C.B. Rose (1997) 185-8, no. 128.123 Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv 146 (1870),

inv. 830 (1952).

other julio-claudians 97

of Caligula (cat. 1.27; fig. 34a-b). As with theCaligula/Claudius, the fact that the portrait fea-tures were replaced, rather than recut, stronglysuggests that they were intentionally mutilated.Messalina’s image may also have been removedand replaced with a statue of Bacchus in theJulio-Claudian statuary group from Baiae.124

A portrait statue now in Naples of AgrippinaMinor, refashioned from a likeness of Messalina,is the first surviving female image to have beenphysically transformed as the result of a damna-tio (cat. 4.3; fig. 101a-d).125 The statue is carvedfrom a single block of marble and the facial fea-tures and coiffure have been substantially altered.As a result, the head is disproportionately small.The statue itself represented the empress as thegoddess Ceres, which like the Louvre image, wasdesigned to celebrate her role as producer of heirsguaranteeing the stability of the empire. Not onlyis the Naples statue the first recarved imperialfemale portrait, it is apparently the only likenessof a condemned empress reconfigured in the first,second and third centuries. Two sculpted por-traits of Lucilla (cat. 6.11 and cat. 6.12) wouldalso be recut, but not until the Constantinianperiod and a relief portrait of Galeria Valeria (cat.9.8) appears to have been refashioned earlier inthe fourth century. The Naples statue’s uniquestatus stands in marked contrast to the numer-ous private female likenesses which were alteredor updated during these centuries.126 The spec-ificity of imperial female coiffures as badges ofidentity, as well as their often very elaborate anddelicate configurations which precluded extensive

sculptural alterations must have contributed tothe nearly total absence of recarved representa-tions of fallen empresses. The random holes scat-tered throughout Agrippina’s coiffure which areremnants of Messalina’s earlier arrangementattest to the enormous technical problems whichfaced sculptors who attempted to reconfigure theimages of imperial women. Apparently, sculptorsdetermined that such challenges were nearlyinsurmountable and as a result, replacement,removal, or intentional disfigurement becomemore standard responses to the sculpted likenessof condemned women.

Agrippina Minor

Under Nero, three prominent imperial womenwere condemned for plotting against the emper-or. The first of these was the emperor’s ownmother, Agrippina Minor. Agrippina had under-gone an earlier condemnation when she and hersister Julia Livilla were exiled by their brotherCaligula, as images of both are conspicuouslyabsent in later Caligulan group portrait dedica-tions.127 After Caligula’s death, Agrippina re-turned to Rome and gained supreme power asthe wife of Claudius. Agrippina eventually se-cured the accession of her son over Claudius’sown son by Messalina, Britannicus, and at theoutset of Nero’s principate she appears to haveacted as a kind of regent for her son. Agrippi-na’s preeminent position is broadcast on aurei anddenarii from the mint of Rome which show facingbusts of Agrippina and Nero, with Agrippina’sname and titles on the obverse and Nero’s rele-gated to the reverse and rendered in the dative;Agrippina’s prominence is underscored in simi-lar extraordinary fashion on the AphrodisiasSebasteion relief and the Cologne cameo inwhich she is depicted as Roma/Concordia andthe guarantrix of Nero’s imperium.128 However, per-

124 S. Wood (1999) 285. Messalina is also absent fromthe group dedication from Russelae which includes herdaughter Claudia Octivia, and presumably her son, Brit-tanicus. If these statues are part of an earlier Claudian phaseit is likely that Messalina was also represented and herimage removed after her condemnation.

125 Museo Nazionale Archeologico. inv. 6242.; P. Li-veriani identifies a statue from Caere (Musei Vaticani, Mu-seo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 9952) as a representationAgrippina Minor recycled from Messalina ( [1990-91] 66).S. Wood, however, has situated the likeness within Drusil-la’s typology and suggested that the sculptural modifica-tions resulted from her deification (1995) 471-75.

126 On reworked private female portraits, see S. Ma-theson in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 70-81.

127 C.B. Rose (1997) 37. On the exile of the two sis-ters, see: Suet. Calig. 24.3; 29.1-2; Dio 59.22.5-9; A. Bar-rett (1990) 106-10; A. Barrett (1996) 63-67; S. Wood (1999)213-4.

128 For the coins of 54 see, RIC 150, no. 1 (aureus and

chapter four98

haps as early as 55 her power was in eclipse, andin 59 she was accused of conspiring to overthrowNero and, as a result, she was murdered.129

Tacitus specifically states theat supplicationes wereto be celebrated commemorating the failure ofAgrippina’s conspiracy and her birthday (6 No-vember) was to be a dies nefastus, as her motherAgrippina Maior’s had been under Tiberius:

Miro tamen certamine procerum decernuntur supplicationesapud omnia pulvinaria, utque Quinquatrus, quibus apertaeinsidiae essent, ludis annuis celebrarentur; aureum Minervaesimulacrum in curia et iuxta principis imago statuerentur;dies natalis Aprippinae inter nefastos esset

(However, in an astonishing spirit of rivalry amongthe elite, supplicationes were decreed at all shrines,and the Quinquatrus, the festival of Minerva onwhich the plot was revealed, was to be celebratedwith annual games; a golden image of Minervatogether with a portrait of the princeps was to beset up in the Curia, and the birthday of Agrippinawas to be counted among the days inauspiciousto the Roman state.130

In view of the charges which the emperorbrought against his mother, it certainly would nolonger have been politically expedient to displayportraits of Agrippina after her death. Dio con-firms that some of Agrippina’s statues were re-moved from display at Rome.131 In the OctaviaAgrippina’s ghost mentions the destruction of herimages and inscriptions, ascribed to Nero’s or-ders: he (Nero) destroys my statues and inscrip-

tions throughout the entire world under penaltyof death (for those who don’t comply) (simulacra,titulos destruit mortis metu totum per orbum).132 Andindeed, Agrippina’s image has been attacked onan aureus with her facial features slashed.133 Agrip-pina’s name is also erased in selected inscriptionsand an effaced portrait dedication at Epidauros,further suggests that certain of her images weredestroyed.134

In addition, Agrippina’s image at Rome wascertainly eradicated from a group commemora-tion erected by imperial musicians in 55-6 andultimately destroyed in the fire of 64. The sur-viving inscriptions honor Augustus, Nero, Clau-dius and Agrippina. After Agrippina’s murder,her portion of the base was dismantled and de-stroyed and the remaining inscription altered asa result.135 Similarly, other important public

denarius of Rome, A.D. 54); by 55 the facing portraits arereplaced by jugate busts, with Nero in the more prominentfrontal position, and his name and titles now on the ob-verse in the nominative RIC 150, nos. 6-7 (Aureus anddenarius of Rome); see also C.H.V. Sutherland (1987) 87,figs. 35a-b; and C.B. Rose (1997) 47; and K. Dickson(2002).

129 M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)365-7, no. 426; A.Barrett has suggested that Agrippina’s period of influenceactually encompassed the first five years of her son’s reign,the quinquennium Neronis, until her death in 59 (1996) 238-40.

130 Ann. 14.12. On Agrippina’s death and the allegedconspiracy, see also Suet. Nero 34.3; Tac. Ann. 14.7.6-7, 11;Dio 61(62).14; R. Bauman (1992) 190-203; W. Eck (1993)88, n. 96; A Barrett (1996) 181-95, 244-6; C.B. Rose (1997)48.

131 61(62).16.2a; see also A.P. Gregory (1994) 94.

132 Octavia 611-12.133 BMCRE 1, 174, n. 72 (undamaged example of the

issue); W. Eck (1993) 59, fig. 23; Va Morizio in C. Panel-la, ed. (1996) 216.

134 R. Cagnat (1901) 173; ILS 226.31; A. Barrett (1996)192, n. 39. For the portrait dedication from Epidauros, seeC.B. Rose (1997) 10, n. 91, 48, 141, no. 72.

135 123. Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme; CIL6.40307; AE (1996) 248; V. Morizio in C. Panella, ed.(1996). The dedicants, the aenatores, consisting of the tubi-cines, the liticines and the cornicines, were listed in a conti-nuous line beneath the imperial dedications which wereoriented horizontally. Romani, modifying the musicians,originally appeared in Agrippina’s section of the base, butwas reinscribed under Claudius’s name and titles, imme-diately to Agrippina’s right. The inscriptions of Augustusand Nero are on the same slab, while those of Claudiusand Agrippina were carved on separate slabs.1. IMP CAISARI DIVI F 2. NERONI CLAVDIO DIVI

AVGUSTO CLAVDII F

PONTIFICI MAXIMO COS XI GERMANICIS CAISARIS N

TRIBVNICIA POTESTAT XI TI CAISARIS AVG PRO N

DIVI AVGVSTI AB N

CAISARI AVG GERMANICO PONT

MAX TRIB POTEST II IMP COS

AENATORES TVBICINES

3. TI CLAVDIO DRVSI F. 4. IVLIAE AV[GVSTAE]

CAISARI AVGVSTO AGRI[PPINAE]

GERMANCO PONTIFICI GERMANIC[I CAISARIS F]

MAXIMO TRIBVNICIA POT DIVI CLA[VDI VXORI]

IMP COS II

LITICINES CORNICINES [ROMANI]

ROMANI

other julio-claudians 99

portraits from Rome, such as the basanite imageof Agrippina as priestess of the Divine Claudiusfrom the Claudianium on the Caelian would havebeen removed from public display.136 It is alsopossible that the damage which the statue bodyhas suffered, as it is composed from forty-onefragments, may have been the result of an attackcarried out after her condemnation. Two bronzestatues of Agrippina from Herculaneum137 em-ploy a priestly iconography similar to the basaniteportrait and they may have been warehousedfollowing her murder. In addition, Agrippina’sabsence from the important Julio-Claudian cy-cle at Rusellae may not be coincidental. Most ofher immediate family members including both ofher parents, all of her siblings (Nero Caesar,Drusus Caesar, Julia Livilla, Diva Drusilla, andCaligula [cat. 1.20; altered to Claudius), her hus-band Claudius (in altered Caligulan portrait anda second posthumous representation), and her sonNero (probably in two portraits: boyhood togatuswith bulla and cuirassed statue as imperator). Theinclusion of Nero with bulla in the cycle, togeth-er with Claudius’s children by Messalina, Clau-dia Octavia and Britannicus, may suggest a dateof 50-51 for the Claudian statues. If so, Agrippi-

na’s absence is especially noteworthy and likelythe result of her condemnation under Nero.

Just as her mother Agrippina Maior had beendenied burial in the Mausoleum of Augustus,Agrippina Minor’s remains were never given aproper internment in Rome during Nero’s reign;subsequently, a tomb was constructed near thesite of her death along the road to Misenum inthe environs of a villa which had belonged toJulius Caesar.138 The great number of portraitsof Agrippina which survive from Rome and else-where in the Empire may be partially the resultof the warehousing of her images after her death,but they ultimately indicate that the destructionof her likenesses was short-lived and necessarilylimited in scope to the period shortly after herdeath; later in Nero’s principate, Agrippina’smemory is actually rehabilitated and games heldin her honor.139 Moreover, Dio praises Galba forre-erecting representations of members of the im-perial family who had been murdered underNero, and this would likely have included imag-es of Agrippina; in addition, he indicates thatGalba also had murdered family members’ re-mains interred in the Mausoleum of Augustus,which may indicate that Agrippina’s ashes wereultimately transferred there.140 Posthumous im-ages may also have been created for Agrippina.141

The dedication may have been associated with eitherthe temple to the Curiae Veteres or the Palatine birthpla-ce of Augustus.

136 (body)Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori (CentraleMontemartini 2.43), inv. 1.882, h. 2.12 m.; E. Talamo inS. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds. (2000) 599-600 (with ear-lier literature); (head) Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glypto-tek 634, inv. 753; h. 0.30 m.; F. Johansen (1994) 152-3,with figs. (with earlier literature). The portrait representsAgrippina in her fourth and final Neronian portrait type,in use from Nero’s accession in 54 until Agrippina’s deathin 59. At some point, the head was slightly modified bycuttings for anchoring additional headgear. The modifica-tions to the portrait have led E. Talamo to suggest that theimage has been refashioned from a portrait of Messalina,in S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds. (2000) 599-600, withfigs. The adjustments are minor, however and are essen-tially limited to cuttings fro the attachment of a diademor priestly crown and the coiffure lacks the indications ofsubstantial reworking or traces of Messalina’s coiffure thatthe Naples portrait contains. The statue was, in fact, crea-ted ex novo as an important part of the sculptural decora-tion of the Temple of Divus Claudius.

137 Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 5609;and Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 5602.

138 Tac. Ann. 14.9.2-5; A. Barrett (1996) 190.139 Dio 61.17.1; A. Barrett (1996) 194.140 63(64).3.4c; C. W. Hedrick (2000) 127.141 A portrait in Cologne, the birthplace of Agrippina,

may also be posthumous, Romisch-Germanisches Museum,inv. 564; S. Wood (1988) 425-6, n. 47. A colossal head fromthe Forum of Trajan has also been associated with Agrip-pina: Mercati Traianei, Magazzini, without inventorynumber; Fittschen-Zanker III, 6, no. 5, pl. 6; L. Ungaroand. M. Mielella, eds. (1995) 124 (with figs.); J.E. Packer1 (1997) 781-2, no. 191, fig. 58; S. Wood (1999) 302-4, figs.143-4. However, D. Boschung and W. Eck have suggestedthat the colossal image, together with a related portrait inthe Loggia dei Lanzi in Florence, may, in fact, representTrajan’s mother (1998) 73-81. The head exhibits strong sty-listic and physiognomical similarities to Trajan’s sculptedportraits.

chapter four100

Claudia Octavia

In A.D. 62, Nero divorced and banished his wife,Claudia Octavia on contradictory charges ofinfertility and adultery with the flute-player Eu-caerus.142 Subsequently Octavia was accused ofplotting with Anicetus to overthrow the emper-or.143 Octavia was finally relegated to Pandate-ria where she was executed.144 Octavia’s corpsewas beheaded and the head brought to Romewhere Poppaea is reported to have viewed it(Additurque atrocior saevitia, quod caput amputatumlatumque in urbem Poppaea vidit: and an even moreatrocious brutality was added, that is, her head,having been amputated and taken to the city,Poppaea viewed it).145 This act of poena post mor-tem has extraordinary political implications as itwas almost exclusively perpetrated on male corps-es of overthrown emperors (Galba, Macrinus,Diadumenianus, Maximus, Maximinus, andMaxentius), failed rivals for imperial power (Clo-dius Albinus), or defeated foreign foes (Decebal-us).146

As the daughter of the deified Claudius, Oc-tavia was extremely popular with the plebs and apublic outcry ensued in Rome at the initial newsof her divorce and banishment.147 Demonstratorswho supported Octavia decked her portraits withflowers and paraded them around Rome and atthe same time attacked and overturned the im-ages of her rival Poppaea.148 Her popularity

notwithstanding, Octavia’s portraits must havebeen removed from public display following herbanishment and execution, out of fear of offend-ing Poppaea or the emperor who had divorcedher and ordered her execution.149 After death,public thanksgiving was decreed to celebrate theemperor’s escape from Octavia’s treasonousplot.150 Significantly, in the historical dramawhich bears her name, Nero declares his wife ahostis a term associated almost always with maletraitors to the state, but her downfall is also the-matically linked to the condemnations of sever-al earlier Julio Claudian women, including Agrip-pina Maior, Livilla, Julia Minor, Messalina, andAgrippina Minor.151 The Octavia itself stands asa post-Neronian resuscitation of Octavia’s mem-ory. As noted for Agrippina, Dio records the re-erection of portraits of those murdered underNero and the reburial of some of his victimsremains in the Mausoleum of Augustus and thesemeasures would almost certainly have includedOctavia.152

Octavia’s likeness was represented on coinsminted in the east.153 One childhood portrait ofOctavia has survived from the Claudian groupdedications at Baiae,154 and two additional rep-

142 M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)223-4, no. 246; forOctavia’s alleged involvement with Eucaerus, see Tac. Ann.14.60; Oct. 107. The accusations of adultery and sexual im-propriety with a lower class male were intended to destroyOctavia’s reputation; M.P. Vinson (1989) 440-43.

143 Tac. Ann 14.63. Suetonius also reports that Nero bri-bed Anicetus to confess to committing stuprum with Octa-via, Nero 35.2.

144 Suet. Nero 35.2, 57.1; Tac.Ann. 14.64; Dio 62.13.1;Plut. Galba 19.

145 Octavia, Tac. Ann. 14.64.2.146 J.L. Voisin (1984) 250-252; E.R.,Varner (2001b) 57-

58.147 Tac. Ann. 14.60-61.148 Tac. Ann. 14.61; Octavia’s significance is, natural-

ly, stressed in the Octavia, where the fire of 64 is depictedas Nero’s response to Octavia’s partisans’ attempt to burnthe imperial palace (801, 831-3, 851-52). See also, G. Wil-liams in J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds, (1994) 188-89; S.Wood (1999) 271.

149 C.B. Rose (1997) 49.150 Tac. Ann. 14.63-4; S. Wood (1999) 271-2.151 Octavia 865-6 (Nero: Quod parcis hosti/Praefectus: Fe-

mina hoc nomen capit); and 932-57; R.A. Bauman (1996) 89-90. Cleopatra seems to be the only woman for whom the-re is historical evidence for a declaration as a hostis. Dio50.4.4.; Plut. Ant. 60.1; see also supra.

152 63(64).3.4c. S. Wood also entertains the idea of post-humous, post-Neronian images for Octavia, analogous tothe possibly posthumous portrait of her mother-in-law,Agrippina Minor in Köln (1999) 303, although there areno clearly identifiable images of Octavia which have sur-vived.

153 Two Alexandrian coins depict Octavia with curlsmassed well over the top of the head and the plaits on theback of the head drawn up into a small chignon; both nu-mismatic images portray Octavia with very prominent ears,often a feature of her father’s iconography as well, A.Geissen (1972) 52, no. 138, 54, no. 147. See also a coinfrom Corinth, which depicts Octavia with a hairstyle si-milar to Livia’s centrally parted type and a coin from Si-nope whose hairstyle is very similar to Agrippina Minor(J.J. Bernoulli [1886] 415, pl. 35,17, 18).

154 Museo dei Campi Flegrei, h. 1.20 m.; T. Mikocki(1995) 188, no. 252; C.B. Rose (1997) 72, 82-3, cat. 4, pls.62-3 (with earlier literature); B. Andreae (1998) 32-4, with

other julio-claudians 101

licas are in Trieste and a Spanish private collec-tion.155 A headless togata from the Claudian phaseof the portrait cycle at and Rusellae also presum-ably represented Octavia as a child.156 Octavia’scondemnation has made the identification of hermature portraits extremely difficult, and there areno securely recognizable extant images whichdate from the time of her marriage to Nero.157

R. Bol has recently attempted to identify a se-ries of marble portraits as Octavia, but theseportraits are more plausibly associated withAgrippina Minor’s third (Ancona) type.158 Aportrait in the Palazzo Massimo alle Termewhich includes a diadem (suggesting that thewoman portrayed is an Augusta) and displays aphysiognomy strongly resembling that of Clau-dius has the most likely claims to being a maturelikeness of his daughter, Octavia.159 The head isworked for insertion and very well preserved. Ifit does, in fact, represent Octavia, it was likely

removed from public view and warehoused af-ter her downfall. A second replica of the sametype, in Barcelona, also worked for insertion, mayhave been similarly removed and stored andwould then attest to the perpetuation of Octa-via’s damnatio in the provinces.160

Claudia Antonia

The half-sister of Octavia, Claudia Antonia,daughter of Claudius and Aelia Paetina, wasexecuted for her involvement in the Pisonianconspiracy of A.D. 65.161 After the murder ofOctavia, Antonia was the last surviving child ofClaudius and the most prominent living femalemember of the imperial family. Antonia hadpreviously been married to Gnaeus PompeiusMagnus, as well as to Faustus Cornelius Sulla.After the death of Poppaea, Antonia refused tostrengthen Nero’s political position by marryinghim. Indeed, Antonia seems to have been activelyinvolved with the anti-Neronian factions of thearistocracy, and Suetonius confirms her condem-nation on charges of sedition (Antoniam Claudifiliam, recusantem post Poppaeae mortem nuptias suas,quasi molitricem novarum rerum interemit).162 Further-more, Tacitus, in his account of the Pisonianconspiracy, refers to Pliny’s report that Antoniaintended to accompany Piso in public after theplanned assassination of Nero in order to securefor Piso the approval of the masses (comitanteAntonia, Claudii Caesaris filia, ad eliciendum vulgi fa-vorem, quod C. Plinius memorat).163 As with theimages of Agrippina Minor and Octavia Clau-dia, portraits of Antonia would have been re-moved from public display after her execution.Although she is attested in portrait inscriptions,her condemnation has made identification of herportraits difficult and none can be attributed toher with certainty.164 Again, Dio’s statements

figs.; S. Wood (1999) 283-4.155 S. Wood (1999) 283-4; for the Trieste and Spanish

portraits, see R. Amedick (1991) 378-80, pls. 99-100. T.Mickocki has tentatively identified a sardonyx cameo whichrepresents a young girl as Minerva as a Claudian repre-sentation of Octavia, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabi-net des Médailles, 21, Mickoki (1995) 188, no. 251, pl. 24.This identification is far from certain, however, as thephysiognomy is not sufficiently specific, and the helmetmasks the coiffure.

156 Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Ma-remma; C.B. Rose 72, 116-8, cat. 45; S. Wood (1999) 283-4.

157 On the difficulties of identifying mature likenessesof Claudia Octavia, see D. Boschung (1993b) 75-76 andC.B. Rose (1997) 72.

158 A marble portrait discovered in Rome on the ViaVarese has been associated with Octavia; Museo Nazio-nale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 121316;Fittschen-Zanker III, 7, no. 5, n. 4. For the identificationas Octavia, see R. Bol (1986) 289-307. B. Di Leo, MusNa-zRom 1.9.1, 155-6, no. R 111, with figs; and M.L. Ander-son in M.L. Anderson and L. Nista, eds. (1988) 74, no. 14,with figs.

159 Inv. 124129, h. 0.35 m.; V. Picciotti Giornetti,MusNazRom 1.1 286-7, no. 178, with fig. (with earlier lite-rature); S. Wood (1999) 313-4. The shape of the mouth,chin, and fleshy underchin conform well with Claudius’smore realistic images, including the statue depicting himas Jupiter in the Sala Rotonda of the Vatican, and the por-trait recut from Caligula (no. 550, inv. 243) now in the Cen-trale Montemartini 2.74 (cat. 1.31).

160 Museo de la Historia de la Ciuidad, inv. 7440; seeFittschen-Zanker III, 48, no. 61, n. 1.

161 M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)202-3, no. 217.162 Nero. 35.4.163 Tac. Ann 15.53; see also V. Rudich (1993) 136-7.164 C.B. Rose (1997) 72; E.R. Varner (2001a) 72.

chapter four102

concerning rehabilitation already mentioned inconjunction with Agrppina Minor and OctaviaClaudia, may equally apply to Antonia.165

Julia Livilla, Julia Drusilla, Lollia Paulina andDomitia Lepida

Three other imperial women were also execut-ed in the later Julio-Claudian period, and theirimages are likely to have been treated similarlyto those of their more prominent relatives. Dur-ing the reign of Claudius, Messalina secured theexile of Julia Livilla, the sister of Caligula andhusband of Marcus Vinicius on charges of adul-tery with Seneca and she was later executed.166

C.B. Rose has persuasively identified the eightsurviving replicas of the Lepcis Malta type as JuliaLivilla. 167 There are, however, serious problemsin assigning all eight of the surviving replicas tothe reign of Caligula, as Julia Livilla was banishedin 39 and portraits are unlikely to have beencreated for her after this date. Nevertheless, JuliaLivilla’s memory may have been revived by hersister Agrippina once she had replaced Messal-ina as the wife of Claudius and, as a result, someof her surviving portraits in Julio-Claudian groupdedications may in fact be posthumous.168

Julia Drusilla, the daughter of Julia Minor andDrusus Minor, and wife of Rubellius Blandus wasmurdered, supposedly another victim of Messal-ina, in A.D. 43.169 Lollia Paulina, briefly the wifeof Caligula from A.D. 38-39, was also con-demned, exiled and eventually murdered in A.D.49; Paulina may have posed a serious threat toAgrippina as she was strongly considered as apossible wife for Claudius after the death ofMessalina and Agrippina was alleged to havearranged for the execution of her rival.170 In anycase, Paulina’s legendary wealth and her positionas the surviving wife of a former emperor madeher potentially dangerous.171 Paulina’s head wassevered from her body in a blatant political actof poena post mortem and her corpse abuse mayhave provided a precedent for that of Octavia.172

They are the only two imperial women whose re-mains are known to have been desecrated in thisfashion. After the downfall of Agrippina in 59,Paulina’s memory was rehabilitated when Neroallowed Paulina’s ashes to be returned to Romeand a tomb erected for their interment.173 In 54,Agrippina may also have engineered the destruc-tion her former sister-in-law, Domitia Lepida whowas executed after being condemned on maiestascharges which included allegations that she hademployed magic in an attempt on Agrippina’slife; at her trial, Nero testified agains his aunt.As the mother of Messalina and grandmother ofBritannicus, Nero’s principal rival as heir to Clau-dius, Lepida may have been a real threat to hernephew’s succession and, as a result, she was

165 63(64)3.4c.166 Suet. Claud. 29.1; Tac. Ann 14.63.2; Sen. Apocol. 10.4;

Dio 60.4.1-2, 8.5; M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)380-81,no. 443; Levick (1990) 56; S. Wood (1999) 214, 238. Onthe charges of adultery being substitutions for maiestas, seeR.A. Bauman (1974) 177 and A. Barrett (1996) 81-2.

167 (1997) 68-9. Algiers, Musée; Berlin, Staatliche Mus-een, inv. 1802; Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte dellaMaremma, inv. 97740; Malta, La Valett; Munich, Resi-denz, inv. 85; Palermo, Museo Nazionale, inv. 705; Rome,Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme,inv. 620; Rome Musei Vaticani, Ingresso 5, inv. 103; Spo-leto, Collezione Antonelli, Tripoli, Museum; and former-ly art market. D. Boschung’s attempts to associate a groupof three portraits in Naples, Warsaw and Rome as JuliaLivilla are not convincing (1993b) 69 S

168 Wood has rightly pointed out that it is odd that JuliaLivilla would have more surviving portraits than Caligu-lan images of her more prominent sisters, Drusilla andAgrippina Minor (type 1), ([1999] 195). However, if someof Julia Livilla’s surviving portraits were actually posthu-mous and part of a concerted effort on the part of Agrip-

pina to rehabilitate the sister who was killed by her rivalMessalina, it would help to explain the apparent discrepan-cies. Wood also underscores the difficulties present in iden-tifying Julia Livilla as part of the Julio-Claudian groupdedication at Lepcis since there is no inscriptional eviden-ce for Caligulan additions, but these objections can be dis-pensed with if her portrait from Lepcis is actually part ofClaudian activity at the site ([1999] 194-5).

169 Suet. Claud. 29.1; Sen. Apoloc. 10.4; Dio 60.18.4;M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)360-61, no. 422.

170 Tac. Ann.4.20.1-2; 12.22; Dio 60(61) 32.4; A. Bar-rett (1996) 132.

171 On Lollia Paulina’s wealth and her celebrated pearls,see Pliny, HN 9.35.117-8.

172 Dio 60.32.4.173 Tac. Ann. 14.12.

other julio-claudians 103

eliminated.174 All four of these women appear tohave been executed because their positions withinthe Julio-Claudian dynasty gave them the pow-er of legitimizing, either through marriage or byusing their poliitical influence and connections,rival claimants to the principate, which conse-quently made them potentially serious threats tothe reigning emperor or empress.

Ptolemy of Mauretania

As the grandson of Cleopatra and Marcus An-tonius, the last of the Ptolemies, Ptolemy ofMauretania was related to the final three Julio-Claudian emperors, Caligula, Claudius and Nero.Ptolemy was the son of Cleopatra and Antonius’sdaughter, Cleopatra Selene and Juba II of Mau-retania. Ptolemy succeeded his father as king ofMauretania in 23. Ptolemey’s sculpted images,especially those of his first portrait type createdduring the reign of his father, visually stress hislinks to the Julio-Claudians in the youthful phys-iognomy and the arrangement of comma shapedlocks over the forehead.175 Ptolemy’s distantcousin, Caligula, however, apparently grew sus-picious of the young king and his ties to the Julio-Claudian dynasty and had him executed oncharges of treason in 40; the kingdom of Mau-retania was then promptly annexed as a provinceof the Roman Empire.176 Indeed, Ptolemy mayhave been involved in the conspiracy of 39, whichalso included Caligula’s sisters (and Ptolemy’scousins) and Ptolemy also had connections withGaetulicus, another of the conspirators.177 Afterhis execution, images of Ptolemy would likelyhave been destroyed or removed from publicdisplay. This would be especially true of well-preserved type 2 likenesses from the environs of

Rome in the Vatican,178 Villa Albani,179 andWoburn Abbey180 which may have been ware-housed following Ptolemy’s downfall. Portraitsfrom Ptolemy’s capital, Cherchel, in Paris181 andCherchel,182 were also likely removed from publicview after the annexation of the province, as wasa bronze bust of unknown provenance.183 Dam-aged, weathered, and fragmentary portraits fromCherchel may have been also disposed of in amore violent or summary fashion.184

Conclusions: Established Mechanisms of PoliticalRepression

A review of the condemnations enacted in thefirst century reveals that the political repressionof memory was by no means limited to emper-ors and empresses. Indeed, at least eleven addi-tional members of the imperial family (includingSejanus) were exiled or executed and their mem-ories and monuments condemned. All of theseindividuals were damned because of their actu-al or potential political influence in opposition tothe regime. As with emperors and empresses,commemorative monuments and inscriptionswere the targets of the condemnations. Coinscould also be included in the sanctions, and the

174 Tac. Ann. 64.4-6; 65.1; Suit. Nero 7.1; Barrett (1997)137-8.

175 K. Fittschen (1974) 169-73; R.R.R. Smith (1988)141.

176 Sen. Tranq. 11.12; Suet. Cal 35.1; Dio 59.29.1; A.Barrett (1989) 116-8.

177 A. Barrett (1989) 118.

178 Braccio Nuovo 65, inv. 2253; R.R.R. Smith (1988a)180, no. 130.1 (with earlier literature).

179 inv. no. 58, h. 0.25 m.; R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 180,no. 130.4; P.C. Bol (1990) 181-2, no. 205, pls. 118-19 (withearlier literature).

180 h. 0.34 m.; E. Angelicoussis (1992) 56, no. 24, figs.117-20, 127 (with earlier literature).

181 MA 1888 (type 2), h. 0.28 m.; K. de Kersauson(1986) 126-7, no. 57, with figs. (with earlier literature); R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 179, no. 129.3, pls. 69.1-2.

MA 1887 (type 2), h. 0.37 m.; K. de Kersauson (1986)128-9, no. 58, with figs. (with earlier literature); R.R.R.Smith (1988a) 180, no. 130.5, pl. 69.3-4.

182 Museum 52; R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 179, no. 129.2(with earlier literature).

183 Sweden, private collection; R.R.R. Smith (1988a)179, no. 129.1 (with earlier literature).

184 Louvre, MA 3183, h. 0.19 m.(type I); K. deKersauson (1986) 130-31, with figs. (with earlier literatu-re); R.R. Smith (1988a) 179, no. 129.4; Cherchel, Museum;R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 180, no. 130.3 (with earlier litera-ture); Cherchel, Museum 40; R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 180,no. 130.6 (with earlier literature).

chapter four104

issues from Bilbillis in Spain which originallyhonored Sejanus are the first attested examplesof numismatic damnatio in the imperial period.Because many of these individuals were not com-memorated with portraits on the scale of emper-ors and empresses, the repression of their mem-ory and monuments has resulted in a lack ofsecurely identifiable extant sculpted portraits inmarble or bronze.

What is even more striking in the Julio-Clau-dian evidence is the preponderance of condem-nations aimed against imperial women, not men.During this period twelve women, Julia Maior,

Julia Minor, Agrippina Maior, Livilla, ValeriaMessalina, Julia Drusilla, Julia Livilla, LolliaPaullina, Domitia Lepida, Agrippina Maior,Claudia Octavia, and Claudia Antonia were con-demned. Although their condemnations wereoften cloaked in charges of sexual misconduct, theunderlying motivations were actual conspiraciesagainst the reigning emperor or their potentialto disrupt the regime. Just as the images of thesewomen were often integral and prominent com-ponents of dynastic visual propaganda, so toowere they liable to repression as a result of con-demnation.

a.d. 69 105

Galba

Servius Sulpicius Galba was the son of GaiusSulpicius Galba and Mummia Achaica, both ofrenowned patrician families. Born in 3 B.C.,Galba held a number of important positionsduring the course of his career, including thegovernorship of Aquitania, the consulship (A.D.33), the command of Upper Germany, theproconsulship of Africa, and eventually the gov-ernorship of Hispania Tarraconensis. While gov-ernor of Spain, Galba allied himself with GaiusJulius Vindex, after the latter revolted againstNero’s authority in 68 and it was Galba whomthe Senate confirmed as emperor followingNero’s death. Although initially supported by thepraetorians, Galba dismissed Nymphidius, theirpraefect, and refused to pay out promised bo-nuses. Consequently, the praetorians quickly grewdissatisfied with Galba. Additional resentmentexisted among the first and fifth legions stationedin Germany and soldiers actually hurled stonesat Galba’s statues when asked to renew their oathof allegiance to him (primani quintanique turbidi adeout quidam saxa in Galbae imagines iecerint).1 Thefourth and twenty-second legions in upper Ger-many expressed their anger against the emperorby attacking his images and smashing them topieces (At in superiore exercitu quarta ac duetvicensimalegiones, isdem hibernis tendentes, ipso kalendarum Ianu-ariarum die dirumpunt imagines Galbae).2 Finally, the

troops in Lower Germany repudiated Galba’sauthority entirely and declared Vitellius emperoron 2 January 69. Meanwhile in Rome, Othosuccessfully plotted Galba’s overthrow and theemperor was murdered in the Forum Romanum,together with his adopted son and heir LuciusCalpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus, by members ofthe praetorians on 15 January. The corpses ofboth Galba and Piso were denigrated and theirheads cut off, and the head of Galba may havebeen further abused by being thrown into theSessorium, a place of execution for condemnedcriminals.3 Otho was subsequently proclaimedemperor by the praetorians and their choice wasquickly ratified by the Senate.

Visual images of Galba continued to be inti-mately involved in the events surrounding hisoverthrow. Just prior to his murder, his imago wasripped from a military standard and thrown onthe ground as a signal of the soldier’s rejectionof Galba in favor of Otho (vexilarius...dereptamGalbae imaginem solo adflixit).4 After his murder,Galba’s portraits in the capital were destroyed.5

Although almost certainly a literary construct andnot strictly historical, it is also tempting to asso-ciate Juvenal’s description of an earless andnoseless portrait of Galba with his intentionallydisfigured images (Galbam auriculis nasoque caren-tem).6 Ultimately, following Otho’s own over-throw, Tacitus records that images of Galba wereparaded through the city and garlands were piledover the Lacus Curtius, the site of his murder in

CHAPTER FIVE

A.D. 69

1 “Members of the first and fifth legions were so agi-tated that they even hurled stones at the images of Galba,”Tac. Hist. 1.55.

2 “And in the upper army, the fourth and twenty sec-ond legions, who were spending the winter together in thesame place, smashed the images of Galba to pieces on thefirst day of January,” Tac. Hist. 1.55.3, and also 1.56;Elsewhere, soldiers loyal to Galba attempted to protect hisportraits, Tac. Hist. 1.56

3 Tac. Hist. 1.41; Plut. Galb. 28.2-3. Suetonius mentionsthat the head was cut off, placed on a spear and mocked,but eventually buried together with the body, Galba 20.2;J.L. Voissin (1984) 251; D.G. Kyle (1998) 221, 233, n. 40,235, n. 54; E.R. Varner (2001b) 57.

4 Tac. Hist 1.41.1; see also A.F. Gregory (1994).5 Plut. Galb. 26.7; Plut. Galb. 22.6 8..5; Flower (1996) 295-6.

chapter five106

the Fourm.7 Galba’s rehabilitation continuedafter Vespasian’s accession to the principate whenone of his generals, Antonius Primus, orderedstatues of Galba to be re-erected, providing im-portant substantiation that images were still ac-cessible and well preserved, presumably in ware-houses or storerooms.8 The Senate also voted torestore Galba’s honors 9 and even desired to erecta memorial to him where he was murdered inthe Forum “as soon as it was lawful (ut primumlictum est),” underscoring that official sanctionsagainst Galba’s memory and portraits had beenenacted after his assassination.10 However,Vespasian may not have wholeheartedly sup-ported Galba’s rehabilitation, as he refused toallow the proposed monument in the Forum.11

Identification of sculpted portraits of Galba iscomplicated by the damnatio and his relativelyshort duration as princeps.12 Coin portraits por-tray Galba with aged, fleshy facial features anda coiffure of fairly thin, short locks. His foreheadis furrowed, and the eyes are deeply set beneaththe brows. The nose is hooked. His cheeks arewrinkled and jowls are usually indicated. Theemperor is depicted with deep naso-labial linesand a mouth with thin lips turned down mark-edly at the corners. He has a fleshy underchinand the neck is wrinkled. The pronounced verismin Galba’s images, clearly intended to evokerepublican precedents and appeal to the aristoc-

racy, decisively differentiates representations ofthe new emperor from those of his condemnedpredecessor Nero.13

An overlifesized marble portrait head deliber-ately removed from a relief has convincingly beenassociated with Galba and reproduces severalphysiognomical details present in his numismaticlikenesses (fig. 102).14 Chisel marks around theback edge of the head document the portrait’sremoval from its relief background.15 A hole overthe forehead and one at the back of the headwhich still contains the remnants of a metal dowelconfirm that the portrait was completed with ametal wreath. Although the baldness of the Gettyhead conflicts with Galba’s numismatic portraitswhich depict him with a short military coiffure,it is consonant with Suetonius’s literary depictionof the emperor as quite bald (capite praecalvo).16

The scale, quality, and metal head ornament ofthe Malibu portrait suggest that it is an imperialimage from an official monument. If the portraitdoes indeed depict Galba, as seems highly likely,then it was removed from the monument in re-sponse to his damnatio memoriae. Galba may alsobe represented in a small silver bust from Her-culaneum, which might reflect the kind of imag-ines attached to military standards which were at-tacked during his overthrow.17

In addition to the Getty and Naples portraits,a cameo in Paris depicts Galba with corona civica

7 Tac. Hist. 2.55 (populus cum lauru ac floribus Galbae imag-ines circum templa tulit, congestis in modum tumuli coronis iuxtalacum Curtii, quem locum Galba moriens sanguine infecerat).

8 postquam Galbae imagines discordia temporum subversas inomnibus municipiis recoli jussit Antonius (Afterward, Antoniuscommanded that images of Galba which had been over-turned in every municipality during the discord of the timesbe honored again) Tac. Hist. 3.7; see also L. Fabbricotti(1967) 54, n. 48 and A.F. Gregory (1994) 95.

9 Tac. Hist. 4.40. The restoration of Galba’s honors wasproposed by Domitian (Referente Caesare de restituendis Galbaehonoribus...Patres...iussere). J. Gagé (1952) 290-315; C. W.Hedrick.(2000) 126.

10 Suet. Galb. 23, Senatus, ut primum licitum est, statuam eidecreverat rostratae columnae superstantem in parte Fori, qua trucidatusest.

11 Suetonius suggests that Vespasian denied the Senate’srequest because he believed that Galba had sent assassinsagainst him while he was in Judaea; Galba 23.

12 The major study of Galba’s career and portraitureremains L. Fabbricotti (1967).

13 On the iconographic importance of the verism inGalba’s numismatic portraits, see D.E.E. Kleiner (1992)168-9.

14 Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 74.AA.37, h. 0.29m.; J. Frel (1981) 59, no. 32, with figs., 124, no. 32 (withearlier literature); J. Chamay and J.L. Maier (1982) 101,pl. 17. The marble used in the portrait is from Asia Mi-nor and may indicate that it was discovered in the east.The brows, eyes, nose, lips, chin and ear are damaged. Theportrait agrees with the coin images in the deep set eyes,the wrinkled cheeks, the naso-labial lines, the thin,downturned lips, the jowls and fleshy underchin. Althoughthe nose is missing, it is apparent that the nose was indentedat the bridge and it may have been hooked.

15 J. Pollini (1977) 63.16 Suet. Galb. 21. In addition, it is possible that the metal

head ornament attached to the Malibu head masked thetop of the head, thus eliminating the necessity of indicat-ing a coiffure.

17 Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico 110127; F.Johansen (1995a) 8, fig. 2.

a.d. 69 107

and aegis (cat. 2.14; fig. 74), reconfigured from apre-existing likeness of Nero’s third type.18 Theprevious reworking obviously precluded any fur-ther attempt at recarving. Moreover, the cameo’sinherent value as a gem, as well as Galba’s re-habilitation under Vespasian helped to furtherensure the survival of the Paris cameo. The re-cutting of the gem may even have been carriedout under Vespasian, as part of Galba’s rehabili-tation. As already noted, the full coiffure anddivine attribute of the aegis, which are remnantsof the Neronian image, are inconsistent withGalba’s iconography and may support a posthu-mous date for the recarving. Other unalteredglyptic representations of Galba include cameosin Florence19 and Naples.20

A headless, seated togatus in the Villa Massimopresents strong claims as a representation ofGalba.21 C.F. Konrad has suggested that thereliefs on the sella curulis and the toga itself, makeit highly probable that this statue commemoratesGalba’s proconsulship in Africa of 44-45.22 As amonument honoring Galba’s early career, thisimage would not have remained on public dis-play during the reigns of his predecessors Othoand Vitellius. Indeed, the portrait features mayhave been intentionally vandalized, or simplyremoved and the statue reused with the additionof a new head. Alternatively, the statue couldhave been removed, warehoused, and returnedto public display under Vespasian.

Otho

Marcus Salvius Otho, born in A.D. 32, was thesecond husband of Poppaea Sabina. After Nerobecame interested in Poppaea, he appointed

Otho governor of Lusitania in order to removehim from the capital. In the final days of Nero’sreign, Otho supported Galba, hoping to benamed his successor. But Galba repudiated Othoand named L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianusas his heir, with the result that Otho arrangedthe murder of Galba and Calpurnius Piso on 15January 69. Otho’s accession was immediatelychallenged by Vitellius who eventually defeatedOtho’s forces outside Cremona, causing Otho totake his own life on 16 April 69. Otho’s memo-ry was condemned under his successor and hisname eradicated from inscriptions.23 Otho’sbirthday was clearly declared a dies nefastus, for,under Domitian, Salvius Cocceianus was execut-ed for celebrating the birthday of his uncle,Otho.24 Otho also suffers a kind of literary dam-natio in Juvenal’s Satires, where his memory andreputation are denigrated.25

Upon his accession, Otho presented himself asthe new Nero and his coin portraits alternatelyrecall Nero’s second type and his final types withtheir elaborately waved coiffures and heavierfacial features.26 Although surviving portraits withsuch elaborately waved hairstyles, strongly remi-niscent of Nero’s coma in gradus formata arrange-ment have been identified with Otho, no replicaseries can be securely established and most ofthese represent private individuals.27 Neverthe-less, persuasive evidence for the destruction ofOtho’s images is provided by a deliberately dam-aged colossal portrait in Ostia (cat. 4.1; fig. 103).28

The waved coiffure, short broad forehead, fairlysmall eyes, and heavy facial features are closelyparalleled in Otho’s numismatic likenesses.29 Theportrait was discovered in 1938 in a sewer near

18 Bibliothèque National, Cabinet des Médailles, inv.238.

19 Museo Archeologico inv. 14543, onyx, 1.1 x 0.8 cm;A. Giuliano, ed. (1989) 242, no. 173 (with figs) (with ear-lier literature); Museo Archoleogico, inv. 14656, carneliancameo, 4.7 x 3.1 cm.; A. Giuliano, ed (1989) 244, no. 174(with figs)(with earlier literature).

20 Museo Nazionale Archeologico 11021.21 T. Schäfer (1989) 149-50; T. Schäfer (1990) 187-94;

C.F. Konrad (1994) 151-62.22 C.F. Konrad (1994) 151-62.

23 R. Cagnat (1914) 173.24 Suet. Dom. 10.3.25 See, E.S. Ramage (1989) 679-80.26 On Otho’s presentation of himself as a new Nero, see,

Suet. Otho 7.3, 10.2; Tacit. Hist. 1.78; Plut. Otho 3.27 For instance, the well-known portrait in the Museo

Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori, no. 19, rejected by K.Fittschen and P. Zanker in their catalogue of the maleimperial portraits in the Musei Capitolini.

28 Ostia, Magazzini, inv. 446.29 In addition, the colossal scale of the portrait indicates

that an emperor is intended. Nero and Domitian are theonly two emperors to wear similar hairstyles, and the Ostian

chapter five108

the Temple of Hercules and has sustained con-siderable injury, including damage to both eyes,most of the nose and the lips.30 The portrait musthave been attacked and damaged after Otho’ssuicide and subsequent senatorial and praetorianrecognition of Vitellius as emperor. After itsdestruction, the portrait was doubtless thrown inthe sewer in a vehement gesture of poena postmortem and denigration of Otho’s memory. Thedisposal of the image in the sewer also recalls arelatively rare form of the abuse of corpses ofcondemned criminals and others who werestuffed into the drains leading to the Tiber.31 Inthe politically uncertain and chaotic year of thefour emperors, it would have been especiallyexpedient to disavow public honors and supportgiven an overthrown princeps and simultaneouslyaffirm loyalty to the newly recognized regime.The intentional damage and degraded form ofdisposal inflicted on the Ostian portrait effectivelyfulfills both purposes.32

Vitellius

Aulus Vitellius was born in A.D. 15. His father,Lucius Vitellius, was an important advisor toClaudius and held three consulships. Aulus Vi-

tellius, himself, held a consulship under Claudi-us in 48, and was later named proconsul to Af-rica. In 68, Galba appointed him to the com-mand of the restive troops stationed in LowerGermany. On 2 January 69, shortly after assum-ing command, Vitellius was saluted as emperorby his new forces. After Galba’s murder, Vitel-lius’s troops, under the command of FabiusValens and Aulus Caecina Alienus, marched intoItaly and defeated Otho and his troops north ofCremona. As a result, Otho committed suicideand the soldiers and Senate at Rome formallyrecognized Vitellius as the new emperor.

However, troops stationed in the east refusedto recognize Vitellius as the legitimate princeps andinstead declared in favor of Vespasian. Vitelliusmanaged to hold the capital for some time, buthis forces ultimately were either defeated by ordefected to Vespasian’s cause.33 On the 20th ofDecember 69, Vitellius was dragged to the Fo-rum and forced to suffer the indignities of acommon criminal (ceu noxii solent): he was insultedby the populace, forced to watch his statuesoverturned (cadentes statuas suas)34 pelted withdung, and finally tortured to death on theGemonian steps;35 his corpse was mutilated36 andthen dragged by a hook and thrown into theTiber (unco tractus in Tiberim), a fate reserved forthe bodies of traitors, capital offenders and vic-tims of the arena (noxii).37 Vitellius is the first

head is not a replica of any of their well-established por-trait types.

30 Although she identified the portrait as Domitian, R.Calza suggested that fragments of a colossal statue discov-ered in the Temple of Hercules originally belonged withthis head, and that together they formed a statue of theemperor in the guise of Hercules (1964) 47.

31 The portrait’s disposal recalls that of the miniaturebusts of Caligula and Domitian in the Tiber, the portraitof Nero from the Alde, or the portraits of Caligula andDomitian found in wells. In addition, the Ostian imagesdisposal in a sewer predicts the reported abuse of thecorpses of Elagabalus and Julia Soemias , which were thrustinto the sewers which led to the Tiber; HA.Elag. 17.4-7,23.7; Dio 80.20.2; Herod. 8.8.9; or the inscription ofDiadumenianus discovered in the latrine of the barracksbelonging of the Vigili in Ostia (ILS 465). D.G. Kyle (1998)223-4; E.R. Varner (2001b) 58-9.

32 As was the case with other condemned emperors ofthe first century, the destruction of Otho’s portraits in an-tiquity led to the creation of modern portraits of the em-peror, such as an example the Uffizi (inv. 1914.111).

33 During this period, Tacitus records the overturningand removal of Vitellius’s portraits set up in the camps oftroops which were considering defecting to Vespasian’s side:simul Vitelli imagines dereptae (Hist. 3.13); these portraits weresubsequently reerected: Haec singuli, haec universi, ut quemquedolor impulerat, vociferantes, initio a quinta legione orto, repositisVitelli imaginibus (Hist. 3.14).

34 Tac. Hist.3.85.35 veste discissa seminudus in Forum tractus est inter magna rerum

verborumque ludibria per totum viae Sacrae spatium, reducto comacapite, ceu noxii solent, atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto,ut visendum praeberet faciem neve summitteret; quibusdam stercoreet caeno incessentibus, aliis incendiarium et patinarium vociferantibus,parte vulgi etiam corporis vitia exprobrante; Suet. Vit.17.1-2; seealso Aur.Vict. Caes. 8.6.

36 Tac. Hist. 3.85; Et vulgus eadem pravitate insectabaturinterfectum qua foverat viventem (And the common people at-tacked his dead body with the same depravity with whichthey had cherished him while living).

37 Suet. Vit. 17.2; D.G. Kyle (1998) 219; see also J.Scheid (1984) 181-82, 185.

a.d. 69 109

Roman emperor whose corpse was publicly des-ecrated in this way and it most have been a fairlyshocking act of denigration intended to assertloyalty to his victorious rival, Vespasian.38

Vitellius’s violent and bloody end is symptom-atic of his damnatio memoriae, as is the destructionof his images.39 As troops defected to Vespasian’sside, Vitellius’s portraits were destroyed and re-placed with representations of Vespasian.40 Fur-thermore, Vitellius’s character and reign areconsistently vilified by the ancient authors, andin the Historia Augusta, he is firmly linked withother condemned emperors, including Nero,Domitian, and Elagabalus.41

Vitellius’s numismatic images depict him witha short coiffure and decidedly corpulent physi-ognomy. His forehead is low and bulges out overthe nose. The eyes are deep set, with full pouchesbeneath them. The nose is aquiline. The cheeksare very wide and fleshy and naso labial lines areindicated. Both the mouth and chin are small.The emperor is depicted with a substantialunderchin and exceedingly thick neck. Rolls offlesh appear on the back of the head and napeof the neck.

A colossal portrait of Vitellius in Copenhagenagrees closely with the details of his numismaticimages (fig. 104).42 The head is worked for in-

38 As mentioned earlier, certain members of the Sen-ate wished to throw the body of Julius Caesar in the Tiber(Suet. Iul. 82.4) and the mob had threatened to throwTiberius’s corpse in the Tiber (Suet. Tib. 75.1). Later, theSenate wished to drag the body of Commodus by a hookand throw it in the Tiber (HA Comm. 17.4; 18-19, quotingMarius Maximus; Dio 74.2.1); Elagabalus’s corpse was, infact, thrown in the Tiber (HA. Elag. 17.4-7; 23.7; Epit.Caes.23.5-7; Dio 80.20.2; Herod. 58.9).

39 Indeed, Vespasian may have felt especially virulentlytowards his defeated rival, since Vespasian’s brotherSabinus, the praefectus urbi, was killed during the siege ofthe Capitoline by Vitellian partisans in December of 68.

40 Vitelli imagines dereptae, Tac. Hist.3.13; repositis Vitelliiimaginibus, Tac. Hist. 3.14; Primores castrorum nomen atque imag-ines Vitellii amoliunutr, Tac. Hist. 3.31.2; 6"Â J`Jg :¥< JVH Jg

J@Ø ?Û4Jg88\@L gÆ6`<"H •BÎ Jä< F0:g\T< 6"2gÃ8@< 6"Â ßB@

J@Ø ?ÛgFB"F4"<@Ø •DP2ZFgF2"4 ê:@F"<, Dio 64(65).10.3.41 For example, Car. 1.3 and Elag. 1.1.42 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 655a, inv. 3167; V. Poulsen

(1974) no. 1, pls. 1-2 (with earlier literature); M. Bergmannand P. Zanker (1981) 346, 349, fig. 23c. N. Hannestad(1988) 328; D.E.E. Kleiner, (1992) 169, fig. 137. Kreiken-

bom 210, no. 3.82; F. Johansen (1995a) 24, no. 1, with figs;H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 98, fig. 44; H. Meyer(2000) 63.

43 Kestnermuseum.44 Archaeological Museum, inv. 1055.45 Rheinisches Landesmuseum, ST 5223.

sertion. It reproduces the short coiffure, lowforhead, deep set eyes, heavy facial features,double chin, thick neck and rolls of fat at the backof the neck of the coin portraits. Although theCopenhagen head is not well preserved, withdamage to the brows, nose, lips and ears andgeneral corrosion of the surfaces, there are nosigns of deliberate defacement. The portrait isalleged to have been discovered near the PiazzaColonna in Rome. Once Vespasian’s partisanshad gained control of the capital, the image wasremoved from public display in the CampusMartius and warehoused or buried. The statueinto which it had been inserted was probablyreused, through the addition of a new portrait ofVespasian or one of his sons.

As strong indications of the Flavian tendencyto appropriate and recarve the images of con-demned predecessors, three portraits of Vitellius,in Hannover (cat. 4.2; fig. 105a-b),43 Thessalonika(cat. 4.3; fig. 106a-c)44 and Trier (cat. 4.4; fig.107a-b)45 were refashioned into likenesses ofVespasian. All three retain the rolls of flesh onthe nape of the neck which betray their originsas images of the corpulent Vitellius. The Han-nover and Thessalonika portraits have been re-cut into replicas of Vespasian’s main, older type.The Thessalonika head attests to the productionof Vitellius’s portraits in Greece, as well as to theirreworking after his assassination. The Trier por-trait is also worked for insertion into a drapedstatue or bust and has been recut into Vespasian’smore youthful portrait type. Not surprisingly, theportrait confirms the dissemination of images ofVitellius in the geographical region of his initialsupport. All three portraits provided importantevidence for the repudiation of Vitellius and hisreign following his defeat by Vespasian. As withCaligula and Nero, the scarcity of extant unal-tered representations of Vitellius as a result of hiscondemnation, has spawned numerous post an-

chapter five110

tique portraits. The Grimani “Vitellius,” whichmay be a work of the 16th century, exists in sev-eral modern copies.46

Conclusion: Condemnation and Violent PoliticalTransitions

Not surprisingly, the condemnations of Galba,Otho and Vitellius followed the precedents set bythose of Caligula and Nero. Although the prin-cipates of all three were brief, they generated

commemorative monuments which were attackedand destroyed. In addition, portraits of Vitelliuswere also recycled into images of his immediatesuccessor, Vespasian.

Written accounts of the downfalls of all threeregimes stress the prominent roles which artisticrepresentations played in these periods of violentpolitical transition. Legionaries are recorded tohave destroyed and hurled stones at Galba’simages to express their dissatisfaction with hisregime. Moreover, just before his assassination,his imago was ripped from a military standard tovisually signal his overthrow. Later in A.D. 69,Vitellius would be forced to watch the destruc-tion of his portraits prior to his murder. LikeSejanus, Vitellius is forced to witness the muti-lation of his own images as a kind of artistic pre-enactment of the desecration of his corpse, whichwas abused by the populace and eventuallythrown into the Tiber.

46 Venice, Museo Archeologico, inv. 20, h. 0.48 m; G.Traversari (1968) 63-64, no. 43, figs. 44a-d; S. Bailey (1975)105-22, and n. 22; I. Favoretto and G.L. Ravagna, eds.(1997) 156, no. 18; J. Fejfer (1997) 10-11, fig. 12. See alsoa modern copy in the Palazzo Colonna (fid. no. 15); F.Carinci, H. Keutner, L. Musso, M.G. Picozzi, eds. (1990)133-5, no. 71, with fig.

domitian 111

Domitian follows Nero as the second emperor tosuffer an officially mandated damnatio memoriae.Titus Flavius Domitianus was born on 24 Octo-ber A.D. 51 on the Quirinal in Rome, the sec-ond surviving son of the future emperor TitusFlavius Vespasianus and Flavia Domitilla Maior.1

During the reigns of his father Vespasian (69-79)and brother Titus (79-81) Domitian held presti-gious, though largely ceremonial positions: caesar,princeps iunventutis; consul ordinarius (73 and 80) andconsul suffectus (71, 75, 76, 77 and 79).2

Domitian succeeded to the principate after thepremature death of Titus on 13 September 81.3

Domitian was a gifted administrator and capablegeneral, but his reign, like those of Caligula andNero, was marred by serious conflicts with theSenate exacerbated by his increasingly autocraticbehavior.4 Overt signs of Domitian’s more mo-narchical approach to the principate included hisassumption of the title censor perpetuus in 85, hissalutation as dominus et deus,5 and the renamingof September and October as Germanicus andDomitianus in his honor.6

As a result of his despotic behavior and ruth-less persecution of the senatorial aristocracy,

Domitian was assassinated on 18 September 96.7

His own wife, Domitia Longina, was implicatedin the plot.8 The soldiers, with whom he hadremained popular, called for Domitian’s imme-diate deification and the punishment of his as-sassins, but the Senate defied their wishes andinstead voted to erase his inscriptions and abol-ish his memory: novissime eradendos ubique titulosabolendamque omnem memoriam decerneret.9 By thefourth century, Domitian had become the para-digm of the condemned tyrant, and Lactantiuscategorically states that even the memory ofDomitian’s name was erased (memoria nominis eiuserasa est) and supplies a powerful motivation forDomitian’s condemnation, stating that the Sen-ate intended that absolutely no vestige of theemperor’s images or titles would remain: nequeimaginum neque titulorum eius relinqueret ulla vestigia.10

Despite the damnatio, Domitian’s nurse, Phyllis,cremated his body at her villa suburbana on theVia Latina and secretly deposited the ashes at thetemple of the Flavian gens on the Quirinal adja-cent to the house where Domitian had beenborn.11 The burial of Domitian’s corpse by hisnurse directly recalls the burial of Nero by hisnurses, Alexandria and Eclogue.

Domitian’s Portrait Typology

Suetonius records the following details of Domi-tian’s physical appearance:

CHAPTER SIX

DOMITIAN

1 Suet. Dom. 1.1.2 On Domitian’s career under Vespasian and Titus, see

B.W. Jones (1992) 18-21.3 Suet. Titus 11. Domitian was not officially acclaimed

by the Senate until 14 September, CIL 6.2060 and B.W.Jones (1992) 20-21.

4 On Domitian’s relations with the Senate, see, B.W.Jones (1979).

5 censor perpetuus: Dio 67.4.3-4; B.W. Jones (1992) 76,106-7; dominus et deus: Suet. Dom. 13.2; Dio 67.13.3-4; DioChrys. 45.1; Aur.Vict. Caes. 11.2; Epit.Caes. 11.6; Eutr. 7.23;Orosius 7.10; and B.W. Jones (1992) 107-9, suggesting thatthe term was not official (it is not attested epigraphically),but used by flatterers and perpetuated by later hostilesources.

6 Suet. Dom. 13.3.

7 Suet. Dom. 17; J.D. Grainger (2003) 1-3.8 Suet. Dom. 14.1; see also E.R. Varner (1995) 202-3.9 Suet. Dom. 23.1.10 De Mort.Pers. 3.2-3. See also P. Stewart (1999) 181.11 Suet. Dom. 17.3. Remains of both the house and the

temple have been identified beneath the modern Casermadei Corazzieri on the Via XX Settembre, F. Coarelli (1997)273 and P. Davies (2000) 2, 24, 27, 104, 150-58.

chapter six112

Statura fuit procera, vultu modesto ruborisque pleno,grandibus oculis, verum acie hebetiore; praeterea pulcherac decens, maxime in iuventa...postea calvito quoquedeformis et obesitate ventris et crurum gracilitate, quae tamenei valitudine longa remacruerant.12

His stature was tall, and he had a modest de-meanor, with a ruddy complexion. His eyes werelarge, but, in fact, his vision was rather weak.Moreover, he was fair and handsome, especiallyin his youth...later, he suffered the deformities ofbaldness, a protruding stomach, and skinny legs,which had indeed grown thin as a result of pro-tracted sickness.

As in his unflattering descriptions of Caligula andNero, Suetonius’s inclusion of unpleasant phys-ical details such as weak eyes, bloated stomach,baldness and skinny legs, rely heavily on contem-porary physiognomical theory and are carefullyconstructed as negative physical reflections of theprinceps’ flawed moral character. In contrast,numismatic and sculpted portraits, as officiallysanctioned works commissioned during Domi-tian’s lifetime, portray him with handsome facialfeatures. Domitian’s later portraits do, however,include a coiffure in which the hair is combeddirectly forward from the occiput, perhaps in aneffort to cover the baldness mentioned by Sue-tonius.

Domitian’s sculpted and coin portraits can bedivided into three types.13 His earliest portraittype appears on coins from A.D. 72-75, intendedto celebrate his position as Caesar underVespasian. Domitian is depicted with a full, curlycoiffure. The curving locks over the forehead arecombed from right to left, and a portion of theselocks sometimes reverse their orientation over theright eye. Domitian’s nose is hooked like that ofhis father and the face is broad. The mouth islong, with a full slightly receding lower lip. Thechin is firm and square

A second portrait type is attested on coins from75 until Domitian’s accession in 81. In this type,the coiffure is similar to that of the first, but the

hair is curlier over the forehead and recedesslightly at the temples. Some of these locks areoften treated as full corkscrew curls. The hairover the forehead maintains the right to leftorientation of the first portrait type, but, insculpted examples, any locks which reverse theirorientation appear over the left eye instead of theright. The facial features are somewhat heavierand generally more mature.

The third and final type first occurs on coinsin A.D. 81 and was conceived to mark Domitian’saccession to the principate. Long strands of hairare now brushed forward from the occiput andare arranged in a series of waves over the top ofthe head, recalling Nero’s coma in gradus formatahairstyles. The curving locks over the foreheadretain the right to left orientation of the first types,but they are much more meticulously arrangedand the hair over the left temple reverses itsdirection. The artful arrangement of this coiffureevokes Nero’s last two hairstyles with their strongassociations with luxuria and may also reflect thetreatise Domitian is known to have written onhair care.14

The Mutilation and Destruction of Domitian’s Portraits

Pliny the Younger provides a vivid and dramat-ic description of the destruction of Domitian’sportraits.

Illae autem aureae et innumerabiles strage ac ruina pub-lico gaudio et litaverunt. Iuvabat illidere solo superbissimosvultus, instare ferro, saevire securibus, ut si singulos ictussanguis dolorque sequeretur. Nemo tam temperans gaudiiseraeque laetitiae, quin instar ultionis videretur cernerelaceros artus truncata membra, postremo truces horendasqueimagines obiectas excoctasque flammis, ut ex illo terroreet minis in usum hominum ac voluptates ignibusmutarentur.15

However, his [Domitian’s] countless golden stat-ues, in a heap of rubble and ruin, were offeredas fitting sacrifice to the public joy. It was a delightto smash those arrogant faces to pieces in the dust,to threaten them with the sword, and savagely12 Suet. Dom. 18.1.

13 On Domitian’s portrait typology see, M. Wegner, G.Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 30-42, 97-108; M.Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 349-70; Fittschen-ZankerI, 35-37, nos. 31-33; W. Grünhagen (1986) 312-21.

14 Suet. Dom. 18.2.15 Pan. 52.4-5.

domitian 113

attack them with axes, as if blood and pain wouldfollow every single blow. No one controlled theirjoy and long awaited happiness, when vengeancewas taken in beholding his likenesses hacked intomutilated limbs and pieces, and above all, in seeinghis savage and hideous portraits hurled into theflames and burned up, in order that they mightbe transformed from things of such terror andmenace into something useful and pleasing.

Pliny’s account is striking for its anthropomorphicdepiction of Domitian’s images as living beingscapable of suffering pain; their savage mutilationrepresents the collective destruction of the em-peror himself in effigy. Pliny also emphasizes thetransformation of Domitian’s images into usefuland pleasing objects. Pliny’s account, however,is hardly unbiased and is embedded within theframework of a panegyric to Trajan who is de-picted by contemporary authors as the directantithesis of the tyrannical Domitian. As a mem-ber of the senatorial aristocracy, Pliny is presum-ably writing for an elite, primarily male audience,many of whom would have had family members,or been themselves persecuted under Domitian.Pliny represents the entire Roman populace aswilling participants in the destruction of Domi-tian’s monuments, when, in fact, certain segmentsof the society, including the military, and lowerclass inhabitants of Rome, did not perceiveDomitian in the same negative light as the elite.

The Equus Domitiani, a colossal bronze stat-ue located at the western end of the Roman Fo-rum between the Basilica Aemilia and the Basil-ica Julia, was the most celebrated and prominentof Domitian’s public images.16 Memorialized byStatius as one of the great artistic achievementsof the reign, the portrait, dedicated in 91, depict-ed Domitian with his right hand outstretched ina gesture of clementia (dextra vetat pugnas), while hisleft hand supported an image of his patron de-ity Minerva holding the head of Medusa.17 Thehorse’s foreleg was raised over a personificationof the Rhine, in commemoration of Domitian’sGerman victories. As a colossal monument toDomitian’s accomplishments in the heart of the

Roman Forum, the statue must have been oneof the first portraits to be melted down in thedestruction of images recorded by Pliny.18

As was the case with Caligula and Nero, ar-chaeological evidence for the intentional muti-lation of Domitian’s images is rare. However, twolittle known Domitianic reliefs in the Antiquariumof the Villa Barberini at Castel Gandalfo (cat. 5.2;fig. 108a-b)19 and Anacapri (cat. 5.1)20 appear tohave been deliberately vandalized in antiquity.The Castel Gandalfo relief preserves the uppersections of a cuirassed torso, including a muti-lated head, whose facial features have been en-tirely disfigured by a claw chisel. Despite itsdestruction, surviving remnants of the coiffure onthe side of the head secure an identification ofthe figure as Domitian, in a reflection of his thirdportrait type.21 The background of the reliefcontains indications of wings, likely belonging toa figure of victory. The combination of victoryfigure with cuirassed emperor raises the strongpossibility that the relief is historical, commemo-rating the military achievements of Domitian’sreign.22 The relief and the monument it originallydecorated almost certainly derive from the Villaof Domitian located in the grounds and substruc-tures of the modern Villa Barberini at CastelGandalfo.23

At the proper right of the Anacapri relief, afigure dressed in the garb of the traveling im-perator (tunica and paludamentum) gestures with hisoutstretched right hand. This figure’s larger scaleand his costume identify him as an emperor.

16 C.P. Giuliani in E. Steinby, ed. (1995) 228-9 (withearlier literature); F. Coarelli (1997) 83.

17 Stat. Sil. 1.1.32-60.

18 Archaeological evidence suggests that the Domitianicbase may have remained in place after the emperor’s over-throw, perhaps supporting a subsequent equestrian monu-ment of Septimius Severus, the Equus Severi; C.P. Giulianiin E. Steinby, ed. (1995)228-9.

19 Antiquario.20 Museo della Torre.21 F. Magi (1968-69) 140-41. P. Liverani has suggested

that the destruction of the portrait features was more prac-tical in nature and may have been occasioned by the block’sreuse as building material, (1989a) 17.

22 P. Liverani (1989a) 17-18. F. Magi has suggested aceiling panel in the bay of an arch dedicated to Domitianand cites the panel from the Arch of Trajan at Beneventoas a possible parallel (1968-69) 144.

23 See P. Liverani (1989a).

chapter six114

Minerva stands to his right, glancing back at him.At the emperor’s left is a lictor in tunic andmantle and to the lictor’s left, is the goddessRoma, flanked by a second lictor, followed by thefront half of a horse and a cuirassed soldier.Strong correspondences with frieze A of theCancelleria Reliefs (cat. 5.17), the prominenceDomitian’s patron deity Minerva, and the full,curly coiffure of the lictor at Roma’s left suggesta Domitianic date for the Anacapri relief and anidentification of the imperial figure as Domitianhimself.24 After Domitian’s damnatio, the reliefappears to have been vandalized and the headof Domitian destroyed. The original context ofthe relief is unknown, but it may be from thevicinity of Naples. If so, the relief would be con-sonant with other important public monumentscelebrating Domitian on the bay of Naples in-cluding the bronze equestrian statue reconfiguredas Nerva at Misenum and the honorific inscrip-tion from Pozzuoli (cat. 5.7).25

Other Domitianic monuments were intention-ally mutilated and include cuirassed torsos inRome (cat. 5.3),26 Princeton (fig. 109),27 andOsimo.28 Like the Castel Gandalfo and Anacaprireliefs, the torso in Rome contains a damagedrelief portrait of Domitian. The unusual gorgo-neion and aegis on the upper section of the cui-rass indicate that the statue was originally com-bined with a likeness of Domitian.29 The cuirass

depicts the goddess Fortuna and Domitian,dressed in a tunica and paludamentum.30 In apotent act of denigration, the emperor’s portraitfeatures have been almost entirely removed, ashas the head of his tutelary goddess.

Although they do not contain portraits ofDomitian, the reliefs decorating the cuirasses inPrinceton and Osimo have also been deliberatelydisfigured. The Princeton torso depicts an icono-graphically complex scene of two Victoriescrowning a trophy with a bound German cap-tive, referring to Domitian’s victory over theChatti.31 As a way of posthumously disparagingDomitian’s military triumphs, the heads of bothVictories on the Princeton torso were attackedwith chisels, as well as some or the figures on thelappets.32 The heads of the victories on theOsimo cuirass have also been similarly removed.The disfigurement of the Victories strongly re-calls the similar mutilation under Marius of themonument of Sulla set up by the Mauretanianking Bocchus on the Capitoline.33 The vandal-ization of these three cuirasses is all the morestriking in that it rendered them unsuitable forfuture reuse and were thus economically expen-sive expressions of dissatisfaction with Domitian’sregime.

None of Domitian’s sculpted portraits exhibitthe kind of systematic and intentional mutilationof the facial features seen in the images of Neroin Cagliari and Cos (cat. 2.1-2). However, thefragmentary nature of the portrait of Nero re-worked to Domitian and later incorporated intoa modern representation of Nero (cat. 2.51),suggests that it was attacked in much the samemanner as the fragmentary portrait of Caligulain Aquileia (cat. 1.1; fig. 3), or the fragmentaryimages of Nero in Syracuse (cat. 2.3; fig. 43) andVienne (cat. 2.5; fig. 44).34

24 The relief is too poorly preserved to determinewhether it reproduces the scene represented in Frieze A(Domitian’s dedication of weapons to Jupiter OptimusMaximus after the Sarmatian campaign in 93) or whetherit is a scene of imperial adventus, as F. Magi has suggested(1954-55) 47-54.

25 On these monuments, see infra.26 Rome, Art Market.27 The Art Museum, inv. 84-2, h. 1.2 m.; Sotheby’s,

London, Catalogue of Antiquities (15 July 1980) lot no. 207;Record of the Art Museum, Princeton University 44.1 (1985) 45-46, with figs.; R. Gergel (1986) 3-15, figs. 1-4, 7-9, 14-18;R. Gergel (1994) , fig. 12.11; E.R. Varner in E.R. Varner,ed. (2000) 162-63, no. 36, with figs; E.R. Varner (2001) 49,fig. 1; H. Meyer in J.M. Padgett, ed. (2001) 27-33, no.7.

28 Commune, K. Stemmer (1978) 174, no. 328.29 The aegis and gorgoneion have close parallels to the

bronze equestrian statue of Domitian reworked to Nervafrom Miseno (Baia, Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegreinel Castello di Baia, 155743).

30 K. Stemmer (1978) 113.31 For an explication of the imagery, see R. Gergel

(1986) 3-15.32 R. Gergel (1986) 7.33 Palazzo dei Conservatori (Braccio Nuovo, inv. 2750).34 Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 14,

inv. 427. As mentioned above, the ancient fragmentconsists of the forehead, eyes, nose, left cheek and upperlip.

domitian 115

Domitian’s portrait, name and titles have alsobeen attacked and effaced from an as from Cibyrain Phrygia (fig. 110).35 The obverse originally de-picted facing busts of Domitian and Domitia.Domitian’s image and identifying legend (DOMI-TIANOS KAISAR) have been removed from thecoin with a chisel and stands in stark contrast tothe untouched portrait of his wife. The Phrygiancoin is a unique example of the defacement ofDomitian’s numismatic likenesses. As with theearlier defaced coins of Caligula and Nero, andlater with those of Geta, the Domitianic coin waslikely altered by a private individual or soldier.Like the mutilated coinage of Caligula and Nero,the defacement of the Cibyra as is probably anisolated and spontaneous act, expressive of dis-content with the overthrown emperor and sup-port of the new regime.

The Transformation of Domitian’s Images

Domitian/Nerva

Continuing the patterns of reuse established forrepresentations of Caligula and Nero, images ofDomitian were commonly transformed into like-nesses of his immediate successors Nerva andTrajan. Fourteen of Domitian’s portraits, a sub-stantial majority, were altered to represent Ner-va. The number is all the more startling in thatit represents approximately 82% of Nerva’s ex-tant images, standing as a salient reminder of theiconographic impact of sculptural reuse.

Nerva enjoyed only one portrait type duringhis brief reign. Nerva was 66 at the time of hisaccession; coins and his three unreworked marbleportraits reflect his age and depict him with a fullhead of hair with thick, curling locks.36 Thecoiffure is arranged over the forehead in three

distinct sections, with the locks usually partedover both the left and right eye. The foreheaditself is unusually high and narrow, with hollowtemples. Nerva’s distinctive nose is long andhooked. Strong naso-labial lines further empha-size his maturity. In addition to a basic discrep-ancy in age (Nerva was approximately twentyyears older than Domitian), Nerva’s physiognomydiffers radically from that of Domitian, diverg-ing in almost every particular: Nerva’s face is longand thin, where Domitian’s is more full andsquare; Nerva’s eyes are small, where Domitian’sare long and wide; Nerva’s nose is thin and in-cludes a very pronounced hook, whereas Domi-tian’s is wider, less hooked and tends to be moreaquiline; and Nerva’s neck is long and thin, witha pronounced Adam’s apple, where Domitian’sneck is shorter and stockier, often without anyadam’s apple indicated. Despite the enormoustechnical problems which the differing facialstructures presented to sculptors, Domitian’simages were nonetheless routinely altered intoimages of the new princeps.

Portraits of Nerva which have been reworkedfrom Domitian’s likenesses naturally containdetails of physiognomy, coiffure, or even stylewhich differentiate them from the unreworkedimages. In a full length statue of Nerva as Jupi-ter in Copenhagen, Domitian’s type 3 coiffure hasbeen only slightly modified through the additionof a second row of locks over the forehead (cat.5.9; fig. 111a-e).37 The statue is carved from asingle block of marble and depicts the emperorstanding with hip mantle. Although naso-labiallines have been added to the face, and the chinhas been substantially cut down to endow it withNerva’s narrower, more pointed shape, the re-sulting image is a youthful and idealized depic-tion of the emperor. A portrait of Nerva in Ber-lin, part of a colossal seated image of the emperoras Jupiter also retains recognizable elements ofthe original Domitianic coiffure (cat. 5.8).38 Bothsculptures bear witness to the production and

35 Berlin; R. Mowat (1901) 450-51, pl. 10.1; K. Regling(1904) 144; K. Harl (1987), pl.12.1 .

36 The three unreworked portraits are in Copenhagen,Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 668, inv. 772 (F. Johansen [1995a]88, no. 31, with figs); Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, inv.1914.132 (G.A. Mansuelli [1961] 77, no. 79, fig. 75; Rome,Musei Vaticani, Cortile Ottagono 101a, inv. 975 (G.Spinola [1996] 47-8, no. PE 40).

37 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 542, inv. 1454.38 Schloss Klein-Glienicke, inv. G1 324.

chapter six116

dissemination of representation of Domitian asJupiter (recalling Statius’s evocation of Domitianas Jupiter Ausonius), as well as Nerva’s willing-ness to appropriate such divine imagery.39

Other recarved marble representations ofNerva also exhibit a more idealizing, less idio-syncratic handling of the facial features whencompared to his numismatic and unaltered por-traits and have clearly retained physiognomic andstylistic aspects of the Domitianic originals. In-deed, a recut portrait in the Sala dei Busti of theVatican is the most idealizing of Nerva’s surviv-ing sculpted images (cat. 5.18; fig. 112a-b).40

Domitian’s type 3 hairstyle, swept forward fromthe occiput is clearly visible on the back and sidesof the head. Very shallow naso-labial lines havebeen added and modifications to the eyes, nose,and mouth have resulted in certain asymmetri-calities endowing the portrait with faint traces ofverism, but the smoothly modeled surfaces andcrisply delineated details of the likeness, combineto make this Nerva’s most classicizing and youth-ful image.

Although not as idealized as the Sala dei Bustihead, recut portraits in the Museo Capitolino(cat. 5.14; fig. 113a-d),41 Holkham Hall (cat. 5.10;fig. 114), and the Palazzo dei Conservatori (cat.5.20; fig. 115a-e)42 are remarkable for theiryouthful portrayal of the elderly emperor. Theportrait in the Museo Capitolino is unusual inthat it has been recut from a replica of Domitian’sfirst portrait type, retaining much its youthfulness.Evidence of Domitian’s first hairstyle is still vis-ible at the back of the head. Signs of aging whichhave been added to the portrait are superficialand consist of light furrows on the forehead andnaso-labial lines. The square shape of theHolkham Hall head and the portrait’s smooth,classicizing aspect are also clear indications of itsorigins as a representation of Domitian. The head

is reputedly from sixteenth century excavationsat Tivoli. The Palazzo dei Conservatori portraitalso has retained much of the character of theoriginal Domitianic likeness. Remnants ofDomitian’s type 3 coiffure are evident at the backof the head and the forehead, brows, and eyesessentially remain intact from Domitian’s portrait.Very light crows’ feet have been added at theouter corners of both eyes. Like the HolkhamHall head, the square shape of the face is unchar-acteristic of Nerva’s portraits and is a stark re-minder of the limitations imposed by the origi-nal likeness of Domitian. All three portraits arefrom the environs of Rome and underscore thefrequency with which Domitian’s images were re-fashioned into youthful representations of Nervain the capital.

The recutting of a fifth portrait from Rome,now in the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme has re-sulted in a more emphatically modeled likenesswhich exhibits stylistic features foreign to Nerva’sother images (cat. 5.15; fig. 116a-d).43 The headis well over life-sized and is worked for insertioninto a togate statue. In an effort to obliterate alltrace of Domitian’s coiffure, the individual locksof Nerva’s hair have been dramatically undercutand deeply drilled, resulting in an exuberant playof light and shadow. The recarving of the browshas given them a more emphatic, calligraphiccurve, and has caused deep pockets of shadowto surround the eyes. The resulting sculpturaleffects are reminiscent of later baroque sculptureand have led the portrait to be incorrectly con-demned as a modern.

Although their provenances are unknown, twoadditional recarved likenesses of Nerva in Stutt-gart (cat. 5.21)44 and formerly in Leipzig (cat.5.11; fig. 117)45 achieve only superficial signs ofaging. The Stuttgart portrait is said to be of Greekmarble; Domitian’s type 3 hairstyle has survivedbehind both ears and the eyes have retained theirlength from the original likeness. The bust with

39 Silv. 4.18. The literary reference may, however, beironic, intended for an audience hostile to Domitian. Onthe problems of interpretation see: B.W. Jones (1992) 31-2 and E.R. Varner, (1995) 201, n. 73.

40 Sala dei Busti 317, inv. 674.41 Stanza degli Imperatori, inv. 417.42 Sala Verde, inv. 423.

43 Inv. 318.44 Württembergisches Landesmuseum, inv. arch. 68/3.45 Archäologisches Institut der Universität (now de-

stroyed).

domitian 117

paludamentum formerly in Leipzig preserves thedeep waves of Domitian’s type 3 coiffure almostin their entirety. In fact, only the hair immedi-ately over the forehead has been recconfigured.As in the other recarved youthful images ofNerva, signs of aging are limited to the naso-labiallines.

An additional full length portrait of Nerva inParma stands as an extremely unusual exampleof an image subjected to two separate stages ofrecutting (cat. 2.50; cat. 5.13; fig. 61a-e).46 As al-ready noted, this cuirassed statue originally rep-resented Nero and came from the cycle of por-traits decorating the Julio-Claudian Basilica atVelleiea. After Nero’s death, the image wasrecarved into a likeness of Domitian. Subsequentto Domitian’s damnatio, the portrait features wereagain recut, this time into Nerva’s likeness. Thedouble recarving has resulted in an awkward andaberrational likeness of Nerva. As a result of thesubstantial reduction in sculptural volume, thecurrent modeling of the likeness fails to give acoherent sense of the organic structure underly-ing the face. In its final form as an image ofNerva, the portrait stands in striking contrast tothe classicizing and naturalistic handling of thecuirassed body into which it is inserted. The hairof the portrait has been overworked to such anextent that only the faintest trace of Domitian’scoiffure remains, likely from his first portraittype.47 Further support for an identification of thesecondary likeness as a type 1 replica of Domitianis provided by a fragmentary inscription from theBasilica originally honoring Domitian as princepsiuventutis and subsequently recut to commemorateDivus Nerva.48 The recutting of the inscriptionparallels the recarving of the image and Nerva’scommemoration as divus in the inscription indi-cates that, if the recutting of the inscription andportrait are contemporary, then the alterationstook place no earlier than 98, at least seventeen

months after Domitian’s assassination. Becauseof its sculptural anomalies the Parma image in-sists on its identity as a reconfigured likeness andit may have been deliberately conceived as a rec-ognizable sculptural record of two phases ofpolitical transformation and transition.

The enigmatic appearance of a seated statueof an emperor as Jupiter in Lucera is also likelythe result of multiple reworkings, one of whichmay have been a transformation from Domitianto Nerva (fig. 118a-b).49 The statue preserves theupper torso and left arm, but all of the portraitfeatures, including the coiffure, ears and face,have been entirely eradicated and all that remainsof the head is a cylinder of marble roughlyworked over with a point. The treatment of themusculature and drapery has similarities with theseated Jupiter statues from Caere and may indi-cate that piece was originally created in the laterJulio-Claudian period.50 Scant traces of a curlsstill visible just above the remains of a fillet at theback of the head, however, are not consonantwith the comma-shaped locks which make upJulio-Claudian hairstyles, but are more charac-teristic of Flavian coiffures. Perhaps like theParma statue, the original image representedNero and was subsequently reworked to Domit-ian. If so, after Domitian’s overthrow, the avail-able marble in the area of the head may havebeen deemed insufficient to recarve into Nerva,and so the head was roughened for the adher-ence of new stucco facial features. This solutionwould be unique among refashioned imperialimages and may be the result of the paucity ofmarble in the area around Lucera.51 The sculp-ture was discovered in the remains of baths, andevidently continued to be displayed there afterits transformation.

Sculptors could also choose to suppress theyouthful, classicizing aspects of the originalDomitianic portrait and create supra-realistic

46 Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 146 (1870), inv.827 (1954).

47 A majority of Domitian’s type I portraits have beenrecarved from portraits of Nero.

48 CIL 11.1172, 1173; C.C. Vermeule (1959) 47, no.113; H. Gabelmann (1971) 733; K.P. Goethert (1972) 245;C. Saletti (1972) 188; H. Jucker (1977) 212-3.

49 Lucera, Museo Civico, inv. 25, h. 1.64 m.; M.Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 318, fig. 1; G. Legrottaglie(1999) 123-29, pl. 35 (with earlier lieterature).

50 C. Maderna (1988) 175; G. Legrottaglie (1999) 125-7.

51 G. Legrottaglie (1999) 127-8.

chapter six118

likenesses of the aged Nerva. It is not surprising,then, that Nerva’s most veristic image, in LosAngeles, has been recut from a representation ofDomitian, recalling the realistic portraits ofClaudius recut from Caligula, and of Vespasianrecut from Nero (cat. 5.12; fig. 119a-d).52 Thehair over the forehead has been recarved, as evi-denced by the sharp straight line which runsalong the current hairline. Domitian’s type 3coiffure remains above the left temple, behind theright ear, and on the top of the head and belowthe occiput. The striking asymmetricalitiespresent in the facial features have resulted fromthe image’s extensive sculptural alterations. Ac-centuated indications of age added to the por-trait include heavy pouches beneath both eyes,conspicuous crow’s-feet wrinkles and substantialnaso-labial lines. Even the neck has been refash-ioned and a deep furrow added on the right sideand Nerva’s adam’s apple carved into the exist-ing mass. The transformation of the Getty por-trait has resulted in a veristic image of Nervaremarkable for its exaggerated effects of aging.Nevertheless, recognizable signs of the image’sprevious identity are still strongly present in thereconfigured likeness, most notably in the coif-fure, and the relatively smooth and unlined fore-head which contrasts with the emphatic signs ofage in the lower face. The portrait is constructedof three pieces of marble, with the back and topof the head separately attached. Significantly theartist who refashioned the image did not chooseto replace these pieces, which are essentiallyunaltered segments of Domtian’s coiffure.

A heavily restored statue of Nerva in the SalaRotonda of the Vatican, reworked from an ear-lier representation of Domitian, achieves similarveristic effects of aging (cat. 5.19; fig. 120a-b).53

The ancient sections of the statue, consisting ofthe head and torso belonged to a seated imagedepicting the emperor as Jupiter. Although thehairline over the forehead has been recarved sothat it recedes as in Nerva’s coiffure, individualdetails are not well articulated. Remnants of

Domitian’s type 3 coiffure are discernible behindthe left ear. In order to imbue the portrait withemphatic signs of aging, the temples have beendrastically recut, making them exaggeratedlyhollow, and deep furrows have been added to theforehead.54 Again, the classicizing, youthful ele-ments of the Domitianic likeness have been en-tirely obliterated by the new veristic indicationsof aging. The portrait juxtaposes Nerva’s realis-tic, middle aged physiognomy with the divinebody type of Jupiter and, like the portraits inCopenhagen and Berlin, attests to the dissemi-nation of images of Domitian as Jupiter, and theirsubsequent expropriation by Nerva.

Another recarved portrait of Nerva now in thePalazzo Massimo alle Terme, from Tivoli, em-phasizes realistic details of aging (cat. 5.16; fig.121a-d).55 Traces of Domitian’s third coiffure,combed forward from the occiput, are clearlyvisible on both sides of the head. Horizontalfurrows have been added to the forehead andvertical creases carved above the nose. In addi-tion, deep naso-labial lines have been carvedaround the mouth. Like the Getty image, thisexaggerated realism underscores the care whichwas taken to obliterate all trace of Domitian’smore youthful and classicizing countenance fromthe recarved likeness. The portrait was discov-ered at the Temple of Hercules Victor complexat Tivoli in the excavations of an apsidal halloriginally dedicated to Augustus.56 This find-spotsuggests that the reworked image, and perhapsthe Domitianic original, should be associated withthe imperial cult.

The political implications inherent in the re-worked veristic representations of Nerva areclear. Not only do they visually distance Nervafrom his condemned friend and predecessor,effectively subsuming the classicizing and youthfulaspects of the Domitianic originals, but they alsoplay to senatorial sympathies for the republican

52 J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 83.AA.43.53 No. 548, inv. 246.

54 Deeply hollow temples are a hallmark of Nerva’s threeunreworked likenesses and are especially apparent in thereplicas in the Cortile Ottagono of the Vatican (101 a, inv.975) and the Uffizi (inv. 1914.132).

55 Inv. 106538.56 On the portrait’s discovery, see V. Pacifici (1920) 91-

3, figs. 8-9.

domitian 119

past. Nerva’s former position as an imperialamicus of Domitian certainly necessitated his re-pudiation of Domitian’s memory, and is ex-pressed in visual terms by the revival of repub-lican verism evident in many of his reworkedimages.57 Verism had been used in exactly thesame way by Claudius and Vespasian to visuallydistance themselves from Caligula and Nero.

Certainly the most well documented image ofNerva to have been refashioned from a preex-isting likeness of Domitian is that from frieze Aof the Cancelleria reliefs (cat. 5.17; fig. 122a-b).58

Given the unknown (and probably unknowable)fate of Julia on the Ara Pacis, as well as the lackof iconographic context for the Neronian reliefportraits recarved to Domitian (cat. 2.54) andAugustus (cat. 2.8), the Cancelleria reliefs pro-vide the first unambiguous evidence for thereconfiguration of imperial likenesses on Romanhistorical reliefs. Domitian’s deeply waved hair-style is still strikingly visible in the frieze and hasonly been cursorily altered. The facial featureshave also been modified; as in the three-dimen-sional portraits, a naso-labial line has been addedas an indication of Nerva’s age. Nevertheless, thelikeness retains much of the fuller, more rectan-gular facial structure of Domitian. The overallreduction in the volume of the head has renderedit disproportionately small in comparison theemperor’s body and illustrates the great difficul-ties peculiar to recutting portraits in relief. Al-though the Cancelleria reliefs are much larger inscale, they present similar problems to those ofcameos: namely, that the surfaces available forrecarving are extremely limited.

The interpretation of the relief, and even itsdate, have proven problematic. The emperor,dressed in the tunic and paludamentum of the trav-eling Roman general, appears together withMinerva, Mars, Roma, Victoria, the GeniusSenatus, the Genius Populi Romani, lictors andsoldiers with ceremonial shields and spears.

Minerva’s gesture of touching Domitian’s elbowhas led to the predominant interpretation of thisscene as an imperial profectio with Minerva urg-ing the reluctant Domitian to leave the city andset out for his German campaigns. However, thisinterpretation is extremely unsatisfactory as it ishighly unlikely that Domitian would have beenportrayed in so unflattering a light. Rather, F.Ghedini’s proposal that the scene depicts Domi-tian’s reditus from the Sarmatian campaign inA.D. 93 is surely correct.59 At that time, Domitianrefused a triumph, but made a dedication (donamilitaria) to Jupiter Capitolinus in gratitude for hismilitary victories. The ceremonial nature of thespears and shields which the soldiers carry un-derscore that the occasion depicted is the impend-ing donation to Jupiter Capitolinus rather thanan emperor and his army setting out for battle.60

In fact, Ghedini has plausibly suggested that thefigures move towards Jupiter himself who wouldhave completed the relief in the missing rightsection. Thus, the relief is a commemoration ofDomitian’s actual return to Rome in 93 and asubtle and symbolic celebration of the emperor’svictories, his modesty in refusing a triumph, andhis pietas as evidenced by the dona militaria. Thedeities who accompany Domitian further under-score his imperial virtues and his exalted status.Domitian’s reditus and his refusal of honors havestriking, and deliberate, parallels in the two reditåsof Augustus in 19 and 13 B.C.61

Domitian, in this case not recarved, also ap-pears in Frieze B, the companion relief to FriezeA. This panel is more fragmentary than its coun-terpart, but Domitian, in a replica of his firstportrait type, is depicted together with his fatherVespasian.62 Behind Vespasian appears the god-

57 On Nerva’s prominent position at the court ofDomitian and his pro-Domitianic sympathies, see B.W.Jones (1992) 52-3.

58 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano.

59 (1986) 292-97.60 F. Ghedini (1986) 294.61 For a full explication of Domitian’s adoption of

Augustan propaganda and models, see F. Ghedini (1986)300-302.

62 The most recent suggestions concerning the contentof frieze B rest on the hypothesis that the portrait ofVespasian has been recut from an original representationof Domitian. In order to maintain this hypothesis, the fig-ure of the youth cannot be identified as Domitian. Theexact correspondences of the youth’s physiognomy andcoiffure with Domitian’s first portrait type, as well as the

chapter six120

dess victory, crowning the emperor, and sur-rounded by soldiers and lictors. Between theimperial pair, the Genius Populi Romani standson a square plinth, and behind Domitian are theGenius Senatus, lictors, soldiers, and finallyvestals. Vespasian’s gesture of greeting confirmsthat the scene depicts his initial entry into Romewhich did not occur until September of 70.Domitian welcomes his father, having acted asa kind of legate at the capital from December toSeptember. Frieze B forms a perfect complementto Frieze A. Both depict the triumphant returnsof the princepes to Rome and underscore the virtusof the Flavian gens and the parallel positions offather and son. In frieze A, foreign conflicts havebeen successfully overcome, and in frieze B, civilstrife brought to an end.

There are no clear indications that the Can-celleria reliefs were ever set up. They were dis-covered in 1937 leaning against a wall of thetomb of Aulus Hirtius, together with other sculp-tural fragments beneath the Palazzo dellaCancelleria. The area may have been used inantiquity as storage for a sculptor’s workshop,which often occur in close proximity to burialsites or in populous urban areas.63 Indeed, thisentire area of the city has been described by A.Claridge as a “marble workers’ quarter.”64 The

iconography of both friezes, strongly suggests thatthey were intended for the Temple of FortunaRedux, which Domitian vowed at the time of hisreturn from the Sarmatian campaign in 93 andwhich was constructed in the Campus Martius.65

However, they may not have been in place at thetime of Domitian’s assassination in 96. Therecarving of Nerva’s portrait was never com-pleted, as evinced by the unarticulated locks overthe forehead. The recutting was likely interruptedby Nerva’s own death in 98. Clearly, there wasno longer enough marble to recarve the portraitfeatures a second time. In addition, the specific-ity of the events portrayed, as well as the promi-nence of Minerva, Domitian’s protectress inFrieze A, may have added further conceptualdifficulties to reusing these pieces. However, thereliefs are of the highest artistic quality and ap-pear to have been preserved in the sculptor’sdepot as examples of extremely fine workman-ship or with the hope that sections of the reliefmay have been able to be reused at a later date.

An equestrian portrait of Nerva from the sanc-tuary of the Augustales at Misenum is the onlysurviving bronze imperial image to exhibit signsof reworking and furthermore is one of only threebronze imperial equestrian statues to have sur-vived from antiquity (cat. 5.7; fig. 123a-c).66 Thestatue depicts the emperor in cuirass and paluda-mentum. Domitian originally held a lance in hisraised right hand while the left hand pulledsharply back on the horse’s reigns. The head andtorso are turned to the right. The partially pre-served horse rears up on its hind legs.67 The

hierarchic prominence of the figure in the frieze, ensurethat this figure must be Domitian. Evidence for therecarving of the portrait of Vespasian is also scanty, espe-cially in comparison to the indisputably recut features ofNerva in Frieze A. The portrait of Vespasian does notexhibit the overwhelming discrepancies of scale, asym-metricalities and wholesale retention of Domitianic ele-ments, like the deeply waved coiffure, that are apparentin the recarved portrait of Nerva on Frieze A. The reliefportrait of Vespasian does contain striking resemblancesto likenesses of Domitian, especially in the full head of hair,the smoother facial features, and the slightly recedingunderlip. However, the portrait is clearly recognizable asVespasian and resemblances to Domitian must have beenintentional and designed to stress the similarities betweenthe father and son. Thus, they are the product of theDomitianic artist originally responsible for the sculpture andnot the result of recarving under Nerva. See F. Ghedini(1986) 297-300.

63 For the sculptor’s workshop at Aphrodisias locatednear the city’s Odeum and which functioned both as aworking studio and storefront, see P. Rockwell, in R.R.Smith and K.T. Erim (1991) 127-43.

64 (1998) 180.

65 F. Ghedini (1986) 298-300.66 Baia, Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei nel

Castello di Baia, inv. 155743. The other surviving eques-trian statues are the Augustus discovered in the Aegean(Athens, National Museum), and the Marcus Aurelius, onthe Campidoglio. The Misenum portrait differs significantlyfrom the other two in both gesture and costume. Augustusand Marcus Aurelius both wear the tunic and paluda-mentum of the traveling Roman general and raise theirright hands in gestures of clementia, while Domitian/Nervawears a cuirass and brandishes a lance.

67 The composition must have been completed withsome supporting element beneath the horses raised fore-legs, perhaps a foreigner. the figure of Oceanus, or a deco-rative support; see R. Cantilena in Domiziano/Nerva 37-8:D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 201.

domitian 121

statue’s dynamic disposition indicates that it isultimately derived from equestrian representa-tions of Alexander the Great.68 If the statue alsoincluded a fallen enemy in front of the horse’sraised forelegs, its aggressive military compositionwould have recalled similar depictions of theemperor on Domitianic coin reverses.69

In an extremely effective and practical gestureof reuse, Domitian’s facial features have been cutfrom the head and removed as if they were amask.70 A clearly visible line runs beneath thechin, along the jaw line, behind the ears, and overthe forehead, documenting the removal ofDomitian’s face. The coiffure which lies behindthis line belongs to the original likeness, a rep-lica of Domitian’s third portrait type. In front ofthe line are the new coiffure and facial featuresbelonging to Nerva. Naturally, individual locksin the two coiffures do not match along the lineof removal. However, Nerva’s coiffure over theforehead is relatively full and strategically masksthese discrepancies when the statue is viewedfrontally and from below.71 Nevertheless, theposition of the new face of Nerva does not ac-curately reflect the torsion of the neck and torso;consequently, and perhaps not surprisingly, theface appears curiously static and mask-like whencompared to the fluid motion of the body. An-cient repairs in lead to the statue suggest that theimage was attacked and damaged prior to itsreuse and Domitian’s portrait features may havebeen vandalized at this time.72 In any case, the

method of recycling adopted for the statue wascertainly more economical than replacing thehead in its entirety and, more importantly, theimage maintains deliberately readable signs in thecoiffure of its original Domitianic identity.

The figural decoration of the cuirass includesa variety of marine creatures, an aegis and gor-goneion on the breast, and a representation ofthe infant Hercules strangling snakes on the leftshoulder. Domitian’s preparations for a campaignagainst the Parthians at the end of his principatemay have inspired the imagery on the cuirass.73

Domitian intended to embark on this campaignfrom Puteoli, and the marine creatures on thebreastplate refer to the emperor’s coming seavoyage, as well as his dominion over the ocean.74

A fragmentary Domitianic inscription from theAugustales complex, which was reinscribed un-der Nerva may have been set up in conjunctionwith the statue between December of 94 andSeptember of 95, which would further suggestthat the image commemorates the completion ofthe Via Domitiana linking Rome with the portof Puteoli;75 the new road facilitated transport oftroops and supplies from the capital to the portand would have been crucial for the comingParthian expedition.76

Fragments of the statue were excavated in1968 in Building B of a complex associated withthe Augustales of Misenum. The statue is likely tohave been displayed within the complex, whosemain temple contained heroic nude statues ofVespasian and Titus.77 Despite its specificallyDomitianic connotations, as expressed in the68 As preserved in a bronze statuette from Herculaneum,

now in Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico. The statu-ette may be based on the equestrian portrait of Alexanderby Lysippus from the Granikos Monument, which wastransported to Rome by Metellus in 146 B.C.; see J.J. Pollitt(1986) 43, n. 41, fig. 36, and R. Cantilena in Domiziano/Nerva 32-33, fig. 30a-c.

69 As, for instance a sestertius from Rome, BMCRE 409;RIC 361; American Numismatic Society, inv. 1957.172.1603; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 154-55, no. 34, with figs.

70 A colossal marble statue of Elagabalus has undergonethe same form of reuse, in which the facial features wereremoved, and a new face, belonging to Severus Alexanderwas attached, Naples Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv.5993, here, cat. 7.17.

71 The statue would presumably have been mounted ona base, insuring that the statue was viewed from below.

72 R. Cantilena in Domiziano/Nerva 36; S. AdamoMuscettola in P. Miniero, ed. (2000) 31.

73 S. Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 54-65; B.W.Jones (1992) 159.

74 Ibid.75 S. Adamo Musecettola (2000) 89; S. Adamo

Musecettola in P. Miniero, ed. (2000) 34.76 S. Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 65.77 Alternatively, the statue may have fallen into this area

during seismic disturbances which destroyed the complexand other sections of the city at the end of the secondcentury since no base for the statue has been discoveredsupports this idea. M. Borriello in Domiziano/Nerva 18-19;S. Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 63. For theportaits of Vespasian and Titus, see Domiziano/Nerva figs.9-10; S. Adamo Muscettola in P. Miniero, ed. (2000) 34-7, figs. 2a-b.

chapter six122

reliefs on the cuirass, the image was neverthelessrefashioned as a representation of Nerva, a fur-ther example of the rampant visual cannibalismwhich characterized Nerva’s short reign.

Domitian/Trajan

Nerva reigned approximately seventeen months,and at the time of his death, the fund of Domi-tianic images available for reuse was by no meansexhausted, as evidenced by the numerous por-traits recarved into likeness of Nerva’s successor,Trajan. Although many of these reworked imageshave gone unrecognized, most of Trajan’s por-trait types are attested among the altered repre-sentations, and indicate that the sculptural trans-formation of Domitian’s portraits was carried outthroughout Trajan’s reign.

Most of the likenesses recut to Trajan retainstrong aspects of Domitian’s more youthful andidealized physiognomy, as is especially apparentin a full length togate statue in Sabratha, refash-ioned from a provincial variant of Domitian’sthird portrait type (cat. 5.27; fig. 124).78 A styl-ized version of Domitian’s coiffure is visible at theback of the head. The coiffure at the front of thehead has been largely recut to reflect Trajan’ssecond type (Bürgerkronen-Typus) in which the locksover the forehead are combed from proper leftto right. This type may have been introduced in103 to commemorate Trajan’s first DacianTriumph.79 The statue was discovered during ex-cavations of the Forum at Sabratha, together witha cuirassed portrait of Titus, suggesting the pos-sibility of an original Flavian group dedicationconsisting of the two brothers.80 The use ofTrajan’s second type with its likely date of A.D.103, indicates that a minimum of seven yearselapsed between the time of Domitian’s damnatioand the portrait’s eventual reuse, during which

time, the statue must have been warehoused outof public view.

In addition to the Sabratha statue, a secondprovincial image of Trajan was recut from aportrait of Domitian. This recarved head wasdiscovered in two fragments near the Temple ofZeus at Olympia (cat. 5.22.).81 The locks over theforehead are a variant Trajan’s (fourth) Opfer-bildtypus.82 However, traces of Domitian’s type 3hairstyle are clearly visible at the back of thehead. The use of the Opferbildtypus, (which appearson the Column of Trajan and is clearly in useby the time of the Column’s dedication on 12May 113), suggests that a considerable lapse oftime (perhaps as many as 17 years) occurredbetween Domitian’s damnatio and the reuse of theportrait.

A third provincial portrait of Trajan in Splithas also been reconfigured from a likeness ofDomitian (cat. 5.28; fig. 125a-b).83 The over-lifesized head is worked for insertion and mayoriginally have formed part of a Flavian dynas-tic group decorating the Fourm at Issa inDalmatia. Domitian appears to have initially beendepicted together with his father Vespasian. AfterDomitian’s assassination, Trajan usurped Domit-ian’s role in the paired portraits and linked him-self to the revered founder of the Flavian dynasty.The Olympia, Sabratha and Split portraits areall important testaments to the recarving ofDomitian’s portraits in the provinces.84

Many vestiges of Domitian’s third portrait typeare also present in a head of Trajan formerly inOstia (cat. 5.25).85 Like the portrait in Sabratha,the hair was recarved into Trajan’s second type(Bürgerkronen-Typus), but traces of the originalDomitianic coiffure are visible above the ears and

78 Museum.79 W.H. Gross (1940) 75-77; W.H. Gross (1965) 1109-

10; K. Fittschen (1977a) 71.80 Sabratha, Museum; M. Wegner, G. Daltrop and U.

Hausmann (1966) 26-7, 29, 95-6, pls. 21c-d, 22b; M.Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 404.

81 Olympia, Museum, inv. A 129.82 The Olympia portrait introduces a part over the left

eye; on the Opferbildtypus, see W.H. Gross (1940) 105-7.83 Archaeological Museum, inv. C 271.84 H.R. Goette and K. Hitzle mention two additional

portraits of Trajan which may be recarved from likenessesof Domitian; both are unpublished: a portrait of Trajanfrom the theater at Corinth, and a portrait in Larissa,Archaeological Museum, inv. no. 802 + 825 (1987) 292,n. 59.

85 Now lost, formerly Museo, no. 24.

domitian 123

at the back of the head. Despite the addition ofvertical furrows above the nose and deep naso-labials, the facial features of the Ostia head,which are relatively smooth and youthful, areremnants of the underlying representation ofDomitian. A second head from Ostia also exhibitsclear signs of reworking (cat. 5.24).86 The eyesand mouth have retained their Domitianic con-figuration and there are traces of Domitian’stype 3 hairstyle on the nape of the neck at theleft. Like the Olympia portrait, the image is areplica of the Opferbildtypus (type 4), introducedby 113, which again suggests that as many as17 years had elapsed before the portrait wasrecut.

A portrait of Trajan in Oslo, reportedly ac-quired in Rome, has also been reworked from animage of Domitian (cat. 5.23).87 Domitian’s coif-fure has been entirely worked away, but strongtraces of his facial features remain including thelarge eyes and shape of the lower lip, which islong, full, and flat along the bottom. In its cur-rent incarnation, the likeness is a variant ofTrajan’s decennalia type, introduced in 108 andprovides further evidence for the storage ofDomitian’s images prior to reworking, in thisinstance for a period of at least twelve years.

Several atypical elements of coiffure and physi-ognomy of a portrait of Trajan in Venice betrayits origins as a likeness of Domitian (cat. 5.29; fig.126a-c).88 The hair over the forehead has beenrecut into an arrangement resembling that ofTrajan’s first portrait type, nevertheless the steeparc of the coiffure over the forehead is unchar-acteristic of Trajan’s portraiture, as is the fullnessof the coiffure over both ears. Remnants ofDomitian’s type 3 coiffure are also visible at theback of the head. No overt signs of aging havebeen added to the face, and, with its very fullhead of hair, this representation of Trajan isextremely youthful and among the most idealizedof Trajan’s images.

A basalt head of Trajan in the Terme altered

from a preexisting likeness of Domitian stands asthe only instance of a recarved imperial imagein a colored or hard stone (cat. 5.26; fig. 127a-d).89 The portrait is again a variant of Trajan’sfourth Opferbildtypus but contains several elementsof Domitian’s coiffure and iconography such asremnants of his type 3 hairstyle at the back andtop of the head. The large eyes and hooked noseare additional remnants of the Domitianic image.The Terme portrait’s status as the only recarvedbasalt image underscores enormous technicaldifficulties inherent in recutting hard stones.

Domitian/Titus

In contrast to the numerous portraits recut torepresent Nerva or Trajan, only two portraits ofDomitian were recarved into the images of hisbrother and predecessor, Titus. These reworkedlikenesses were intended as posthumous com-memorations of Divus Titus and are likely to havebeen recut shortly after Domitian’s overthrow,either in the reign of Nerva or early in the reignof Trajan as the result of Titus’s enormous pop-ularity during his lifetime and subsequent deifi-cation. By celebrating the memory of Titusthrough recarved portrait dedications, Domitian’ssuccessors could reaffirm the continuity of theprincipate, and concomitantly dishonor thememory of the condemned brother Domitian.90

The well known portrait of Titus inserted intoa togate statue in the Braccio Nuovo of theVatican originally depicted Domitian (cat. 5.5).91

The reconfigured likeness combines elements ofboth Titus’s Erbach and Herculaneum types, butseveral traces of Domitian’s coiffure are still evi-dent: the locks over the left temple have beenalmost entirely retained, as have the orientationand shape of the locks over the forehead. How-ever, the facial features have been substantiallyadjusted. Exaggerated veristic effects in the newimage of Titus, such as the deep furrows in the

86 Museo, inv. 14.87 Nasjonalgalleriet, inv. SK 1154.88 Museo Archeologico, inv. 249.

89 Inv. 61160.90 Just as Vespasian honored the memory of Claudius,

while dishonoring that of Nero.91 26, inv. 2282.

chapter six124

forehead and the emphatically modeled surfacesof the face, distance the portrait from more ide-alizing representations of Domitian, and associ-ate Titus with the more realistic likenesses of hisfather Vespasian, as well as the veristicallyhandled portraits of Nerva. Although its volumehas been reduced, the head still appears to be toolarge for the togate body (proportions of roughly1:6), which suggests that this statue body was notthe one on which the original portrait ofDomitian was displayed. The portrait of Domit-ian must have been removed from its originalcontext, recarved, and ultimately reused on thecurrent togate body. The statue’s discovery in1828, together with a representation of JuliaTiti,92 in gardens near the Lateran Baptisterysuggests that it may have been displayed on theimperial properties which had been expropriatedunder Nero in this area of the city.

A second portrait of Titus, in the GalleriaChiaramonti of the Vatican, was also refashionedfrom a likeness of Domitian (cat. 5.6.; fig. 128a-d).93 Remains of Domitians’s type 3 coiffure areclearly visible on each side of the head. The treat-ment of the hair on the back of the head, withits cluster of curls on the nape of the neck is astandard feature of Domitian’s sculpted type 3images but not of those of his elder brother. Aswith the Braccio Nuovo portrait of Titus, thewaved arrangement on the top of the head hasbeen partially worked away, giving the head a flatappearance when seen from behind. TheChiaramonti likeness eschews the more pro-nounced realism of the Braccio Nuovo togatusand retains more of the classicism of the origi-nal Domitianic image. Both of these reworkedportraits are posthumous likenesses of Titus andattest to his abiding popularity and importancefor the continuum of imperial authority and le-gitimacy. The sculptural reconfiguration of theVatican portraits was greatly facilitated by thestrong resemblances in physiognomy and coiffurewhich existed between the brothers.

Domitian/Constantinian Emperor

The late recarving, over two hundred years af-ter Domitian’s assassination, of a head in Boston(cat. 5.30; fig. 129a-d) confirms the warehousingof the emperor’s images.94 As with the laterecarved portraits of Caligula and Nero, thisportrait was clearly well-preserved and accessibleto fourth century sculptors who reworked it intothe likeness of a Constantinian emperor (perhapsone of the sons of Constantine). Although theportrait has been subjected to a substantial mod-ern cleaning and retouching in the area of theface, likely carried out in the eighteenth century,the generally classicizing tone of the image, aswell as the handling of the iris and pupils as atwo connected dots within semi-circles secures aConstantinian date for the recarving.95 Althoughthe coiffure has been altered, especially over theforehead, the coma in gradus formata arrangementon the top of the head and the orientation of thelocks over the forehead, which are parted overthe right eye, have been retained from a type 3portrait of Domitian. The coiffure finds compel-ling parallels in a portrait of Constantine inMadrid96 and a portrait of one of Constantine’ssons in Rome, although the locks in these por-traits are not as dramatically undercut as in theBoston head.97 The new identification of therecarved portrait was undoubtedly secured by anaccompanying inscription. As part of the Ludovisicollection, the piece may have been discoveredin the area of the Villa Ludovisi. If so, the por-trait’s reuse and display may be considered withinthe context of the imperial gardens of the HortiSallustiani.

92 Musei Vaticani, Braccio Nuovo 108, inv. 2225; M.Donderer (1991-92) 244, no. 27.

93 31.20, inv. 1687.

94 Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 89.6.95 For instance, a portrait of Constantine in Schloss

Fasanerie, FAS. ARP. 54, (H.P. L’Orange [1984] 70, 118-19, pl. 49a-b, and a Constantinian portrait in New York,Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 67.107, (H.P. L’Orange(1984) 87, 133, pl. 58a-b.

96 Prado, inv. 125-E; S.F. Schröder (1993) 296-8, no.89, with figs. (with earlier literature).

97 Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala dei Magistrati 1, inv.843; Fittschen-Zanker I, 155-56, no. 124, pl. 155 (withearlier literature).

domitian 125

Domitian/Augustus

Two of Domitian’s gem portraits were also re-cut in antiquity, including a sardonyx head re-fashioned retrospectively into a representationAugustus, which was discovered in 1980 atSaragoza in Spain (cat. 5.47).98 The head isworked for insertion into a miniature bust, per-haps of marble or bronze.99 Remnants of Domi-tian’s type 3 coiffure are still clearly visible overboth ears and at the back of the head. The locksover the forehead have been recarved into aversion of Augustus’s Prima Porta hairstyle. Aswith the portraits of Caligula and Nero refash-ioned to Augustus, overt signs of aging, which canbe a feature of Augustus’s posthumous images,have been added to the gem and consist of ver-tical furrows over the nose and naso-labial lines.Again, the emphatic verism of the portrait, dif-ferentiates it stylistically from the images ofDomitian. Furthermore, the head evinces stylis-tic affinities with portraits of Trajan which sug-gests a Trajanic date for the recutting.100 Becauseof its small scale and the use of precious stone,both the original and recarved likenesses werelikely displayed in public or private shrine asso-ciated with the imperial cult.101 The skill neces-sary for recarving such a small portrait workedin a semi-precious stone suggests that the rework-ing may have taken place at Rome.102

Domitian/4th Century Emperor

Yet another of Domitian’s gem portraits wasrecarved in the fourth century. A sardonyx bustof an unidentified fourth century emperor in Pariscontains several details of physiognomy and coif-fure which indicate that it originally conformedto Domitian’s third portrait type (cat. 5.31; fig.

130a-b).103 The shape of the brows, nose, andmouth are also clear remnants of the originalportrait. Like the marble portrait in Boston, theParis gem attests to the preservation of Domi-tian’s images, in this case glyptic, prior to theirrecarving in the fourth century.

The Removal of Domitian’s Images

Like the portraits of condemned emperor’s be-fore him, Domitian’s images were systematicallyremoved from public display and many weredestroyed. But the removal of Domitian’s repre-sentations was also affected by the highly unusualcircumstance that so many of his own images hadin fact been reworked from likenesse of Nero.They must have been removed from public dis-play and warehoused, their further recarvingprecluded by the fact that they had already beenreconfigured.

Three of the images reworked from Neronianlikenesses are full length portrait statues, includ-ing the two cuirassed portraits in the Vatican (cat.2.53; fig. 59)104 and Vaison (cat. 2.58; fig. 60a-b),105 and the statue as Diomedes in Munich (cat.2.46; fig. 60a-c).106 The Vatican statue is fromRome or its environs and was certainly removedfrom display following Domitian’s overthrow.Likewise, there is no archaeological evidence thatthe Vaison statue continued to be displayed inthe theater and it is likely to have been buriedor stored in a structure associated with the the-ater. The Munich portrait, heavily restored in theeighteenth century by Bartolommeo Cavaceppi,is reported to have been discovered in the ruinsof a villa belonging to one of Domitian’s freed-men at Labicum. Political expediency would havedictated that former supporters or associates ofDomitian remove his images from their homes,so the Munich portrait must have been stored atthe villa following Domtian’s damnatio. The prior

98 Museo de Zaragoza en Tarazona 80-5-1.99 M. Beltrán Lloris (1984) 128.100 M. Beltrán Lloris (1984) 120-23.101 M. Beltrán Lloris (1984) 128-29, also discusses the

magical properties, which the Romans associated with sard-onyx.

102 M. Beltrán Lloris (1984) 133.

103 Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles.104 Braccio Nuovo 126, inv. 2213 (Domitian, type 1).105 Musée Lapidaire (Domitian type 1).106 Glyptothek 394 (Domitian type 1).

chapter six126

reworking of all three portraits undoubtedly pre-vented them from being altered a second time.

Other likenesses of Domitian reworked fromNero include two portraits in Naples (cat. 2.49;cat. 2.48; fig. 66a-b),107 and likenesses in theTerme (cat. 2.52; fig. 63a-d),108 the AmericanEmbassy in Rome (cat. 2.55; fig. 67),109 the Prado(cat. 2.44),110 Boston (cat. 2.41; fig. 64a-c),111

Vasto (cat. 2.59; fig. 65),112 Munich (cat. 2.47),113

and Stuttgart (cat. 2.57).114 One of the busts inNaples is a type 3 replica from the FarneseCollection which strongly suggests a provenanceof Rome or its immediate environs.115 The por-traits in the Terme, the American Embassy, andin the Prado all provide additional evidence forthe removal and storage of Domitian’s images atthe capital.116 The second Naples bust, a type 2replica, is presumably from the environs ofNaples. The Boston image, a replica of Domi-tian’s first portrait type, was discovered at theruins of his villa in Tusculum and is likely to haveoriginally been displayed, and ultimately ware-housed on the imperial property. The statue towhich it initially belonged was likely reused viathe insertion of a new portrait likeness. As notedabove, the stylized and linear quality of the Vastohead indicates that the original likeness and thesubsequent recutting are products of a local work-shop. The head attests to the removal and stor-age or burial of Domitian’s images in Apulia.Both the Munich and Stuttgart heads are exceed-ingly well preserved and provide additional evi-dence for the removal and storage of Domitian’simages. Like the three full-length statues, these

images’ previous recutting precluded furtherreconfiguration.

Additionally, representations of Domitian re-worked from likeness of Nero were removed frompublic display in Spain and Germany as attestedby portraits in Cologne (cat. 2.42),117 Madrid (cat.2.43)118 and Sevilla (cat. 2.56).119 The Madridportrait was discovered at Almendilla nearCordova. Like the other portraits of Domitianrecarved from Nero, the image was removedfrom its original context and stored or buried andthe prior reworking prevented a second alter-ation. In contrast, the likeness from Munigua wasapparently disposed of more savagely. The headwas discovered with other marble fragments inan ancient well.120 The likeness may have origi-nally pertained to a group dedication in the city’sForum, which also honored Titus andVespasian.121 Like the portrait of Caligula fromHuelva, Domitian’s image was thrown into thewell in a deliberate act of denigration with fur-ther intimations of post mortem corpse abuse.122

The reworked relief portrait in the Vaticanmust also have been removed from public view(cat. 2.54; fig. 68).123 Its isolated context suggeststhat the head was removed from the monumentto which it belonged. Alternatively, the entiremonument may have been dismantled or de-stroyed.

Naturally, Domitian’s unreworked likenesseswere also removed and warehoused in greatnumbers. A well preserved bust formerly in thePalazzo dei Conservatori was discovered alongthe Via Principe Amadeo on the Esquiline dur-ing excavations carried out between 1894 and1904.124 The portrait’s find-spot suggests that it

107 Museo Nazionale Archeologico, 6061 (Domitian type3); and Museo Nazionale 5907 (Domitian type 2, see cat.2.48).

108 Inv. 226.109 Domitian type 3.110 321-E (Domitian type 1).111 Museum of Fine Arts 88.633 (Domitian type 1).112 Museo Civico (Domitian type 1).113 Glyptothek, inv. 418 (Domitian type 1).114 Württembergisches Landesmuseum, inv. 64/28

(Domitian type 1).115 The head is worked for insertion and is currently

displayed on a modern bust.116 All three portraits are substantially intact.

117 Römisch-Germanisches Museum (Domitian type 1).118 Museo Arqueológico Nacional, 2770 (Domitian type

3).119 Museo (Domitian type 1). The head is worked for

insertion into a togate statue.120 See supra.121 W. Grünhagen (1986) 321-23.122 The togate statue body to which the likeness be-

longed was undoubtedly reused.123 Museo Gregoriano Profano 644, inv. 4065.124 Museo Nuovo, VII.24, Inv. 1156 (Centrale Monte-

domitian 127

may have been originally displayed in the con-text of the imperial gardens and residences whichcovered the hill.125 The Conservatori bust is oneof four well-preserved images of condemned em-perors discovered on the Esquiline where theywere buried or stored following their removal.126

The unusual find-spot of a portrait of Domi-tian in Ostia suggests a rather different scenariofor its preservation (fig. 131).127 This type 1 rep-lica was discovered in the tomb of Julia Proculaat Isola Sacra in March of 1938.128 Other pieces

of sculpture were uncovered in the excavations,including a portrait statue identified by inscrip-tion as Julia Procula in the guise of Hygeia, anda herm portrait of Hippocrates.129 Julius Proculuscame to public prominence late in the reign ofDomitian, and the tomb at Isola Sacra maybelong to freedmen associated with the family.130

The representation of Domitian was possiblyplaced in the tomb while the family enjoyedemperor’s favor, or removed and stored therefollowing his damnatio.131

Additionally, the removal and storage of Do-mitian’s images in Rome and Italy in sizablenumbers is corroborated by likenesses in theCentrale Montemartini,132 the Uffizi,133 two por-traits in Naples,134 and representations in Ber-

martini 2.76), h. 0.35 m.; Fittschen-Zanker I, 36-37, no.33, pls. 35, 37 (with earlier literature); C. Häuber in M.Cima and E. La Rocca, eds. (1986) 177, n. 25 (with ear-lier literature); A.M Leander Touati (1987), 94, pl. 43.1-2; S.Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 52, figs. 52a-c;D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 177, fig. 145; F. Johansen (1995a)10, fig. 9. C. Häuber suggests that the Conservatori por-trait is identical with the Domitian mentioned in BullCom26 (1898) 350, no.4 and 351 and in Nsc (1898) 391 (op.cit.).The back of the head and sides of the bust form have beenbroken off and there are abrasions to the tip of the nose,the chin and damage to the upper edge of the right ear. Ifthe damage to the bust form and back of the head occurredin antiquity, it would have rendered the portrait unsuit-able for reuse.

125 The head is turned sharply to the left, which mayindicate that the portrait originally had a pendant pieceperhaps depicting Domitian’s wife, Domitia Longina; hisniece, Julia Titi; his brother, Titus; or his father, Vespasian.

126 The other images represent Commodus as Hercules(Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala degli Avazzi, inv. 1120)Carinus (Palazzo dei Conservatori, Centrale Montemartini2.83, inv. 850) and Nero/Domitian, Palazzo Massimo alleTerme, inv. 226 (cat. 2.52).

127 Museo, inv. 19, h. 0.30 m.; R. Calza (1964) 46-7,no. 64, pl. 37 (with earlier literature); M. Wegner, G.Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 33, 104, pl. 24a-b; K.T.Erim (1973) 139, figs. 10-11; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 358 (not Domitian); C. Pavolini (1983) 90; J. Pollini(1984) 548, n.7. M. Donderer (1991) 225, fig. 5. The backof the head and the lower right corner of the face of theportrait are missing and there is damage to the tip of thenose, the bottom of the left ear and the top of the rightear. A light crack runs from the right side of the lower lipthrough the lower left side of the face.

128 As the only surviving type 1 replica that has not beenrecarved from a preexisting likeness of Nero, the portraitdiffers slightly from the other replicas in the arrangementof the hair over the forehead, which is treated as fuller curlscomparable to the portrait in Boston. The hair is gener-ally more curly than in other examples and omits the partover the right eye. The curls are slightly parted over theouter corner of the left eye. The discrepancies of the hair-style led M. Bergmann and P. Zanker to reject this imageas a likeness of Domitian, (1981) 358. However, the por-traits which they accept as Domitian’s first type vary greatly

in the arrangement of locks over the forehead and thecoiffure of the Ostia head is close enough to other repli-cas, especially over the left temple (i.e.. Museo NazionaleRomano delle Terme, inv. 226 and Munich, Glyptothek,inv. 418) that it should be considered a variant of type I.In addition, the physiognomy is unmistakably Domitianic.

129 C. Pavolini (1983) 90.130 Julius Proculus was ab actis under Domitian, and

consul in 109. His sister, Julia Procula married M. FlaviusAper, consul c. 103. On Procula, see M. T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987) 390-91, no. 455; and B.W. Jones (1992) 176.

131. The Trajanic hairstyle of the Isola Sacra statueindicates that it represents a contemporary of the elite JuliaProcula, who is also known to have been the Domina figli-narum Viccianarum Tonneianarum under Trajan and Hadrian,if not that woman herself; see M. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)390.

132 (Type 3), Braccio Nuovo III.12, inv. 2451 (CentraleMontemartini 2.75), h. 0.46 m.; Fittschen-Zanker I, 35-36,no. 32, pls. 34, 36 (with earlier literature); W. Grünhagen(1986) pl. 316, 318, 52c-d; H. Meyer (2000) 128, figs. 235-6, 241. The head was formerly displayed on a togate statue,to which it did not belong, in the Villa Borghese. It hassuffered minimal damage, including abrasions to the brows,eyes, cheeks, lips and chin. In addition, most of the nosehas been broken off and there is slight damage to the topof the right ear. The occiput is also missing; regular chiselmarks and an iron dowel in this area are indicative of amodern, rather than an ancient repair.

133 (Type 3), inv. 1914.130 h. 0.25 (head); G. Mansuelli(1961) 75, no. 74, with fig. (with earlier literature); M.Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 100 (mod-ern); L. de Lachenal and B. Palma in MusNazRom 1.6, 103(ancient). From the Ludovisi Collection. A section of theright eyebrow, the nose, upper lip, chin, and ears aremodern restorations.

134 (Type 2), Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 150-216, h. 0.245 m.; M. Wegner, Flavier 24, 29, 89, pl. 17a-b (Titus) (with earlier literature); M. Bergmann and P.

chapter six128

lin,135 Cambridge,136 and Chatsworth House137

which are all substantially well preserved andexhibit no evidence of deliberate vandalization.The Conservatori image, worked for insertioninto a cuirassed statue, would have been yet an-other militaristic representations of the emperor,underscoring their importance in Domitianicvisual propaganda.

Domitian’s representations were also removedfrom public display and warehoused throughoutthe provinces, as attested by four type 3 portraits.A colossal image from Ephesus was originallyinserted into an acrolithic statue and subsequentlystored in the cryptoporticus of the temple origi-

nally dedicated to Domitian at Ephesus.138 Af-ter Domitian’s assassination, the temple was re-dedicated to Vespasian.139 The head was discov-ered broken in four pieces, together with a lefthand and forearm, during excavations carried outin 1930.140 Based on the accumulated fragments,R. Meriç has suggested that the statue was acuirassed standing portrait of the emperor.141 Theacrolith may have been overturned as a result ofDomitian’s damnatio, thus damaging the head andother body parts, which would then have beenstored, with several fragments eventually beingreused in the later wall.142 The statue was defi-nitely not reused as a likeness of Vespasian as hasbeen suggested. Within the temple itself, Do-mitian’s name was also erased on statue baseswhich had been dedicated by various cities inAsia Minor and Vespasian’s name was substi-tuted.143 Ironically, the storage and eventualreuse of the fragments from Domitian’s portraitinsured their survival when the rest of the temple

Zanker (1981) 360-63, figs. 35a-d. The portrait was discov-ered at Minturno. A crack runs through the head and theportrait has suffered severe damage to the left side of theforehead, the left eye, the nose, lips and lower left sectionof the face. However, the random nature of this damageindicates that it is not the result of intentional mutilation.The portrait is worked for insertion and was removed fromits original context as a result of Domitian’s condemnation;its bust or statue was then reused with the addition of anew portrait head.

(Type 2), Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 6058; h.;M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 103(with earlier literature); B. Candida (1967) 33, r. 2, figs.3-4; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 360, fig. 33a-d;W. Grünhagen (1986) 315, pl. 52b; A. Amadio, inMusNazRom 1.9.1, 199;H. Meyer (2000) 136, fig. 255. Aspart of the Farnese Collection, the piece is from Rome orits environs. The portrait includes a corona civica. The headhas undergone extensive modern cleaning. Only the tip ofthe nose has been restored.

135 (Type 3) Staatliche Museen, R 28 (351), h. 0.495 m.;M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 37, 98(with earlier literature); A. Amadio, MusNazRom 9.1, 198;The portrait allegedly comes from Sans Souci, and was partof the Polignac Collection and is likely to have been ac-quired in Italy. The head has been inserted into a bust towhich it does not belong.

136 (Type 3), Fitzwilliam Museum, GR 14.1850, h. 0.309m.; L. Budde and R. Nicholls (1964) 68, no. 108, pl. 36(with earlier literature); M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 99; Fittschen-Zanker I, 36, no. 32, n. 4.The portrait was presumably acquired in Italy. It hasundergone a harsh modern cleaning. The nose of theportrait is lost and the tenon has been cut down for inser-tion into the bust form.

137 C.C. Vermeule (1995) 132, pl. 41.3; M. Wegner, G.Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 99-100 (with earlierliterature); D. Boschung, H. Von Hesberg and A. Linfert(1997) 55-56, no. 49, pl. 45.

138 Museum, inv. 670. h. 1.20 m.; M. Wegner, G.Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 26, 86, pl. 15b (withearlier literature); J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum (1966) 67-68, no. 27 pl. 16.1; H. Blanck (1969) 85; H. Vetters (1972-75) 59-60; D.E. Strong (1976) 136, fig. 75; S.R.F. Price(1984) 129, 140, 178, 182, 255, cat. no. 31. R. Meriç (1985)239-41, pls. 20-23; S. Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva49; N.H. and A. Ramage (1991) 137, fig. 5.22; D.Kreikenbom (1992) 213-5, no. 3.93, pl. 19. Although thisportrait has been identified with Titus, the hairstyle isclearly a colossal interpretation of the coiffure of Domitian’sthird portrait type. In addition, inscriptions from the sitemention only Vespasian and Domitian.

139 S.R.F. Price (1984) 140, 255, cat. no. 31.140 The fragments had been incorporated into later

masonry work. Further excavations in 1969-70 uncoveredother fragments of the statue also used as spoilia in a laterwall at the west of the cryptoporticus; among the new frag-ments were: the right hand and forearm, the right knee andshin, the left knee, the right foot and the left foot; see, R.Meriç (1985) 239-40, pls. 22-23.

141 R. Meriç (1985) 240.142 R. Meriç (1985) 240. The image was definitely not

reused as a likeness of Vespasian as suggested by S.R.F.Price (1984) 255, (with earlier literature). The portrait bearsno resemblance to images of Vespasian, and its survivalsuggests that it was in a secure location during the Arabdestruction of iconic images. In addition, fragments of acolossal hand, which does not belong to the statue ofDomitian, were discovered in 1969-70, and they may be-long to an image of Vespasian, R. Meriç, op.cit. 240.

143 S. Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 49.

domitian 129

and its sculpture were destroyed during the Arabconquest of the city.

A likeness from Pergamum provides additionaltestimony for the removal of Domitian’s imagesin Asia Minor,144 while heads in Constantine145

and Kotor146 attest to the removal and storageof portraits in North Africa and Dalmatia (Mon-tenegro). Both the Pergamum and Constantineportraits are worked for insertion, and the bustsor statues to which they originally belonged wereundoubtedly reused through the addition of newportrait likeness, likely of Nerva or Trajan. Aportrait in Munich is a provincial variant in darklocal stone of type 3.147 The unusual stone usedfor the image suggests that it was of local crafts-manship and provides evidence for the removalof Domitian’s images in Germany, an area whichhad formerly witnessed his most important mili-tary exploits.

Although poorly preserved and badly weath-ered, a head in the Getty also exhibits no indi-cations that it was intentionally vandalized (fig.132).148 At some point subsequent to its creation,the portrait was retrofitted with two squaremortises over each temple in order to anchor

some type of headgear. The portrait is likely tohave been removed from its original contextfollowing Domitian’s assassination.

Two pharaonic basalt images in Mantua149

and the Louvre150 were also removed from publicdisplay. The pharaonic imagery, as well as thehard stone from which these Egyptianizing stat-ues were carved may have mitigated against theirreworking.151 The provenance of the Louvrehead is unknown, but the Mantua statue, as partof the Gonzaga Collection, is likely from Italy,perhaps displayed in a temple dedicated to Isisor Serapis; the cults of both deities were pro-moted by Domitian.152

The archaeological contexts of two other rep-resentations of Domitian, in the Terme (fig.133)153 and Copenhagen (fig. 134),154 indicatethat they were disposed of in a much more vio-lent fashion with overtones of poena post mortem ac-corded the corpses of condemned criminals. The

144 Now lost; M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U. Haus-mann (1966) 38, 105, pl. 33a-b (with earlier literature). Thehead is worked for insertion. Although the back of the headhas been sheared off, the portrait was remarkably well-preserved. The nose was entirely intact and there was onlyminor damage to the surface of the face.

145 Musée Gustave Mercier; M. Wegner, G. Daltrop,and U. Hausmann (1966) 38-9, 102, fig. 33c; M. Bergmannand P. Zanker (1981) 366, figs. 38a-b (with earlier litera-ture); Fittschen-Zanker I, 35. S. Adamo Muscettola inDomiziano/Nerva 51; H. Meyer (2000) 128, fig. 238. Theportrait is worked for insertion and has suffered only mini-mal damage; the nose and parts of the rims of both earshave broken off.

146 Lapidarium, h. 0.52 m; M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, andU. Hausmann (1966) 38-39, 101, pl. 33d; O. Velimiroviƒ-ðiñiƒ in N. Cambi et al. (1988) 89- 90, no. 82, with figs.(with earlier literature). The portrait was discovered atKumbor in in 1951. The tip of the nose is broken and thereare slight abrasions to the left brow.

147 Residenz, Antiquarium, inv. 271, h. 0.265 m.; E.Weski in G Hojer, ed. (1987) 229-30, no. 110, pl. 150; H.Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 99, fig. 47.

148 Inv. 76.AA.72, h. 0.40 m.; R.R.R. Smith (1986) 59-78, figs. 1.a-d; R.R.R. Smith (1988) 163, no. 41, pl. 29.3-4 (with earlier literature); M. Bergmann (1998) 242, pl. 44.3-6.

149 Palazzo Ducale; Z. Kiss (1975) 293ff, pls. 84, 88c;M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 350, fig. 24. The ar-rangement of comma shaped locks over the forehead re-flect Domitian’s type 1 coiffure.

150 Départment des Antiquités Egyptiennes A. 35 (N.36); h. 0.316 m.; H. Kyrieleis (1975) 177, no. H12; R.Bianchi in R. Bianchi, ed. (1988) 249-50, no. 137, with figs.The pattern of locks over the forehead, with part over theright eye and a section of locks reversing direction over theleft eye, clearly places this portrait within Domitian’s sec-ond type. The arrangement of locks strongly recalls thatof the type 2 portrait in Naples with corona civica. The shapeof the mouth, with thin upper lip and fuller lower lip, arealso paralleled in other sculpted portraits which are notegyptianizing in character.

151 Several relief representations of Domitian as Pha-raoh in purely Egyptian style, identifiable by cartouche,survive from Egypt: Edfu, Esna, Dendera, Kom, Omblo,Philae, and Dêt-esch-schelwît, M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, andU. Hausmann (1966) 39, ns. 29, 30, 98.

152 And also by Vespasian and Titus, see B.W. Jones(1992) 100-101.

153 Inv. 115191, h. 0.42 m.; A.A. Amadio, MusNazRom9.1, 198-99, no. R 150, with figs. (with earlier literature).The portrait is worked for insertion but into a draped bustor statue. The nose appears to be an ancient repair.

154 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 664, inv. 768; B. Andreae(1977) fig. 67; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 365-66,figs. 36a-c; W. Grünhagen (1986) 315, n. 13; A. Amadioin MusNazRom 1.9.1, 199. F. Johansen (1995a) 38, no. 8,(with figs., with earlier literature); The portrait is aconflation of Domitian’s second and third types and in-cludes an acanthus leaf motif at the base of the bust form.

chapter six130

under life-sized bronze bust of Domitian inCopenhagen was reportedly found in the Tiberin 1891 and consequently recalls the derogatorytreatment of the miniature bronze and marbleimages of Caligula from the Tiber, or the bronzeportrait of Nero from the River Alde. Like theminiature busts of Caligula, the small-scale of theimage suggests that it was originally associatedwith a public or private shrine dedicated to theimperial cult. The Terme portrait, which includesa corona civica is severely corroded. It was discov-ered at the mouth of the Rio Martino (near LakeFogliano and Lake Monaci), into which it mayhave been thrown in response to the damnatio.

A well preserved bust in Toledo also depictsDomitian and, if ancient, must have been ware-housed or buried after Domitian’s condemnation(fig. 135).155 The image is a replica of Domitian’sthird portrait type and presents many highlypolished surfaces, especially in the area of theface. The bust form itself is somewhat unusualfor the Flavian period, as is the handling of thebaldric and the drapery covering the left shoul-der.156 The marble is likely to be Parian whichwould accord well Domitian’s known predilec-tion for Greek marble.157

Two marble portraits of Domitian were neverfinished, presumably because his assassination

eliminated the need for their completion. A type3 portrait from Athens is only blocked out on thetop and back of the head and never received thefinal surface finish for the face and neck.158 Simi-larly, work on a portrait from Asia Minor, nowin Los Angeles, must have been interrupted byDomitian’s overthrow (fig. 136a-d).159 Althoughit is only summarily blocked out, the portrait re-produces physiognomical details of Domitian’sthird portrait type, including the shape of themouth and chin. Like the Athenian portrait, thecompletion of the Getty head was forestalled byDomitian’s assassination.160

Numerous extant cuirassed statue bodies aredated to the Flavian period and many must haveoriginally belonged to images of Domitian. Cui-rasses in the Vatican,161 the Palazzo Farnese,162

the Louvre,163 London,164 Auch,165 Boston,166

Los Angeles,167 and Merida168 either lack their

155 Museum of Art, 1990.3, h. 0.596 m.; R.M. Berko-witz (2001) 258, fig. 111; S.E. Knudsen, C. Craine and R.H. Tykot (2002) 237-38.

156 The baldric is wider than most and the fold at thebottom is unusual although it does occur in a portrait ofTrajan (Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 22, inv.276). The coiffure also does not exactly correspond to anyother type 3 likenesses. The Toledo portrait includes aclump of locks which reverse direction over the inner cor-ner of the left eye which occurs in no other Domitianicportraits except the type 1 likeness from Ostia (inv. 19). Thehair at the back of the head also omits the swirl of curlsthat appear in the altered bronze equestrian portrait fromMisenum and the head worked for insertion from the VillaBorghese (Palazzo dei Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo 3.12,inv. 2451, Centrale Montemartini 2.75) or the Domitian/Titus in the Galleria Chiaramonti of the Vatican, 31.20.,inv. 1687 (cat. 5.6). In general, the hair is also more exu-berantly modeled than in most of the other replicas.

157 Suet. Dom. 8.5 records the Pentelic marble used inDomitianic constructions including the Arch of Titus, theTemple of the Flavian Gens, and the reconstruction of theTemple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus; S. E.Knudsen, C. Craine, and R.H. Tykot, (2002) 237-38.

158 National Museum, inv. 345, h. 0.35 m.; M. Wegner,G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 37-38, 97, pl. 32c-d (with earlier literature); M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 365; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker assign this headto Domitian’s second portrait type. However, the maturephysiognomy of the portrait. as well as the locks which havebeen carved over the right temple and behind the right ear,clearly mark the portrait as a replica or variant of Domi-tian’s third type. The section over the left eye which re-verse the right to left orientation of the locks over the fore-head may simply be a provincial variant or a contaminationfrom Domitian’s second portrait type.

159 J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 75.AA.26, K.P. Erhart,J. Frel, Sandra Knudsen Morgan, and S. Nodelman (1980)46-49, with figs.; J. Frel (1981) 50, no. 34, 124, with figs.;J. Chamay and J.L. Maier (1982) 111, pl. 20.

160 For unfinished Roman sculpture, see also H. Blanck(1966) 171-4.

161 Galleria delle Statue, 248; K. Stemmer (1978) 80,no. VII 10; C. Vermeule (1980b) 4; R. Gergel (1994) 199-203.

162 K. Stemmer (1978) 94, n. 244; C. Vermeule (1980b)4.

163 Inv. MA 1150; R. Gergel (1994) 199; K. de Kersau-son (1996) 76-79, no. 28, with figs.

164 British Museum, inv. 1895 (currently displayed atHampton Court); R. Gergel (1994) 203.

165 Inv. MA 1154, Cliché Samuel, dépôt du Musée duLuovre au Musée des Jacobins; R. Gergel (1994) 199; K.de Kersauson (1996) 80-83, no. 29, with figs.

166 Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 99.346; K. Stemmer(1978) no. VII 11, pl. 54.2; C. Vermeule (1980b) 4.

167 J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 71.11.436; K. Stemmer(1978) no. VII 12, pl. 55.3-5; C. Vermeule (1980b) 4.

168 Museo Arqueologico, inv. no. 1.138; K. Stemmer (1978)no. III 6, pls. 18.2-19.1; C. Vermeule (1980b) 5, fig. 40.

domitian 131

portrait heads entirely, or have had new portraitsadded. It is reasonable to assume that these stat-ues were eventually reused after the original like-nesses of Domitian were removed, and images ofone of his successors, most probably Nerva orTrajan, were substituted.169 The upper section ofa cuirassed statue in the Vatican which includesa representation of Romulus and Remus with theshe wolf also originally seems to have been com-bined with a portrait of Domitian and formed apendant with a cuirassed statue likely represent-ing Titus or Vespasian.170 The Domitianic por-trait must have been transformed immediatelyafter Domitian’s condemnation and eventually re-used in the early third century at the baths ofCaracalla where both cuirass fragments werefound.

The heroic nude statue popularly identifiedas Pompey in the Palazzo Spada may provideadditional evidence for the removal of Domitian’simages.171 It essentially reproduces the samefourth century statuary type of Diomedes as theportrait of Nero reworked to Domitian in Munich(cat. 2.46; fig. 62a-c).172 The current head is amodern restoration or ancient and doesn’t be-long. The unusual and elaborate fibula with agorgoneion placed on the drapery of the PalazzoSpada statue is likely intended as a deliberatereference to Minerva, Domitian’s patron goddess.D. Facenna has persuasively argued that thegorgoneion, taken in conjunction with the stat-ues strong Flavian stylistic traits, argue for anidentification of the piece as a portrait of Domi-tian.173 The statue was discovered near the The-ater of Pompey in the Campus Martius, an area

of extensive Domitianic building activity. Thestatue may have originally been displayed in theTheater. As a result of Domitian’s damnatio, theoriginal portrait features of the statue may havebeen deliberately damaged, or alternatively, thehead may have been removed from the statue.174

Like the Cancelleria Reliefs, the body itself mayhave been stored in a sculptor’s workshop in theCampus Martius or in structures associated withthe Theater.

Five gem portraits of Domitian have sur-vived.175 All are type 3 likenesses created duringDomitian’s tenure as Augustus. A sardonyxcameo, formerly in the Ponsonby Collection,depicts busts of Domitian and Domitia or JuliaTiti in profile being carried aloft on the back ofan eagle.176 The imagery of apotheosis and theinclusion of Domitia or Julia Titi precluded therecutting of the piece. Furthermore, the overlap-ping portraits would have made recarving ex-tremely difficult. Similarly, the highly unusualtransgendered iconography of three gem portraitsin Paris, which depicts Domitian in the guise ofhis protectress Minerva, undoubtedly preventedtheir recutting.177 A sardonyx bust, again in Paris,also represents Domitian.178 As noted above, the

169 D. Gergel (1994) 203-4,170 Galleria Chiaramonti, 5.5, inv. 1254; P. Liverani

(1989), 20; P. Persicce (2000) 39, no. 13 (with earlier lit-erature).

171 C. Fea (1812) 12-13; J.J. Bernoulli (1891) 61-62; F.Magi (1945) 104-5; D. Facenna (1956) 173-201., pls. 41-46; H. von Heintze in Helbig4II, no. 2008; M. Wegner,G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 107; H. Niemeyer(1968) 111, no. 114; K. Fittschen (1970) 551, no. 114; F.Coarelli (1971-72) 31, pl. 38b; C. Maderna (1988) 79, 170,199, 217-18, no. UD 4, 219, 221.

172 Glyptothek 394.173 D. Facenna (1956).

174 In either case, reworking of the statue would havebeen difficult. If the features were intentionally mutilated,recarving would have been ruled out, and any attempt toreplace the head entirely would have been visually unsat-isfactory as the join of head to neck, or neck to torso wouldhave been easily discernible as a result of the statue’s nudity.

175 In addition to the gem portraits, Domitian’s likenesshas been preserved on terracotta lamps, H.G. Bucholz(1961) 176, figs. 4-5.

176 Whereabouts currently unknown, h. 10 cm.; Exhi-bition of Ancient Greek Art, Burlington Fine Arts Club (London1904) 62, no. 101, pl. 64; W.R. Megow (1987) 220, no. A108, pl. 36.5. The published photograph of the gem is notclear enough to permit secure identification of the femalefigure; see E.R. Varner (1995) 202, n. 77.

177 Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles 22;Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles 26, 12.0 x5.5 cm.; Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles 128,13.4 x 8.1 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 108, 124 138, 143,221-24, nos. A 110-111, 113, pl. 37.1-2,4 (with earlier lit-erature); H. Guiraud (1994) 94, fig. 2. The identificationof emperors with female deities is unusual, but not unique,see for instance the reverse of an aureus which may depictDiana with the portrait features of Augustus (J. Pollini(1990) 353-4, fig. 29b).

178 Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, inv.

chapter six132

cameo in Minden has been recarved from a like-ness of Nero, which surely prevented a secondreworking (cat. 2.45; fig. 69).179 All four of thesegem portraits may have been preserved in ancientcollections as much for their value as semi-precious stones as for their value as curiosities,representative of an emperor who had been over-thrown and whose memory had been con-demned.

A type 3 portrait of Domitian is also preservedon a silver mirror cover in Karlsruhe.180 A smallarmed figure of Minerva, intended as a represen-tation of the palladium, is shown in front of Domi-tian’s neck. Beneath the bust form “+KA?C?K”has been stamped, indicating that the cover be-longed to or was created by Euporos. The Greekname of the owner or artist suggests an easternprovenance for the piece. The intrinsic value ofthe silver probably prevented Euporos from de-stroying the cover, and, as a private person, itmay have been too much trouble to have thepiece melted down and recast.

In addition to the sculpted, bronze, and glypticportraits of Domitian which survived destruction,more emblematic representations of the emperormay still be extant on the Arch of Titus. An archis depicted on the panel from the interior baywhich represents the spoils of Jerusalem beingcarried in the joint triumph of Vespasian andTitus. The relief arch is probably a representa-tion of an actual arch dedicated to Vespasian inhonor of the victories in Judaea.181 It is toppedby statuary which includes two quadrigae withsingle riders (evidently Titus and Vespasian) anda single rider on horseback (Domitian).182 Jose-phus’s account of the triumphal procession con-firms that Vespasian and Titus rode in quadrigae

while Domitian attended his father and brotherriding on a horse.183 The statue of Domitiandepicted in the relief is far too emblematic to havebeen included in the destruction of Domitian’sportraits or the removal of his images from publicdisplay. However the actual bronze statue de-picted in the relief, which decorated Vespasian’sarch would certainly have been removed andmelted down.

Domitian’s inscriptions and commemorativemonuments were also included in his damnatio.Domitian’s name is erased approximately 40%of the 400 surviving texts and inscriptions whichmention him, and stands as a major attempt toeradicate his memory directly comparable to theremoval of his portraits from public display.184

Three honorific inscriptions from Olympia werereused as architectural blocks in a building as-sociated with the athletes’ guild.185 Indeed, Do-mitian’s name may even have been erased in amanuscript of Plutarch’s De Pythiae oraculis.186 Asfor architectural monuments, several arches areknown to have been erected by Domitian inRome, so many in fact, that a pasquinade wasinscribed •kPgà (enough) on one of the emperor’sarches as a pun on arcus (arch).187 According to

no. B 11318, 5.1 x 4.6 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 110, 121,220-21, no. A 109, pl. 37.2.

179 Minden, Domschatz, cat. 2.X.180 Badisches Landesmuseum; M. Taddei (1967) 41;

M.R.-Alföldi (ND) 15-22.; K. Vierneisel and P. Zanker(1979) 20, with fig.; Fittschen-Zanker, I, 36, n. 4, 37, n. 5;W. Sch?rmann (1985) 41, pl. 3; W.R. Megow (1989) 446-47, fig. 4.

181 F.S. Kleiner (1990) 129-130.182 F.S. Kleiner (1990) 129.

183 Bell.Iud. 7.152.184 On Domitian’s inscriptions see, RE 6 (1909) 2580,

2593: A. Martin (1987); E.S. Ramage (1989) 703-4, andn. 172; J.M. Paillier and R. Sablayrolles (1994) 16-17; onthe erasure of Domitian’s name in Spain, see B.W. Jones(1992) 112-3, n. 86; H.I. Flower (2001) 630. The majorityof erased inscriptions are from Rome, Spain, and the east-ern half of the empire, see S. Levin (1985) 285, n. 15. TheDomitianic obelisk now incorporated into Bernini’s FourRivers Fountain in Piazza Navona in Rome does not haveDomitian’s cartouch erased, almost certainly because au-diences in Rome would have been unable to read it andthose in charge of erasing his name in inscriptions at thecapital may not have even recognized the significance ofthe cartouche(s) on the obelisk, J.M. Paillier and R.Sablayrolles (1994)16.

185 AE (1995) 1082, 1406; H.I. Flower (2000) 60, n. 19;H.I. Flower (2001) 627, n. 12.

186 S. Levin (1985) 285-7. Although it is highly implau-sible that the erasure was carried out by Plutarch himself,as suggested by Levin, it does, however, seem likely thatthe erasure was effected by a librarian or the owner of themanuscript.

187 Suet.Dom. 13.2; F.S. Kleiner (1985) 90, n. 85; F.S.Kleiner (1990) 127, n. 1.

domitian 133

Dio, these numerous arches were torn down asa result of Domitian’s condemnation by the Sen-ate.188 The foundations of one of these arches,which spanned the Clivus Palatinus, are pre-served and some of its sculptural decoration wasalso recovered.189 The arch served as a monu-mental entrance to the Domus Flavia and doesnot appear to have been entirely dismantled af-ter Domitian’s downfall as there are post-Trajanicmodifications to its foundations. Any dedicatoryinscription or imagery explicitly associated withDomitian, however, must have been altered. TheDomitianic trophies reused by Severus Alexanderin his monumental nymphaeum on the Esquilineand currently displayed on the balustrade of theCampidoglio may also derive from one ofDomitian’s dismantled arches.190

An honorific inscription now in Philadelphiaset up by the inhabitants of Puteoli has beenentirely obliterated.191 The dedication likelyformed part of a statue base for portrait of Domi-tian and enough traces of the original letteringhave been preserved to allow H.I. Flower toreconstruct its text:

IMP CAESARIDIVI VESPASIANI FDOMITIANO AVGGERMAN PONT MAXTRIB POT XV IMP XXIICOS XVII CENS PERPET P PCOLONIA FLAVIA AVGPUTEOLANAINDVLGENTIA MAXIMI

DIVINIQVE PRINCIPISVRBI EIVS ADMOTA192

Early in Trajan’s principate, the erased inscrip-tion was subsequently reused with its back carvedwith reliefs of praetorians, two of which are pre-served. A second relief in Berlin, belongs with thePhiladelphia relief and together they formed partof a Trajanic monument, perhaps the PortaTriumphalis, celebrating Trajan’s completion ofthe Via Antiniana in 102, which extended andcoopted the Via Domitiana.193 The total eradi-cation of the original Domitianic inscription,rather than just the emperor’s names or titles ishighly unusual and suggests that the inhabitantsof Puteoli wished to cancel all trace of theirhomage for and relationship to the overthrownemperor.194 In addition, the gap of time whichoccurred between the erasure of the inscription,which is likely to have taken place shortly afterDomitian’s assassination, and the carving of theTrajanic reliefs indicates that the erased inscrip-tion may have remained on public display dur-ing Nerva’s principate as a visual marker ofDomitian’s posthumous humiliation and repudia-tion. Whether the obliterated inscription contin-ued to be displayed with a disfigured or alteredportrait of Domitian, or if it was entirely deprivedof its original statue is impossible to know.

Domitian built on a scale reminiscent of Nero,and like Nero, Domitian’s major building pro-grams are often characterized in negative termsas the excessively ambitious work of an auto-crat.195 Nevertheless, his public projects werecertainly expropriated by his successors. Mostnotably, the forum, which he built to link theForum Romanum, the fora of Caesar andAugustus and his father’s Templum Pacis, wasrenamed in honor of Nerva, despite the fact thatit retained all of its Domitianic character, such

188 68.1; F.S. Kleiner (1985) 94; F.S. Kleiner (1990) 128.189 A female torso, often identified as an aura, Rome,

Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv. 124697; E.Paribeni (1953) 15, nor. 5; H. von Steuben, Helbig4 III,165-166, no. 2256; J. Papdapoulos, MusNazRom 1.1, 204-206, no. 127; S. de Maria (1988) 292; two fragments of atriumphal procession, Rome, Vatican, Cortile Belvedere 88,inv. 1022, and Galleria Chiaramonti 46.1, inv. 1936; G.Koeppel(1984) 4, 22-24, nos. 3-4; on the arch, see also F.Villedieu in F. Villedieu, ed. (2001) 67-68.

190 J.M. Pailler and R Sablayrolles (1994) 42.191 Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Museum,

inv. MS4916, h. 1.63 m; M. Cagiano de Azevedo (1939)45-56; K.A. Waters (1969) 397; C.C. Vermeule (1981) 231,no. 192 (with figs.); D. Kinney (1997) 143-4, fig. 18; H.I.Flower (2000) 60-61, figs. 1-2; H.I. Flower (2001).

192 (2000) 61; (2001) 629.193 Pergamonmuseum, Sk 887; no. 127, with fig.; H.I.

Flower (2001) figs. 4-5.194 M. Cagiano de Azevedo (1939) 51; H.I. Flower

(2001) 630.195 See, for instance, Plut, Pub.15.5. B.W. Jones has

noted that these characterizations have been continued bymodern scholars (London 1992) 96, and n. 129.

chapter six134

as the temple dedicated to Domitian’s protectressMinerva and the reliefs of the colonnade whichrefer to Miverva, Domitian’s virtus and attemptsat moral reform.196 In addition, Domitian mayhave initiated the plans which culminated inTrajan’s major building projects, including hisforum, markets and baths.197 It has also beensuggested that the great Trajanic frieze reused onthe interior bay and the attic of the Arch ofConstantine is in fact a Domtianic monument.198

However, A.M. Touati has shown that the recutportrait from the adventus section of the Frieze hascertain correspondences with Trajan’s portrai-ture, in particular the Opferbildtypus which alsooccurs on the Column of Trajan.199 In addition,a Domitianic dating of the Frieze seems highlyunlikely given the sculptural style of the monu-ment and the programmatic nature of the reuseon the arch which is intended to link Constantinewith esteemed emperors of the second century.200

The Continued Display of Domitian’s Images

In contrast to the statues of Domitian which werewarehoused, or the images thrown into the Tiberor the Rio Martino, a togate portrait from thetheater at Aphrodisias was never removed frompublic display.201 The statue was discovered in

several fragments, together with its inscribed base,between 1966 and 1971. The work is a provin-cial variant of Domitian’s first type and includesa light beard.202 It is significant that inscriptionon the base of the statue was not erased in an-tiquity; it reads:

[A]ŒJ@6[V]J[@D]" 5"\[F"D"]

)@:4J4"<Î< Eg$"FJÎ<

'gD:"<46Î< Ò *0y:@H 6"24

XDTFg< ¦B4:g802X<J@H

)4@(X<@L J[@]Ø +Û68X@LH

J@Ø )4@(X<@L.203

The statue itself is badly weathered and its frag-ments were excavated together with other sculp-tural and architectural debris from the originalscaenae frons decoration indicating that the imagewas not removed from the theater afterDomitian’s overthrow, but rather remained onpublic display until the theater’s final destructionin an earthquake which occurred probably dur-ing the reign of Heraclius (A.D. 610-41).204 Thesurvival of this statue strongly suggests thatDomitian’s damnatio was not actively pursued atAphrodisias, in contradistinction to the evidencefor Nero’s damnatio from the Sebasteion. Theexemption of Domitian’s statue from the destruc-tion, removal, or recarving which generally be-fell his images elsewhere, underscores the au-tonomy which individual cities enjoyed inresponding to damnationes, as well as Domitian’sgenuine popularity in Greece and Asia Minor.205

Conclusion: Entrenched Practices and a new Paradigm

Domitian’s condemnation was officially man-dated by the senate, as Nero’s had been previ-

196 Nerva completed the forum which was unfinishedat Domitian’s death, Suet.Dom.5.2. The dedicatory inscrip-tion on the temple read: Imp. Nerva Caes. Aug. pont. max./trib. pot. II cos. IIII [p.p. aedem Mi]nervae fecit (CIL 6.953); LGirard (1981) 23 J. 6-7. On the iconography of the reliefs,see E. D’Ambra (1993)and (1991) 243-48, esp. 248 forDomitian’s moral legislation.

197 Aur.Vict. Lib.Caes. 13.5; J.C. Anderson (1983) 102-4; J.E.Packer 1 (1997) 3-4.

198 W. Gauer (1973); A. Claridge (1998) 274.199 A.M. Touati (1987) 91-5.200 J. Elsner (2000).201 Formerly, Geyre (Aphrodisias) depot, 2.11 m.(total),

0.30 m. (head); K.T. Erim (1973) 135-42, figs. 1-9; J. Inanand E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum (1979) 89-91, no. 38, pls. 30.2,32; 32, 271.1; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 350;K.T. Erim (1986) 84; H.R. Goette (1988) 449-64; H.R.Goette (1989) 128, under no. 314 (possibly a private por-trait); K.T. Erim in C. Roueché and K.T. Erim, eds (1990)153, fig. 1; K.T. Erim in R.R.R. Smith and K.T. Erim,eds. (1991) 82, no. 17, fig. 17. The head is not completelyfinished at the back and it is likely that the statue was

displayed in a niche located in the scaenae frons or all of thetheater complex, K.T. Erim (1973) 138.

202 M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 350.203 K. T. Erim suggests that this might partly be a re-

sult of the inadequate prominence which is accordedDomitian’s name in the inscription (1973) 138.

204 The destruction is dated by K.T. Erim to the reignof Heraclius (A.D. 610-41)(1986) 87.

205 One city in Asia Minor, Sala, even issued coins underthe name Sala Domitianopolis; on Domitian’s popularityin the East, see B.W. Jones (1992) 110-12.

domitian 135

ously. The widespread nature of the survivingevidence for Domitian’s portraits into imagesprimarily of Nerva and Trajan indicates thatsculptural recycling had become an entrenchedresponse to imperial damnationes by the end of thefirst century. Almost every single one of Nerva’sextant marble and bronze images have, in fact,been reworked from Domitianic representations.The reconfigured portraits continued to exert animportant stylistic impact and the GettyDomitian/Nerva stands as one of the most un-compromising examples of verism from the endof the first century. As with the early condem-nations, especially that of Nero, the responses to,and even acceptance of Domitian’s damnatio wereby no means universal, as the army apparentlyresisted his condemnation and insisted that hisassassins be brought to trial; some of his images,such as that at Aphrodisias, may have remainedon public view.

Domitian’s images were also repressed throughdestruction and mutilation. The anthropomor-phic rhetoric which is a centerpiece of Pliny theYounger’s description of the demolition ofDomitian’s bronze portraits stands out in theliterary sources surrounding condemned emper-ors and Pliny consciously employs it to illustratethe public’s disaffection with the murderedemperor’s personality and policies. Even morethan Nero, Domitian becomes the paradigm ofthe overthrown tyrant in later historicalsources.206 It was Domitian’s ill fortune that hisregime was almost immediately succeeded by thatof the Optimus Princeps, Trajan, and the twoemperors were often presented as polar oppositesof imperial behavior.

206 J.M. Pailler and Sablayrolles (1994) 23-40; P. Stewart(1999) 183.

chapter seven136

Almost one hundred years intervened betweenthe damnationes of Domitian and Commodus, andthis period witnessed a profound change in thephysical impact that condemnation had on im-perial images.1 While removal and destruction ofportraits continued, recarving of sculpted like-nesses ceased to be practiced on a wide scale.Indeed, in marked contrast to the treatment ofthe images of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian,none of Commodus’s marble portraits were re-cut at the time of his condemnation.2

Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus was bornon 31 August 161 at Lanuvium, the eldest sur-viving son of the emperor Marcus Aurelius andAnnia Galeria Faustina Minor.3 In 177, Com-modus was elevated to the position of co-Augus-tus with his father and accompanied him on hiscampaigns against the Marcomanni.4 Commodus

succeeded Marcus Aurelius on 17 March 180 andassumed the name Marcus Aurelius CommodusAntoninus.

After his accession, Commodus brought thewar with the Marcomanni to a close by signinga treaty which thus insured a period of relativepeace on the German frontier. Commodus re-turned to Rome in October of 180. Oppositionto Commodus surfaced early in his reign. Alreadyin 182, his sister Lucilla and his wife Crispinawere implicated in a plot to overthrow him.5

Commodus’s ruthless persecution of the senato-rial aristocracy and his erratic and megalomania-cal behavior contributed to a growing sense ofinstability at the capital and throughout theempire. Commodus further scandalized the eliteby performing publicly as a gladiator or chari-oteer and often forced members of the Senate toattend his performances.6 Much of his imperialpropaganda was intended to promote his iden-tification with Hercules.7 Rome was renamedColonia Commodiana, Carthage renamed Alex-andria Commodiana Togata, and the months ofthe year were also renamed to reflect Commo-dus’s names, titles and stress his affiliation withHercules.8

In addition to the conspiracy involving Lucillaand Crispina, a number of other unsuccessfulattempts were made to overthrow Commodus.Finally, on 31 December 192, Commodus wasstrangled in his bath by his wrestling companion,

CHAPTER SEVEN

COMMODUS, LUCILLA, CRISPINA ANDANNIA FUNDANIA FAUSTINA

1 Prior to the condemnation of Commodus, the Senateformally declared Avidius Cassius a hostis and confiscatedhis property for the public treasury (HA Marc. 24.9: sed persenatum hostis est iudicatus bonaque eius proscripta per aerarium pub-licum; HA Av.Cass. 7.7: qui eum hostem iudicaverant bonisproscriptis). Avidius Cassius had been proclaimed emperorin opposition to Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 175. After Cassiuswas defeated and killed, his head was cut off in an act ofpoena post mortem which apparently greatly grieved Marcus,who ordered its immediate burial (HA Marc. 25.3; Dio71[72].27.31). Representations of Cassius would have beenincluded in the sanctions against his memory passed by thesenate.

2 Because of the hiatus in imperial condemnationsduring the second century, it is an exaggeration to claim,as P. Stewart does, that from the first century B.C. throughthe fourth century A.C. no generation had not witnessedthe destruction of statues; in addition, while there is con-tinuity in the processes associated with damnatio, as Stewartnotes, there is also development over time and a shift inemphasis from sculptural recycling to disfigurement, (1999)161, 164.

3 A twin brother, Antoninus, died at the age of four,HA Comm. 1.4.

4. HA Comm. 2.4-5; Dio 71(72).22.2; A. Birley (1966) 270.5 On Lucilla and Crispina see, infra.

6 HA Comm. 2.9, 11.10-127 See W.H. Gross (1973); C.C. Vermeule (1977) 289-

94.8 Dio 72(73).15.1-5; HA. Comm. 8.5-9; 11.8-12.9; F.

Grosso (1964) 360-63, 365-67, 369-71;A. Birley (1988) 8.The months were called: Amazonius, Invictus, Pius, Felix,Lucius, Aelius, Aurelius, Commodus, Augustus, Hercules, Romanus,Exsuperatorius.

commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina 137

the athlete Narcissus, at the instigation of a groupof conspirators which included the emperor’smistress Marcia, his chamberlain Eclectus, thePraetorian Praefect, Quintus Aemilius Laetus,and Commodus’s successor, Publius HelviusPertinax.9

Pertinax immediately convened the Senate andthey affirmed his position as augustus and votedto abolish the memory of Commodus (impurigladiatoris memoria aboleatur).10 Commodus wasdeclared a public enemy11 and his honors wererevoked.12 His name was erased in inscriptions,especially on buildings which others had actuallyconstructed but for which he took credit (sed nomeneius alienis operibus incisum senatus erasit).13 His stat-ues were to be pulled down (detrahantur)14 andabolished (abolendas statuas).15 On the 2nd of Janu-ary, Commodus’s statues were, in fact, over-thrown (deiecerentur).16 In recounting the mutila-tion of Commodus’s statues, Dio employs agraphic and anthropomorphic rhetoric, empha-sizing that they were also torn limb from limb.17

Dio’s treatment of Commodus’s portraits as sur-rogate bodies directly recalls Pliny’s anthropo-morphic description of the destruction of Domi-tian’s images, or Dio’s own account of the attackson Sejanus’s likenesses. The Senate and popu-lace wished to desecrate Commodus’s corpse anddrag it to the Tiber with a hook, as was custom-

ary in the poena post mortem of capital offenders.18

However, the body had been secretly depositedin the Mausoleum of Hadrian19 and a funeraryinscription was eventually erected.20 Dio furtherstates that the populace desecrated Commodus’sportraits as they wished to abuse his corpse.21

The Senate also proclaimed that he had beenburied wrongfully and without appropriate au-thority, reinforcing Commodus’s position as hostisand societal outcast with no right to properburial.22 In addition, the ancient accounts ofCommodus’s condemnation consistently employthe language of the arena concerning the disposaland abuse of corpses of noxii.23

Commodus’s Portrait Typology

Commodus enjoyed five portrait types during hislifetime.24 His first official type corresponds to theperiod when he held the rank of Caesar, 175-77.Commodus is depicted as a boy with a full headof curly hair, wide arching brows, heavy liddedeyes, a rather small nose which dips in at thebridge, a full mouth with down turned cornersand receding lower lip and a small, somewhatsquared chin.

Commodus’s type 2 and 3 portraits were notwidely disseminated. Commodus’s second type isconcurrent with his tenure as co-Augustus withhis father from 177-180. This type is similar tothe first type, although the coiffure is slightly morefull and curly and the facial features older, andthe nose is now straight and aquiline. Commo-dus’s type 3 portraits were intended to com-

9 A. Birley (1988) 82-88 reviews the evidence for theconspiracy.

10 HA Comm. 19.1. Earlier in the second century,Antoninus Pius had prevented the Senate from passingofficial sanctions against the memory of Hadrian, and in-stead, insisted on his deification; HA Had. 27.1-2.6.

11 B@8X:4@l, Dio 73(74).2.1, as well as hostis patriae...hostisdeorum...hostis senatus, HA Comm. 18.3-5.

12 honores detrahantur, HA Comm. 18.3.13 HA Comm. 17.6. See also HA Comm. 20.5: nomenque ex

omnibus privatis publicisque monumentis eradendum and VictorCaes. 17 Commodus: Senatus qui ob festa Ianuariorum frequens primoluci convenerat, simul plebes hostem deorum atque hominum appellavereradendumque nomen sanxere. His name is erased on selectedinscriptions, as for instance the partial erasure in line 6 ofthe Aes Italicense (an edict of A.D. 177 on prices of muneraand gladiators) of et Luci Commodi; CIL 2.6278=ILS 5163;D.G. Kyle (1998) 84, n. 52, 240, n. 88.

14 HA Comm. 18.12-14.15 HA Comm. 20.4-5.16 HA Pert. 6.3.17 73.2.1.

18 HA Comm. 17.4; 18-19, quoting Marius Maximus; Dio74.2.1.

19 HA Comm. 20.1-2 and Dio. 74.2. See alsoA. Birley(1988) 89-90.

20 CIL 6.992.21 74.2.1.22 HA. Comm. 20.2..3-4. Families of condemned hostes

had to petition for the right of burial and their graves werenot protected by the res religiosae; Ulpian Dig. 48.24.1; Paul.Dig. 47.12.4, 48.24.3; C. W. Hedrick (2000) 106-7; E.R.Varner (2001) 59-60.

23 D.G. Kyle (1998) 224-8.24 For the portrait typology of Commodus, see Fittschen-

Zanker I, 81-90, nos. 74-78.

chapter seven138

memorate his accession in 180. The hairstyleremains full and curly and generally straightacross the forehead. Likenesses of this type in-clude a slight beard and moustache intended tomake the young emperor appear more mature.

The third type is succeeded rapidly by thefourth, which is the most widely disseminated ofhis types. On coins, this type replaces Commo-dus’s third type sometime in late 180, perhaps atthe time of his adventus to Rome in October.Again, the coiffure is full and curly, with at leasttwo sections of curls hanging down onto the fore-head. Most of the ears are left uncovered. Thefacial features are slightly heavier and older thanthe earlier types. The eyes continue to be char-acterized by heavy full lids. Naso-labial lines oftenframe the mouth. The beard and moustache aremuch more luxuriant and curly, and recall thoseof his father, Marcus Aurelius, his grandfatherAntoninus Pius, and his brother-in-law, LuciusVerus.

Commodus’s fifth and final type was createdlate in his reign. It appears on coins from 191-192, with the emperor often wearing a lion skin.In contrast to the fourth type, the hair is moreupswept and locks no longer hang down on theforehead. The coiffure often covers the tops ofthe ears. The moustache is generally more full,while the beard slightly shorter. This type, withits shorter, upswept hair emphasizes Commodus’sidentification with Hercules, and also recalls thelater types of his father, Marcus Aurelius.25

The Mutilation and Destruction of Commodus’sImages

The effect of the damnatio on the sculpted por-traits of Commodus is complicated by the factthat his memory was rehabilitated under DidiusJulianus and Septimius Severus, and that thelatter actually compelled the Senate to deify

Commodus in 197.26 Nevertheless, it is extremelysignificant that four extant images of Commodusdo, in fact, exhibit clear signs of intentionalmutilation. Restorations to a bust of Commodus’sfirst type in the Vatican mask deliberate andsevere ancient damage (cat. 6.4; fig. 137).27 Thebust is draped with a paludamentum and was re-putedly discovered at Ostia.28 The left brow andeye, the nose, the mouth, the ears, and portionsof the coiffure have all been restored in marble.The portrait was attacked at Ostia in responseto news of Commodus’s overthrow, and, as in thepast, its defacement was intended to signal visu-ally the repudiation of Commodus, and supportfor the new leader, Pertinax.

An extremely fragmentary replica of Commo-dus’s fourth type in the Antiquarium on theCelio, also owes its deplorable state of preserva-tion to deliberate destruction (cat. 6.2.).29 Thelikeness is badly weathered, the facial featureshave been entirely obliterated, and the bottomof the head is missing. A second, heavily restoredreplica of Commodus’s type 4, in the MuseoCapitolino, has also been intentionally damagedafter his overthrow (cat. 6.3).30 Like the Vaticanportrait from Ostia, this image is heavily restored.The entire face is modern, replacing the origi-nal portrait features which must have been se-verely mutilated or completely destroyed. Themarked contrast between the severe damagesuffered by facial features and the well preservedremainder of the head, including the ears and thedeeply drilled coiffure, underscore the intention-ality of the image’s destruction. The Caelian andCapitoline portraits further attest to the mutila-tion of Commodus’s likenesses in the capital andits environs.

A type 4 portrait in Phillipi has also beenvandalized (cat. 6.1; fig. 138).31 The portrait has

25 Marcus is the first emperor to wear his hair upsweptover his forehead in a kind of anastole intended to recallimages of Jupiter, other mature male divinities, andAlexander the Great.

26 HA Did. 2.6-7; HA Comm. 17.11-12; HA Sev. 11.3-5,12.8; Dio 75(76).7.4, 8.1. A.M. McCann (1968)) 62; M.Hammond (1975) 203-9;A. Birley (1988) 95, 127.

27 Galleria Chiaramonti, 3.13, 706, inv. 1235.28 C. Fea (1819) 89.29 Rome, Antiquario Communale sul Celio, without inv.

no.30 Stanza degli Imperatori 30, inv. 445.31 Museum, inv. 469.

commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina 139

sustained major damage to the forehead, thebrows, and both eyes, while the nose and mouthhave been almost entirely obliterated. Most of theportraits surviving sensory organs have beenattacked in the t-shaped format seen in otherintentionally disfigured images. In addition, theother surfaces of the portrait at the side, back andtop of the head are well preserved and have notbeen damaged. One surviving coin of Commo-dus, from Silandus, has also been attacked andeffaced.32 The Phillipi head, as well as theSilandus coin, are graphic indicators that thedeliberate mutilation of Commodus’s images wasnot limited to the environs of Rome, but extendedinto the provinces. Commodus’s subsequent re-habilitation and deification suggest that suchmutilation of his representations may have beengenerally confined to the brief three month reignof Pertinax.

The Transformation of Commodus’s Images

Unlike the images of the condemned emperorsof the first century, Commodus’s portraits werenot recarved immediately after his overthrow.Commodus’s rehabilitation and deification underSeptimius Severus undoubtedly prevented whole-sale reuse of his portraits. Also, Commodus’simmediate successors were bearded which add-ed enormous technical difficulties to the recarv-ing process. Given the hiatus in imperial condem-nations between Domitian and Commodus, latesecond century sculptors would no longer havebeen as adept at recutting imperial images intoconvincing new likeness as had their first centu-ry counterparts.

Commodus/Pupienus?

However, two replicas of Commodus’ fifth type,in the Vatican (cat. 6.6; fig. 139a-c)33 and Mantua

(cat. 6.5), were recarved in the third century. Thecoiffure of the Vatican portrait, which is workedfor insertion into a cuirassed statue, has beendrastically cut down. Short a penna locks havebeen incised in place of Commodus’s original fulland curly hairstyle. The beard has also beenshortened. The combination of short, incisedcoiffure, with a more plastically modeled beardfinds parallels in portraits from the second quarterof the third century, most notably those of theemperor Pupienus.34 The colossal head inMantua has been similarly altered.35 The portraitis worked for insertion and includes a lion skin.Like the Vatican head, the coiffure, visible be-neath the lion skin over the forehead, has beencut back and the beard has been reduced. Thereworking of the Mantua likeness is starkly evi-dent when it is compared to the unaltered por-trait of Commodus as Hercules in the Palazzo deiConservatori (fig. 141) which includes a full andcurly coiffure beneath the lion’s skin.

The striking resemblances between the re-worked Vatican and Mantua portraits, as well asthe colossal scale, and lion skin of the Mantuahead, may indicate that both portraits have beenrecut to portray the same imperial individual,possibly Pupienus. Pupienus reigned for only fourmonths (April-July 238), together with Balbinus.Six portraits of Pupienus have survived fromantiquity.36 Although these portraits depict a manconsiderably older than the recarved Vatican andMantua likenesses, there are correspondences inthe long oval shape of the face, the way in whichthe cranium bulges out over the ears, the arch-

32 K. Regling (1904) 144.33 Galleria Chiaramonti 27.8, inv. 1613 (formerly

Magazzini, 690).

34 As in the examples in the Museo Capitolino, Stanzadegli Imperatori 50, inv. 477, Fittschen-Zanker I, 126-27,no. 106, pls. 130-31 and the Musei Vaticani, BraccioNuovo, 47, inv. 2265, S. Wood (1986) 34, 41, 128, pl. 3.4.

35 inv. G 6812/1.36 All of the portraits are presumably from Rome. In

addition to the portraits in the Museo Capitolino andVatican already cited, the other portraits are: Copenhagen,Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 457, inv. 788, V. Poulsen (1974)183, pls. 306-7; Oslo, Private Collection, S. Sande (Rome1991) 85-86, no. 70, pl. 69; Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA1020, H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 244, pl. 76a;Rome, Museo Torlonia, 588, H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner(1971) 245.

chapter seven140

ing brows and heavy lidded eyes. The additionof an accompanying inscription may have ren-dered the Vatican and Mantua portraits accept-able likenesses of Pupienus. As a result of theturbulent political situation during the reign ofPupienus and Balbinus, speed may also have beena motivating factor in the reworking.

Regardless of whether or not the Vatican andMantua portraits were recarved to representPupienus or a private individual of the thirdcentury, their coiffures indicate that they werereused approximately sixty years after the over-throw of Commodus. The portraits may havebeen warehoused following Commodus’s assas-sination and never subsequently re-erected afterhis rehabilitation. Their accessibility and the thirdcentury fashion of a short coiffure worn with afull beard, may have further prompted their re-working. Alternatively, the portraits may havenever been removed from display, or have beenpart of the Commodus’s rehabilitation underSeptimius Severus. In any case, the reconfigura-tion of the portraits appears to be entirely aproduct of practicality or economics rather thanideology.

Commodus/Licinius?

A fragmentary cuirassed portrait of a tetrarch inSide also contains compelling evidence that it hasbeen recarved from an earlier representation ofCommodus (cat. 6.7; fig. 140a-c).37 The head wasoriginally carved in one piece with the torso. Thetype of cuirass, with double row of straps on thesleeve of the lorica is Antonine in date,38 butdetails of the portrait head, including the shortcoiffure with incised locks, the short, incisedbeard, and the geometric handling of the facialfeatures are clearly Tetrarchic and are perhapsintended as a likeness of Licinius.39 In its initialincarnation, the statue likely depicted one of theAntonine emperors and traces of an original,longer and fuller hairstyle are still visible on the

nape of the neck. The head exhibits the long, ovalshape which characterizes likenesses of Commo-dus and would appear to have been retained fromthe original.40 Like the Chiaramonti and Mantuaportraits, Commodus’s rehabilitation complicatesthe context surrounding its reuse, that is whetherit had been retrieved from a warehouse, or wasstill displayed publicly in the Tetrarchic period.

The Removal of Commodus’s Images

Prior to his rehabilitation, images of Commoduswere also removed from public display. The greatnumber of portraits of Commodus which havesurvived from antiquity indicate that his portraitswere warehoused and probably re-erected underSeptimius Severus. And indeed the archaeologi-cal context of the well known portrait of Commo-dus as Hercules in the Palazzo dei Conservatori,confirms the warehousing of his images after hisoverthrow (fig. 141).41 Originally part of a sculp-tural group which included two flanking tritons,the portrait is a replica of Commodus’s fifth andfinal type and is remarkable for its fine state ofpreservation.42 The bust is supported on a plinthof alabaster, which is ancient and almost certainlybelongs with the portrait. The original, highlypolished surfaces of the marble are still preserved.Minimal restorations to the portrait include small

37 Museum, inv. 35 (formerly no. 315).38 J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum (1966) 86.39 H.P. L’Orange (1984) 117.

40 J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum (1966) 87.41 Sala degli Arazzi (ex Galleria degli Orti Lamiani 12),

inv. 1120, h. 1.33 m.(excluding alabaster plinth); Fittschen-Zanker I, 85-90, no. 78, pls. 91-94 (with earlier literature);R. Hannah (1986) 357-42, pl. 22.1-2; M. Cima and E. LaRocca, eds. (1986) 53-55 (M. Cima), 90-91, figs. 58-60 (M.Bertoletti), 173, n. 14, 176-77 (C. Häuber), 202 (C. Usai);N.H. and A. Ramage (1991) 216-17, fig. 8.36; D.E.E.Kleiner (1992) 277, figs. 243-44. The emperor wears alionskin, knotted on his chest and holds a club in his righthand and the apples of the Hesperides in his extended left.The bust is supported by a pelta shaped shield with agorgoneion. Two cornucopiae, which rest on a globe withzodiacal signs, surround the shield. Two kneeling amazons,only one of which is preserved, flank the globe and shield.R. Hannah has suggested that the zodiacal signs refer tothe month of October, renamed Hercules by Commodus,further reinforcing the Herculean imagery of the portrait,(1986) 337-40.

42 Fittschen-Zanker I, 68.

commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina 141

sections of the lion skin, the index, middle andlittle fingers of the right hand, and sections of theshield.43

The bust and tritons were discovered on 23December 1874 in a cryptoporticus of the HortiLamiani on the Esquiline, together with otherpieces of sculpture.44 None of the sculpture foundin the cryptoporticus postdates the Commodanperiod and all of it is remarkably well preserved.It seems likely that the portrait was removed fromview and stored in the cryptoporticus after Com-modus’s overthrow.45 During Pertinax’s tenureas Augustus, it would have been neither accept-able nor politically expedient to display imagesof Commodus in the imperial gardens on theEsquiline (now the property of the new emperor),especially a highly charged representation of theemperor as Hercules Romanus. The rest of thestatues are not homogenous in style or date anddo not form any sort of coherent sculptural pro-gram. The cryptoporticus itself was restored andrichly decorated under Caligula.46 By Commo-dus’s reign, the cryptoporticus appears to havebeen used for the storage of sculpture no longerbeing displayed in the imperial complex. Thelatest archaeological find in the cryptoporticus isa fistula with an inscription referring to SeverusAlexander.47 Severus Alexander built a bath com-plex near the cryptoporticus and the discoveryof the pipe reinforces the hypothesis of a latermore utilitarian function for the structure. The

bust of Commodus as Hercules is one of fourportraits of condemned emperors discovered inthe area of imperial residences on the Esquiline.48

The well documented archaeological context ofthe portrait of Commodus provides invaluable in-formation concerning the removal and storage ofimages on imperial property as a result of damnatiomemoriae.

Another well-preserved portrait of Commodus,a replica of his first type, was discovered in 1701with other Antonine portraits near the imperialholdings at Lanuvium.49 The bust length portraitdepicts the young Caesar with a paludamentum.Minor sections of the drapery, some of the coif-fure, and the tip of the nose have been restored.The bust was found together with as many as sixother portraits50 including: a bust of AntoninusPius;51 a fragmentary bust of Faustina Maior;52

a bust of Marcus Aurelius;53 a bust of FaustinaMinor;54 a bust of Lucius Verus;55 and a bust of“Annius Verus.”56 Recent excavations in the areaindicate that the ancient structures in whichthese portraits were discovered were part of abath complex.57 It is unclear whether the bust of

43 The left Amazon is entirely missing, while the rightAmazon lacks her head, right arm and left forearm. Thebottom of the right cornucopia is also gone. The Tritonsare well preserved from the waist up and their lower bod-ies may have been executed in a colored marble. Tracesof gilding are still detectable on both Tritons. The left armand right forearm of the right triton are missing, as are theright arm and left forearm of the left triton.

44 On the discovery of the portrait, see, R. Lanciani(1897) 407; R. Lanciani (1901) 220; and C. Häuber inM.Cima and E. La Rocca, eds. (1986) 173, 176-77.

45 P.E. Visconti first proposed this theory shortly afterthe sculptures’ discovery, (1875) 3-15.

46 M. Cima in M. Cima and E. La Rocca, eds. (1986)54-55.

47 M. Cima in M. Cima and E. La Rocca, eds. (1986)54-55. The inscription on the fistula reads: STATIONISPROPRIAE PRIVATAE DOMINI N. ALEXANDRI AVG.

48 In addition to the Commodus as Hercules, two por-traits of Domitian: Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano delleTerme, inv. 226, cat. 2.52, and Rome, Palazzo deiConservatori, Centrale Montemartini 2.76, inv. 1156, su-pra; and a portrait of Carinus, Palazzo dei Conservatori,Centrale Montemartini 2.83, inv. 850, infra.

49. Stanza degli Imperatori 60, inv. 454, h. 0.74 m.; exCollection Albani, A 32; Fittschen-Zanker I, 81-83, no. 74,pl. 86-88, Beil. 96 (with earlier literature); D.E.E. Kleiner(1992) 273, fig. 241; T. Weiss, ed. (1999) 123, no. 26, 150,no. 75.

50. Fittschen-Zanker, I, 65, n. 1.51 Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 26,

inv. 446, Fittschen-Zanker I, 63-67, no. 59, pls. 67-69.52 Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 27,

inv. 447, Fittschen-Zanker III, 13-15, no. 13, pls. 15-16.53 Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 29,

inv. 450, Fittschen-Zanker I, 68-69, no. 62 pls. 69, 71, 73.54 Perhaps to be identified with Rome, Museo Capito-

lino, Galleria 56, inv. 250, Fittschen-Zanker III, 21-22, no.20, pls. 27-29.

55 Probably to be identified with Rome, MuseoCapitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 31, inv. 452, Fittschen-Zanker I, 79-81, no. 73, pls. 84-86.

56 Fittschen-Zanker IV, no. 28.57 N. Cassieri, “La cosidetto Villa degli Antonini a

Genzano,” lecture delivered in October 1989 at theUniversità di Roma.

chapter seven142

Commodus was removed from display after hisdamnatio, stored, and then returned to display afterhis rehabilitation or whether, like the portraits ofCaligula from Crete and Iesi, and the boyhoodportraits of Nero from Velleia and Rusellae, itcontinued to be displayed as part of the largergroup dedication, despite the damnatio.The most compelling and dramatic evidence forthe removal of Commodus’s images occurs in theseries of relief panels honoring his father, MarcusAurelius.58 Figures of Commodus have beenentirely eradicated in the Triumph panel in thePalazzo dei Conservatori (fig. 142a-c) and the“Liberalitas” (largitio/congiarium) panel from the atticof the Arch of Constantine (fig. 143a-b).59 Thetriumph panel exhibits numerous signs that it hasbeen extensively recut.60 The two column basesat the proper right of the temple facade in thebackground of the relief are depicted differentlythan those at the left; in addition, the steps havebeen incorrectly extended beyond the front of thebuilding, along its right flank. Chisel marks vis-ible below the steps and to the left of MarcusAurelius document the removal of the figure ofCommodus in this area. These roughened sur-

faces stand in stark contrast to the finishes usedelsewhere on the relief, but the discrepancy is notvisible when the relief is viewed from below.61

The left arm and side of Marcus Aurelius havealso been reworked and, as a result, they appeartruncated and unrealistically foreshortened.

Commodus accompanied his father in the tri-umphal chariot, as co-celebrant in the triumphof 176 which commemorated the victories overthe Marcomanni and Quadi,62 The entire lowerhalf of the second column at the proper right ofthe temple door has been recut and establishesthe height of the missing figure of Commodus.63

Commodus’s image has been entirely chiseled outof the relief. Originally, the goddess Victoryextended a laurel wreath in her left hand overCommodus’s head; the wreath was erased to-gether with Commodus, and, as a result, her armis awkwardly extended over the empty space atMarcus’s left, and the fillets of the excised wreathare left dangling in front of the far right column.The eradication of Commodus from this panel,which was originally designed as an overt glori-fication of the military achievements of the fa-ther and son, constitutes a powerful manifesta-tion of abolitio memoriae.64 Quite literally, all visualtrace of Commodus has been removed from thispanel, and concomitantly, his military glory andlinks to his revered father, Marcus Aurelius, havebeen posthumously canceled and revoked.

Commodus has been similarly eradicated fromthe Liberalitas relief on the Arch of Constantine.65

58 Eight of the panels were reused in the early fourthcentury on the attic of the Arch of Constantine and threepanels were preserved until the early sixteenth century inthe church of S. Martina in the Forum Romanum and arenow displayed in the Palazzo dei Conservatori. A fragmen-tary twelfth panel with a portrait of Marcus Aurelius ex-ists in Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (701, inv.1471). M. Cagiano de Azevedo’s theory that the panelsreused on the arch of Constantine all originally honoredCommodus instead of Marcus Aurelius is impossible tomaintain in view of the fact that the figure of Commodushas been entirely excised from one of these reliefs, the largitiopanel (1953-54) 207-10.

59 I.S. Ryberg (1967) (with earlier literature); E.Angelicoussis (1984) 141-205 (with earlier literature); G.Koeppel (1986) 47-76, nos 23-34 (with earlier literature);E. La Rocca, ed.(1986) 38-52, pls. 1-3, pls. 23-47; S. DeMaria (1988) 303-5, no. 88, pls. 79-81; A. M. Sommella,ed (1990) 12, with fig. (Triumph panel); D.E.E. Kleiner(1992) 288-95, figs. 256-62.

60 The panel depicts Marcus Aurelius as triumphatorriding in a chariot. A flying Victory crowns the emperorand a trumpet player points to an arch through which thetriumphal procession is about to move. A temple, perhapsthat of Fortuna Redux, is shown in the background abovethe emperor’s chariot.M. Cafiero in E. La Rocca, ed. (1986)39.

61 E. Angelicoussis (1984) 152, n. 52.62 On the joint triumph HA Marc. 16.1 and Comm. 2.3-

5; 12.4-5; E. Angelicoussis also supplies numismatic evi-dence, (1984) 152.

63 As examined by A. Claridge, E. Angelicoussis (1984)152.

64 See F. Vittinghoff (1936) 64-74.65 Marcus Aurelius is depicted sitting on a sella curulis.

A figure wearing a tunic stands in front of the emperor andassists with the distribution of money. A togate figure standsbehind the emperor at his left. Two additional togate fig-ures are represented directly behind the emperor. The baseupon which the figure at the proper left stands may indi-cate that both of these togati are intended to represent stat-ues, although this is far from certain (H. von Heintze [1969]662-74; E. Angelicoussis, [1984] 158). The emperor andattendant figures are depicted on a raised platform with acolonnade at the back. Garlands are suspended between

commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina 143

A largitio, jointly distributed by M. Aurelius andCommodus in 177, shortly after the joint triumphof December 176, doubled the customary sum ofmoney and was intended as a spectacular celebra-tion of the successful conclusion of the Germancampaigns, Commodus’s first consulship, and hisassumption of the tribunician powers.66 Like thetriumph panel, this relief contains clear indica-tions of its alteration. Beside Marcus on the plat-form is the claw foot of a second sella curulis andthe remnants of Commodus’s own foot. In ad-dition, much of the togate figure at the far leftof the platform has been recut. The relief heightis much lower along the figure’s right side andmost of the lower half of the body. The left handis disproportionately large and the shoulders aretoo narrow for the size of the head.67 The drap-ery in the recut areas is also more schematicallyrendered and more cursorily finished than therest of the figures in the panel. The togatus in thebackground behind Marcus Aurelius and to hisright has also been recut. The drapery of thisfigure, below the knees, is in lower relief andmore roughly carved. The recut areas of thesefigures allow the original position of Commodusto be established with some certainty. Markscaused by a small pick-axe between the feet ofthe figure at the left of the platform, providefurther evidence for the excision of Commodusfrom the relief.68 As with the triumph panel, theremnants of Commodus’s foot and sella curulis, aswell as the awkward passages occasioned by therecarving would not have been readily discern-ible if the relief were seen from below. Again, thecomplete obliteration of Commodus graphicallyattests to his abolitio memoriae. In both panels, thevisual record of historical events has been entirelyrewritten: the joint triumph is altered into a singletriumph, and Commodus’s participation in theliberalitas of 177 is effectively rescinded.

Strong evidence exists that portraits of Com-modus were also erased from the imperial imag-ines which decorate military standards in twoadditional panels from the attic on the Arch ofConstantine. Imagines in the Lustratio and “Sub-missio” (clementia) panels appear to have beendeliberately defaced and may originally haverepresented Commodus as Caesar (figs. 144-145).69 In the imago from the Lustratio panel, thebust of Commodus is cuirassed and includes apaludamentum. The bust form in the “Submissio”panel is less well preserved, but also appears tobe cuirassed and with a paludamentum. In bothcases, the facial features of these imagines havebeen deliberately obliterated.70 The destructionof Commodus’s imagines additionally underscoresthe meticulous care which was taken to removeall visual trace of the condemned emperor fromthe reliefs.71

The nature of the monument or monumentsfor which the Aurelian panels were originallyintended has long been surrounded by scholarlycontroversy.72 Nevertheless, E. Angelicoussis hasclearly demonstrated the difficulties inherent inmaintaining that the reliefs came from two sepa-rate monuments.73 Almost certainly the reliefscome from a single monument, most likely anarch.74 Antonine column capitals reused on the

the columns. In the foreground of the relief three men, awoman, and two children are represented receiving theemperor’s largesse.

66 HA Marc. 27.4-5,Dio 71(72).32.1, and E. Angelicoussis(1984) 157.

67 E. Angelicoussis (1984) 156.68 E. Angelicoussis (1984) 156.

69 As first proposed by M. Wegner (1938) 180-86; E.Angelicoussis (1984) 169. J. Ruysschaert (1962-63) 120-21and I.S. Ryberg (1967) 3, 40-41, 62 and refute Wegner’stheories, but largely on reasons of date and protocol inregard to the use of imperial portraits on standards, ratherthan the fairly convincing evidence of the imagines them-selves. It seems entirely probable that portraits ofCommodus as Caesar could have been used, either aloneor in conjunction with other imperial portraits, on stan-dards during his father’s reign. Commodus was appointedCaesar in 166.

70 The defacement of these imagines is readily apparentwhen they are compared to other imagines in which the faceshave survived.

71 The defacement of the imagines of Commodus, pre-dicts the treatment of Geta’s imagines on standards depictedon the Arch of the Argentarii.

72 For a review of earlier scholarship on the monumentor monuments, see E. Angelicoussis (1984) 159-74.

73 E. Angelicoussis (1984) 159-98.74 E. Angelicoussis’s theories involving a tetrapylon

erected to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, for whichtwelve panels honoring Commodus were entirely destroyed

chapter seven144

Arch of Constantine and in the Porticus DeorumConsentium in the Roman Forum, as well as thepanel reliefs, could have belonged to this puta-tive arch, probably erected in 177 or slightlylater.75 If the reliefs were in place on the hypo-thetical arch, it would have created logisticalproblems for the artists charged with removingthe images of Commodus and recutting the re-liefs, thus accounting for the somewhat awkwardresults on the Triumph and Liberalitas panels.

However, no reliable numismatic, epigraphic,

literary or archaeological evidence has survivedfor an arch erected to Marcus Aurelius inRome.76 The possibility cannot be discountedthat, like the Cancelleria Reliefs, the reliefs werenever installed on the monument for which theywere intended. The reuse of the eight reliefs onthe Arch of Constantine indicates that, if thehypothetical arch had been erected it was eitherin a grave state of disrepair, entirely destroyed,or deliberately denuded of its sculpture at thetime of the erection of the Arch of Constantinebetween 312 and 315. It is just as possible thatthe panels were taken from a depot in which theyhad been stored when it became clear that thearch for which they had been created was nevergoing to be completed. The reliefs celebrateevents which took place as late as 177 (the jointliberalitas) and the erection of the arch may havebeen delayed by the return of Marcus Aureliusand Commodus to the German frontier. UponMarcus’s death in 180 and Commodus’s returnto the capital, the function of the reliefs and thearch may have been supplanted by the sculptedcolumn which Commodus posthumously com-missioned for his father. Like the reliefs, the col-umn commemorates Marcus Aurelius’s Germanvictories. The Historia Augusta explicitly states thatCommodus did not complete building projectsinitiated by Marcus, and this may be furtherevidence that the putative arch was never con-structed.77 At the time of Commodus’s death,there may have been a renewed attempt to usethe panels, thus accounting for the expurgationof Commodus from the reliefs. The political cli-mate under Septimius Severus who fostered therehabilitation of Commodus’s memory, may havemade the expurgated reliefs impossible to reuse.In any case, whether the reliefs were in place ona monument, or in storage, great care was takenimmediately after his assassination to remove allvisual references to Commodus.

as a result of his damnatio, are unwieldy. Her argumentsconcerning directional theory do not hold up under closescrutiny. Based on study of the Arch of Trajan atBenevento, she has formulated a strictly symmetrical theoryconcerning the position of the emperor in relief panelsdecorating an arch (i.e, for every panel in which the em-peror looks towards his right, there should be a correspond-ing panel in which the emperor looks towards his left).Unfortunately, the Benevento arch is the only preservedarch which follows this theory. Later arches, such as thearches of Septimius Severus in the Forum Romanum, hisarch at Lepcis Magna, and the Arch of Constantine do notconform to this theory. In addition, it seems highly unlikelythat half of the arch’s relief decoration depicting Commoduswould have been entirely destroyed, while that commemo-rating Marcus Aurelius was left on the monument ( [1984]174-198). Rather, it seems much more likely that themonument was decorated with twelve panels, for whicheleven are preserved intact, and a fragment of the twelfthis in Copenhagen. In nine of the preserved panels, MarcusAurelius faces the proper left, and in the remaining two,plus the Copenhagen fragment he faces right. The direc-tion which the emperor faces, and the placement of thepanels on the putative arch may have been intended to leadthe viewer around and through the monument. If a singlebayed arch is posited, six of the left hand facing panels couldbe used in the attic (two on each facade, and one on eachshort side) encouraging the viewer to follow the emperor’sdirection around the arch. Thus the entire attic would beread from right to left, all the way around the arch, re-calling a continuous frieze or a line of text. A right handand a left hand panel would flank each bay, encouragingthe viewer to enter the bay. Within the bay itself, a rightand a left hand facing panel would decorate each interiorwall, inviting entry through the bay from the principal fa-cade. Such a hypothetical reconstruction employs all thepreserved relief decoration and does not rely on possiblylost panels. The column of Trajan uses the direction of thesculpture to encourage the viewer to walk around themonument counterclockwise and re-enact the funerarycircumabulatio. It is more than likely that the column hadsome impact on the Aurelian panels.

75 On the column capitals, see P. Pensabene in P.Pensabene and C. Panella, eds. (1999) 33-5.

76 A problematic and fragmentary inscription whichreads: “because, surpassing all the glories of the greatestemperors before him, having wiped out or subjugated...”ILS 374 may refer to or belong to an arch voted by thesenate in 176; A. Birley (1966) 271-2.

77 Comm. 17.7 : nec patris autem sui opera perfecit.

commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina 145

Representations of Commodus were also fea-tured on the Column of Marcus Aurelius.78 TheColumn’s was begun in 180 and completed by193.79 Although the reliefs refer to Marcus’sGerman campaigns, they have not been renderedwith the same degree of historical specificity astheir counterparts on the Column of Trajan. Themore generic aspect of the scenes depicted on theAurelian column make the identification of in-dividual episodes problematic. The reliefs are alsonot as well preserved as those on the Column ofTrajan, which further complicates the accurateidentification of specific scenes and figures. How-ever, scene 42 may represent Commodus’s as-sumption of the toga virilis, which occurred at thebattlefront on 7 July 175 .80 Marcus Aurelius isdepicted laying his right hand on the head of asmaller figure. The smaller figure may beCommodus. The scene is very badly weatheredand it is impossible to determine if Commodus’sportrait features were deliberately defaced,recarved in antiquity, or left intact. Nevertheless,it is apparent that the figure, if Commodus,was not entirely removed, as in the Aurelianpanels.

A figure of Commodus may also have beenrepresented on the reliefs which originally deco-

rated the base of the Column.81 These reliefswere chiseled off the base during the restorationof the Column carried out by Domenico Fontanaunder Sixtus V. However, the original appear-ance of the reliefs is preserved in drawings ex-ecuted by EneaVico, Francisco d’Hollanda, Gio-vanni Antonio Dosio, and Itienne du PJrac priorto their removal. One side of the base depictedMarcus Aurelius wearing a cuirass and paluda-mentum receiving or granting clemency to kneel-ing foreigners. A youthful, beardless figure standsbetween the emperor and the barbarians, andmay be Commodus. The reliefs were not wellpreserved when Vico recorded them, and hisrenditions are fairly schematic. As on the columnitself, it is hard to determine what, if anything,was done to the putative figure of Commodus asa result of the damnatio. Nevertheless, it is appar-ent that the figure from the base was not removedin its entirety.

In contrast, the conspicuous absence of anymention of Commodus in the portrait dedicationsfrom the Caserma dei Vigili at Ostia providesadditional confirmation for the removal of histhree-dimensional images. The building housedthe Vigili of Ostia and included a small room(caesareum) devoted to imperial dedications. Thepreserved statue bases from this room commemo-rate Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius (two bases),Lucius Verus, and Septimius Severus (originallydedicated to Commodus).82 It is likely that Com-modus’s statue was removed from the series inresponse to his damnatio and never replaced af-ter the rehabilitation of his memory.

Further corroboration for the removal ofCommodus’s images is provided by Herodianwho records that a statue of Commodus as anarcher which had been erected in front of theCuria was replaced with a representation ofLibertas.83 As noted earlier, Commodus remod-eled the Colossus of Nero into a representationof himself in the guise of Hercules by reconfig-

78 C. Caprino, A.M. Colini, G. Gatti, M. Pallottino, andP. Romanelli (1955) (with earlier literature); G. Becatti(1957); G. Becatti (1960); G. Koeppel (1981) 501-3 (withearlier literature); E. Angelicoussis (1984) 144; D.E.E.Kleiner (1992) 295-301, figs. 263-68.

79 CIL 6.1585 = ILS 5920.80 HA,Marc. 22.12, Comm. 2.2; Dio, 71(72).22.2; J.W.

Morris (1952) 41; C.C. Vermeule (1956) 316. This mayhave been the only scene in which Commodus appeared.The section of the column before this scene probably re-fers to events prior to Commodus’s joining the campaigns.Vermeule has correctly pointed out that the later sceneson the column, which come after the toga virilis episode arepresented more as “mopping up” episodes rather than im-portant victories, (1956) 317. Commodus appears to havedeliberately played down the seriousness of the secondphase of the war (177-80) in order to justify his own aban-donment of the German campaigns after Marcus’s death.For this reason, the scenes from the upper third of thecolumn are not depicted as heroic battles requiring theparticipation of the emperor(s) but rather as minor skir-mishes (and foreign emigrations). Vermeule also points outthat imperial portraits would hardly have been visible inthe upper sections of the column, ibid.

81 G. Becatti (1962) 51-3, pl. 5; G. Becatti (1972) 66-68; A. Bonanno (1976) 139.

82 C. Pavolini (1983) 59.83 1.14.9-15.1.

chapter seven146

uring the existing head with his own likeness(Colossi autem caput demsit...ac suum imposuit); a club,a lion (or lionskin) and an accompanying inscrip-tion were also added to the statue, as identify-ing attributes of Commodus-Hercules.84 TheCommodan additions to the colossus were re-moved as part of the condemnation following hisassassination.

E. Knauer has suggested that the Campidogliobronze equestrian portrait of Marcus Aureliusmay have had a pendant equestrian portrait ofCommodus, and, if so, this likeness also may alsohave been removed from public view as a resultof the damnatio.85 The sharp turn of both theemperor’s and the horse’s heads to the rightsupports Knauer’s hypothesis of a pendant im-age. The statue(s) may have originally decorateda complex associated with the equites singulares onthe Caelian.86 If the hypothetical statue of Com-modus were indeed displayed in such a militarysetting, it is highly likely to have been removedand melted down immediately after his assassi-nation and damnatio.

A portrait of Commodus as Hercules may alsohave been removed from the handle of a silverpatera in Britain.87 The handle was part of a sil-ver hoard discovered in 1747 at Capheaton,Northumberland.88 A relief bust, identifiable asHercules because of the knotted ends of thelionskin which are still visible, has been deliber-ately removed from the handle. A skyphus andclub flank the space where the bust originallyappeared.89 M. Rostovetzeff has suggested that,since the bust had been deliberately removedfrom the handle, it may have represented Com-

modus-Hercules.90 The way in which the lion-skin is knotted is also similar to the Conservatoribust of Commodus as Hercules, as well as tonumismatic representations of the emperor in theguise of Hercules. The imagery on the pateraemphasizes aspects of Hercules, namely huntingand athletic prowess, which Commodus particu-larly promoted. The style of the reliefs is alsocompatible with a late Antonine date.91 If thebust did represent Commodus as Hercules, thenits removal suggests that Commodus’s damnatiowas widespread throughout the Empire immedi-ately following his assassination and extended tosmall scale domestic objects.

The removal of Commodus’s sculpted andrelief images is paralleled by the erasure of hisname in inscriptions. Commodus’s name andtitles have been excised in numerous inscriptions,including a dedication to Hercules in the Vaticanin which Septimius Severus’s name has beensubstituted for that of Commodus.92 Severus’sname has also replaced that of Commodus in aninscription at Lepcis Magna which marked therestoration of the Forum Baths.93 The replace-ment of Commodus’s name with that of Severusis especially unusual in light of Severus’s deifi-cation of Commodus, and underscores again thewide variability which existed in responses to anygiven condemnation on the part of municipali-ties and individuals. A statue base from Pozzuoli,which was eventually dedicated to Crispus, origi-nally may have honored Commodus and beenerased following his damnatio.94 The erasure ofCommodus’s name was also carried out in less

84 HA Comm. 17.9-10; Dio 72 (73).22.3; Herod. 1.15.9;ChronPasch (Bonn ed.I 492) A.D. 187.

85 (1990) 300, n. 88.86 E. Knauer (1990) 280-81.87 London, British Museum; M. Rostovtzeff (1923) 100,

pl. 5.88 M. Rostovetzeff (1923) 99.89 Below the space appear the slain bodies of the Ery-

mathian boar, the Lernaean hydra, and the Stymphalianbirds, and the serpent Ladon encircling the tree of theHesperides, with a burning altar at its base. The medal-lion which decorated the center of the patera depictsHercules and Antaeus.

90 M. Rostovetzeff (1923) 100.91 In addition a second handle from the hoard has a

female bust which Rostovetzeff identifies as an empress,“perhaps Marcia,” in the guise of Juno, (1923) 100, 101,pl. 5.3; If so, this would be a highly unusual representa-tion of a mistress of a Roman emperor, since Marcia wasnot, in fact, an empress (augusta), nor was she formallymarried to Commodus. The portrait features of the bustare fairly generic, and it may represent Crispina, ratherthan Marcia.

92 A.E. Gordon and J.S. Gordon (1965) 159-61, no. 252;A.M. McCann (1968)) 87, n. 16.

93 I.M. Barton (1981) 3-12;A. Birley (1988) 148.94 Crispus’s name was also erased after his downfall, S.

Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 50.

commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina 147

public dedications, including a Saturn stela fromNorth Africa.95

The Rehabilitation of Commodus’s Memory

After the murder of Pertinax on 28 March 193,Didius Julianus, in his bid for imperial power,promised the praetorian guard that he wouldrestore the memory of Commodus (Commodi me-moriam resituturum)96 and re-erect the portraitswhich the Senate had ordered removed.97 Per-suaded by Didius Julianus, the praetorians salutedhim as emperor and added Commodus to hisnames.98 The rehabilitation of Commodus’smemory and the restoration of his monumentswhich took place under Didius Julianus indicatethat the removal and destruction of Commodus’sportraits and inscriptions was essentially limitedto the three month reign of Pertinax.

Septimius Severus, the successor of DidiusJulianus, avidly supported the rehabilitation ofCommodus’s memory. Septimius Severus hadhimself posthumously adopted into the Antoninegens as the son of Marcus Aurelius. His promo-tion of Commodus’s memory was also clearlyintended to provoke the Senate, who had failedto initially support Severus’s claims to theprincipate.99 Not content with merely restoringthe memory of Commodus and revoking thedamnatio, Septimius Severus forced the Senate todeify Commodus formally in 197, only four yearsafter they had officially condemned him.100 Thedeification was publicly commemorated on coinswith the legend Consecratio.101 In addition, Com-modus was voted a flamen Herculaneus Commodianusand his birthday was celebrated.102 In posthu-mous inscriptions, Commodus is referred to asdivus and the frater of Septimius Severus.103

The rehabilitation insured that many portraitsof Commodus were re-erected and help to ac-count for the large number of his extant im-ages.104 Commodus’s name is also restored ininscriptions where it had been erased.105 In ad-dition, stylistic and iconographic analysis suggeststhat four variants of Commodus’s first portraittype are creations of the Severan period. Thelinear and schematic treatment of the coiffure ofan over life-sized portrait of the young Com-modus as Sol in the Terme, is consonant with aSeveran rather than an Antonine date.106 Fiveholes have been drilled in the coiffure, for theaddition of the radiate crown of Sol. The physi-ognomy is also more idealized than most type 1portraits of Commodus which further supportsthe identification of the Terme likeness as adivinized image of the emperor.

Although badly weathered, an under life-sizedhead in Ostia is similar to the Terme portrait inits idealizing treatment of the facial features (fig.146).107 The coiffure is even more schematicallyrendered than the Terme head and lacks the richdrillwork characteristic of Antonine portraiture.The miniature scale of the head suggests that itwas displayed in a lararium.108 Septimius Severus’spromotion of the cult of the deified Commoduswould have necessitated the creation of newimages of Commodus for display in public orprivate shrines as demonstrations of loyalty forthe reigning dynasty.

95 M.. Le Glay (1961) 47, no. 35.96 HA Did. 2.6.97 Herodian, 2.6.10.98 Dio, 74(74).12.1; Herodian, 6.11.99 A.M. McCann (1968) 62;A. Birley (1988) 127-28.100 HA Sev. 11.3-4; 12.8.101 Cohen 32 294, no. 61, 359, nos 1009-1010.102 HA Comm. 17.11-12.103 For example, the dedicatory inscription from the

theater at Ostia, a statue base in the Cortile della Pignaof the Vatican, and CIL 8.9317.

104 In addition to the numerous sculpted portraits ofCommodus which have survived, at least five ancient gemportraits can be attributed to him, W.R. Megow (1987) 237-39, nos. A 137 - A 141, pls. 45.12-13, 48.8, 48.7.

105 See, for instance IG 22.1113; D.J. Geagan (1979) 407.Septimius also reinstitued the Komodeia celebrated by theephebes at Athens, ibid. 406.

106 Magazzini, inv. 56128, h. 0.38 m.; A. Ciofarelli,MusNazRom 1.9.2, 300-303, no. R225, with figs (with ear-lier literature). The treatment of the coiffure at the backof the head, as long, wavy locks, is also atypical of portraitsof Commodus’s first type, but recalls portraits of Geta’s firsttype, further supporting a Severan date.

107 Museo, Sala 6, vetrina a destra, 2, inv. 270, h. 0.105m.; R. Calza (1977) 23, no. 21, pl. 17 (with earlier litera-ture); M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980) 86.

108 R. Calza (1977) 23.

chapter seven148

Two additional portraits, in Florence109 andVenice110 closely resemble the Terme and Os-tia heads. The handling of the eyes in the Flo-rence image, with their wide, arching brows andupward gaze strongly recalls the Terme portrait,as does the treatment of the coiffure. The coif-fure of the Venice likeness is schematic and notdeeply drilled. The bland expression and ideal-ized facial features are similar to the Ostianportrait. The strong similarities in the treatmentof the coiffure and youthful physiognomies of thefour posthumous type 1 portraits of Commodusvisually link them to contemporary type 1 por-traits of Caracalla and Geta. Like the nameswhich Caracalla adopted upon his accession asCaesar in 195 (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus), theseaffinities underscore the forged adoptive tiesbetween the Severan and Antonine dynastiesand help to explain the posthumous revivalof Commodus’s earliest, most youthful portraittype.

An under life-sized replica of Commodus’sfourth portrait type in Ostia appears to have beenrefashioned as an image of Commodus-Sol in theSeveran period.111 Like the Terme portrait, holeshave been drilled in the top of the head for theaddition of the radiate crown of Sol. Discoveredin the Thermopolium on the Via Diana in 1915,the image is in excellent condition and may havebeen displayed in the Thermopolium, followingthe rehabilitation of Commodus’s memory.112

Another posthumous representation of Com-modus has survived in a private funerary context.Commodus appears to be represented in an imagofrom a standard depicted on a funerary altar ofc. 205.113 A centurion of the Praetorian Guardis shown sacrificing on the front of the altar. Thetwo corinthian pilasters which flank the centu-rion are elaborated with signa. The imago from theleft standard apparently depicts MarcusAurelius.114 The imago on the right is less wellpreserved, but depicts a male wearing the tunicof the traveling soldier, the paenula. The paenulawas a favorite garment of Commodus and it isprobable that he is presented in the right imago.115

The appearance of an imago of Commodus on thealtar provides evidence for the use of his portraits,in private contexts, in the Severan period.

Lucilla

Annia Aurelia Galeria Lucilla, the sister ofCommodus, was born on 7 March A.D. 149.116

In A.D. 164 she married her father’s co-emperor,Lucius Verus and the couple had one daughter,born in A.D. 166.117 At the time of her marriage,Lucilla received the title of Augusta. After thedeath of Verus in A.D. 169, Lucilla married herfather’s confidant, Tiberius Claudius Pompeia-nus.118 After her brother’s accession to theprincipate, Lucilla became involved in a plot toassassinate him (Vita Commodi Quadratum e Lucillam

109 Galleria degli Uffizi, inv. 1914.195, h. 0.27 m. (head);G.A. Mansuelli (1961) 104-105, no. 128 (with earlier lit-erature); M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980) 80. The head isdisplayed on a bust to which it does not belong. The piecewas acquired from the Salviati Collection in 1780.

110 Museo Archeologico, Sala 10, inv. 182, h. 0.39 m.;G. Traversari (1968) 79-80, no. 62, pl. with fig. (with ear-lier literature); M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980) 97. Theportrait is also displayed on a bust form to which it doesnot belong. The Venice portrait was part of the GrimaniLegacy of 1586 and is presumably from Rome.

111 Ostia, Museo, Sala VI, inv. 1128, 0.24 m.; R. Calza(1977) 24, no. 23, pl. 18 (with earlier literature); M. Wegnerand R. Unger (1980) 86; Fittschen-Zanker I, 84. The headis worked for insertion into a small bust or statuette.

112 A terracotta and stucco portrait, offered for sale atthe Merrin Gallery in New York (June 1992) may be adepiction of Commodus as Sol. If so, its style suggests thatit is also a product of the Severan period.

113 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Lapidaria, 29.163,inv. 9330; D.E.E. Kleiner (1987) 264-66, no. 120, pl. 46.3-4 (with earlier literature).

114 D.E.E. Kleiner (1987) 265.115 HA Comm. 16.6; L.M. Wilson (1938) 92; D.E.E.

Kleiner (1987) 265.116 IGR 1.1509; M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987) 67-69,

no. 54.117 Dio 72(73).4.4; Fronto, Ep. 2.4. CIL 6.360=ILS 366;

M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987) 140-41, no. 133; althoughonly one daughter is attested historically or epigraphically,K. Fittschen has proposed that Lucilla had another daugh-ter and a son on the basis of numismatic evidence (1982)74-81.

118 HA Marc. 20.6-7; HA Carac. 3.8; Dio, 72(73).4.5;Herod. 1.6.4; 1.8.3.

commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina 149

compulit ad eius interfectionem consilia inire)119 and shewas exiled to Capri where she was eventuallyexecuted in A.D. 182.120 Commodus’s wifeCrispina was also implicated in the conspiracyand several others co-conspirators were killedincluding Lucilla’s stepson, Claudius PompeianusQuintianus and Quadratus.121

Lucilla’s Portrait Typology

Lucilla’s initial portrait type was probably cre-ated at the time of her betrothal in A.D. 162 orat the time of the marriage in 164.122 The typedepicts her with youthful facial features and aMelonenfrisur with the hair waved gently aroundthe face, and large, rolled plaits, usually three innumber, running diagonally along the side of thehead and gathered into a small bun on the napeof the neck.

Lucilla’s second type depicts her with moremature facial features, including the heavily lid-ded eyes common in portraits of her mother,father, and brother. The Melonenfrisur is replacedwith a centrally parted and waved hairstyle,drawn into a bun on the nape of the neck, in-tended to recall the coiffures worn by her mother,Faustina Minor. This type was likely introducedto celebrate the birth of her daughter Aurelia inA.D. 166.123

The Mutilation and Destruction of Lucilla’s Images

As was the case with representations of Messalinain the first century, Lucilla’s sculpted likenesseswere also intentionally attacked in response to hercondemnation, as attested by a fragmentarystatue of Lucilla’s second type in the Palazzo deiConservatori (Centrale Montemartini 3.85) (cat.6.10; fig. 147).124 Lucilla is portrayed as VenusGenetrix, with shoulder locks, diadem, and drap-ery slipping off her right shoulder, imagery es-pecially appropriate after the birth of her daugh-ter. The portrait has suffered considerabledamage and is only preserved from the breast up.Modern restorations mask the destruction of thenose, mouth, chin, much of the left side of theface, and the neck. The portrait was discoveredin 1901 on the Quirinal and evidence of a leadfistula from the site suggests that by 203-5, thearea comprised a domus and gardens belongingto Plautianus, the kinsman and PraetorianPraefect of Septimius Severus.125 The domus con-tained many other sculptural remains, and theLucilla was found together with a deliberatelydamaged portrait of Macrinus. The divine ico-nography of the image may have rendered itentirely inappropriate for continued display andespecially liable to vandalism after Lucilla’s ex-ecution. After its destruction, the portrait wasapparently stored at the domus.

A second fragmentary portrait statue of Lucillawith divine attributes, this one depicting theAugusta as Ceres in Guelma, was also deliberatelydefaced after her death (cat. 6.8; fig. 148).126 Onlythe upper section of the statue, a replica ofLucilla’s first portrait type, has been preserved.The facial features have been attacked with ahammer and chisel, obliterating most of the righteye, the nose, mouth, and chin. The remainderof the Guelma statue is well-preserved, underscor-

119 HA.Comm.4.1-2; see also Dio 72(73).4.5; Herod.1.8.4-6; E.R. Varner (2001b)

120 HA.Comm.4.4, 5.7; Dio 72(73).4-6; Herod. 1.8-9.121 HA. Comm. 4.4 also mentions Norbana, Norbanus,

and Paralius and that the mother of Paralius was exiledwith Lucilla. In addition, the author of the Historia Augustaindicates that the praetorian praefect, Tarrutenius Paternuswas involved in the plot, Comm. 4.2. and he was also ex-ecuted, perhaps in A.D. 182, Dio 72(73) 5.1-2; Herod.1.9.1-9. The wealthy brothers S. Quintilius Condianus andS. Quintilius Valerianus Maximus, were also implicated andtheir magnificent suburban villa between the Via Latinaand the Via Appia was expropriated Comm. 4.2, 4.4.7-10.

122 On Lucilla’s portrait typology, see most recently, K.Fittschen in Fittschen-Zanker III, 24-6, nos. 24-5.

123 Fittschen-Zanker III, 25.

124 Formerly, Museo Nuovo, Sala 1.9, inv. 1781 (Cen-trale Montemartini 3.85).

125 The inscription on the fistula.reads: C. FulviusPlautianus praef(ectus) pr(aetorio), v(ir) c(larissius). On Plautinus,see, infra; On the house, see E. Kissi Caronna and W. Eckin M. Steinby, ed. (1995) 105-6; and F. Astolfi (1998) 33-9.

126 Guelma, Museum, inv. M. 396.

chapter seven150

ing the deliberate nature of its destruction. Theimage was discovered during excavations of theForum of Madauros (in Roman Mauretania),where it is likely to have been originally displayed.After its destruction, it may have been buried orstored in the area of the Forum.

A colossal portrait from the Forum at Smyrnahas been similarly mutilated (cat. 6.9; fig. 149).127

The facial features have been obliterated with achisel, resulting in the T-shaped damage so char-acteristic of deliberately disfigured images. Theportrait provides important additional evidencefor the violent anthropomorphic assaults onportraits as sculptural surrogates for the con-demned’s physical body (see especially cat. nos.1.3; and 7.12). As principal sensory organs espe-cially associated with identity, the eyes haveactually been gouged out of the face of theSmyrna image. In both the Smyrna and Guelmalikenesses, the obliteration of the sensory organsdeprives them of any sentient power as effigies.In addition, both likenesses demonstrate that widegeographical scope of the destruction of herimages. Both portraits were situated within thepublic context of civic fora which may suggesttheir continued exposition as mutilated images,at least for a time, following Lucilla’s downfall.

The Transformation of Lucilla’s Images

Like the portraits of Caligula, Nero, and Domi-tian which were not reused until the third orfourth centuries, two seated portraits of Lucillaas Venus, not recarved until the fourth century,further confirm the practice of warehousingimages. These portraits, in the Museo Capitolino(cat. 6.12; fig. 150a-b)128 and the Uffizi (cat.6.11;fig. 151a-b),129 are well known as representationsof Helena, the mother of Constantine, but theyhave in fact been transformed from earlier like-nesses of Lucilla. Although the coiffures in bothportraits have undergone a comprehensive re-

working into conflations of Helena’s Scheitel-zopffrisur and Haarkranzfrisur, clear traces of thedeep vertical waves of Lucilla’s second portraittype are still visible in each image.130 TheImperatori portrait has been substantially cutback behind both ears, where roughened surfacesremain as well as on the back of the neck andhead. The volume of head has also been drasti-cally reduced, causing it to be too small in pro-portion to the seated body. As with the fragmen-tary representation of Lucilla as Venus from theQuirinal, these impressive seated images of theempress in the guise of the goddess would havebeen wholly unsuitable for display after her con-demnation and were undoubtedly warehouseduntil their reuse in the Constantinian period.

Helena’s hairstyles, and Constantinian femalecoiffures in general, can physically resemble anddeliberately evoke both Antonine hairstyles andthe perceived “golden age” of the second century.Physical similarities between Antonine andConstantinian hairstyles would have facilitatedthe sculptural reconfiguration of Lucilla’s images.The actual transformation of Lucilla’s coiffureinto Helena’s arrangements with the Haarkranz(hair crown) closely resembles that of the“Poppaea Albani” in the Palazzo dei Conser-vatori which itself is an Antonine portrait prob-ably recut to represent an empress (Aelia Flacillaor Galla Placidia?) at the end of the fourth cen-tury, ca. 400.131 The Lucilla-Helena transforma-tion is also conceptually comparable to the por-traits of Marcus Aurelius recut to Constantine onthe Aurelian panels from the Arch of Constan-tine, part of a programmatic attempt to visuallylink Constantine and his family to the goodemperors and empresses of the second century.F.P. Arata has proposed a date of 324, the yearin which Helena received the title of Augusta, or326, the year in which Constantine celebrated hisvicennalia in Rome, for the refashioning of the

127 Izmir, Museum, inv. 3694.128 Stanza degli Imperatori 59, inv. 496.129 Inv. 1914.171.

130 On Helena’s hairstyles, see most recently F.P. Arata(1993) 190-92.

131 Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala dei Capitani, inv. 404,h. 0.24 m; Fittschen-Zanker III, 118-19, pls. 209-10, colorplate (with earlier literature); J. Meischner (1993).

commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina 151

Capitoline statue and the same may be true forthe Uffizi image.132

The Removal of Lucilla’s Images

During her ascendancy as the wife of LuciusVerus, Lucilla would have been commemoratedwith numerous sculpted portraits, given her fre-quent appearance on coins of this period.133 Asa consequence of her condemnation, Lucilla’simages were necessarily removed from publicdisplay, in addition to being intentionally disfig-ured. Like her damaged portrait from the houseof Plautianus, the archaeological context of a type1 portrait in the Conservatori further corrobo-rates the warehousing of Lucilla’s images (fig.152).134 The likeness formed part of a sculpturalcache from another important domus near theColosseum whose pieces were eventually incor-porated into a garden wall of the Villa Rivaldi;the cache also included a portrait of OtaciliaSevera (fig. 206).135 Other well-preserved por-

traits of Lucilla are also likely to have been re-moved from public display and stored or buriedfollowing her condemnation and include like-nesses in Dresden,136 [Istanbul,137], London,138

Munich,139 the Louvre,140 Ostia,141the VillaAlbani,142 Tripoli,143 and Tunis,144 Dresden,145

and Berlin.146

Crispina

The date of Bruttia Crispina’s birth is not known,but she was the daughter of Lucius Fulvius Rus-ticus Gaius Bruttius Praesens and married

132 (1993) 200.133 RIC 3, 275-276, nos. 755-792, 252-55, nos. 1728-

1781, pls. 11.234-38, 13.263; BMCRE 4, 568-81, nos. 1140-1228, pls. 76.8-13, 77.1-15, 78.1-7; Herodian also recordsthat Marcus allowed her to retain her imperial insignia afterthe death of Verus and Commodus continued this prac-tice.1.8.4.

134 Palazzo dei Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo 3.25, inv.2766 (Centrale Montemartini 2.91), h. 0.21; Fittschen-Zanker III, 24-5, no. 24, pl. 33 (with previous literature);K. Fittschen in D.E.E. Kleiner and S.B. Matheson, eds.(1996) 44, fig. 9.

135 Palazzo dei Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo 3.23, inv2765 (Centrale Montemartini 2.95). On the discovery ofthe sculpture, see D. Mustili (1933) 89, 109, no. 15, fig.14; M. Bertoletti, M. Cima, E. Talamo, eds. (1997) 81; Inaddition to the portrait of Otacilia Severa, the cache in-cluded four other imperial images: Antinous, Palazzo deiConservatori, Museo Nuovo, Sala X, inv. 2305 (CentraleMontemartini 2.89) (Fittschen-Zanker I, 61-62, no. 56, pls.63-4); Septimius Severus, Palazzo dei Conservatori, MuseoNuovo, Sala X, inv. 2309 ((Centrale Montemartini 2.92)(Fittschen-Zanker I, 94-5, no. 82, pl. 101-102); and Cara-calla, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Museo Nuovo, Sala X, inv.2310 (Centrale Montemartini 2.93) (Fittschen-Zanker I,105-8, no. 91, pls. 110-12). Five private portraits were alsopart of the cache: private male portrait, inv. 2302 (CentraleMontemartini 2.96) (Fittschen-Zanker II, no. 150); a lostGallienic male portrait (D. Mustili [1933] 100, no. 8, fig7; late Antonine-early Severan female portrait, Museo

Capitolino, Magazzini, inv. 6268 (Centrale Montemartini2.90)(Fittschen-Zanker III, 85, no. 117, pl. 148 ); mid-lateSeveran female portrait, Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv.6259 (Fittschen-Zanker III, 107, no. 158, pl. 185); lateSeveran female portrait, Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv.6270 (Centrale Montemartini 2.94) (Fittschen-Zanker III,106-7, no. 156, pl. 184. Other sculpture from the VillaRivaldi, also presumably from the domus, was acquired in1780 by Pius VI for the Vatican, see G. Spinola (1996) 72,no. LAO 6, 114, no. PER 7, 133-4, no. 32(?), 158-9, no.100.

136 Staatliche Skulpturensammlung (type 1); K. Fittschen(1982) 75-6, no. 1 (with earlier literature).

137 Archaeological Museum inv. 4038 (colossal type 1fragment from the Temple of Artemis at Sardis); K. Fitt-schen (1982) 77, no. 1 (with earlier literature).

138 British Museum, inv. 1912 (type 1); K. Fittschen(1982) 75-6, no. 2, pl. 44.1-4 (with earlier literature).

139. Residenz, inv. 86, h. 0.255 m. (type 1); K. Fittschen(1982) 75-6, no. 3, pl. 46.3-4; H. Frosien Leinz in G. Hojer,ed. (1987) 343-45, no. 211, pl. 240 (with earlier literature).

140 MA 1171 (type 1, from Carthage); K. Fittschen(1982) 76, no. 8, pl. 47.1-2 (with earlier literature); K. deKersauson (1996) 280-281, no. 127 (with figs.).

141 Museo, inv. 27; h. 0.31 m. (type 1, from the Tem-pietto Tetrastilo, perhaps originally representing the em-press as Hygeia); K. Fittschen (1982) 76, no. 4; T. Mickoki(1995) 207-8, no. 395 (with earlier literature).

142 inv. 745 (type 1); K. Fittschen (1982) 76, no. 6 (withearlier literature).

143 Museum (type 2, from Lepcis Magna); K. Fittschen(1982) 76, no. 9 (with earlier literature)

144 Musée du Bardo 3655(2), (Ceres statue from theTheater at Bulla Regia); K. Fittschen (1982) 76, no. 10;T. Mickoki (1995) 207, no. 391, pl. 7 (with earlier litera-ture).

145 Staatliche Skulpturensammlung (type 2 Venusstatue); K. Fittschen (1982) 78-9, no. 1, pl. 48.1-2 (withearlier literature).

146 Staatliche Museen (type 2); K. Fittschen (1982) 79,no. 3, pl. 48.3 (with earlier literature).

chapter seven152

Commodus in A.D. 178, after the latter had beenraised to the rank of Augustus by MarcusAurelius.147 At the time of her marriage, Crispinareceived the title of Augusta,148 but by A.D. 182Crispina was exiled to Capri on charges of adul-tery.149 Although Dio indicates that she was ex-ecuted that same year, epigraphic evidencesuggests that she may not have been murdereduntil A.D. 187 or as late as 191/92.150 Crispinawas banished in the same year and to the sameisland, Capri, as Lucilla. Although he does notconnect the two events, Dio mentions Crispina’sexile and execution in his account of Lucilla’splot, which strongly suggests that Crispina her-self was implicated in the conspiracy to overthrowher husband Commodus.

Crispina’s Portrait Typology

As Augusta, Crispina was extensively honored withpublic images, during the last two years of Mar-cus’s reign and the initial years of her hus-band’s.151 Crispina’s images fall into two portraittypes, in use during the four year period beforeher exile.152 The first type commemorates hermarriage to Commodus in A.D. 178. The coif-fure of this type is the Stirnrollen-melonenfrisur whichcombines the typical Melonenfrisur with a heavyrolled plait which is parted over the center of theforehead and surrounds the face. The plaits onthe side of the head are four or five in number

and are drawn up into a large bun which coversmuch of the back of the head. The ears are leftuncovered. Crispina’s forehead is straight, hereyes long and almond shaped, her nose short, andher mouth is small and full. The coiffure is aprecursor to the coiffures of the wife and daughterof Didius Julianus, Manlia Scantilla and DidiaClara, as well as the Helmfrisuren of Julia Domnaand Plautilla.

Crispina’s second type marks Commodus’saccession in A.D. 180. The Stirnrollen-melonenfrisuris replaced by an entirely new coiffure in whichthe hair is gently waved, parted in the center, andagain drawn up into a large bun. The hair de-scends low on the nape of the neck and entirelycovers the ears. The physiognomy is comparableto the first type.

The Mutilation and Destruction of Crispina’s Images

Crispina’s images were attacked and damagedafter her downfall, either at the time of her ban-ishment, or at the time of her death. The facialfeatures of a type 1 portrait from Rome havebeen substantially obliterated (cat. 6.17)153 as havethose from a type 1 portrait from Ostia (cat.6.15).154 Modern restorations to portraits in theUffizi (cat. 6.14)155 and Castle Howard (cat. 6.13)appear to mask intentional ancient mutilation.The eyes, nose, mouth and chin the bust lengthtype 2 replica in the Uffizi have all been restored.The eyes, nose and portions of the mouth in thetype 1 Castle Howard portrait have also beensimilarly restored. Excluding the deliberate dis-figurement of the facial features, the remainingelements of both portraits are very well preserved.The fragmentary state of another likeness fromOstia, a replica of Crispina’s Type 2, were prob-ably caused by blows dealt to the portrait dur-ing demonstrations against Crispina’s images (cat.6.16; fig. 153).156 The damaged likeness was

147 HA. Marc. 27.8; Comm 5.9; Dio 71(72).33.1; Herod.1.8.4; CIL 8.2366 = ILS 405; CIL 10.408 = ILS 1117; M.T.Raepsaet-Charlier (1987) 249-50, no. 149. E.R.Varner,(2001 2) 76-78. Crispina came from an illustrious aristo-cratic family, which gained prominence under the Flavians,see B.W. Jones (1992) 176.

148 CIL 3.12487; CIL 8.2366 = ILS 405; CIL 8.16350= ILAlg 3032; CIL 8.22689 = IRT 2; CIL 10. 408 = ILS1117 = II 3.3.18; IGR 4.935.

149 HA.Comm. 5.9; Dio 72(73).4.6.150 CIL 3.12487; CIL 8.16530 = ILAlg 3032; CIL 22689

= IRT 2.151 See Herod. 1.8.4 on Crispina taking precedence over

Lucilla; For Crispina’s coinage see: BMCRE 4, 765-69, nos.406-441, pl. 102.1-15.

152 Type 1: K. Fittschen (1982) 82-86, nos. 1-11, pls.49-52; Type 2: K. Fittschen (1982) 86- 88, nos. 1-6, pls,53-6.

153 Formerly in the Magazzini of the Domus Aurea.154 Magazzini, Sala 1, inv. 452.155 Inv. 1914.13.156 Magazzini, Sala 7, inv. 1954.

commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina 153

reused as construction material near the Capito-lium at a later period.157 Similarly, the rear sec-tion of another Type 2 portrait from Rome ispossibly a surviving fragment from a vandalizedlikeness (cat. 6.18).158 As was the case withMessalina and other imperial women of the firstcentury, the vehement destruction of Crispina’simages at Rome and Ostia suggests that her exileand execution were the result of political intriguesagainst her husband, the reigning emperor, ratherthan adultery. As in the past, allegations of adul-tery or sexual misconduct continued to be lev-eled against imperial women who exercised po-litical power and influence against the reigningemperor.

The Removal of Crispina’s Images

Other well preserved portraits of Crispina arelikely to have been warehoused after her fallfrom power: Alexandria,159 Berlin,160 Copen-hagen,161 Cos,162 Cyrene,163 the Louvre,164 Pet-worth House,165 two portraits in the Terme,166

the Museo Torlonia167 the Vatican,168 the Villa

Borghese,169 and Tunis,170 The type 1 portraitin the Terme was discovered at the Heliocami-nus baths of Hadrian’s Villa and would likelyhave been removed from display at the Villa afterCrispina’s condemnation.

Annia Fundania Faustina

A cousin of Marcus Aurelius, Annia FundaniaFaustina and her daughter Vitrasia Faustina werealso both executed during the principate of Com-modus.171 Vitrasia appears to have been killedin A.D. 182, the same year that witnessed thedownfall of Lucilla and Crispina and it is possiblethat Vitrasia was also involved in the conspiracyagainst Commodus.172 Ten years later, hermother, Annia Fundania Faustina was executedin Achaea, in A.D. 192.173 An intentionallymutilated statue with an erased inscription on itsplinth from Ostia probably depicts Annia Fun-dania Faustina (cat. 6.19; fig. 154a-b).174 Thephysiognomy of the portrait recalls that of otherfemale members of the Antonine dynasty, espe-cially in the handling of the heavily lidded eyes.The hairstyle also closely resembles coiffures wornby Faustina Minor.175 The right eye, nose, mouth

157 D. Vaglieri, NSc (1913) 210.158 Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv. 2106/S.159 Graeco-Roman Museum, inv. 23862 (type I); K.

Fittschen (1982) 85, no. 10, pl. 52.3-4 (with earlier litera-ture).

160 Staatliche Museen (type 1); K. Fittschen (1982) 84,no. 4, pl. 51.1 (with earlier literature).

161 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 725, inv. 801 (type 2); K.Fittschen (1982) 87, no. 4, pl. 55.1-4; F. Johansen (1995a)236, no. 98 (with figs.) (with earlier literature).

162 Museum (type 1); K. Fittschen (1982) 85, no. 11(with earlier literature).

163 Museum, inv. C 17008 (type 2); K. Fittschen (1982)87, no. 5 (with earlier literature).

164 MA 1138 (type 1); K. Fittschen (1982) 87, no. 7, pl.50.1-2; K. de Kersausson (1996) 331-2, no. 151, with figs.(with earlier literature).

165 Leconfield Collection (type 1); K. Fittschen (1982)85, no. 8, pl. 51.4 (with earlier literature).

166 (type 1) inv. 108601, h. 0.27 m.; A. Cioffarelli,MusNazRom 1.9.2, 324-25, no. R243, with figs. (with ear-lier literature); K. Fittschen (1982) 84, no. 1, pl. 49.1-4; J.Raeder (1983) 77, no. I 59; (type 2) inv. 1224, h. 0.265 m.;A. Cioffarelli, MusNazRom 1.9.2, 327-8, no. R245, with figs.(with earlier literature).

167 570 (type 1) (ex Cavaceppi Coll.); C. Gasparri and

I Caruso (1980) 222, no 570 (Plautilla) (with earlier litera-ture); K. Fittschen (1982) 84, no. 3.

168 Galleria Chiaramonti 15.8, inv. 1415 (type II); K.Fittschen (1982) 86, no. 2, pl. 54.1-4; P. Liverani (1989)37 (with earlier literature).

169 Portico 31 (type 1); K. Fittschen (1982) 84, no. 2,pl. 51.3 (with earlier literature).

170 Musée du Bardo, 3656 (2) (type 1 Ceres Statue fromBulla Regia); K. Fittschen (1982) 85, no. 9, pl. 52.1-2; T.Mickoki (1995) 208-9, no. 402, pl. 7 (with earlier literature).

171 Annia Fundania Faustina: CIL 6.1540 = ILS 11121;CIL 12.361 = ILS 1114;CIL 15.520; II 5679 = ILS 1113;HA.Comm.5.8, 7.7; M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987) 76-77,no. 60. Vitrasia Faustina: HA.Comm. 4.10; Dio 72(73) 5.1;CIL 10 4625 = ILS 1115; M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)642-43, no. 820.

172 HA.Comm.4.10; Dio 72(73) 5.1.173 HA.Comm.7.7. The Historia Augusta also alleges that

Commodus had an affair with Fundania, Comm 5.8.174 Museo, Sala 6.2, inv. 1123.175 The hairstyle further suggests that the subject should

be woman like Annia Fundania Faustina who was closerin age to Faustina Minor, rather than a younger woman

chapter seven154

and chin of the Ostia portrait have all been in-tentionally vandalized with a chisel, and a oneline inscription, undoubtedly giving the name ofthe woman, has also been eradicated from thestatue’s base. As with other deliberately mutilatedimages, the remainder of the statue is well pre-served. The portrait was discovered in 1913 nearthe Horrea of Hortensius, where it may havebeen buried after its defacement.176 If the statuedoes indeed represent Annia Fundania Faustina,it must have been attacked after her murder inA.D. 192. The defacement of images of AnniaFundania Faustina and Crispina at Ostia wouldhave been effective ways for the inhabitants ofthe city to manifest their support of Commoduswho took an avid interest in their city through-out his principate.177 The mutilation and removalof images of Lucilla, Crispina, and Annia Fun-dania Faustina also affirms the continued politi-cal significance of imperial women in the secondcentury and their willingness to use their influ-ence and positions against the reigning emperor.

Conclusion: Changing Practices

The condemnations enacted against the memo-ries of Lucilla, Crispina, and Annia FundaniaFaustina, as well as that against Commodus af-ter his assassination mark a decided conceptualshift in the practices of repressing commemora-tive monuments. In particular, sculpted imageswere no longer routinely recycled, but disfigure-ment emerges a much more common response.Indeed, none of the portraits from this periodwere reconfigured immediately following con-demnations. Two portraits of Lucilla were notrecut for almost 150 years, when they were re-fashioned as representations of Constantine’smother, Helena. Only three likenesses of Com-modus have been refashioned, and these were not

recut for almost fifty years and over one hundredyears respectively, when they appear to have beenreused as images of Pupienus and possiblyLicinius.

This change in practice further signals a seechange in intention and emphasis from recyclingand a kind of visual cannibalism to disfigurementand visual denigration. In the past, new imagesof victorious successors or revered predecessorssubsumed the original identities of portraits, butnow, the original images are vandalized in orderto degrade the memory of the condemned. Af-ter a nearly century long hiatus in imperial damna-tiones, the technical expertise in recutting theimages of overthrown emperors and empressesmay have been in decline. In addition, the longelaborate beards worn by Commodus in hismature portraits may have provided further tech-nical obstacles for sculptors attempting physicalrecutting.

Patterns of mutilation which were apparent inthe first century are fully confirmed by the wealthof evidence from the end of the second century.The sensory organs of eyes, ears, nose and mouthare the principal targets in attacks against theimages Lucilla, Crispina, Annia Fundania Faus-tina and Commodus. In particular, the colossaldamaged portrait of Lucilla from Smyrna withits gouged out eyes perfectly illustrates the phe-nomenon of mutilation in effigy. Lucilla’s portraithas been traumatized as a surrogate for an at-tack against her living person or corpse. Thesavage mutilation of the eyes, as windows ontothe soul and seats of individual identity, servefurther to deprive the portrait of its own iden-tity as an artistic effigy of Lucilla. The numer-ous damaged likenesses of Lucilla and Crispinaprovide additional evidence for the political in-fluence and power of political disruption wieldedby imperial women and stands in the traditionprovided by the multitude of evidence for muti-lated, destroyed or missing female images fromthe Julio-Claudian period.

Commodus’s eradication from the relief pan-els honoring his father Marcus Aurelius providecrucial testimony for the process of historicalemendation through erasure. Indeed, these are

like her daughter Vitrasia, or Annia Aurelia CornificiaFaustina, the sister of Commodus, as R. Calza has suggested(1977) 21.

176 D. Vaglieri, NSc (1913) 178.177 Ostia was briefly renamed colonia felix Commodiana. On

Commodus’s building activities in Ostia, see C. Pavolini(1983) 32.

commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina 155

the first surviving examples of erasure as a resultof damnatio in Roman historical relief sculpture.Two of the panels document known historicalevents, namely the triumph of 176 and thecongiarium of 177. Commodus’s relief portraitshave been obliterated from these panels and thevisual record of the events rewritten. Com-modus’s participation in the triumphal processionand distribution of money has been posthumouslyand categorically negated.

Commodus’s condemnation is further compli-cated by his rehabilitation and ultimately his deifi-

cation under Septimius Severus in 197. As withNero, the conflicting assessment of Commodusis amply reflected in the rehabilitation andCommodus’s case is even more extreme in thathe is both damned and deified. The contradic-tory treatment of Commodus’s memory andmonuments underscores both the flexible natureof the processes associated with both condemna-tion and apotheosis and also that these practiceswere highly susceptible to, if not entirely the resultof, manipulation as the result of current politi-cal exigencies.

chapter eight156

The Severan period marks a critical juncture inthe history of damnatio memoriae. During the forty-two year reign of the dynasty (A.D. 193-235),damnationes memoriae were enacted against numer-ous members of the imperial family as well asrival emperors. Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger,Clodius Albinus, Plautianus, Plautilla, Geta,Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Elagabalus, and JuliaSoemias all suffered some form of official sanc-tions after their deaths. In addition, portraits andinscriptions honoring Severus Alexander and hismother Julia Mammaea were deliberately de-faced as a result of isolated and spontaneousdemonstrations against their memories.

In certain respects, the condemnations whichoccurred under the Severan emperors recall theprevious practices of the first and second centu-ries A.C. As in the past, portraits of condemnedindividuals were often removed or destroyed.Major monuments of the period, such as thearches honoring Septimius Severus in the ForumRomanum and at Lepcis Magna, the Arch of theArgentarii and the Palazzo Sachetti Relief werealso irrevocably altered as a direct result of post-humous condemnations. However, as was alreadyapparent in the treatment of Commodus’s por-traits, Severan imperial images, with the excep-tion of representations of Elagabalus altered toSeverus Alexander, were no longer routinelyreworked as an immediate result of damnatio.Instead spontaneous acts of violence, such asthose carried out against the monuments ofSeverus Alexander and Julia Mammaea, neitherof whom received official post mortem sanctions,as well as a substantial increase in the numberof deliberately mutilated portraits, constitute sig-nificant shift in focus and praxis which wouldcontinue unabated for the remainder of the thirdcentury.

The founder of the dynasty, Lucius Septimius

Severus was born into an aristocratic family ofItalian origins on 11 April A.D. 145 at LepcisMagna in Tripolitania.1 Septimius Severus roseto prominence in the Senate under MarcusAurelius and attained the consulship in 190 underCommodus. He held the governorships of GalliaLugdunensis, Sicily, and Upper Pannonia, where,shortly after the murder of Pertinax in 193,Severus was saluted as emperor by his troops atCarnuntum. He spent the next four years sub-duing the forces of rival claimants to the throneand established his sole authority by 197. Hav-ing consolidated his power, Severus waged asuccessful campaign against the Parthians, cul-minating in the capture of the Parthian capital,Ctesiphon, in 197-8. He continued to defend andexpand the borders of the Empire until his deathat York on 4 February 211.

Severus had intended that after his death, histwo two sons, Caracalla and Geta, would rule asco-Augusti. However, the two brothers appar-ently hated one another and their enmity culmi-nated in Caracalla’s murder of Geta on 26 De-cember 211.2 Caracalla ruled alone until hehimself was killed, at the instigation of hisPraetorian Praefect, Marcus Opellius Macrinus,on 8 April 217. Macrinus declared himself em-peror, but his claim to the throne was contestedby Caracalla’s maternal cousin, Varius AvitusBassianus, popularly known as Elagabalus. The

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE SEVERANS A.D. 193-235

1 There is confusion in the ancient sources surround-ing the exact date of Septimius Severus’s birth, and it ispossible that the emperor himself may have falsified the datein order to make the year of his birth more astrologicallyfavorable; see Z. Rubin (1980) 34-38. However, Dio(76.[77].17.4) seems reliable; see A. Birley (1988) 220, no.27.

2 There is conflicting evidence concerning the exact dateof Geta’s murder. T.D.Barnes, has demonstrated that 26December is almost certainly correct, (1978) 51-2. See also,A. Birley (1988) 189, n. 3.

the severans 157

troops supporting Elagabalus were successful indefeating those loyal to Macrinus who was even-tually captured and executed. Significantly, theaccession of Elagabalus had been engineered byhis grandmother, Julia Maesa, the sister ofSeverus’s powerful and influential wife JuliaDomna; this essentially matrilineal successionrecalls that of Tiberius, son of Livia and stepsonof Augustus, at the beginning of the Empire.Elagabalus ruled as Augustus under the name ofMarcus Aurelius Antoninus, the same namewhich had been used by Caracalla, but the Prae-torian Guard grew so disgusted with his excessesthat they assassinated him along with his mother,Julia Soemias, in the Praetorian Camp at Romeon 12 March 222. The Praetorians acclaimedElagabalus’s young cousin, Marcus AureliusSeverus Alexander (born M. Iulius GessiusAlexianus [Bassianus] in 208) as emperor and heruled under the close supervision of his motherJulia Mammaea; the Severan dynasty ended on22 March 235 when both mother and son weremurdered by their own troops at Vicus Britan-nicus where the young emperor had been pre-paring a campaign against the German tribes.

The Rivals Of Septimius Severus: Didius Julianus,Clodius Albinus, and Pescennius Niger

Immediately following the assassination of Com-modus on 31 December A.D. 192, a chaoticperiod of civil war ensued in which several promi-nent men vied for control of the Empire. Thesituation finds compelling parallels in the eventsof A.D. 68-69 when Galba, Otho, Vitellius andVespasian contended for supreme authority. Pu-blius Helvius Pertinax, praefectus urbi, was salutedby the Praetorians as Commodus’s immediatesuccessor. Pertinax, the son of a freedman, hadenjoyed a distinguished military and civil career,holding the consulship twice. He came to thethrone well respected by the soldiers, Senate andcommon people. However, in an effort to re-plenish the imperial treasury which had beendrastically depleted under Commodus, Pertinaxadopted strict fiscal measures which proved so un-popular that he was murdered on 28 March by

the Praetorian Guard for failing to pay them theirpromised bonuses in full and his corpse wasabused through decapitation.3

According to Dio, Marcus Didius Julianusattained the principate after the death of Pertinaxbecause he was able to offer the praetorians moremoney than the rival claimant, Sulpicianus.4

Although the civil and military career of DidiusJulianus had also been distinguished, he was notuniversally supported and on 9 April A.D. 193,only 11 days after Julianus had been declared thenew Augustus in Rome, Septimius Severus wassaluted as emperor by his own troops in Car-nuntum. At approximately the same time, GaiusPescennius Niger, the governor of Syria, was like-wise acclaimed emperor at Antioch. In order tostrengthen his position, Septimius formed analliance with the governor of Britain, DecimiusClodius Albinus, to whom he awarded the rankof Caesar. Severus advanced towards Rome, andthe Senate and plebs repudiated their support ofDidius Julianus in favor of Severus. The Senateformally condemned Didius Julianus to death on1 June, after a reign of only sixty-six days. Aswas customary with capital offenders, sanctionsagainst the memory and monuments of DidiusJulianus were swiftly enacted after his executionand Dio records the destruction of a bronze statuethat had earlier been voted by the Senate (Ò (•D*@2gÂH "ÛJè P"86@ØH •<"4Dg2X<J@H "ÛJ@Ø 6"2®-

DX20).5 His wife Manlia Scantilla and daughterDidia Clara were spared, but they were strippedof their rank of Augusta.6

Septimius Severus consolidated his power andmoved against Pescennius Niger, who was de-clared a hostis and his monuments were subjectedto destruction; Niger was eventually captured andkilled at Antioch in April of 194.7 Niger’s corpsewas decapitated and the severed head paraded

3 Dio 73(74).10.2; J.L. Voisin (1984) 252.4 73(74).11.2-6; Didius Julianus offered each member

of the praetorian guard 25,000 sestertii and eventually hadto pay 30,000.

5 73(74).14.2a; A. Birley (1988) 102.6 HA.Did.Iul. 3.4; 4.5; 8.9-10; Herod. 2.6.7; Zos. 1.7.2.

For Manlia Scantilla, see M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)439, no. 520; for Didia Clara, see M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier(1987) 276, no. 312.

7 HA.Sev.8.13 and Pesc.5.7; A. Birley (1988) 112.

chapter eight158

on a pole and eventually sent to Rome for pub-lic display.8 Niger’s wife and children were alsoexecuted.9 Somewhat later, in A.D. 195, ClodiusAlbinus, no longer content with his secondaryposition as Caesar, was proclaimed Augustus inhis own right by his troops. Severus, having se-cured his position in the east, moved againstClodius Albinus in the west and declared him ahostis.10 After several skirmishes in Gaul, theforces of the two rivals met at Lugundum on 19February 197.11 Clodius Albinus was defeatedand committed suicide. His head was cut off andsent to Rome and, in an additional, merciless actof poena post mortem, Septimius allegedly orderedthe headless corpse be laid out in front of ClodiusAlbinus’s house, where Severus trampled it withhis horse; the body was also exposed as carrionfor dogs before being thrown into the Rhonealong with the remains of Albinus’s wife andsons.12

As defeated rivals of Septimius Severus, thememories of Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger,and Clodius Albinus were condemned, theirnames and titles obliterated from the epigraphicrecord, and their portraits destroyed or removedfrom public display. In the west, the sculpturalevidence for the damnationes of Didius Julianus andClodius Albinus is complicated by the difficultiesinherent in identifying their portraits in theround. The problems of recognizing sculptedportraits of Didius Julianus and Clodius Albinusarise primarily from the striking similarities evi-dent in their numismatic likenesses, which, fur-thermore, strongly resemble the earliest coinportraits of Septimius Severus. The numismaticportraits of all three are derived from those ofPertinax.13 The coins depict the three rivals as

mature men with curly coiffures, full beards andmoustaches, furrowed foreheads, and prominentnoses. However, Didius Julianus usually appearswith a longer beard and fuller coiffure than ei-ther Septimius Severus or Clodius Albinus whoare virtually indistinguishable on many of thecoins minted during their alliance (A.D. 193-95).14 The similitudo evident in the coin portraitsof Septimius Severus and Clodius Albinus func-tioned as a visual expression of their concordia andtheir political and military alliance, all conceptswhich were widely stressed in the numismaticpropaganda of 193-95.

The resemblances present in the coin portraitscause enormous difficulties in the identificationof contemporary sculpted representations of thethree rivals.15 Although twenty- three relatedmarble portraits have generally been recognizedas either portraying Didius Julianus, ClodiusAlbinus or Septimius Severus in his first portraittype, specific identifications remain controver-sial.16 The remarkable iconographic similaritiesamong this group of images reproduce the cor-respondences of the numismatic likenesses, in-cluding: a curly coiffure worn fairly close to theskull; a full, beard of medium length; a somewhatbulging forehead; and prominent nose. Based onthe distinguishing features present in the coinportraits, the twenty-three marble images can beseparated into three groups.

Three of the sculpted portraits have beententatively assigned to Didius Julianus. The dis-

8 HA Pesc. 6.1 (huius caput cirumlatum pilo Romam missum);Dio 74.8.3; J.L. Voisin (1984) 252.

9 HA Pesc. 6.1-2.10 HA.Sev.10.2, Clod.9.1 and A. Birley (1988) 121.11A. Birley (1988) 125.12 Herod.3.7.6-7; Dio 75(76).7.1-8; HA.Sev.11.6-9;J.L.

Voisin (1984) 252; A. Birley (1988) 124; C. Wells (1992)283.

13 The portraits of Pertinax recall the images of MarcusAurelius, whose virtues and policies Pertinax tried to emu-late. Although his reign was brief, the memory of Pertinax

was held in high esteem by the Senate and populace andhe remained an important link with the Antonine dynasty.Septimius Severus portrayed himself as the avenger ofPertinax; he disbanded the praetorian guard for hispredecessor’s murder and adopted the name of Pertinaxon coins issued from A.D. 193-96.

14 The fuller hair and beard in Didius Julianus’s coinlikenesses may deliberately evoke the portraits ofCommodus, whose avenger Didius Julianus claimed to be;H. Mattingly, BMCRE 5, lxix; Didius Julianus promised torehabilitate the memory of Commodus (HA, Did. 2.6-7); onthe rehabilitation of Commodus see supra.

15 A. M. McCann (1968) 62.16 This confusion was recognized by J.J. Bernoulli who

found it difficult to distinguish between the early portraitsof Septimius Severus and Clodius Albinus, (1894) 19, 34;A. M. McCann (1968) 40, 88-89; K. Fittschen and P.Zanker (1985) 91-95, nos. 80-82.

the severans 159

tinguishing characteristics which unite these threeportraits are: a longer beard, fuller coiffure, anda nose with a pronounced bridge.17 Nine of themarble portraits can plausibly be attributed toClodius Albinus on the basis of his individualizedtraits, i.e., a coiffure that consists of rather flatcurls combed forward which recede at thetemples and curve over a slightly bulging fore-head, a bushy moustache and a full beard wornclose to the chin, a tuft of hair beneath his lowerlip and a decidedly hooked nose.18 The remain-ing eleven portraits constitute Septimius Severus’sfirst official portrait type and contain the follow-ing details: a coiffure of scattered curls wornrelatively straight across the forehead, a fullmoustache and short full beard with curls combedforward, and a fairly straight and aquiline nose.19

Didius Julianus

The brevity of the reign of Didius Julianus, as wellas the destruction of his monuments occasionedby his downfall, account for the scarcity of hisportraits. However, the three surviving likenessesare well enough preserved to suggest that theymay have been removed from public display andwarehoused following his death. Portraits in thePalazzo dei Conservatori,20 in Los Angeles,21 andthe Vatican,22 are all preserved together withtheir ancient bust forms and probably attest tothe removal and storage of his image in the en-virons of the capital.

Clodius Albinus

Clodius Albinus’s images were intentionallymutilated as a result of the damnatio memoriaeenacted against him. A head of Clodius Albinuswhich was discarded in a cistern near the Templeof Saturn at Dougga has been cut or broken froma statue or bust.23 The head exhibits extensivedamage to the forehead, nose, and right cheek.24

The disposal of the portrait in a cistern recallsthe images of Caligula and Domitian which wererecovered from wells at Huelva and Munigua inSpain. The portico of the Dougga temple, com-pleted in A.D. 195, contained a dedicatory in-scription which honored both Severus andAlbinus.25 Albinus’s name and titles were erasedfrom the dedication at the same time the portraitwas attacked and thrown into the cistern.26 Bornat Hadrumentum, not far from Dougga, ClodiusAlbinus was undoubtedly honored extensivelywith portraits in his native province of AfricaProconsularis. Destruction of Albinus’s monu-ments in Africa would have been a way of dis-avowing former support and celebration of thenative emperor, as well as demonstrating loyaltyto the victorious Septimius Severus, himself anative of neighboring Tripolitania.

A portrait of Albinus in the Vatican has alsobeen attacked and damaged.27 The least wellpreserved of all Albinus’s likenesses, the nose,both brows, the right eye and right cheek havelargely been destroyed. The badly weatheredsurfaces of the head suggest that it was not storedbut disposed of in a more destructive fashion. Theportrait, provides important evidence for theviolent disposal of Clodius Albinus’s representa-tions in the capital.

17 Fittschen-Zanker I, 93.18 A. M. McCann (1968) 40, 88-89; Fittschen-Zanker

I, 91-92.19 Fittschen-Zanker I 94-5.20 Sala Verde, inv. 235; H. 0.725 m; ex Collection Albani

(A 17); Fittschen-Zanker 1, 93, no. 81, pls. 99-100 (withearlier literature).

21 Private Collection; A. M. McCann (1968) 131-32, no.9, pl. 28 (with earlier literature); D. Soechting (1972) 136,n. 10; Fittschen-Zanker, 1, 93. Presumably from Rome.

22 Sala dei Busti 291, inv. 710, h. 0.67 m.; A. M.McCann (1968) 130, no. 7, pl. 26 (with earlier literature);D. Soechting (1972) 144, no. 20; P. Zanker (1983) 29, n.88, pl. 26.3-4; Fittschen-Zanker 1, 93, beil. 65. FromOtricoli.

23 Tunis, Musée du Bardo, A.M. McCann (1968) 202H. pl. 105.

24 The Dougga portrait is compatible with numismaticlikenesses of Albinus which show him with shorter beardand a more closely cropped coiffure than contemporaryportraits of Septimius Severus; see A. M. McCann (1968)202.

25 A. M. McCann (1968) 202; C. Poinssot (1983) 65.26 On the erasure of Albinus’s name in inscriptions, see

also R. Cagnat (1914) 172.27 Sala dei Busti 322, inv. 682; Fittschen-Zanker I, 91,

no. 6, Beil. 682.

chapter eight160

In contrast to the Dougga and Vatican por-traits, Albinus’s remaining likenesses are gener-ally well preserved and were likely warehousedafter his condemnation. Three of these portraits,in Bloomington,28 the Museo Capitolino,29 andSaalburg30 are extraordinary for their fine statesof preservation and survive together with theiroriginal bust forms. Although not as well pre-served, images in Mantua,31 the Prado,32 andPetworth House33 also present no indications ofdeliberate defacement. The Prado portrait pre-serves its original bust form. These portraits, fromRome and elsewhere in Italy were undoubtedlyremoved from public view and stored for even-tual reuse. Albinus’s images in North Africa couldalso be similarly removed and stored as attestedby another portrait in Tunis which was discov-ered at Gouraya near Cherchel.34

Pescennius Niger

During his brief reign as rival Augustus in theeast, Pescennius Niger minted coins bearing hislikeness and was presumably honored with por-traits in the round. His numismatic representa-tions are distinctive and cannot be confused withthe images of his three rivals, Didius Julianus,Clodius Albinus, and Septimius Severus. Coinsissued by Pescennius Niger depict him with a

furrowed forehead, prominent, slightly bulbousnose, and protruding lips. His coiffure is relativelyshort, usually with straight locks combed forwardfrom the occiput. His moustache is long as is hisbeard which consists of lengthy rolled curls. Al-though Pescennius Niger was popular among theplebs in Rome, it is unlikely that any officialportraits of him were produced in the capitalsince his tenure as Augustus was spent entirelyin the east.35 The situation in the eastern portionof the empire was chaotic largely as a result ofthe campaign which Septimius immediately be-gan against Pescennius Niger in 193 and, in fact,certain eastern mints may have issued coins inhonor of Septimius Severus as early as A.D. 193while nominally under Niger’s control.36 Politi-cal instability in the east probably precludedproduction of Pescennius Niger’s sculpted por-traits in significant numbers.37 Indeed, no marbleimages can be securely associated with PescenniusNiger, despite his distinctive physiognomy andcoiffure.38 After his defeat and death, portraitshonoring Pescennius Niger were destroyed as aconsequence of his proclamation as a hostis.39

Because of their early support of Niger, manycities of the eastern empire must have been es-pecially anxious to demonstrate their loyalty tothe victorious Septimius Severus by vigorouslypursuing a damnatio against his defeated rival’smonuments, further accounting for the lack ofsurviving portraits.

28 Indiana University Art Museum, Inv. 47401, h. 0.63m.; A. M. McCann (1968) 198-99, pl. 102 (with earlier lit-erature); D. Soechting (1972) 131, no. 3; Fittschen-Zanker1, 91, beil. 63. From Rome.

29 Stanza degli Imperatori 37, inv. 463; h. 0.67 m.; exCollection Albani (A30); Fittschen-Zanker 1, 91-92, no. 80,pl. 97-99 (with earlier literature). From Anzio. The bust isunusual in that it portrays Albinus in mailed armor whichis often associated with the Praetorian Praefect; seeFittschen-Zanker, 1, 91-2.

30 Museum, inv. 869, h. 0.663 m; M. Bergmann andG. Lahusen (1982) 16, fig. 6; Fittschen-Zanker I, 91.

31 Palazzo Ducale, inv. 6916; A. M. McCann (1968)199, C, pl. 104 (with earlier literature); D. Soechting (1972)138, no. 12 (Septimius Severus); Fittschen-Zanker I, 91.

32 Inv. 187 E, h. 0.88 m.; S.F. Schröder (1993) 256-8,no. 73, with figs. (with earlier literature).

33 No. 37; H. 0.30 m.; A. M. McCann (1968) 199-200,pl. 103 (with earlier literature); D. Soechting (1972) 140-41, no. 16 (Septimius Severus); C.A. Picon (1983) 75, no.74; Fittschen-Zanker I, 91, Beil. 62.

34 Musée du Bardo, inv. 1050; Fittschen-Zanker I, 91(with earlier literature).

35 On Pescennius Niger’s popularity in Rome seeHerod.2.7.6, 2.8.7 and Z. Rubin (1980) 93.

36 Coins may have been struck in Septimius Severus’shonor as soon as it was realized that he was the likely victorin the struggle against Niger. The coins are from Laodicea,Alexandria; BMCRE cxii, cxiv, 83-84, 105-106, 109, 110,nos. *+*, +, *; Z. Rubin (1980) 14, 202-6.

37 Pescennius Niger’s sphere of influence was limited tothe east. His failure to capture Rome, the center of impe-rial portrait production, also undoubtedly contributed toa reduced output of his sculpted images.

38 In the past, attempts have been made to identify aportrait in the Stanza degli Imperatori of the MuseoCapitolino (no. 36, inv. 460) with Pescennius Niger. How-ever, this portrait has been convincingly identified asMacrinus (cat. 7.13). Similarly, a cuirassed statue in thePalazzo Altieri was identified as Pescennius Niger (D. DeRossi [1704], pl. 110), but should be associated withSeptimius Severus, A.M. McCann (1968) 173-4, no. 86, pl.75.

39 See supra.

the severans 161

Plautianus

Like his kinsman Septimius Severus, GaiusFulvius Plautianus was a native of Lepcis Mag-na.40 He was singled out for distinction underPertinax and his career naturally flourished dur-ing the principate of Septimius Severus.41 As aresult of his enormous influence with the firstSeveran emperor, Plautianus became praefectuspraetorio on 1 January 197.42 Although he wasindispensable to the emperor and unrivaled ininfluence, in 202 Plautianus further strengthenedhis ties to the imperial family by marrying hisdaughter Plautilla to Septimius Severus’s eldestson and co-Augustus, Caracalla.43 Caracalla wasresentful of Plautianus’s unprecedented power aswell as his public opposition to the empress JuliaDomna. Caracalla’s arranged marriage to Plau-tilla apparently served to further increase thehostility he felt towards Plautianus. In Januaryof A.D. 205, Plautianus was accused of plottingthe murder of both Septimius Severus andCaracalla.44 Plautianus was immediately executedand his corpse thrown into the street and pub-licly desecrated in an act of poena post mortem.45

His extensive domus on the slopes of the Quirnalin Rome, was also confiscated.46

No securely identified likenesses of Plautianushave survived, despite Dio’s contemporary ac-count that statues of the Praefect were producedin such great numbers that they outnumbered theportraits of both Septimius Severus and Cara-calla.47 Dio further states that these statues wereset up in Rome and elsewhere by individuals,communities and the Senate.48 A colossal repre-sentation of Plautianus was also erected at Ath-ens, commemorating his position as patronus of thecity.49 In 203, the vast quantity and public promi-nence of Plautianus’s images so infuriatedSeptimius Severus that he declared his Praefecta hostis and ordered his bronze portraits to beremoved from public display and melted down.50

Subsequently, Septimius reconciled with Plau-tianus and rescinded the sanctions against him.After his execution, representations of Plautianuswere again subject to destruction, as Dio makesexplicitly clear: "Ê gÆ6`<gH "ÛJ@Ø Fb:B"F"4*4gN2VD0F"<.51 Indeed Plautianus’s images andinscriptions have been thoroughly and severelyeradicated in an attempt to obliterate all traceof him from the public consciousness.

Surviving dedicatory inscriptions from whichPlautianus’s name and titles have been erasedsimultaneously document his damnatio as well ashis former portrait honors.52 The extraordinaryimportance of Plautianus insured the inclusion ofhis likenesses in the major monuments and statu-ary cycles erected during the years of his ascen-dancy. One of the most significant commissionsfrom this period was the triple-bayed triumphalarch erected in the northwest end of the ForumRomanum to celebrate Septimius Severus’s tri-

40 Plautianus was related to Septimius through theemperor’s mother, Fulvia Pia, A. Birley (1988) 93, 220-21.The date of his birth is not known.

41 Dio 73(74).15.4; Plautianus was honored by Pertinaxdespite the fact that Pertinax, while proconsul of Africa,had condemned him for unspecified, yet serious offensesin A.D. 188 or 189, A. Birley (1988) 221.

42 AE 1935.156; see F. Grosso (1968) 14-17.43 Plautianus was not the first powerful Praetorian

Praefect who attempted to enhance his position by marry-ing a female relation into the imperial family: Sejanusbrought about the marriage of his kinswoman Aelia Paetinato the future emperor Claudius; Sejanus also betrothed hisdaughter to Claudius’s son by Plautia Urgulanilla; B. Levick(1990) 25.

44 Dio 76(77).4.1-4; Herod. 3.11.4-12.12. While Dioclaims that Caracalla engineered the charges againstPlautianus, Herodian maintains that there actually was aplot. The catalyst for these accusations seem to be thedeathbed allegations against Plautianus made by SeptimiusSeverus’s brother, Publius Septimius Geta, late in 204 (Dio76[77].2.4).

45 Herod. 3.12.12.46 The house is identified on the basis of an inscription

on a lead fistula. See recently, F. Astolfi (1998) 34-5; For

the sculpture discovered at the domus, including warehousedportraits of Lucilla and Macrinus, see cat. 6.10 and cat.7.14.

47 Dio 75(76).14.7.48 Ibid.49 D. J. Geagan (1979) 408.50 Dio 75(76).16.2-5 and HA Sev.14.7. Dio also records

that, when certain cities and official’s heard of Severus’sanger they demolished Plautianus’s portraits, but weresubsequently punished for their hasty action.

51 Dio 75(76).16.4.52 On the career and inscriptions of Plautianus see F.

Grosso (1968) 7-59.

chapter eight162

umph over the Parthians (figs. 155-156).53 Theeastern and western facades of the monument,dedicated in A.D. 203, are decorated with reliefpanels depicting scenes from the Parthian cam-paigns. A portrait of Plautianus seems to haveoriginally been present in the upper right handcorner of the northwestern panel, which repre-sents events from the attack and surrender ofSeleucia (fig. 156).54 In the culminating scene ofthe panel, the headless figure of SeptimiusSeverus, identifiable through his larger scale andprominent position, receives the submission of theParthian city.55 Because of its close proximity andnearly commensurate scale to the portrait ofSeptimius Severus, the figure to the emperor’sproper right should represent his elder son,Caracalla and the two figures form a closelylinked pair. A third figure, just behind theemperor’s left shoulder, is also differentiated fromthe rest of the emperor’s retinue by position andscale. Like Severus and Caracalla, he wears atunica, paludamentum, and calcei and probably helda rotulus in his left hand. Because this figure isplaced slightly behind the figures of Caracalla andSeptimius Severus, his position is subsidiary to theimperial pair; however, he is nearly the sameheight as the emperor and slightly taller thanCaracalla. The greater height and subsidiaryplacement of this figure indicate that he is olderand, at the same time, less important thanCaracalla, the emperor’s heir; thus, this figurecannot be identified with the emperor’s youngerson, Geta.56 Unlike the figures of Septimius andCaracalla, whose heads have deteriorated natu-rally, the portrait head of the figure behind the

emperor was deliberately removed and replacedin antiquity. The neck has been carefully carvedout, the surface roughened, and an iron dowelinserted for the attachment of a new head; theremnants of the iron dowel are still preserved.57

This constitutes persuasive testimony for theremoval and replacement of the portrait head ofPlautianus following his damnatio in 205.58

A second Severan arch in Rome, the privatelydedicated Arch of the Argentarii, furnishes fur-ther dramatic evidence for the removal of Plau-tianus images (fig. 157).59 This trabeated arch waserected in the Forum Boarium by the argentarii,a guild of silversmiths or bankers 60 and markedthe boundary between the VIII, X, and XIAugustan regions of the city.61 The arch, dedi-cated between 10 December 203 and 9 Decem-ber 204, honors the family of Septimius Severus,and functioned as a gateway.62 It is richly orna-mented with relief sculpture and the interior bayis decorated on each face with a panel depictingmembers of the imperial family. A togate portraitof Caracalla’s first type is the sole figure preservedin the western panel of the arch (fig. 158). He isrepresented frontally at the far left of the relief.He holds a patera in his right hand over a flam-ing altar and grasps a rotulus in his left hand. Therelief is entirely blank to Caracalla’s right and theslightly raised and roughened surface of themarble in the vacant areas attest to the removalof two figures.

53 R. Nardi (1983-84) 299-312; S. De Maria (1988) 305-6, no. 89 (with earlier literature); F. Coarelli (1997) 57, 61,67, 69-73, 75, 117, 182-3; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 329-32,figs. 293-98; R. Brilliant in E.M. Steinby, ed. (1993) 103-5.

54 R. Brilliant (1967) 195.55 R. Brilliant (1967) 201.56 Both L. Budde (1955) 3, n. 7, and A. Bonanno (1976)

144 identify this figure as Geta; Budde suggests that thebearded figure behind the emperor and the headless fig-ure is Plautianus, (1955) 3, n. 7. The features of this fig-ure are similar to many others on the arch’s reliefs and aretoo generic to be considered a portrait of Plautianus.

57 R. Brilliant (1967) 181, n. 62, 206.58 R. Brilliant (1967) 207. If this is indeed the case, the

artist’s placement of Plautianus just behind the emperorin a scene of submissio directly recalls the position of TiberiusClaudius Pompeianus, also son-in-law and close advisor toan emperor, in the three scenes which depict the emperor’sclementia towards foreigners in the panel reliefs honoringMarcus Aurelius.

59 F. Ghedini (1984) 27-53; S. De Maria (1988) 307-9,no. 90 (with earlier literature); H.R. Goette (1989) 138, no.152, pl. 25.4-5; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 334-37, figs. 300-303; S. Diebner in E.M. Steinby, ed. (1993) 105-6, fig. 57;F. Coarelli (1997) 362-64.

60 On the argentarii see S. De Maria (1988) 308.61 S. De Maria (1988) 308; F.Coarelli (1997) 363.62 The date of the monument is based upon the titles

of Septimius Severus given in line 2 of the inscription:PONTIF. MAX. TRIB. POTEST. XI IMP. XI COS. IIIPATER PATRIAE; S. De Maria (1988) 308.

the severans 163

The taller of the two excised figures depictedCaracalla’s father-in-law, Plautianus while theshorter figure represented Plautilla, the wife ofCaracalla and daughter of Plautianus.63 Theinitial composition of the western panel, with itsthree closely linked family members, would havecomplemented the original threesome of thecorresponding eastern panel, Septimius Seve-rus, Julia Domna, and Geta (also subsequentlyerased).64 Caracalla originally appeared capitevelato, like his father in the opposite relief. Tracesof his veil are still quite visible above his rightshoulder and indications of recarving are clearlyevident above his head.65 The effacement ofPlautianus, immediately to the right of Caracalladamaged the mantle which initially coveredCaracalla’s head, necessitating its removal. As aresult, Caracalla appears in a manner highlyinconsistent with Roman religious as he sacrificeswith unveiled head (capite aperto), while SeptimiusSeverus in the corresponding panel sacrifices inthe normal manner with veiled head (capite velato).

The inscription preserved on the attic of thesouthern face of the Arch of the Argentarii wasaltered at least twice in antiquity (fig. 160).66 Thefifth line, the only line to be entirely erased andrecarved, now honors Caracalla and reads: PAR-THICI MAXIMI BRITANNICI MAXIMI. Abra-sions are clearly visible beneath the letters andspaces of this line, which is shorter than the otherfive lines and contains considerably fewer char-acters.67 It is likely that this line originally hon-ored Plautianus as comes augustorum and as the

father of the new augusta Plautilla.68 The fifthline was erased after Plautianus’s death in 205and remained blank for several years, since itsrecarving could not have occurred prior to A.D.210, the year in which Caracalla received the titleof Britannicus Maximus.69 In all likelihood, thisline was recut when the lines honoring Plautillaand Geta were transformed in 211 or 212 follow-ing their damnationes. This line, standing in rasurafor over six years would have been a prominentvisual reminder of Plautianus’s downfall, directlyechoing his conspicuous absence from the inte-rior western panel. Both eradications served asgraphic expressions of Plautianus’s abolitio memoriaewhich mandated the destruction of his portraitsand inscriptions.70

An attempt was also made to erase Plautianus’sname from a marble inscription plaque reusedas a shelf in the Thermopolium on the Via diDiana at Ostia.71 The humble and utilitarianreuse of this inscription is an additional reminder

63 See infra for the removal of Plautilla from this monu-ment.

64 F. Coarelli, following a theory first proposed by J.Madaule (1924) 130-31, entertains the possibility that Getaappeared in the western panel with Caracalla and Plau-tianus, while Plautilla appeared in the eastern panel withSeptimius and Julia, (1997) 364. However, it seems muchmore probable that Plautilla appeared in the same panelas her husband Caracalla. See infra.

65 H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 77; A. Bonanno(1976) 148.

66 CIL 6.1035; D. E. L. Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939)3-13; M. Pallotino (1946) 37-8.

67 Line 5 currently contains 30 characters. In ascend-ing order, the rest of the line counts are as follows:

line 2 (not altered in antiquity) = 47 line 6 (altered in antiquity) = 57 line 1 (not altered in antiquity) = 81 line 4 (altered in antiquity) = 84

68 The most widely accepted reading of the original lineis: VXORI FILLIAE PLAUTIANI PONTIFICIS NOBILISSIMIPR. PR. COS. II NECESSARII ET COMITIS AVGG; D. E.L. Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939) 5-6, n. 10.

69 D.E.L. Haynes and P.D. Hirst (1939) 6.70 Tentative attempts have also been made to identify

portraits of Plautianus in two Severan reliefs from the prov-inces: a relief panel from the pulpitum of the theatre atSabratha (H.R. Goette [1989]138, no. 154 [with earlier lit-erature]; D.E.E. Kleiner [1992] 344-45, fig. 312) and asection of the dextrarum iunctio scene from the Arch ofSeptimius Severus at Lepcis Magna (see infra). The Sabratharelief depicts Septimius Severus sacrificing in the presenceof the goddess Roma and other personifications. The togatefigure of Septimius is flanked on his left by Caracalla anda camillus and on his right by a bearded togate figure. Thisbearded figure has been identified as Plautianus, but thefacial features are generic and resemble those of many ofthe subsidiary figures from the Arch of Septimius Severusin the Roman Forum. Although A. Birley has identified twofigures from the Lepcis arch as the consuls of A.D. 203,Plautianus and Septimius’s brother Publius Septimius Geta,the arch was probably not constructed until afterPlautianus’s downfall in 205 (A. Di Vita [1982] 553, n.85;A. Birley [1988] pl. 19, caption.

71 1.2.5. C. Pavolini (1983) 83, C. FV[LVIVS] PL[AU-TIANUS].

chapter eight164

of Plautianus’s precipitous fall from power andrecalls the similar utilitarian reuse of the panelhonoring Nero and Agrippina Minor as a pav-ing stone in the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias (fig.91).

Plautilla

Plautilla’s commemorative portraits and inscrip-tions were subjected to the same systematic eradi-cation as those of her father. At the time of hermarriage to Caracalla in 202, Plautilla wasawarded the title of Augusta, yet the contempo-rary historians Dio and Herodian record Cara-calla’s feelings of repugnance towards his youngbride.72 Plautilla shared in her father’s downfalland at the time of his death in A.D. 205, she wasexiled together with her brother Plautius to theisland of Lipari and perhaps divorced at that timeas well. While still alive, Septimius Severus pro-tected Plautilla from the harshest penalties, butCaracalla did not hesitate to order her executionafter his accession, sometime in 211 or 212.73

Plautilla’s damnatio, as visually expressed in thedestruction of her public images and the erasureof her name in inscriptions, was not enacted untilafter her death in 211/212,74 when her name andtitles in group dedications were often recut and

replaced with new titles for Caracalla or JuliaDomna.75

Plautilla’s Portrait Typology

Although Plautilla remained at the imperial courtas Augusta for less than three years, she enjoyedan unprecedented number of portrait types.76

Her numismatic representations encompass fivedistinct types, differentiated on the basis of coif-fure and physiognomy.77 Plautilla’s name is ren-dered in the dative on her earliest coins, indicat-ing that they have been issued in her honor,rather than Plautilla minting coins in her ownright.78 On these earliest coins, the empress wearsa version of the Melonenfrisur in which the hair isparted in the center and braided horizontally,with the braids, usually five to seven in numberdrawn into a bun at the back of the head.79

Individual curls often escape the coiffure on theforehead, temples and in front of the ears. Thefacial features are childish and pump and includea sloping, slightly rounded forehead, wide eyesbeneath arching brows, a somewhat snub nose,fleshy cheeks, protruding upper lip over a fulllower lip and small, rounded chin.

72 Dio 76(77).2.5-3.1; Herodian 3.10.8.73 Septimius had refused to permit the execution of

Plautilla while he remained alive. On her possible divorceat the time of her exile; A. Birley (1988) 220, no. 29.

74 It would have reflected badly on the Severan dynastyto enforce sanctions against the monuments of a livingAugusta, especially in view of the numismatic propagandaof 202-5 which had forcefully proclaimed the concordia ofthe imperial couple. BMCRE 5, 206-7, pl. 33.16, 20; 235ff.,pls. 37.18, 20, 38.6; and F.S.Kleiner in D.E.E. Kleiner andS.B. Matheson, eds. (1996) 89, no. 52.. The message ofimperial concordia which was broadcast on the coins mayhave been intended to counteract the widespread percep-tion that there was discord between the imperial couple;both Dio and Herodian claim that Caracalla despisedPlautilla and would not consent to eat or sleep with her,Dio 76(77).2.5-3.1 and Herod. 3.10.8. Nevertheless, it hasbeen suggested that, in 204, Plautilla bore a child who didnot survive; J. Gagé (1934) 33-5; D. E. L. Haynes and P.D Hirst (1939) 5, n. 5. Gagé asserts that the celebration ofthe Ludi Saeculares in 204 was occasioned by the birth ofthis child.

75 This also supports the later date for her damnatio; sinceher inscriptions are not recut to honor Septimius Severusor Geta, the erasure likely took place after their deaths.

76 S. Nodelman points out that the great number ofnumismatic portrait types of Plautilla issued during her briefreign as Augusta is unparalleled in the history of imperialiconography and must be a reflection of the enormous in-fluence and power which her father Plautianus wieldedduring this period, (1965) 227 and in P. Erhart, J. Frel, S.Knudsen Morgan and S. Nodelman (1980) 81.

77 P.V. Hill (1964) 8. For a review of earlier scholar-ship on Plautilla’s portrait types, see E. Fileri in MusNazRom1.9.2, 357-60.

78 As is naturally the case with her later emissions, S.Nodelman (1965) 227-28, n. 272.

79 The placement of the bun is subject to slight varia-tion: it is either directly at the back of the head or tuckedslightly under the mass of the coiffure. As a coiffure asso-ciated with Diana and popular with young girls through-out the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the Melonenfrisur isparticularly appropriate for the first portrait type of Plautillawho was no more than fourteen at the time of her mar-riage.

the severans 165

In Plautilla’s later types, her facial features areless childish and fleshy, and her nose is notice-ably more aquiline. A modified version of thePlautilla’s first Melonenfrisur appears on the coinswith dative legends, but also continues on laterissues with her name and titles in the nomina-tive. In the modified coiffure, the braids run morevertically or diagonally, as opposed to the strictlyhorizontal orientation of the first hairstyle.80

Plautilla’s third portrait type is marked by theappearance of an entirely new hairstyle, theScheitelzopf, in which the individual braids aredrawn together to form a broad, flat band of hairthat is folded over on the nape of the neck andthen pulled up the back of the head. Plautilla, thefirst of the Roman empresses to wear this distinc-tive coiffure, appears to have introduced it andversions of the hairstyle remained popular intothe fifth century.81 As in the first two coiffures,curls can be shown on the forehead, temples, andin front of the ears.

Plautilla’s final two arrangements are radicaldepartures from the first three braided hairstyles.In the new coiffures, the hair is parted in thecenter and gently waved around the face. Thefirst of these coiffures is a version of the Nestfrisurin which the hair lies close to the skull and de-scends fairly low on the nape of the neck, wherea small bun is inserted into the mass of the coif-fure. The waves of hair are arranged diagonallyand a loose curl is shown in front of the earswhich are left uncovered as in the three previ-ous coiffures. Plautilla’s fifth coiffure is the Helm-frisur with waves of hair descending vertically toa position very low on the nape of the neck andcompletely covering the ears. This coiffure is

comparable to that worn by her mother-in-law,Julia Domna.82

The extraordinary appearance of five numis-matic portrait types for Plautilla within the spaceof three years does not simply document rapidlychanging fashions in contemporary hairstyles, butpublicly signals the enormous influence of herfather and her own pivotal position as the poten-tial producer of Severan heirs who would haveensured the continued stability of the dynasty andthe empire.83 Sculptural replicas exist for the firstthree numismatic types. Because of her exile inJanuary of 205, there may not have been suf-ficient time for the wide production and dis-semination of the last two types (with nest andhelmet hairstyles) which were probably not intro-duced before 204.

The Mutilation and Destruction of Plautilla’s Images

Graphic evidence for the intentional mutilationof Plautilla’s visual images is provided by portraitsin the Vatican (cat. 7.2; fig. 161a-b)84 and Hous-ton (cat. 7.1; fig. 162a-b).85 The Vatican likeness,a replica of the first type, has been attacked witha hammer or chisel in the areas around the eyes,nose, mouth, cheeks, and ears. The resultingdepredations to the likeness recall the defacementof representations of Commodus, Crispina, andLucilla, as well as the emperors of the first cen-tury. The Houston portrait has been mutilatedin a more unusual manner: the eyes and rightcheek have been violently gouged with a large

80 The number of plaits can vary. The bun rests at theback of the head, usually tucked up under the mass of thehair. On the earliest coins with dative legend, the bun isfull and round, and is comparable to those of the first coif-fure. The bun tends to be flatter on the subsequent coinsin which Plautilla’s name and titles appear in the nomi-native. The new direction of the plaits and the lower po-sition of the bun lend a more rounded and less elongatedprofile to Plautilla’s head than that of the first horizontalMelonenfrisur. Individual curls are sometimes used to framethe face.

81 Other Augustae to wear the Scheitelzopf include: JuliaCornelia Paula, Tranquillina, Otacillia Severa, and Heren-nia Etruscilla.

82 The change from the Melonenfrisur to the Nest orHelmfrisuren may have been engineered in order to makePlautilla appear more mature and emphasize her positionas the potential producer of Severan heirs; Plautilla wearsthe Helmfrisur on a gem in Berlin which depicts the youngAugusta with Caracalla in his second portrait type whichwas not introduced before 204, thus this hairstyle must havebeen current at the time of her exile in January of 205; S.Nodelman (1965) 229-230.

83 S. Nodelman (1965) 227, and supra.84 Magazzini, 731, inv. 4278.85 Museum of Fine Art, inv. 70-39. The portrait is a

replica of the third portrait type with Scheitelzopf. This typehas been referred to as the Malibu-Houston-Torlonia typeafter its three surviving unreworked examples, see S.Nodelman (1982); N. Cambi (1988) 221.

chapter eight166

claw chisel or other clawed metal implement. Aswith the vandalized portrait of Lucilla fromSmyrna, the gouging out of Plautilla’s eyes is ananthropomorphic attack against the person of theempress in effigy, intended to obliterate the es-sence of the image. The remainder of the Hous-ton portrait is very well preserved, underscoringthe purposeful nature of the image’s destruction.These two defaced portraits represent approxi-mately one third of Plautilla’s surviving sculptedlikenesses, and strongly suggest that mutilation ofher images was widely pervasive, perhaps moti-vated in part by the hatred Caracalla apparentlyfelt for his young wife. In addition, K. Fittschenhas associated a badly deteriorated portrait in theMuseo Capitolino with Plautilla’s second portraittype.86 The portrait is too badly weathered indetails of coiffure and physiognomy for a secureidentification, but if it is indeed Plautilla, it maybe yet another intentionally mutilated image. Thedisfigurement of Plautilla’s images also recalls ineffigy the public abuse of her father’s corpse.

The Transformation of Plautilla’s Images

Plautilla/Tetrarchic or Constantinian Empress

As with Lucilla and Commodus, no images ofPlautilla were recarved immediately after herdamnatio. However, a portrait of Plautilla workedfor insertion, now part of a private collection inIrvine, California, was refashioned sometime inthe fourth century A.C., confirming that some ofthe empress’s portraits were stored to await re-use at a later period (cat. 7.3; fig. 163a-b).87 Thecoiffure and general physiognomic details con-form to Plautilla’s third portrait type with Schei-telzopf.88 Like portraits in the Sala dei Busti andMuseo Torlonia, the Irvine head is diademed.However, in an effort to make the subject of thereworked head appear more mature than Plau-

tilla, the oval shape of the face has been reducedand squared off in the area of the chin, causingthe neck to be thicker and more heavyset andadding a fleshy underchin in profile. The eyes ofthe new portrait have been emphasized throughenlargement and the addition of deeply drilledirises and pupils. The recut pupils are distinctivelyheart shaped, a hallmark of many Tetrarchic andConstantinian portraits.89 The reworking of theeyes has caused them to be set more deeplybeneath the brows, resulting in a heavy contrast-ing shadow above each eye. The new accentua-tion of the eyes is consonant with a fourth cen-tury date for the recarving.

The coiffure has also been refashioned. Theshallowly carved, naturalistic waves of hair whichframe the face in unaltered replicas have beenreplaced by deeply carved locks which create anabstract, linear pattern. Further linear pattern-ing is evident in the cris-cross design carved intothe plaits covering the head and the braids of theScheitelzopf.90 The abstract, linear treatment ofhair is also consonant with a Tetrarchic or Con-stantinian date for the reconfiguration.91 Thecontinued popularity of the Scheitelzopf would haverendered the Irvine portrait particularly well-suited for reuse during these periods. Theportrait’s diadem suggests that the new image wasintended as a likeness of an empress. However,the use of the Scheitelzopf by many of the impe-rial women of the Tetrarchic and Constantinianperiod, and the fairly generic nature of the re-touched portrait features make a more specificidentification difficult.92 Like the portraits of

86 Magazzini, inv. 79, h. 0.19 m.; Fittschen-Zanker III30, no. 32, pl. 40.

87 Irvine, California; Collection of Mr. Robert K.Martin.

88 S. Nodelman (1982) 110, n. 14.

89 F. Yegul (1981) 66, n. 11. Yegul cites the portraitidentified as Constans in the Metropolitan Museum of Art(Rogers Fund, 67.107); See also Fittschen-Zanker I, nos.122-26; and III, nos. 38, 173, 175, 178, 179.

90 This cris-cross pattern is evident in the plaits of theunrecarved Scheitelzopfen of the Los Angeles, Houston, andTorlonia portraits, as well as in the Scheitelzopfen of contem-porary Severan private portraits, but is not seen in the plaitswhich cover the heads.

91 F. Yegul (1981) 65, n. 10.92 For instance, Helena, Fausta, and Glaeria Valeria all

wear modified versions of the Scheitelzopf in some of theirnumismatic portraits, H.P. L’Orange and M. Wegner(1984) pl. 72.a, g, h and i.

the severans 167

Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Lucilla, and Com-modus which were not recut until the third orfourth centuries, the Irvine Plautilla providesinvaluable evidence for the prolonged storage ofimperial images following their removal frompublic display.

The Removal of Plautilla’s Images

Two remarkably well preserved bust length por-traits of Plautilla, in the Vatican93 and the MuseoTorlonia94 further attest to the warehousing ofPlautilla’s images after her condemnation. Nei-ther bust exhibits any signs of deliberate deface-ment. The Vatican portrait is preserved togetherwith most of its bust form,95 while the Torloniaportrait is entirely in tact. The Vatican image wasdiscovered during the excavations of the so-calledBasilica at Otricoli, between 1778-79, which alsoyielded the colossal Caligula/Claudius (cat. 1.30).As it is unlikely that Plautilla’s likeness wouldhave continued to be exhibited publicly in astructure dedicated to the imperial cult follow-ing her exile and subsequent condemnation, thebust must have been stored at the “basilica.” Thefine state of preservation of a third likeness inNaples is also likely the result of its storage in asecure location.96 All three images are fromRome or its vicinity and were undoubtedly re-moved from display as a result of Plautilla’sdownfall.

In contrast, a portrait in the Getty museum has

been cut from the statue to which it originallybelonged and its eroded surfaces, especially at theright side of the head, suggest that it has sufferedlong period of partial immersion in water (fig.164).97 The likeness may have been hacked fromits statue and thrown in a body of water in anact of denigration and poena post mortem, recallingthe numerous images of earlier emperors andempresses which were similarly decapitated anddisposed of in bodies of water. Traces of thestatue’s drapery are still visible at the right of theneck, near the clavicle. The portrait is of Italianmarble, and its fine workmanship may indicatea metropolitan Roman provenance.

The most striking and persuasive testimonycorroborating the obliteration of Plautilla’s publicimages and inscriptions is provided by the Archof the Argentarii. Abrasions in the surfaces at theproper right of the western interior panel markPlautilla’s initial position next to her fatherPlautianus (fig. 159). Furthermore, Plautilla’scommemoration in line four of the attic inscrip-tion has been erased and replaced with a new titleawarded to Julia Domna in A.D. 211, MaterSenatus et Patriae.98 It has been suggested, quiteplausibly, that the arch originally supported abronze statuary group of the imperial family, andif so, Plautilla’s portrait was certainly removed(and melted down) at the same time that herimage was eradicated from the relief and hername obliterated in the inscription.99 As with herfather, all trace of Plautilla has been effectivelyeliminated from the arch. Plautilla’s abolitio memo-riae strongly resembles that of Commodus on the

93 Sala dei Busti, no. 300, inv. 687; J. Meischner (1964)83, no. 65, fig. 59. H. B. Wiggers and M. Wegner(1971)119, 128, pl. 29 c-d (with earlier literature); Fittschen-Zanker III, 30, no. 32, n. 1, 93, n. 11; G. Spinola (1999)120, no. 95. The portrait is a replica of the second typewith diagonally braided Melonenfrisur.

94 609; C. Visconti (1883) 305, no. 609; C. Visconti, Imonumenti del Museo Torlonia (Rome) pl. 158, no. 609; J.Meischner (1964) 86-7, no. 67; I Caruso in C. Gasparri(1980) 228, no. 609; S. Nodelman (1982) 110, n. 13, fig.10. The portrait is a replica of the third portrait type withScheitelzopf.

95 The right side of the bust from is a restoration.96 Museo Nazionale Archeologico 6189 (1057); measure-

ments unavailable; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971)124; MNA 166, no. 95, (with fig.,with earlier literature). Theportrait is a replica of type I.

97 72.AA.118; h. 0.305 m.; J. Frel (1981) 93, no. 76, 130(with earlier literature); F. Yegul (1981) 65-66, figs. 8-10;S. Nodelman (1982). The head is a type 3 portrait withScheitelzopf.

98 This line originally read: IVLIAE AVG. MATRI AVGG.ET CASTRORVM ET FVLVIAE PLAVTILLAE AVG. IMP.CAES. M. AVRELI ANTONINI PII FELECIS AVG. Haynes-Hirst 4-5 and S. De Maria (1988) 308.

99 S. De Maria (1988) 308; Because of the prominenceof his name on the inscription and the inclusion of his por-trait in the interior relief panels, a portrait of Plautianusmay also have appeared in the statuary group which is likelyto have adorned the attic. If so, it would have been removedafter his death in 205.

chapter eight168

panel reliefs of Marcus Aurelius and is the onlydocumented instance of the erasure of an impe-rial female portrait from a Roman relief, furtherunderscoring the exactitude with which herdamnatio was pursued under Caracalla.100

Geta

Publius (or Lucius) Septimius Geta, the youngerson of Septimius Severus, was born on 7 March189.101 He was granted the title of Caesar on 28January 198 at the same time that Caracalla wasproclaimed Augustus, the date of their elevationbeing carefully chosen to coincide with the onehundredth anniversary of Trajan’s accession.102

Geta held the consulship in 205 and again in 208.He was officially designated Augustus sometimein 210, although many inscriptions, including thatfrom the Arch of the Argentarii in Rome, referto him as Augustus much earlier.103 AlthoughSeptimius Severus fully intended that his sonsshould rule jointly after his death, they wereincapable of sharing power and their enmity fi-nally culminated Geta’s murder on 26 Decem-ber 211.104

Caracalla attempted to justify the execution onthe grounds that Geta was involved in a con-spiracy to murder him.105 Consequently Geta wasposthumously declared a hostis by the army onCaracalla’s orders, ensuring the destruction ofGeta’s images and inscriptions.106 Geta’s parti-sans at Rome were ruthlessly hunted down andkilled.107 Indeed, Dio, a contemporary witness,

records that Caracalla vented his anger even onthe stones which had supported Geta’s statuesand caused the coins that bore his image to bemelted down: 6"Á J@ÃH J•H gÆ6`<"H "ÛJ@Ø $"FJV-

F"F4 8\2@4H éD(\.gJ@, 6"Á JÎ <`:4F:" JÎ BD@NX-

D@< "ÛJÎ< FL<gPf<gLFg<.108 Furthermore, itbecame a capital offence to speak or write Geta’sname,109 and a man was reportedly put to deathfor paying honor to a portrait of Geta after thedamnatio.110 Geta’s name and titles have also beenerased in numerous papyri.111 Geta’s name re-mains noticeably unmentioned in a papyrus datedto 212 in which the prefect of Egypt, BaebiusIuncius relays the senatorial instructions concern-ing the condemnation.112 Caracalla abolished thecelebration of Geta’s birthday and took the ex-traordinary step of instituting annual sacrifices toGeta’s manes in the underworld, thus emphasiz-ing Geta’s absolute exclusion from the companyof divi, the officially consecrated emperors andempresses.113 Perhaps out of deference to hismother, Geta’s corpse was not subjected to thepublic indignities of a poena post mortem.114 On thecontrary, his body was cremated, he enjoyed anelaborate funeral and his ashes were placed in atomb modelled on the Septizonium whichSeptimius Severus had constructed at the south-eastern corner of the Palatine.115 Eventually JuliaMaesa, the sister of Julia Domna, depositedGeta’s remains, together with those of his mother,in the Mausoleum of Hadrian.116

100 As noted earlier, Julia Maior’s portrait has almostcertainly been removed or altered on the Ara Pacis.

101A. Birley (1988) 218. Geta is given both the praenomenLucius and Publius. It is possible that Lucius was used oncertain occasions in order to avoid confusion with SeptimiusSeverus’s brother, also named P. Septimius Geta.

102 A. Birley (1988) 130.103 Ibid.104 T.D. Barnes (1968) 522-24;A. Birley (1988) 218.105 Dio 77(78). 3.1-2.106 Herodian 4.8; HA, Carac., 1.1; Eutr. 8.19.107 Dio records the number killed as 20,000, 77(78).3.4;

on the damnatio and the murder of Geta’s supporters, seeD.C. MacKenzie (1949) 29-33.

108 77(78).12.6.109 Dio 77(78).12.5 includes the information that the

name of Geta, which had been a popular name for slavesin Latin and Greek comedies, was no longer used by theplaywrights after the damnatio.

110 HA.Carac. 3.5.111 P. Mertens (1960) 541-52. E. Van’t Dack (1974) 876.112 BGU 2056 in H. Maehler (1968) 77-8; E. Van’t Dack

(1974) 876; T. Pekáry (1985) 137; P. Stewart (2000) 163.113 Dio 77(78).12.5-6; S.R.F. Price (1987) 91.114 As the Senate wanted to do with the body of Com-

modus (HA.Comm. 17.4; 18-19; Dio 73[74].2.1) and as wasdone with the bodies of Vitellius (Suet. Vit. 17.2), Elagabalusand Julia Soemias (Dio 80.20; Herod. 5.8.9; HA.Elag. 17.47,23.7). Geta’s corpse may have been spared this fate out ofrespect for Julia Domna.

115 HA.Geta 7.1-2; this account may be fictitious sincethe author of the HA suggests that Geta was deified HA2.7-9; see S. Nodelman (1965) 294, n. 233.

116 Dio 78(79).24.3., who refers to the Mausoleum as

the severans 169

Geta’s Portrait Typology

Much of the propaganda disseminated during thereign of Septimius Severus concentrated on theemperor’s dynastic ambitions. His retroactiveadoption into the Antonine family provided afictive link with the previous ruling family, whilethe elevation of Caracalla to the rank of Augustusin 198 established the succession and future con-tinuity of the Severan dynasty. As the secondmale heir, only slightly younger than Caracalla,Geta was crucial to the Severan dynastic stabil-ity. He was frequently honored with portraits andhis likeness was included in the major commemo-rative relief monuments of the period. In his rolesas Caesar and Augustus, Geta minted coins in hisown right and also appeared on special issueswhich celebrated the imperial family.

Although the identification of Geta’s sculptedportraits is partially complicated by his physiog-nomical resemblance to his brother Caracalla,Geta’s first official portrait type, celebrates hiselevation to the rank of Caesar in 198 and is easyto distinguish from Caracalla’s contemporarytype 1 portraits.117 Geta’s earliest official like-nesses in marble and on coins depict him with acoiffure of full, wavy locks; the bangs over hisforehead are parted in the center; the hair on theside of the head is characterized by long, tousledS-shaped locks, with the hair on the nape of theneck combed forward; the ears are generally leftuncovered or only partially covered; his eyes arewide and almond shaped with prominent lids, aslightly snub nose, full cheeks, a relatively smallmouth with a full underlip, and a rounded chin;

sometimes a full underchin, reminiscent of babyfat, can be detected.118

In 205, a new type was created to commemo-rate Geta’s joint consulship with Caracalla andit deliberately emphasizes Geta’s physical resem-blance to his brother. Contemporary coin imagesdepict the two brothers with virtually indistin-guishable facial features that include a foreheadwith a single furrow, wide eyes beneath archingbrows, an aquiline nose, a small mouth, androunded chin. Likewise, their new closely croppedcoiffures are nearly identical, with a series of shortcomma shaped locks arranged across the fore-head. Nevertheless, Caracalla’s hairstyle is occa-sionally differentiated from Geta’s by the addi-tion of a short curl extending onto his upper rightcheekbone, or a single longer curl which reversesthe right hand direction of the bangs over theright eye.119 The length of the side whiskers ofboth princes gradually increases on coins of 205-209, eventually reaching the line of the jaw, andby 209/210 both wear a full beard.120 Thesimilitudo of the brother’s numismatic portraits isintended to promote the concept of imperialconcordia, as well as to evoke associations withRome’s twin protectors, the Dioscuri.121

Twenty-one marble portraits, replicas or vari-ants of a single prototype, closely resemble thecoin portraits of Caracalla and Geta from 205-211. These sculpted likenesses depict a youth witha closely cropped coiffure which is slightly fullerand more curly over the temples. The hair isarranged in short, comma-shaped locks over theforehead, usually with a slight part over the in-ner corner of the left eye. The locks on the napeof the neck are generally brushed forward. Theface is oval shaped, tapering at the chin, the eyesare wide and almond shaped beneath arching

the z!<JT<\<@L J,:X<4F:”. Dio says that Julia’s ashes weretransferred from the monument of Gaius and Lucius, wherethey may have been originally interred because of herclaims of descent from the Julii. This monument is eitherthe Mausoleum of Augustus or a tomb of his two grand-sons for which this is the only ancient literary testimony.

117 Caracalla’s contemporary portraits show him withsimilar facial features, but Geta’s eyes are generally widerand his eyebrows often heavier, like those of his motherJulia Domna. Caracalla’s type I coiffure is also very dif-ferent from that of Geta, being generally more full and curlyand lacking a central part. On Caracalla’s first portrait type,see Fittschen-Zanker I, 98-100, no. 86.

118 For Geta’s type I see, Fittschen-Zanker I, 100-102,no. 87. This type is sometimes referred to as the Munich-Toulouse type after two well-preserved replicas.

119 See H. Mattingly, BMCRE 5 250, no. 476, 272, no.576.

120 BMCRE 5, 359, pl. 53.8-9; P.V. Hill (1964) 8, figs10-16, 22-26; S. Nodelman (1965) 221-22; Fittschen-ZankerI, 103-15.

121 S. Nodelman (1965) 204.

chapter eight170

brows, there is a slight bulge in the forehead inprofile over the bridge of the nose. The nose itselfis fairly straight and aquiline.122 The mouth usu-ally turns slightly up at the corners with a veryfull, receding lower lip. The chin is rounded.While the coiffure and physiognomic details re-main consistent, the length of sideburns and fa-cial hair are variable. Like the numismatic por-traits, the sculpted type can appear withoutsideburns, with short sideburns, with long side-burns down to the jawline, and with a beard orsmall moustache. The facial hair is obviously usedto indicate the advancing age and maturity of thesubject.

Because the numismatic evidence is inconclu-sive, the marble images of this type have beenassigned by some scholars to Caracalla, and byothers to Geta.123 However, the portrait of Getafrom the dextrarum iunctio panel of the Arch ofSeptimius Severus at Lepcis Magna, which in-cludes the slight part in the hair over the innercorner of the left eye, is clearly of this type. Theevidence from the arch would seem to confirmincontrovertibly the identification of the twenty-one sculpted portraits as Geta.124 These marble

portraits must, in fact, be representative of Geta’ssecond and final type, which would bring the totalnumber of his extant sculpted and bronze por-traits to thirty-five, a number not inconsistentwith surviving portraits of the condemned em-perors of the first century (Caligula, Nero, andDomitian). Additional evidence for the identifi-cation of this group as Geta and not Caracallaoccurs on two gems, in New York125 andRome.126 Both gems depict bust length portraitsof Caracalla and Geta together with SeptimiusSeverus and Julia Domna; in both gemsCaracalla is fully bearded whereas Geta is beard-less. These gems would seem to indicate thatCaracalla adopted a beard earlier than Geta. Theintaglio in New York was certainly used as a sealand when stamped, the positive impression de-picts the parting of locks over the inner cornerof Geta’s left eye.

The Mutilation and Destruction of Geta’s Images

Portraits of Geta’s first and second types wereintentionally vandalized in response to thedamnatio memoriae. The only surviving full lengthportrait of Geta, an over-lifesized cuirassed statuein the Villa del Poggio Imperiale near Florence,has been savagely mutilated (cat. 7.5; fig. 165a-b). The image reproduces Geta’s first type anddepicts him wearing a laurel crown, cuirass,paludamentum, and boots. A captive foreigner inreduced scale crouches by Geta’s right leg. Aswith the deliberately defaced statues of Lucilla inGuelma and Izmir and Annia Fundania Faustinafrom Ostia, the damage to the Poggio image isconfined to the facial features. The upper brow,most of the left eye and cheek, nose, mouth andchin are entirely destroyed and a section of thelaurel crown on the left side of the head is also

122 As seen in the coin profiles and the two heads whichpreserve their original nose: Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA1076 and Pegli, Museo Civico.

123 Identified as Caracalla, Typus Gabii, by H. Wiggers(1971) 22-28; identified as Geta, L. Budde (1951) 33-39;and S. Nodelman (1965) 212-23.

124 H. Wiggers rejected this identification on the basisof Geta’s damnatio and assigned the portraits to Caracalla,claiming that so many replicas would not have survived thedestruction of his images, (1971) 22-28. This cannot be usedas an argument against an association of these portraits withGeta, since portraits of condemned emperors do escapedestruction, largely as a result of warehousing or storagefollowing their removal from public display. K. Fittschen’ssuggestion that the artists of the Lepcis arch confused theportraits of the two brothers because of their strong simi-larity and that the portrait of the figure in the center ofthe imperial group is actually Caracalla, although intendedto represent Geta, is equally unconvincing, Fittschen-Zanker I, 103. It seems highly unlikely that the artistsresponsible for such an important monument at the seatof the Severan gens would have made so careless an error,or that, once the relief was executed the mistake was notrecognized and rectified. In addition, Caracalla is givenmore prominence in the scene via his position, his dextrarumiunctio with Septimius and his more massive and matureportrait features.

125 Metropolitan Museum of Art, acc. no. 40.143,l. .0002 m.; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 71 (notantique?) (with earlier literature).

126 Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv. 72147,0.0002 m. x 0.0012 m. (glass paste); H. von Heintze (1966-67) 199, n. 49; D. Soechting (1972) 67, 241, nr. 12; H.B.Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 80 (with earlier literature).

the severans 171

missing. The remainder of the statue is generallywell-preserved, again underscoring the inten-tional nature of its mutilation. Formerly part ofthe Della Valle collection, the portrait is fromRome or its environs and attests to the rigorouspursual of the damnatio in the capital in conjunc-tion with Caracalla’s violent persecution of Geta’ssupporters there.127 The extraordinary triumphalimagery of this representation of the young princemay have made it especially liable to mutilation.Nevertheless, the well-preserved condition of thestatue’s body suggests that it was stored (or bur-ied) following its defacement.

Two other fragmentary type 1 replicas inVenice (cat. 7.8; fig. 166)128 the Museo Capitolino(cat. 7.7)129 have also been vandalized. The en-tire face of the Venice portrait has been disfig-ured through repeated blows from a chisel. Thedestruction is limited to the area of the face andGeta’s distinctive type 1 coiffure remains intact.The ears have also suffered no damage. TheCapitoline portrait consists of the upper portionof the head, all that survives from an image vio-lently attacked with a hammer or chisel. Theforehead and eyes exhibit clear traces of the blowsthey have sustained, while the coiffure and topsof the ears have not been damaged.

Two portraits of Geta’s second type have alsobeen attacked and disfigured. Modern restora-tions to the brows, eyes, nose, and mouth con-ceal the ancient mutilation of a likeness in thePalazzo Pitti (cat. 7.4; fig. 167).130 The rest of thehead is fairly well preserved, confirming that theportrait’s defacement was deliberate. The T-shaped disfigurement of the likeness recalls thesimilar defacement of Geta’s cuirassed portraitfrom the Villa del Poggio Imperiale as well rep-resentations of Nero, Lucilla, and Commodus(cat. 2.2; cat. 6.1,8-9). A head of Geta fromGuelma in North Africa has suffered severe blowsfrom a chisel, removing the nose and damagingthe brows and eyes in a nearly identical T-shaped

fashion (cat. 7.6; fig. 168).131 This portrait’s mu-tilation provides compelling evidence for the de-struction of Geta’s images in the provinces. Be-cause Geta’s damnatio was enacted on so vast ascale, the army may have been instrumental inthe destruction of his images, like the Guelmaportrait, either following directives from the capi-tal or acting on their own initiative in order tospontaneously express their loyalty to the victo-rious Caracalla by deprecating the memory of hishated brother.

Geta’s type 1 likenesses survive in significantlyfewer numbers than Caracalla’s contemporarytype 1, eleven vs. forty, which provides additionalconfirmation for the destruction of Geta’s im-ages.132 The great discrepancy in the number ofportraits of the two brothers may partially resultfrom the greater production of Caracalla’s type1 because of his more prominent position as el-der son and co-Augustus, but this cannot entirelyaccount for the fact that there are nearly fourtimes as many extant replicas of Caracalla’s firsttype.133

Dio records that Caracalla melted down Geta’scoinage at the same time he destroyed hissculpted portraits, but Geta’s issues survive insufficient quantities to suggest that such numis-matic destruction was limited in scope.134 How-ever, Geta’s name and portrait have been oblit-erated on certain issues in the east. Geta’s namehas been erased on coins from Ephesus andIsaura and his name and portraits have beendeliberately effaced on issues from Clazomenae,Miletus, Nicea, Pergamum, Perperene, andSmyrna (figs. 169-70).135 Geta’s image has beenobliterated on issues from Pergamum andStratonicea (figs. 171-72).136 The obverses of the

127 U. Aldovrandi (1563) 220; V. Saladino (1980) 434,n. 11.

128 Museo Archeologico, inv. 79.129 Magazzini, inv. 2519.130 Museo degli Argenti, Sala I, inv. 1036.

131 Musée Archéologique.132 Excluding the deliberately damaged type 1 replicas

in the Capitoline and Venice. Caracalla’s type 1 replicasare listed in Fittschen and Zanker I, 99-100, no. 86; seealso S. Nodelman (1965) 212.

133 S. Nodelman (1965) 212.134 Dio 77(78).12.6. Perhaps Dio is recording Caracalla’s

intention of melting down the coins.135 R. Mowat (1901) 448, 452-60; K. Regling (1904)

137-9.136 K. Regling (1904) 139-42; K. Neugegauer (1936)

162, fig. 5; K. Harl (1987) pl. 12.4-5;

chapter eight172

Pergamum coin initially depicted facing portraitsof Geta and Caracalla, while those fromStratonicea depicted Geta and Septimius Severusor Geta and Caracalla. Another example fromStratonicea, formerly on the art market, depictedfacing portraits of Geta and Caracalla.137 In theStratonicea issues, Geta’s portrait features andname and titles have been entirely obliterated andthe resulting void spaces often countermarkedwith the profile busts of a helmeted female fig-ure, either Roma or Minerva and sometimes theinscription 2g@L (of the god, likely referring toCaracalla’s status as the son of the deifiedSeptimius Severus).138 The unprecedented num-ber of disfigured or countermarked coins standsas an impressive testament to Geta’s numismaticdamnatio memoriae and further suggests that sucherasures and countermarkings were seen as apracticable alternatives to the total recall andmelting down of Geta’s issues that had beenmandated by Caracalla.139 As in the past,countermarking or erasure inflicted on Geta’scoinage is limited to bronze or brass issues.

The Transformation of Geta’s Images

As with the images of Commodus and Plautilla,Geta’s sculpted likenesses were not recut imme-diately after his condemnation. Nevertheless, atype 2 portrait in the Museo Capitolino, wasrefashioned in the mid third century and, like therepresentations of Caligula, Nero, Domitian,Commodus, Lucilla, and Plautilla which were re-used at much later periods, provides compellingevidence for the warehousing of imperial images(cat. 7.10; fig. 173).140 The recarving has left thefacial features and the hair over the forehead andtemples intact, securing the identification as Geta.However, Geta’s short, plastically modeled hairon the top, sides, and back of the head has beencut down and replaced by incised locks which

closely follow the contour of the skull. This com-bination of slightly fuller, plastically renderedlocks over the forehead with an incised coiffureis characteristic of portraiture from the middleof the third century.141 Geta’s portrait must havebeen fairly easily accessible, perhaps in a sculp-tural depot thirty or forty years after hisdamnatio.142 As with the representation of Plautillareworked in the Tetrarchic or Constantinianperiod, the rather generic character of the recutcoiffure and physiognomy hinder a specific iden-tification. It is unclear whether the image hasbeen altered into a private or imperial individual.

Geta’s image has also been radically trans-formed on a rock crystal intaglio in the MichaelC. Carlos Museum (cat. 7.9; fig. 174).143 As pre-served, the gem originally depicted SeptimiusSeverus and Caracalla sacrificing, with Getastanding behind Geta and the goddess victorycrowning Septimius from behind. The survivingletters +IKC have been inscribed on the reverseof the intaglio. Geta has been refashioned into asecond figure of Victory and the recut sectionsare noticeably deeper than the untouched figures.Nevertheless, the profile of Geta, as well as sec-tions of his drapery and the rotulus he originallyheld are still plainly visible. The difficulties in-herent in recutting an intaglio of such small di-mensions are nearly insurmountable and posedfar more technical challenges even than the re-cutting of cameos, which were at least executedin relief. As the only surviving intaglio to bereconfigured, the Carlos rock crystal is yet an-other visual testament to the pervasive nature ofthe condemnation of Geta’s monuments.

137 (M&M list 561 (January 1993) no. 15.138 R. Mowat (1901) 454-55; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000)

186-8, nos. 45-47, with figs.139 R. Mowat (1901) 447.140 Salone 51, inv. 675.

141 Fittschen-Zanker, I, 105. For example, see threeportraits of Gordian III in the Musei Capitolini: MuseoCapitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 53, inv. 490, Fittschen-Zanker I, 127-28, no. 107, pls., 131-32; Palazzo deiConservatori, Sala degli Orti Mecenaziani, inv. 995, Fitt-schen-Zanker I, 128-29, no. 108, pl. 133; Palazzo deiConservatori, Museo Nuovo, Sala I, inv. 479, Fittschen-Zanker I, 129-30, no. 109, pls. 134-35.

142 Its good state of preservation, as well as a corre-spondence of the locks over the forehead to contemporarymid third century fashions, would have rendered the por-trait especially suitable for reuse.

143 Atlanta, Emory University, inv. 2003.25.2.

the severans 173

The Removal of Geta’s Images

As in the past, Geta’s sculptural images were re-moved from public display, and the many sur-viving well-preserved portraits must have beenwarehoused or buried. A portrait of Geta’s sec-ond type, in Oslo, confirms such warehousing ofhis likenesses.144 The portrait was discovered inRome, together with a portrait of Elagabalus, alsoin Oslo and similarly removed from its originalcontext.145 The representation of Elagabalus hasnot been finished and its completion must havebeen interrupted by his condemnation. Bothimages may have been stored in a sculptor’sworkshop or depot, securing their preservationfor posterity.

Numerous representations of Geta fromRome or its environs, with no signs of deliber-ate defacement, were stored or buried followinghis condemnation. Six of these portraits, in theLouvre,146 the Terme,147 the Vatican (fig. 175),148

Castle Howard,149 and two likenesses in theMuseo Capitolino,150 survive together with their

original bust forms, or sections of their originalbust forms. The Terme portrait was discoveredduring excavations for the foundations of theMinistero delle Finanze on the Quirinal. TheLouvre bust, one of the best preserved of Geta’slikenesses, was discovered at Gabii together withportraits of Septimius Severus151 and JuliaDomna.152 The portrait is entirely intact and stillpreserves its ancient surface. In addition to thebust length portraits, an imago clipeata in Spoletois likely to have been removed and stored.153

Other well preserved likenesses from Rome orits surroundings include representations in theVatican154 and Munich.155 The Vatican portraitwas discovered at Ostia. Like the bust from Gabii,the Munich head is extremely well preserved andretains much of its ancient finish. The portraitcomes from the Palazzo Bevilacqua in Verona,and its extremely high artistic quality that it is aproduct of a metropolitan Roman workshop.

144 Oslo, Nasjonalgalleriet 600, inv. 1433, h. 0.253 m.;S. Sande (1991) 77-8, no. 63, pl. 62 (with earlier literature).The upper right portion of the head is missing and thereis damage to the nose and lips, but no indications that thisdamage is deliberate.

145 Nasjonalgalleriet, inv. SK 1434; See infra.146 Inv. MA 1076 (2282) h. 0.66 m.; S. Nodelman (1965)

216, 219, pls. 126-27; H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971)22-24, 44, 52, pl. 5c, 8a-b, 22a; D. Soechting (1972) 196-97; Fittschen-Zanker I, 102. K. de Kersauson (1996) 394-5, no. 181, with figs. (with earlier literature).

147 Magazzini, inv. 88; h. 071 m.; A. Cioffarelli inMusNazRom I.9.2 (Rome 1988) 345-49, no. R264, with figs.(with earlier literature); H.R. Goette (1989) 149-50, no. 33,pl. 52.4; The portrait has received damage to the ears, nose,mouth, and chin. There is some chipping to the draperyand the head has been broken off the neck and reattached.

148 Galleria Chiaramonti 3.16, inv. 1238 (Type 1); S.Nodelman (1965) 207, 210-11; H. von Heintze (1966-67)195, n. 30 (Caracalla); H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971)98-100, 111-12; pl 27a-b (with earlier literature); Fittschen-Zanker I, 101; P. Liverani (1989) 17. Restorations in marbleinclude the nose and sections of the bust.

149 Fittschen-Zanker I, 102, Beil. 69c; A. Cioffarelli inMusNazRom I.9.2 (Rome 1988) 348; H.R. Goette (1989)149, no. 32, pl. 52.3.

150 Stanza degli Imperatori 41, inv. 468, h. 0.68 m.(Type 2); ex-Collection Albani?; Fittschen-Zanker, I, 102-

104, no. 88, pls. l06-7 (with earlier literature); H.R. Goette(1989) 67, n. 328, 151, no. 50, pl. 54.1, 94.12.

Salone, no. 40, inv. 660, h. 0.615 m. (Type 2); ex-Collection Albani ?; Fittschen-Zanker I, 104-5, no. 89, pls.107-108 (with earlier literature); H.R. Goette (1989) 150,no. 34.

151 Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. MA 1118; A.M .A. M.McCann (1968) 192, pl. 97 (not antique); D. Soechting(1972) 196-97, no. 92; K. de Kersauson (1996) 354-55, no.162.

152 Paris, Louvre, MA 1109; J.J. Bernoulli (1894) 39,pl. 16; J. Meischner (1964) 30, nr. 2; Fittschen-Zanker III,28, no. 14, n. 1; K. de Kersauson (1996) 364-65, no. 167.

153 Seminario (type I); Fittschen-Zanker I, 100.154 Galleria Chiaramonti 23.9, inv. 1551 (type 1);

H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 99-100, 112, pl. 26a-b (with earlier literature); Fittschen-Zanker I, 101;P. Liverani (1989) 51. The nose, parts of the neck and bustform are restorations in marble, and chips in the area ofthe brows, cheeks and mouth have been filled with plas-ter.

155 Glyptothek, F.352, h. 0.XX m. (type I); H. B.Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 97-99, 108, pl. 25 (withearlier literature); L. Franzoni (1978) no. 16; Fittschen-Zanker, I, 101; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 325, fig. 289. Dam-age is limited to very slight chips to the tip of the nose, tothe left side of the mouth, and to a few locks of the coif-fure; a crack runs through the neck, and the rims of theears have been restored. The shape of the tenon indicatesthat the head was originally intended for a draped statue.

chapter eight174

Additional portraits in Florence;156 Munich;157

Vienna;158 ex Vienna, Palais Lanckoronski (fig.176);159 Caltanisetta;160 Catania;161 Geneva;162

the Louvre;163 the Prado;164 Pegli (fig. 177);165 theMuseo Torlonia,166 and Stuttgart 167 are all likelyto have been removed from display and storedor buried following Geta’s condemnation. Anunderlifesized bronze bust, a replica of type 1,has also have escaped the destruction of Geta’simages.168

Images of Geta were also removed in the prov-inces, as attested by well preserved likenesses inToulouse169 two portraits in Tunis (fig. 178),170

and a fragmentary bronze portrait in Ham-burg.171 Both of the Tunisian likenesses are fromThuburbo Maius and one, a head worked forinsertion, was discovered in the remains of anaedicula near the forum. The portrait was likelyremoved from its statue and stored in the areaof the Forum. Likewise, the other portrait whichwas discovered near the Summer and WinterBaths, must have been removed and stored in thevicinity of the Baths.

The Toulouse portrait was part of a late an-tique collection of sculpture displayed at theRoman villa of Chiragan in France. In prepara-tion for its display at the Villa, Geta’s portraithead was mounted on a bust of eastern Romanprovenance to which it did not originally belong.The entire sculptural collection at Chiragan wasformed in the fourth century and is largely com-posed of reworked or modified earlier sculp-ture.172 Geta’s bust was included in a cycle ofimperial images representing Augustus, Trajan,Hadrian, Sabina, Marcus Aurelius, SeptimiusSeverus and Caracalla, among others.173 At thetime of the collection’s formation, Geta’s imagemay have been acquired from a sculptural de-pot or other secure location where it had beenwarehoused following his condemnation.174 As

156 Museo Archeologico, inv. 13791 (type 1); Fittschen-Zanker I, 100.

157 Residenz inv. 271 (type 1), h. 0.13 m.; Fittschen-Zanker I, 101; E. Weski in G. Hojer, ed. (1987) 251-2, no.136, pl. 176.

158 Kunsthistorisches Museum, I 237, h. (type 1);Fittschen-Zanker I, 101.

159 (type 1); Fittschen-Zanker I, 101 (with earlier litera-ture).

160 Museo Civico, h. 0.50 m. (type 2); E. de Miro (1972)242, fig. 11; N. Bonacasa Carra (1977) 25-28, pls. 12-13;Fittschen-Zanker I, 102.

161 Museo Communale 226, h. (type 2); N. Bonacasa(1964) 107; no. 138, pl. 63; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner(1971) 105; Fittschen-Zanker I, 102.

162 Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, inv. MF 1347, h. 0.35(type 2); I. Rilliet-Maillard (1978) 66, no. 21, with figures(with earlier literature); J. Chamay and J. L. Maier (1982)no. 64, with figure; Fittschen-Zanker I, 104.

163 Louvre, Mag., MA 2315 (type 2), h. 0.255 m.; H.B.Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 75; Fittschen-Zanker I, 102,Beil. 67; K de Kersauson (1996) 396-7, no. 182, with figs.,(with earlier literature).

164 inv. 197 E, h. 0.885 m. (type 2); S.F. Schröder (1993)264-66, no. 76, with figs. (with earlier literature). From Italy.

165 Museo Civico (type 2); Fittschen-Zanker I, 102, Beil.68.c-d.

166 Museo Torlonia 575 (type 2); H.B. Wiggers and M.Wegner (1971) 81; C. Gasparri and I Caruso (1980) 223,no. 575 (with earlier literature); Fittschen-Zanker I, 102.

167 Württembergisches Landesmuseum, inv. Arch. 68/1 (type 2), h.0.345 m.; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971)86 (with earlier literature); U. Hausmann (1975) 51-3, no.17, 128, figs. 52-4; Fittschen-Zanker I, 102.

168 H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 99-100, 114;Fittschen-Zanker I, 101, n. 4.

169 Musée St. Raymond 30109 (type 1); H. Wiggers andM. Wegner (1971) 97-98; 113; pl. 26.c-d (with earlier lit-erature); V. Saladino (1980) 436, pls. 81.4, 83,3; Fittschen-Zanker I, 101; N. Hannestad (1994) 132; K. Fittschen(1999) ns. 316, 455, pl. 128. The tip of the nose and mostof the chin have been chipped off. The left half of the rearof the head has broken away and been reattached.

170 Musée du Bardo C 1397 (type 2), h. ; H.B. Wiggersand M. Wegner (1971) 90, 199 (with earlier literature);Fittschen-Zanker I, 102.

Tunis, Musée du Bardo, inv. C 1347; S. Nodelman(1965) 218, 220-221, pls. 132-33; H.B. Wiggers and M.Wegner (1971) 12, 53-54, 90, pls. 7, 8D (with earlier lit-erature); Fittschen-Zanker, I, 102.The portrait is very wellpreserved; the major damage to the head has been sustainedin the area of the nose and upper lip and there is inciden-tal damage to the lower lid of the left eye and the back ofthe right ear.

171 Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, inv. 1971.3, h.0.141 m., W. .087 m; “Erwerbungen des Museums fürKunst und Gewerbe,” (W.H. Gross) AA (1974) 69-71, figs.28a-b; Fittschen-Zanker I, 101, n. 4.

172 On the collection, see N. Hannestad (1994) 127-44.E. Bartman also discusses the collection (1991) 73.

173 N. Hannestad (1994) 128-9.174 N. Hannestad has suggested that the imperial por-

traits were acquired from an Augusteum. Most of theimperial portraits appear to have been fairly poorly pre-served at the time of their acquisition for the villa andrequired extensive restoration. Nevertheless, the portrait ofGeta is much better preserved than the other imperial

the severans 175

might be expected, Geta’s damnatio was no longerenforced in the fourth century and clearly theowner of the Villa wished to have a representa-tive cycle of imperial images. Additional evidencefor the treatment of Geta’s representations in theprovinces is provided by the fragmentary bronzeportrait from Egypt, now in Hamburg.

A badly weathered under life-sized represen-tation of Geta in Ostia attests to the more cur-sory and destructive disposal of his images.175

Seven holes drilled in the top and sides of thehead for the attachment of metal rays indicatethat the likeness depicted Geta with the radiatecrown of Sol.176 The small scale of the head andits divine attributes further suggest that it wasoriginally displayed in a public or private lararium,from which it was removed as a consequence ofthe damnatio.

The most spectacular and persuasive evidencefor the removal of Geta’s images occurs on themajor Severan relief monuments from Rome andLepcis Magna. As with Plautianus beforehand,every epigraphic or visual reference to Geta hasbee ruthlessly expunged from the Arch ofSeptimius Severus in the Roman Forum. As thepreeminent commemorative monument in thecapital celebrating the Severan victory in Parthia,the arch’s placement diagonally across the Forumfrom the Parthian Arch of Augustus was delib-erately intended to link Severus’s achievementswith those of Rome’s first emperor.177 Further-

more, the inscription of the arch acknowledgedSeveran dynastic claims by honoring Caracallaand Geta together with their father.178 This in-scription originally read:

IMP.CAES.LVCIO.SEPTIMIO.M.FIL.SEVERO.PIO.PERTINACI.AVG.PATRI.PATRIAE.PARTHICO.ARABICO.ET//

PARTHICO.ADIABENICO.PONTIFIC.MAXIMO.TRIBVNIC.POTEST.XI.IMP.XI.COS.III.PROCOS.ET//

IMP.CAES.M.AVRELIO.L.FIL.ANTONINO.AVG.PIO.FELICI.TRIBVNIC.POTEST.VI.COS.PROCOS.ET//

P.SEPTIMIO.GETAE.NOB(ILLISIMO).CAESARI//OB.REM.PVBLICAM.RESTITVTAM.IMPERIVMQUE

POPVLI.ROMANI.PROPAGATVM//INSIGNIBVS.VIRTVTIBVS.EORVM.DOMI.FORIQVE.S.P.Q.R..179

As an essential part of the monument, the inscrip-tion is repeated on both the eastern and westernattic facades, and its importance was furtherenhanced in antiquity by the addition of gildedbronze letters.180 Geta’s commemoration hasbeen obliterated from the inscription: the ETwhich ends line three was recarved to P.P. inorder to refer to Caracalla as Pater Patriae, andline four was entirely recut to refer to Severusand Caracalla as: OPTIMIS FORTISSIMISQUEPRINCIBVS.181

At the same time the inscription was altered,representations of Geta were also removed fromthe bronze statuary group which crowned thearch and the reliefs which decorated the fa-cades.182 Although the portrait heads are nolonger preserved in the badly weathered reliefs,the figure of the emperor is consistently recog-nizable in eight scenes as a result of his largerscale and central position. In two of these scenes,

images, especially a type 1 portrait of Caracalla which hasbeen cut down from a statue and whose facial features havebeen largely recut. Geta’s features have not been recut, theonly modification to the image being its attachment to thebust form to which it did not originally belong. It is likelythat the image of Geta had been stored in a secure loca-tion following his condemnation, accounting for its betterstate of preservation in contradistinction to the other por-traits which remained on public display in the context ofthe Augusteum, (1994) 132-33.

175 Magazzini, vetrina 1, inv. 282; h. 0.08 m. (type I);R. Calza (1977) 51-2, no. 64, pl. 51. Although the head isvery poorly preserved, the central part of the coiffure canstill be discerned and the hair partially covers the ears, asin the Munich portrait. The oval shape of the face andgeneral outline of the mouth also recall Geta’s first type.

176 A. Alföldi (1935) 107-8, fig. 9; R. Calza (1977) 52.177 The arch is securely placed within the predominantly

Julio-Claudian fremework of the Forum, reinforcing the

Severans’ link to the first dynasty.178 On the dynastic implications of the monument see

R. Brilliant (1967) 92.179 CIL 6.1033, ILS 425; R. Brilliant (1967) 91-95; A.

Claridge (1998) 75.180 R. Brilliant (1967) 91.181 Line four of the inscription stands in rasura and the

attachment holes for the bronze letters of the original in-scription are still visible, providing incontrovertible evidencefor the initial appearance of the dedication. Although highlyvisible now, the erasure and recutting would have beensubstantially masked in antiquity, and, as a result, C.W.Hedrick’s claims about the legibility of the erasure aresomewhat overstated (2000) 108.

182 Just as Plautianus’s portrait was removed from thenorthwestern panel.

chapter eight176

Geta was depicted next to his father.183 Thesoutheastern panel (scene I C) depicts an adlocutioat Nisibis (fig. 156).184 Septimius Severus, flankedby Caracalla and Geta, is identifiable as thecentral figure at the front of the suggestum.185 Geta,represented as shorter than his brother Caracalla,appears to Septimius’s left.186 Geta’s head andupper torso have been sheared off. Geta appearsin the same position, at the emperor’s proper left,in a scene of adlocutio at Ctesiphon, on the south-western panel (fig. 179).187 Although these twofigures of Geta are badly damaged, no evidencefor the replacement of the portrait heads exists,in contrast to the iron dowel which documentsthe replacement of Plautianus’s portrait in thenorthwestern panel. In addition, a portion of theright jaw of the figure in the Nisibis adlocutio isstill extant, confirming that Geta’s portrait fea-tures are likely to have been intentionally severedfrom the relief.188 The mutilated state of Geta’srelief portraits would have been graphic publicreminders in the Forum Romanum of his down-fall.

Geta’s image was also undoubtedly removedfrom the gilded bronze statuary group whichoriginally decorated the top of the arch. Denarii

from the mint of Rome dated to 204-7 depict thearch topped by a six-horsed chariot, driven by asingle person, and flanked by two standing fig-ures and two horsemen at the outside.189 The twoequestrian figures are likely to be Caracalla andGeta.190 As a consequence of his damnatio, Geta’simage would have been removed from the atticgroup and melted down following his death.

Every visual or epigraphic reference to Getahas also been eradicated from the Arch of theArgentarii (figs. 157, 180-82) in precisely the samemanner as those of Plautianus and Plautilla. Linethree of the dedication, honoring both Caracallaand Geta, originally read (fig. 160):

IMP. CAES. M. AVRELIO ANTONINO PIO FELICI AVG. TRIB.POTEST. VII COS. ET P. SEPTIMIO GETAE NOBILISSIMOCAESARI ET.191

The reference to Geta as Nobilissimus Caesar wasexpunged and replaced by new titles for Cara-calla, III P.P. PROCOS. FORTISSIMO FELI-CISSIMOQVE PRINCIPI.192 The reference toCaracalla as Fortissimvs Princeps directly recalls therecutting of the inscription from the Arch in theForum Romanum in which both Septimius andCaracalla are called fortissimi principes. A secondreference to Geta has also been erased from theinscription. In line four, Julia Domna was origi-nally referred to as “Mother of the Augusti andthe camps” (MATER AVGG. ET CASTRO-RUM).193 Following Geta’s damnatio the plural

183 A. Bonanno (1976) 143-44; S. De Maria (1988) 306;Geta was represented in conjunction with Septimius Severusin the both triumphal scenes and the dextrarum iunctio scenefrom the attic reliefs of the arch at Lepcis Magna, the south-eastern panel of the interior bay of the Arch of theArgentarii, and the Palazzo Sachetti Relief. See infra.

184 R. Brilliant (1967) 186.185 The emperor is distinguished by his larger scale and

his footgear which consists of calcei without braccae, insteadof the caligae which the common soldiers wear; R. Brilliant(1967) 187.

186 R. Brilliant (1967) 187-88.187 Scene IV B; R. Brilliant (1967) 217.188 Both scenes in which Geta appeared, occur in the

upper registers of the relief panels, near the architravewhich encircles the arch. The top of architrave was reachedthrough an interior stairway and was enclosed by a metalparapet, allowing it to function, like the Columns of Trajanand Marcus Aurelius, as a kind of belvedere from which toview the Forum, the Capitoline, and Palatine. Thus, theparapet could have made the upper portions of the reliefsmore accessible to anyone wishing to damage the portraitsof Geta. Additionally, it would have facilitated the recut-ting of the inscription. On the bronze railing, see R. Nardi(1983-84) 303.

189 BMCRE 5, cxlix, 216, 320-21, pl. 35.5; 252 n. *; 342n. *; 344 n. +; S. De Maria (1988) 306.

190 Caracalla and Geta were often assimilated to theDioscuri; if, in fact, the emperor’s two sons did appear asthe equestrian figures on the arch, a reference to theDioscuri may have been intended; G. T, Grisanti (1975)295; F. Ghedini (1984) 101, n. 175; Fittschen-Zanker I, 103.Alternatively, Caracalla and Geta may have been depictedin the chariot with their father, and the horsemen aresoldiers, A. Claridge (1998) 77.

191 D. E. L Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939) 4-6; M.Pallotino (1946) 37-38; S. De Maria (1988) 308.

192 Following COS, the line stands in rasura. Caracalla’sthird consulship began on 1 January 208 and his fourthon 1 January 213. Since the reworked inscription refers tohim as COS. III, the recutting is securely dated to 208-213,and must certainly have taken place in 212 following Geta’smurder and damnatio. See D. E. L Haynes and P. D. Hirst(1939) 4.

193 D. E. L Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939) 4; M.Pallotino (1946) 31; S. de Maria (1988) 309; Although Geta

the severans 177

reference to both Caracalla and Geta as Augusti(AVGG.) was changed to the singular; Julia’s newtitle was given as “Mother of our Augustus andthe Camps” (MATER AVG.N. ET CASTRO-RUM).194 Such a minute alteration in the inscrip-tion testifies to the meticulous care which hasbeen taken to remove any epigraphic referenceto Geta.

Geta’s relief portraits have also been painstak-ingly removed from the monument. Already in1690, Giovanni Bellori recognized that the lowrelief and clumsy carving of Julia Domna’s leftside in the eastern panel of the arch’s interior baywere the result of restorations following some kindof erasure (figs. 180-81).195 As preserved, the properright of this panel depicts Septimius Severus, capitevelato, sacrificing over an altar placed to his left.Julia Domna, veiled, stands to the emperor’s leftand raises her right hand over the altar in agesture of dextra elata and holds her left hand stiffly

at her side.196 The upper portions of a caduceusare visible in the top left hand corner of the panel.The rough surfaces of the stone in the emptyspace below the caduceus confirm that a shorterfigure, representing Geta, originally completedthe relief at the proper left.197 Geta may havebeen depicted as a camillus assisting his father atthe sacrifice.198 Geta’s removal has resulted in theawkward recarving of Julia Domna’s left sidewhich is rendered in considerably lower reliefthan her upper torso, head, and right hand. Inaddition, her left arm and hand are noticeablyshorter and smaller than her right arm and handor the arms and hands of Septimius.199 The in-consistencies occasioned by the recarving of theArgentarii relief recall the illogical extension ofthe temple steps in the Aurelian triumph panel,from which the figure of Commodus was effaced(fig. 142a-c).

Geta’s abolitio memoriae on the arch also encom-passed four smaller bust length images whichoriginally decorated the principal southern fa-cade. Each pier of this facade is framed by richlyornamented pilasters filled with military insigniaincluding the imperial imagines. The signa fromeach of the three visible pilasters contain twoimagines.200 The upper portraits from two of thepilasters are clearly identifiable as Septimius Seve-rus and Caracalla (fig. 182). The pendant imag-

did not receive the title of Augustus until 211, he is fre-quently called Augustus prior to that year; D. E. L Haynesand P. D. Hirst (1939) n. 8; M. Pallotino (1946) 31.. F.Ghedini has recently questioned the viability of readingAVGG. in the original inscription. She prefers to see AVG.N.as the original rendition. She bases her claims chiefly onthe fact that the stone beneath the N does not appear havebeen abraded as much as in the other recut portions of theinscription. She suggests that MATER AVG.N. was substi-tuted for Julia Domna’s more common title during theseyears, MATER AVGVSTI ET CAESARIS, for which therewas not sufficient room in the inscription; (1984) 27-28.However, it is highly unlikely that Caracalla would havebeen called Augustus Noster while Septimius Severus was stillalive, D. E. L Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939) 4.

194 New references to Caracalla and Julia Domna re-sulting from the recutting of the dedications to Geta andPlautilla have rendered the inscription redundant. Caracallais called felix in lines three and four and felicissimus, mak-ing him simultaneously happy and most happy. In line four,Caracalla’s names and titles are rendered in the genitive,originally referring to Plautilla as his wife. However, whenPlautilla’s name was removed and replaced by additionaltitles for Julia Domna, Caracalla’s names and titles mustbe read with Julia Domna, who is now honored as “Motherof our Augustus (Caracalla) and the camps and the Sen-ate and the fatherland and Imperator Caesar MarcusAurelius Antoninus Pius Felix Augustus (Caracalla)”:IVLIAE AVG. MATRI AVG. N. ET CASTRORVM ETSENATVS ET PATRIAE ET IMP. CAES. M. AVRELIANTONINI PII FELICIS AVG. Thus Julia Domna is twicerefereed to as Caracalla’s mother.

195 G. Bellori and J. Rubeis (1690) 11, 20-21.

196 F. Ghedini (1984) 33-43, interprets this gesture (dextraelata) as an eastern innovation in imperial iconography.

197 Geta was fourteen or fifteen years at the time of themonument’s dedication in 204, accounting for his shorterstature; D. E. L Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939) 20-22; M.Pallotino (1946) 79-80; L. Budde (1957) 6; A. M. McCann(1968) 73; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 110; A.Bonanno (1976) 148; F. Ghedini (1984) 29; S. De Maria(1988) 307; F. Coarelli (1997) 364.

198 D. E. L Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939) 22; M.Pallotino (1946) 80; L. Franchi (1960-61) 10; A.Bonanno(1976) 147; F. Ghedini (1984) 29, n. 21.

199 The left side of her tunica and palla have beenunnaturalistically extended to the left in an effort to fill upthe empty space in this section of the relief. The absenceof sufficient marble for recarving has caused the lower partof the empress’s drapery to be recut with much more shal-low and sketchy folds than drapery elsewhere on the re-lief.

200 The easternmost pilaster has been incorporated intothe west wall of San Giorgio in Velabro.

chapter eight178

ines from the inner pilaster of the western pier arebadly weathered, but identical to those of theother piers. Wreaths encircle the standards be-low each of the portraits of Septimius and Cara-calla. Sections of the relief directly below theimagines of Septimius Severus have been drasti-cally recut as a result of the removal of Geta’slikenesses from the signa.201 The background hasbeen carved out to form a curve and the barepoles of the standards now rise from the wreathswhich originally enlivened the bottom of Geta’simagines. The bare poles are not consistent withrepresentations of signa with portraits on earliermonuments, such as the Great Trajanic Frieze,the Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, andthe Aurelian panels and together with the blankbackground, they stand out as anomalies withinthe decorative system of the elaborately carvedpilasters. Indeed, the monument as a whole ex-hibits a horror vacui in which virtually every sur-face is decorated with exuberantly articulatedarchitectural details and figural relief panels. Thegaping voids resulting from Geta’s removed rep-resentations, as well as Plautianus and Plautilla,stand in stark contrast to the rest of arch’s elabo-rate decoration and are eloquent testimonials ofabolitio memoriae.

As with Plautilla, Geta’s portrait would havebeen removed from the bronze statuary groupwhich probably surmounted the arch. The con-spicuous absence of Geta, Plautilla and Plautianusfrom the relief decoration of the monument, theerasure of their names and titles in the inscrip-tion, and the removal of any portraits from theattic comprise a forceful reminder of the reign-ing emperor’s power to rewrite Roman historyby obliterating all trace of his enemies from thevisual record. No reminders of them have beenallowed to remain for posterity. The ideologicalconsiderations implicit in the erasure of the fig-ures and inscriptions clearly took precedence overany aesthetic concerns about the drastic alter-ations to the monument, including the blankstretches in the interior reliefs and the pilasters

of the facade, as well as the awkward reworkingof the left side of the figure of Julia Domna.

Geta’s portrait features have been also beenexcised from the Palazzo Sachetti relief (fig.183).202 The scale and quality of this relief sug-gest that it derives from an officially sponsoredmonument, and its imagery indicates that it wasdesigned to commemorate the joint consulship ofCaracalla and Geta in 205. Septimius Severus,now headless, seated on a sella curulis which restson a suggestum, presents his two sons to the Sen-ate as the new consuls for 205, a politically sig-nificant event given the princes’ youth. Septimiusis flanked by two other headless figures and theshorter of these seems to have represented Getaas the head has been intentionally cut from therelief. Whereas the necks of the headless figuresof Septimius and the figure in front of Caracallaare substantially preserved, that of Geta has beencut off at the base. There is no evidence thatGeta’s portrait features were ever replaced andhis figure seems to have remained decapitated.Because of the specificity of the event commemo-rated, the joint consulship for 205, it would havebeen impossible to replace Geta’s features withthose of someone else. However, it is importantto keep in mind that Geta’s figure was not re-moved in its entirety, as in the Arch of theArgentarii; the headless representation of Getafunctioned as yet another highly visible manifes-tation of his posthumous disgrace.

As is to be expected, Geta’s images have alsobeen entirely obliterated in the Severan quadri-frons arch at Lepcis Magna,203 which commemo-

201 D. E. L. Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939) 39; A.Bonanno (1976) 148.

202 Palazzo Ricci-Sachetti, Via Giulia 66, h. 1.575 m.,w. 2.335 m.; G. Koeppel (1986) 82-84, no. 44 (with ear-lier literature); H.R. Goette (1989) 55, 142, no. 31, 157,no. 68, pl. 35.1-2; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 332-33, fig. 299.

203 The reliefs are now preserved in the Tripoli Mu-seum; in general, see: R. Bartocini (1931) 116-152; I. S.Ryberg (1955) 135-6, 161-2, figs. 73a, 89a; R. BianchiBandinelli, E. Vergara Caffarelli, G. Caputo (1967) figs.33-47; V.M. Strocka (1972) 147-72; F. Ghedini (1984) 55-10; H.R. Goette (1989) 44, n. 212 e, 51-52, 54, n. 278, 60,n. 300, 138, no. 153, 144, nr. 22, pls. 25.6, 381-2; N.B.Kampen (1991) 218-48. N.H. and A. Ramage (1991) 225-7, figs. 9.8-12; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 340-43, figs. 307-310.Because it lacks a dedicatory inscription, the date of thearch is controversial. The core of the arch itself may be

the severans 179

rates a visit that the Severan family made toLepcis likely in 206-207.204 The principal reliefsdecorated the four attic facades, and representscenes of sacrifice (northeast), a dextrarum iunctiobetween Caracalla and Septimius Severus (south-west), and mirror triumphal processions (north-west and southeast). Geta’s likeness has beeneradicated from all four scenes.

The scene of dextrarum iunctio symbolizes theconcordia augustorum of Septimius Severus andCaracalla, which guarantees the concordia of theempire (fig. 184a-b).205 At the center of the re-lief Septimius and Caracalla clasp right hands,while Geta, depicted between them, glances to-wards his father. Julia Domna stands to the rightof her husband and sons. Assorted divinities, per-sonifications, citizens and soldiers witness thecentral scene.206 Geta’s portrait head has been

carefully sawn off the relief and then buried nearthe arch where it was discovered during excava-tions earlier in this century.207 No new likenesswas ever attached to Geta’s togate body, and, aswith the Arch in the Forum Romanum and thePalazzo Sachetti Relief, his figure remained head-less for as long as the arch continued to stand.208

Geta’s decaptitated figure, positioned at the verycenter of the dextrarum iunctio scene, would havestood as a prominent and ever present testimo-nial to the inhabitants of Lepcis of his denigra-tion and damnatio memoriae and ultimately the pro-found lack of concordia within the Severan family.

Geta’s likeness has been similarly shorn off ofthe northwestern relief (fig. 185).209 In this friezeSeptimius Severus and his two sons, shown fron-tally in a quadriga, participate in a triumphalprocession.210 All three imperial figures wear togaeand wreaths. Enough of the portrait features ofthe central figure is preserved to identify him asthe emperor. The taller figure to the emperor’sleft clearly represents Caracalla, while the head-less shorter figure at the emperor’s right is Geta.Geta’s portrait features have been excised fromthe relief in a manner identical to the despolia-tion of his likeness in the dextrarum iunctio scene.Again, his headless presence in the quadriga wouldhave been a powerful statement of disparage-ment.

Trajanic or Hadrianic; see A. M. McCann (1968) 74, n.7; F. Ghedini (1984) 109, n. 328.

204 The reliefs refer to the successful conclusionSeptimius Severus’s second Parthian campaign so theycannot be earlier than 202 and they originally includedGeta, so they cannot be later than December of 211; A.Birley (1988) 150, n. 8 prefers 202-3 for the visit to Lepcisand for the arch, but does not discount the possibility of asecond visit in 206-7; for numismatic evidence for a visitof 206-7, see H. Mattingly, BMCRE V, clix, P.V. Hill (1964)6, 33-35 and H. Halfmann (1986) 222-23; V.M. Strockadates the arch to 205-9 (1972), 169-70; A.M. McCannsuggests a date for the Arch of 207-9, based on the evi-dence of imperial portrait types, as well as the conspicu-ous absence of Plautianus from the monument, (1968) 74-78. A later dating is also favored by G. Säflund (1968)121ff.; F. Ghedini reviews the literature and bibliographysurrounding the dating controversy and favors a date of209, (1984) 88-90, n. 327. Indeed, the absence of bothPlautianus and Plautilla on the arch suggests a date afterJanuary of 205, the date of Plautianus’s damnatio andPlautilla’s banishment. The inclusion of Geta’s secondportrait type in the dextrarum iunctio scene, which was notintroduced on coins prior to 205, also indicates that thereliefs should not predate that year.

205 Tripoli, Archaeological Museum, V.M. Strocka(1972) 157-160 (with earlier literature); H. Wiggers and M.Wegner (1971) 88-89, 113, pls.6.a-b, 8c, 24a-b; A. Bonanno(1976) 150-55 (with earlier literature); C. Walters (1979)271-83; P. MacKendrick (1980) 159; F. Ghedini (1984) 63-68; Fittschen-Zanker I, 102-105.

206 The divinities and personifications include Concor-dia, above and behind Geta, Hercules behind Caracalla,Liber Pater in the background behind Septimius Severus’sleft shoulder, Minerva above and behind Julia Domna, andRoma to Julia Domna’s proper right.

207 P.W. Townsend (1938) 517-18; P. MacKendrick(1980) 159. The head currently displayed on the reconstruc-tion of the relief is a plaster cast, the original having beenstolen by an allied soldier during World War II, A. Di Vita(1982) 553, n. 85; M. Donderer (1991-2) 250-51, no. 40.

208 No attempt was made to remove the entire figureof Geta from the relief, as had been done in the westerninterior panel from the Arch of the Argentarii in Rome.The risk of damage to the clasped right hands of the twoAugusti, the focal point of the entire relief, may have pre-cluded such an attempt to remove the portrait of Geta intoto.

209 Tripoli, Archaeological Museum; V.M. Strocka(1972) 149-54, (with earlier literature); D. Soechting (1972)168-9, no. 63; A. Bonanno (1976) 150-55, pls. 290-91 (withearlier literature); G. Hanfmann (1975) 117, fig. 127; F.Ghedini (1983) 68; F. Ghedini (1984) 69, 70, 73; A. Birley(1988) Severus 150, fig. 20;

210 Although the ferculum, captives, and chariot clearlymark this procession as triumphal in content, its locationis much debated; Lepcis, Rome and Ostia have all beenproposed. For a review of the debate, see F. Ghedini (1984)69.

chapter eight180

The northeastern and southeastern friezes aremuch less well preserved than the dextrarum iunctioand triumph friezes. Julia Domna is the onlyimperial figure preserved from these two friezes,but Septimius Severus, Caracalla and Geta un-doubtedly appeared in them as well. The pre-served sections from the southeastern frieze in-dicate that its composition closely paralleled thatof the northwestern triumph relief and functionedas a complementary reference to the victoriousimperial family.211 A head, with traces of a co-rona visible above the right temple was discoveredduring the excavation of the arch and is oftenassigned to the missing section of the southeast-ern triumph frieze.212 This head, now lost, wasclearly intended as a portrait of Caracalla orGeta, but lacks sufficient iconographic details topermit secure identification.213 If it is a likenessof Geta, it is highly probable that it was detachedfrom the frieze in the same manner as his otherportraits in the southwestern and northwesternfriezes.

The central slab from the northeastern atticrelief, depicting a sacrifice, also does not sur-vive.214 Victimarii, a popa, soldiers, citizens, deities

and personifications are shown at the left andright of the scene. Julia Domna stands to theproper left of the missing section of the friezewhich presumably depicted Septimius Severus,assisted by his two sons, officiating at the altar.Another fragmentary head, also depicting eitherCaracalla or Geta, has been restored to this re-lief.215 Like the lost head from the southeasterntriumph frieze, if it was intended as a portrait ofGeta, its removal and damage can be attributedto the damnatio.

Geta’s images have also been eradicated fromat least two of the vertical panels which decoratedthe internal faces of the arch’s four piers.216

Geta’s head has been cut from a scene in whichthe goddess Victoria crowns him with awreath.217 Like his portrait from the dextrarum

211 Tripoli, Archaeological Museum; R. Bartoccini(1931) 138-45, figs. 101-105; P.W. Townsend (1938) 516;G.C. Picard (1957) 457, pl. 27-30; R. Brilliant (1967) fig.51; V.M. Strocka (1972) 154-57 (with earlier literature); A.Bonanno (1976) 150-55, pls. 298-99 (with earlier literature);F. Ghedini (1984) 69-74, fig. 8. In fact, a slab from thecentral section of the relief, depicting the frontal portionsof three horses, exactly duplicates the three foremost horsesof the quadriga from the northwestern triumph frieze indi-cating that the quadriga itself and the imperial threesomewere likewise duplicated in the missing slab of the south-eastern panel. Julia Domna, with the attributes of thegoddess Victory, looks toward the central slab in which thequadriga would have been depicted. Because of the presenceof divinities, personifications, and Julia Domna represen-tation as Victory, the southeastern panel may have beendesigned as an allegorical reference to the emperor’s virtusrather than a representation of a specific procession, F.Ghedini (1984) 74.

212 R. Bartoccini (1931) 142-43, fig. 106; L. Budde(1951) 12, pl. 6a; H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 88,113; A. Bonanno (1976) 152, pl. 295; Fittschen-Zanker I,104, no. 88, n. 6, 104, no. 89.

213 H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 88, 113; A.Bonanno (1976), 152 and infra.

214 R. Bartoccini (1931) 129-38, figs. 95-100; W.

Technau,(1932) 533, fig. 33; J.B. Ward-Perkins (1948) 77,pl. 11.1; J.B. Ward-Perkins (1951) 286, 290, pl. 14.2; L.Budde (1955) 32, fig. 23; I.S. Ryberg (1955) 160-61, pl. 57,figs. 89a-b; L. Budde (1957) 15 pl. 36, fig. 40; A. Frova(1961) 692, 694, figs. 599, 601; D.E. Strong (1961) 63, 101,fig. 116; M. Vilimkova (1963) fig. 87; R. Bianchi Bandinelli,E. Vergara Caffarelli, and G. Caputo (1966) 33, 67-70, figs.37-41; M. Floriani Squarciapino (1966) 66 figs. 8, 10; G.Säflund (1968) 124, fig. 4; R. Bianchi Bandinelli (1970) 271-2, fig. 247; V.M. Strocka (1972) 160-72, figs. 2-4, pl.; A.Bonanno (1976) 150-55, pls. 293 a-b, 294; R. Turcan (1978)1038; F. Ghedini (1984) 57-63.

215 V.M. Strocka (1972) 162, fig. 3.216 The five panels appear to depict the following scenes:

1) upper register: Septimius Severus as Juppiter, JuliaDomna as Juno, Minerva and a female divinity or personi-fication (Concordia, Tyche of Lepcis, etc); lower register 2)upper register: Julia Domna in a scene of dextrarum iunctioor sacrifice; lower register??? 3) upper register: SeptimiusSeverus, Caracalla, Geta(?), and Julia Domna (?), Hercules,Liber Pater, Concordia (?) and Jupiter Dolichenus (?) infront of a temple; lower register: scene of sacrifice; 4) upperregister: Victory crowning Geta; lower register: Apollo,Vertumnus (?), seated female divinity, and Diana; 5) up-per register: Victory crowning Caracalla; lower register: di-vinities; on the interpretation and significance of the smallerpanels see: R. Bartoccini (1931) 74-88, figs. 44-55; I.S.Ryberg (1957) 134-6; A. Bonanno (1976) 150-55, pls. 300-09; M. Floriani Squarciapino (1967) 85-6; A. M. McCann(1968) 77; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 88-89. 113,pl. 27c; M.C. Parra (1978) 807-28; F. Ghedini (1984) 74-88, figs. 9-11; N.B. Kampen 236-40; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992)340-3.

217 R. Bartoccini (1931) 87, fig. 52 (without portraitfeatures reattached); H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971)113, fig. 27c; A. Bonanno (1976) 153, pls. 307-8. Althoughthe portrait is badly weathered, the treatment of the hair

the severans 181

iunctio scene, the detached head was discoveredduring the arch’s excavations.218 This relief paral-lels a similar relief in which Caracalla is crownedby Victoria.219

The upper register of a second, fragmentaryinterior panel depicts the imperial family anddeities arranged in front of a temple facade, whilea scene of sacrifice occupies the lower register (fig.186).220 Septimius Severus, capite velato, stands atthe center of the relief and looks to his right.Caracalla, also capite velato, is at the emperor’s leftand glances in the same direction as his father.There is a gap in the relief near the center, butthe lower portions of drapery from a female fig-ure indicate that Julia Domna occupied thisposition.221 A third veiled male figure, whoseportrait head does not survive, stands to Julia’sright. By virtue of its position in the compositionof the relief, which corresponds exactly to Cara-calla’s position at the proper left, this figure mustrepresent Geta.222 Like Geta’s other portraits onthe Arch, his head has been deliberately cut fromthe relief.223 The goddess Roma, a statue of

Silvanus, Hercules and two unidentified deitiescomplete the composition.224 The removal ofGeta’s heads in these smaller reliefs is consonantwith the obliteration of his features in the fourattic friezes, and his headless representation trans-formed the arch from a commemoration of thevirtues of the Severan family, into an enduringmonument of his downfall and disgrace. In viewof the persecution of Geta’s followers at Rome,it must have seemed especially expedient to de-stroy his images in the dynasty’s hometown inorder to disavow any semblance of partisanshipfor the murdered Augustus. Thus, the oblitera-tion of Geta’s portrait features from the reliefs ofthe arch served to powerfully affirm the loyaltyof the citizens of Lepcis Magna to Caracalla.

Geta’s portrait features have also been ruth-lessly effaced from a painted tondo discovered inthe Fayum (fig. 187).225 The tondo is the only se-curely identified painted imperial portrait to havesurvived from antiquity and depicts SeptimiusSeverus, Julia Domna, Caracalla, and Geta.226

Geta’s facial features have been entirely erasedleaving a large gap in the composition, but the

and facial features recall Geta’s likeness from the dextrarumiunctio scene.

218 A. Bonanno (1976) 153.219 Although headless, this figure is clearly taller than

the corresponding figure of Geta, and as a result has beenplausibly associated with Caracalla.H. Wiggers and M.Wegner (1971) 89; A. Bonanno (1976) 152, fig. 309.

220 R. Bartoccini (1931) 74-83, figs. 44-47; W. Technau,529-30; fig. 31; P.W. Townsend (1938) 522; I.S. Ryberg(1955) 134-36, pl. 67.73a-b; R. Bianchi Bandinelli, EVergara Caffarelli, and G. Caputo (1964); A. M. McCann(1968) 77, pl. 18; R. Bianchi Bandinelli (1970) 271-72, fig.249; D. Soechting (1972) 233, n. 142; M. FlorianiSquarciapino (1974) 50; A. Bonanno (1976) 151, pls. 300-01; M.C. Parra (1978) 807-28, figs. 1-2; F. Ghedini (1984)76-80, fig. 10.

221 This figure has most plausibly been identified as JuliaDomna by I.S. Ryberg, (1957) 134-36 and followed byM.C. Parra (1978) 813, and F. Ghedini (1984) 76-80. R.Bartocini originally identified the figure as the Tyche ofLepcis (1931) 74-83 and followed by A. Bonanno (1976)151; A.M. McCann suggested one of the three Tychai ofTripolitania (1968) 77.

222 F. Ghedini (1984) 77.223 Whereas Geta’s head has been entirely shorn off the

relief, the head of the deity to his left (Liber Pater?) hassustained damage which has left the chin intact. Thus thedamage to Geta’s head appears to be the result of the de-liberate defacement of his portraits everywhere on the arch,while the damage to the deities head is likely the result of

the destruction of the arch over time.224 The deity between Julia and Geta is almost certainly

Liber Pater. His position would correspond to that ofHercules, the other patron god of Lepcis, betweenSeptimius and Caracalla. Caracalla and Geta were oftenassimilated to Hercules and Liber Pater, respectively, andthe position of the two deities behind the princes may bea reference to this. In view of the veils worn by the em-peror and his sons, the sacrifice from the lower register mustbe taking place in their presence and, consequently, theentire panel evokes the pietas of the imperial house, see F.Ghedini (1984) 77-9.

225 Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. 31.329, diam. 0.305;A. Datsuli-Stavridis (1976) 228-9, fig. 4; K. Parlasca (1977)64-5, no. 390, pl. 95.1 (with earlier literature); V. Saladino(1980) 437; H. Heinen (1991) 263-298, color pl. 68; N.H.and A. Ramage (1991) 222, fig. 9.2; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992)321-22, fig. 284; E. Doxiadis (1995) 88, fig. 25; E. La Roccain S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds. (2000) 11-13, fig. 10. Abust length portrait of Septimius Severus is depicted at theproper left of the tondo. He wears an elaborate tunic, jew-eled laurel crown and is shown with a scepter. Julia Domnawearing tunica, palla, and jeweled diadem is at emperor’sright. Caracalla, in front of Septimius Severus, is depicted,like his father, with a tunic, jeweled corona, and scepter.

226 Painted with tempera on wood, the tondo was cre-ated by a local artist trained in the techniques of contem-porary mummy portraits; see D.L. Thompson (1982) 26.

chapter eight182

tunicate bust form, scepter and remnants of hiscorona clearly indicate his original position. Geta’simage was not merely subjected to erasure, butit has also been smeared with excrement in anexcessive act of further denigration.227 The Ber-lin tondo is the only preserved portrait whichphysically attests to the smearing of images orinscriptions as a way of dishonoring an individual,but the denigration and disfigurement of imageswith offal, mud or paint is confirmed in theancient sources. The Historia Augusta records thatElagabalus ordered that the inscriptions of theportrait statues of Severus Alexander in theCastrum Praetorium be coated with mud, as wasthe custom in denigrating the memory of a ty-rant: ut fieret solet de tyrannis.228 And in the fourthcentury, Eusebius chronicles the smearing ofpainted portraits of Maximinus Daia and hischildren with dark colored paint in order to ren-der them useless.229

The very youthful features of Caracalla sug-gest that the tondo was painted prior to the in-troduction of his more mature portrait type inA.D. 205.230 The association of the tondo withthe artists of the Fayum mummy portraits, placesit within the realm of art produced for the pros-perous middle class inhabitants of Roman Egypt,whose origins were often mixed Egyptian, Greekand Roman.231 The tondo is likely to have func-tioned as an icon for display in a public or do-mestic setting, perhaps pertaining to the impe-rial cult. The piece would have demonstrated theowner’s loyalty and pietas towards the rulingdynasty. Following his damnatio memoriae, thedefacement of Geta’s portrait ensured that the

tondo would continue to serve its function as aprivate expression of loyalty, no longer to theimperial family as a whole, but to the new vic-torious emperor, Caracalla and his parents. TheBerlin tondo vividly illustrates that Geta’s damnatiowas not limited to major public monuments suchas the arches in the Forum Romanum or atLepcis, or important private commissions like theArch of the Argentarii, but also occurs on moremodest private objects.

Just as Geta’s images were routinely removedfrom display and relentlessly effaced from reliefmonuments, so, too have his name and titles beenerased from virtually every inscription in whichhe was honored.232 Of the 174 extant inscriptionsin which Geta’s name originally appeared, it hassurvived intact in only thirty-seven (approxi-mately twenty-one percent).233 In addition to theobliterated dedications from the monuments inRome (the Forum Arch and the Arch of theArgentarii) erased inscriptions occur from almostevery region of the Empire including Sagalassos(milestone); Dura Europas (Mithraeum);234 Sardis(Marble Court);235 Dougga (Arch of SeptimiusSeverus);236 Lambeisis;237 Great Britain;238 andnumerous instances at Lepcis Magna.239 Theerasure of Geta’s name was also vigorously car-ried out in papyri.240 In fact, the damnatio memoriae

227 K. Parlasca (1977) 64; M. Donderer (1991-92) 224,n. 140.

228 Elag.13.7; see infra.229 Ecc.Hist.9.11.2; see also P. Stewart (1999) 179.230 Attempts to date the tondo on the basis of Septimius

Severus’s portrait type have proved inconclusive for tworeasons: 1) there is disagreement over whether the threecorkscrew curls of Septimius Severus’s Serapis type are dis-cernible in the tondo; 2) the date of the Serapis type itselfis controversial, see A. M. McCann (1968) 79-80; in addi-tion, the Serapis type was probably in use for the entirefirst decade of the third century, Fittschen-Zanker I, 83-84.

231 S. Nodelman (1965) 242.

232 A. Mastino (1981) 177, n. 1.233 Based on A. Mastino’s indices (1981) 175-77. Many

of the inscriptions in which Geta’s name survive are fromfistulae aquariae, water pipes, which were already in theground; Geta’s name is even erased on some of the fistu-lae, certainly before they were used, A. Mastino (1981)177,n. 1.

234 Collection of Dura Inscriptions, Yale University ArtGallery.

235 G.M.A. Hanfmann (1975a) 52, note 48.236 C. Poinssot (1983) 61.237 Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 2044; dedicated by the

Legio III Augusta to Septimius Severus, Caracalla, andGeta.

238 RIB 722; CIL 7.269; The inscription was dedicatedby the cohors VII Nerviorum. Now lost, it was discoveredbetween the Bain and Ure Rivers near Richmond, England.

239 IRT 433, 435, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 443, 444;IRT 440 is dedication from the Severan baths. After theirerasure, eight of the inscriptions (433, 435, 437, 438, 439,440, 443, 444) were reused in a later wall, thus ensuringtheir survival, I.M. Barton (1977) 8.

240 P. Mertens (1960) 541-52; E. Van’t Dack (1974) 876.

the severans 183

was so diligently pursued that the name of Geta’shomonymous uncle, P. Septimius Geta, was of-ten erroneously effaced from inscriptions.241 Theerased inscriptions were generally recut to honorCaracalla, Julia Domna or Septimius Severus.242

In a few instances, Lucius or Septimius is noterased from Geta’s trianomina, out of respect toSeptimius Severus, whose names they alsowere.243 The remarkably widespread occurrenceof Geta’s erased and recut inscriptions againstrongly suggests that the army was instrumen-tal in facilitating the epigraphic as well as artis-tic damnatio. In this regard, it is significant to notethat it was the army whom Caracalla initiallyordered to declare Geta a hostis, not the Senate.244

Indeed, the decree of the praefect Baebius Iunci-nus already mentioned mandates the implemen-tation of Geta’s damnatio.245

At least seventeen portraits of Geta on gemsor seals also escaped destruction caused by thedamnatio. Only four of these gems depict Getaalone, two in Paris,246 one in Vienna,247 and onein a private collection,248 whereas on the remain-ing twelve he appears with other members of theimperial family, which may account for theirsurvival. The four gems on which Geta appearsalone depict him with imperial or divine at-tributes. On the two Paris cameos, Geta is por-trayed laureate, in his first portrait type. Bothdepict him with nude busts, one draped with apaludamentum, the other with an aegis. The gemin the private collection depicts Geta in his sec-ond type with laurel crown, cuirass, andpaludamentum, and the gem in Vienna, also of thesecond type, with a corona civica. Like the inscrip-

tions which give Geta the title of Augustus longbefore he officially received it in 210, or thecuirassed statue in the Villa del Poggio Imperiale,the two Paris cameos, which employ his firstportrait type of 198-205, indicate that Geta wasportrayed with imperial insignia well before hisofficial acclamation. As with other surviving gemportraits of condemned emperors, their intrinsicvalue may have precluded outright destruction.Additionally, the small scale of these pieces makesrecarving or the removal of Geta’s portraits dif-ficult, if not impossible, especially in the threegems which present overlapping portraits of theimperial family, in New York,249 Paris,250

Rome,251and the art market,252 and the cameoin Paris which depicts a complicated scene ofsacrifice.253 Similarly, a bronze ring with facingboyhood of Caracalla and Geta in Split has notbeen altered or mutilated and may have simplybeen discarded after Geta’s murder.254

The Historia Augusta states that after the mur-der of Geta, Caracalla wept whenever he saw hisbrother’s image or statue, which suggests that

241A. Mastino (1981) 177, n. 1.242 Almost always recut to honor Caracalla; A. Mastino

(1981) 137-42, provides a list of these inscriptions.243 A. Mastino (1981) 177, n. 1.244 Herod. 4.8.245 E. Van’t Dack (1974) 876.246 Paris, Bibliothéque National, Cabinet des Medailles,

sardonyx cameo, H. 0047 m., L. 0037 m.; M. Vollenweider(1988) 100-101, n. 32, fig. 19 (Geta; with earlier literature).Both gems seem to follow Geta’s type 1 fairly closely withuncovered ears and S-shaped curls over the temples. Acameo in Chatsworth House which M. Vollenweider alsoidentifies as Geta cannot possibly represent him since the

portrait lacks the S-shaped curves of type 1, has long side-burns and shorter hair on the nape of the neck than anyattested examples of type 1; in addition the coiffure is muchtoo long to include it in type 2; see M. Vollenweider (1988)101, n. 35, fig. 22.

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles,sardonyx cameo, h. 42. cm., l. 2.1 cm.; M. Vollenweider(1988) 100-101, n. 31, fig. 18 (Caracalla,with earlier litera-ture).

247 Kunsthistorisches Museum 22 (inv. IX a 76), h. 6.4cm, l. 4.5 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 241, no. A 146, pl. 49.3(with earlier literature).

248 Cast of an intaglio, h. 00185 m., L. 0015 m.; M.Vollenweider (1988) 101, n. 35, fig. 21.

249 Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 40.143.250 Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, 300,

7.5 x 11.2 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 239-40, no. A 143,pl. 48.11 (with earlier literature).

251 Museo Nazionale Romano 72147.252 New York, formerly Antiquarium, Ltd.253 Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, inv.

301, 3.1 x 3.2 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 240, no. A 144,pl. 49.2 (with earlier literature); M. Vollenweider (1988)101, n. 36.

254 Archaeological Museum, H 5504, 25 mm; AntikePorträts aus Jugoslawien 165, no. 185, with fig. (with earlierliterature).

chapter eight184

some likenesses of Geta could have been visiblefollowing the damnatio: “mirum sane omnimibus vide-batur quod mortem Getae totiens etiam ipse fleret quotiensnominis eius mentio fieret, quotiens imago videretur autstatua.”255 Although the Vita Getae in the HistoriaAugusta is notoriously unreliable, this passage mayrefer to gem portraits or images kept privately inthe imperial palace by Julia Domna, who seemsto have preferred Geta over her elder son.

Caracalla

During his five year reign as sole emperor, Cara-calla alienated the senatorial aristocracy by ab-rogating much of their remaining authority andprestige, but he secured his popularity with thecommon people through lavish building projects,like his baths in Rome, and his extension of thebenefits of Roman citizenship to all free maleinhabitants of the empire. Nevertheless, Caracallawas murdered by some of his own soldiers at theinstigation of his Praetorian Praefect, MarcusOpellius Macrinus on 8 April 217. Despite heSenate’s dislike of Caracalla, he did not receivean official damnatio memoriae after his assassination.Because of his popularity with the soldiers, nei-ther the new emperor, Macrinus, nor the Sen-ate wished to openly declare him a hostis.256

However, in an effort to placate the Senators whohad reviled Caracalla as a tyrant upon news ofhis murder,257 Macrinus secretly ordered thatcertain statues of Caracalla in Rome be removedfrom public display: 6"Â :V84F2z ÓJ4 Jä< •<-

*D4V<JT< J4<"x H Jä< ¦< J± {Cf:® ßBz "ÛJ@Ø

z!8g>V<*Då 6"Â "ÛJä| ¦6g\<å FJ"2X<JT< 8V2D‘

6"2®DZ6g4.258 After his death, Caracalla wascompared with previous condemned emperorsand there were public calls for the abolishmentof a horse race celebrating his birthday and the

melting down of his gold and silver statues.259 Butany destruction of Caracalla’s monuments occa-sioned by de facto measures or spontaneous dem-onstrations against Caracalla’s memory was verylimited in scope; Caracalla’s name is only rarelyerased in inscriptions, and then almost certainlynot as a result of damnatio, but rather througherror or later reuse.260 In fact the Historia Augustarecords that Macrinus honored Caracalla’smemory by erecting portraits to him.261 Further-more, Caracalla was deified under Macrinus (orperhaps slightly later) and commemorated oncoins as Divus Antoninus.262 Indeed, none ofCaracalla’s images created during his reign as soleemperor exhibit any signs of intentional mutila-tion.

Macrinus and Diadumenianus

Born in 164 in Mauretania, Marcus OpelliusMacrinus was of undistinguished origins. Never-theless, he attained prominence as a jurist underSeptimius Severus, and Caracalla appointed himPraetorian Praefect, together with OclatiniusAdventus, in 212. Macrinus accompanied theemperor on his expedition against the Parthiansand he later engineered Caracalla’s assassinationnear Carrhae on 8 April 217.

Macrinus immediately proclaimed himselfAugustus and his young son, Diadumenianus,Caesar.263 Although initially supported by thetroops and the Senate, Macrinus was unable

255 Geta 7.5.256 Dio 78(79).17.2-4-18.1.257 HA.Macr.7.4.258 Dio 78(79).19.2, this secret decree also included some

of the statues which Caracalla had set up to Alexander theGreat.

259 Dio 78(79).17.4-18.1.260 A. Mastino (1981) 78-79, n. 401, lists erased or re-

cut inscriptions; CIL 8.7974 has been recut to honorConstantine.

261 Macr. 6.8, Diad. 3.1.262 HA. Mac. 6.8; RIC 4.1 128, nos 717-720; BMCRE

531, nos. 7, 8, pl. 85.4, 589; K. Schulten (1979) 115-16,nos. 300-303, pl. 6; D. Salzmann (1989) 564, n. 29.Caracalla is of course given the title Divus in inscriptionsdated to the reigns of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander,A. Mastino (1981) 78-79, n. 401.

263 Diadumenianus also receives the title of Augustuson coins minted at the end of his father’s reign, althoughthe title does not seem to have been ratified by the Sen-ate, BMCRE V, 511, no. 95.

the severans 185

sustain their loyalties. The soldiers grew dissat-isfied with the hardships of the Parthian war andtheir extended stay in the east. During his four-teen months as emperor, Macrinus never left theeastern half of the empire, and his absence fromRome certainly contributed to his diminishingpopularity. At the capital, the Plebs manifestedtheir increasing dissatisfaction with their newemperor very publicly: at games celebrating thebirthday of Diadumenianus (14 September 217),they steadfastly refused to honor Macrinus andhis son, and, thenceforth, acted “as if they didnot exist.”264

Elagabalus, a maternal cousin of Caracalla,had been declared emperor in opposition on 16May 218 by the Legio III Gallica at Raphaneaenear Emessa in Syria. The troops of Macrinuswere defeated by those of Elagabalus in severalskirmishes and Macrinus was finally forced to fleehis headquarters at Antioch, disguised as a com-moner. He was captured and executed; Diadu-menianus was likewise apprehended and killedafter attempting an escape to Parthia and bothcorpses were beheaded and the severed headsparaded by the soldiers.265 When news of thedeaths of Macrinus and Diadumenianus reachedRome, the Senate swiftly declared them hostes inan official demonstration of loyalty and supportfor the new emperor, Elagabalus.266

As a result of the Senate’s decree, the portraitsof Macrinus and Diadumenianus were destroyedand their names erased in inscriptions and pa-pyri.267 The memory of Diadumenianus wasfurther denigrated in a graphic manner when oneof his honorific inscriptions was thrown into alatrine at the barracks of the Vigili at Ostia,268

thus closely recalling an Suetonius’s anecdoteconcerning Nero’s alleged disposal of the imagesof artistic rivals in latrines during his Greektour.269 Furthermore, the soldiers are reported tohave destroyed Macrinus’s writings and posses-sions after his death, evoking some of the earli-est Republican sanctions associated with damnatiomemoriae.

Macrinus’s Portrait Typology

The numismatic portraits of Macrinus can beseparated into two types.270 The earliest typedepicts the emperor as a mature man, with shortmilitary coiffure and beard. His forehead is fur-rowed, his nose aquiline or slightly hooked, andthe mouth is wide, with a thin upper lip and fulllower lip. In certain variations of the first type,Macrinus’s coiffure and physiognomy are madeto closely resemble those of Caracalla. The sec-ond type is very different. While it maintains theshort military coiffure of the first type, the beardis considerably longer and fuller and often char-acterized by individual ringlets in conscious imi-tation of Marcus Aurelius.271 The shape of theface has been lengthened and Macrinus appearsolder, the forehead is still furrowed, but the nosecan be slightly longer in keeping with the longerproportions of the face, the mouth remains wide,with the thin upper lip and fuller lower.

264 Dio 78(79).20.1-3.265 HA Diad. 9; Herod. 5.4.11.266 Dio 79 (80).2.6; P. Cavuoto (1983) 42-8, 61.267 For erased inscriptions and payri, see SEG 12.516

(Anazarbos); SEG 17.505 (Ephesus); R. Cagnat (1914) 172;P. Sijpesteijn (1974) 219-27. In the papyri, Antoninus issometimes allowed to remain, while Opellius and Macrinusare eradicated; E. Van’t Dack (1974) 876; It is unclearwhether a partially preserved inscription of Macrinus fromthe Odeum at Troy has been erased or intentionally dam-aged, C.B. Rose (1998) 96-7.

268 ILS 465; AJA 45 (1941) 456; AEpigr (1947) 7; T.

Pekáry (1985) 134, n. 11; M. Donderer (1991-2) 224-25;P. Stewart (1999) 164.

269 Ac ne cuius alterius hieronicarum memoria aut vestigiumexstaret usquam, subverti et unco trahi abicique in latrinas omniumstatuas et imagines imperavit (And, lest any memory or vestigeof any other victors in the sacred games might be promi-nent, he [Nero] commanded that all their statues andportraits be overturned, then dragged by a hook and hurledinto latrines, Nero 24.1); see also E. Gowers (1995) 28.

270 D. Salzmann has proposed four distinct prototypesfor Macrinus, but this seems highly unlikely in view of thebrevity of his tenure as Augustus; Salzmann’s types 1 and2 are very similar and should be considered variations ofa single prototype, as should his types 3 and 4; (1983) 351-81.

271 Herodian quips that Macrinus might have been ableto defeat Elagabalus and maintain the loyalty of the troopsif he hadn’t spent all of his time at Antioch cultivating hisbeard and attempting to imitate Marcus Aurelius, 5.2.3.

chapter eight186

The Mutilation and Destruction of Macrinus’s Images

Four sculpted portraits, three of marble and oneof bronze, have been identified as Macrinus onthe basis of close parallels with the numismaticlikenesses.272 Significantly, all of Macrinus’smarble images have been intentionally mutilatedand firmly attest to the increasing frequency ofmutilation as a response to damnationes memoriaein this period.273 Two of the marble portraits,replicas of type 1 the Centrale Montemartini (cat.7.14; fig. 188a-c)274 and the Sackler Museum atHarvard (cat. 7.12; fig. 189a-b)275 have been sys-tematically attacked with hammers and flat chis-els, severely disfiguring the facial features. Dam-age to the Montemartini portrait is limited to theface, where repeated blows have removed thenose, destroyed both the eyebrows and the up-per lip and gouged the left cheek. The righteyeball has been chiseled away and the rims ofboth ears are chipped. The portrait’s intentionalmutilation parallels the T-shaped damage presentin earlier defacements, as in the portraits of Nero(cat. 2.2), Lucilla (cat. 6.8-9; figs. 148-49),Commodus (cat. 6.1; fig. 138), and Geta (cat. 7.4-6; figs. 166-68), and the gouging of the left eye-ball signals the anthropomorphic nature of theattack. As already noted, the portrait was discov-ered together with a mutilated portrait of Lucillaas Venus Genetrix in a domus on the Quirinalwhich may have at one time belonged to Plautia-nus (cat. 6.10; fig. 147). Both portraits appear tohave been warehoused following their destruc-tion. The Harvard head of Macrinus exhibitsidentical T-shaped destruction of the facial fea-tures and the nose, eyes, brows and lower lip havebeen entirely chiseled away. The ears have alsobeen attacked and are largely missing. In con-trast to the mutilated facial features, the finelysculpted details of hair and beard are left un-touched and the skin preserves its ancient highlypolished surface. The stark contrast between

preserved and damaged surfaces pronounces thedeliberate nature of the portrait’s mutilation,made that much more emphatic by the evidentartistic quality of the work. Although modernrestorations have masked its ancient disfigure-ment, a portrait of Macrinus’s second type withlonger beard in the Museo Capitolino has alsobeen vandalized (cat. 7.13; fig. 190a-c).276 Exten-sive marble restorations include the right browand eye, the nose, the lower lip and portions ofthe beard, and disguise the T-shaped damage suf-fered by the face. In all three instances, it is againthe vital sensory organs of eyes, nose, mouth andears which have been attacked depriving theimages of any metaphorical power to see, speak,or hear as effigies.

These three defaced images provide compel-ling physical evidence of the Senate’s sanctionsagainst Macrinus’s monuments, and further at-test to his unpopularity with the inhabitants ofRome. All three likenesses are from Rome or itsvicinity. The mutilation of these portraits actedto further repudiate the murdered emperor andhis policies and simultaneously confirmed loyaltyto the restored Severan regime.277 The destruc-tion of Macrinus’s portraits must have been es-pecially pleasing to Elagabalus who is recordedto have made repeated attacks on the reputations(fama) of both Macrinus and Diadumenianus.278

Like the marble images, a sardonyx cameowhich depicts facing likenesses of Macrinus andDiadumenianus has been intentionally mutilated(cat. 7.11; fig. 191).279 The face of Diadumenia-nus, at the proper left of the cameo, has beenalmost entirely chipped away, revealing the darkblue level of the sardonyx beneath. The featuresof Macrinus have also been damaged; the brow,eye and nose are now missing. This cameo is oneof the rare examples of deliberate defacement of

272 As published by D. Salzmann (1983) 351-81.273 S. Wood (1983) 495. S. Wood (1986) 71.274 Museo Nuovo, Sala 7, 21, inv. 1757 (Centrale

Montemartini 3.82).275 Harvard University, Arthur M. Sackler Museums,

inv. 1949.47.138.

276 Stanza degli Imperatori 36, inv. 460.277 Since Elagabalus did not reach Rome until well over

a year after Macrinus’s death, it is possible that thesemutilated portraits remained on public display as a markof Macrinus’s disgrace and in order that the new emperorcould witness the posthumous degradation of his rival; S.Wood (1983) 495.

278 HA.Elag. 8.4.279 Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseums, inv. 32300.

the severans 187

a gem portrait, and its mutilation recalls the ear-lier vandalization of the cameo of Diva Poppaeain Bonn (fig. 98). Gems were almost always leftundisturbed, or, in rare instances recarved. Theintentional mutilation of this cameo bears furtherwitness to the virulence with which the damnatioof Macrinus and Diadumenianus was pursuedunder Elagabalus and, like the Diva Poppaeacameo, may also reflect an attempt to destroyany supernatural properties of the gem-stone it-self.

Coins of Macrinus and Diadumenianus alsoappear to have been destroyed as a result of thedamnatio. Although Diadumenianus was pro-claimed joint Augustus with his father on 16 May218, the same day on which Elagabalus wasacclaimed Augustus, coins which give Diadume-nianus this title are extremely rare. C. Clay hasspeculated that the eastern mints had sufficienttime to mint coins for Diadumenianus as Au-gustus between his declaration in May andMacrinus’s final defeat on 8 June, but that theseissues were never released, and subsequentlymelted down after Elagabalus’s victory.280

The Removal of Macrinus’s Images

A bronze portrait of Macrinus in Belgrade hasbeen severed from its original statue body as aconsequence of the damnatio.281 The head, a rep-lica of his second type reproduces the slit leftearlobe characteristic of his Mauretanian originsand has been severed from the portrait statue towhich it originally belonged.282 The portrait wasdiscovered near Belgrade, along the Roman limesof Upper Moesia. In antiquity, this area wasknown for its wealthy villas and the bronze im-

age of Macrinus may have been displayed in oneof the villas belonging to an aristocratic supporterof the emperor before being beheaded. AfterMacrinus’s overthrow, the image was apparentlydecapitated and the head stored or buried in amanner similar to the gilded bronze head of Nero(fig. 87a-b).

Macrinus’s likeness is also preserved on sixadditional gems which exhibit no signs of inten-tional mutilation.283 On one of these, a fragmen-tary carnelian intaglio in Hannover, Macrinus’sportrait features have been carved on the reverseof a gem whose obverse depicts facing portraitsof Julia Domna and Caracalla.284 The hair, eye,and pupil of the portrait of Macrinus are handledvery differently than those of Julia Domna andCaracalla confirming that Macrinus’s likeness hasbeen added to a gem originally created duringCaracalla’s reign as sole emperor.285 The addi-tion of the portrait of Macrinus was clearly in-tended to link him with the previous dynasty andlegitimize his rule.286 The portraits of JuliaDomna and Caracalla which appear on theobverse may have further contributed to its sur-vival.

Diadumenianus’s Portrait Typology

Diadumenianus’s numismatic images representhim with a closely cropped coiffure with lightlyraised locks which leaves his ears uncovered. Thehairstyle is distinguished by a continuous curv-ing segment which runs from the sideburns to theforehead. His physiognomy consists of a straight,aquiline nose, wide eyes, full lips, and a roundedchin.

280 (1979) 33, n. 57.281 City Museum, inv. 2636, h. 0.33 m.; V. Kondic

(1973) 47-8, pls. 5-7; D. Salzmann (1983) 362-65; 371-79,figs. 13, 17, 21, 28-30; Fittschen-Zanker I, 113, n. 2; S.Wood (1986) 30-31, 123. I. Popovic in N. Cambi et. al.(1988) 153-4, no. 171, with figs. (with earlier literature); D.Salzmann (1989) 351-83, figs. 13, 17, 21; A. Oliver (1996)149; M. Donderer (1991-2) 274, no. 8.

282 Dio (78)79.11.1; D. Salzmann (1989) 371-76; A.Oliver (1996) 149.

283 St. Petersburg, Ermitage, aquamarine intaglio, inv.1454, D. Salzmann (1983) 376-77, fig. 36; Zurich, art mar-ket, carnelian intaglio, D. Salzmann (1983) 376-77, fig. 35;three from the Lippert Daktyliothek: sardonyx intaglio, D.Salzmann (1983) 376-79, fig. 33; carnelian intaglio, D.Salzmann (1983) 376-77, fig. 34; chalcedony intaglio, D.Salzmann (1983) 376-77, fig. 37; and Hannover, Kestner-Museum, carnelian intaglio, D. Salzmann (1989) 559-68.

284 Kestner-Museum, 31.3 x 14 x 3.5 mm; D. Salzmann(1989) 559-68, figs. 1a-b, 2a-b.

285 D. Salzmann (1989) 564-59.286 D. Salzmann (1989) 564-9.

chapter eight188

The Mutilation and Destruction of Diadumenianus’sImages

Sculpted portraits representing the young Cae-sar Diadumenianus would naturally have beenincluded in the destruction which befell hisfather’s images. A cuirassed bust of Diadume-nianus in the Vatican, has been violently attacked(cat. 7.15; fig. 192a-b).287 On stylistic grounds,this portrait has long been recognized as belong-ing to the Severan period, but has been variouslyidentified as Caracalla, Geta, Severus Alexander,or a private person. Although the bust is severelydamaged, it conforms to Diadumenianus’s numis-matic portraits in the configuration of the coif-fure, shape of the face, lips and chin. The curv-ing segment of the coiffure from the sideburns tothe forehead which the portrait exhibits in pro-file is not a feature of any other imperial portraitsof the Severan period but does occur on thecoinage of Diadumenianus and helps to securethe identification of the Vatican bust. The facehas been severely disfigured with a point, caus-ing damage to the brows, eyes, nose, upper lip,chin, and deep gashes to the left cheek; both earshave been almost entirely broken off. Themethod of the portrait’s mutilation recalls that ofthe damaged likeness of Plautilla in Houston (cat.7.1; fig. 162a-b). The portrait was discovered inthe area of the castrum for the equites singulares con-structed by Septimius Severus and the displayand subsequent mutilation of Diadumenianus’simage likely occurred within the military contextof the castrum. The severe defacement of this por-trait, possibly carried out by the equites is linkedconceptually to the disposal of Diadumenianus’sinscription in the latrine of the Ostian vigili, andbears further witness to the fury with which thedamnatio of the father and son was pursued at thecapital.

Elagabalus and Julia Soemias

Varius Avitus Bassianus, was born in 204, thechild of Sextus Varius Marcellus and Julia Soe-

mias, niece of Julia Domna. Elagabalus’s mater-nal grandmother, Julia Maesa, cleverly engi-neered his accession by claiming that Bassianuswas the illegitimate son of Caracalla. Elagabaluswas formally saluted as Augustus by the Legio IIIGallica at Raphanae near Emessa on 18 May218. The young emperor ruled under the samename as his fictive father, Marcus AureliusAntoninus.288 At the time of his elevation,Bassianus was the hereditary high priest of theEmessene sun-god Elagabal, providing him withhis nickname, Elagabalus. After the execution ofMacrinus in 218, Elagabalus, together with hisgrandmother and mother, who had both beenawarded the title of Augusta, journeyed to Rome,arriving in the capital in the autumn of 219.Elagabalus showed more concern for establish-ing the rites of Elagabal in the capital than inruling the empire, which he largely left to thegovernance of Julia Maesa and Julia Soemias.The orgiastic rites of Elagabal, often performedpublicly by the emperor, disgusted and alienatedthe senatorial aristocracy as well as the soldiers.As a result of his increasingly erratic and unre-liable behavior, Elagabalus was slain along withhis mother, Julia Soemias on 11 March 222 bythe Praetorians. Julia Maesa’s younger grandson,Gessius Alexianus Bassianus, who had beenadopted by Elagabalus and named Caesar in 221,was declared the new emperor.

Like the corpse of Vitellius, Elagabalus’s bodywas subjected to the traditional indignities re-served for hostes and capital offenders ( poena postmortem) and the corpse was desecrated, the headcut off, and the body dragged by a hook throughthe streets of Rome as well as through the Cir-cus Maximus and ultimately thrown into thesewers which ran to the Tiber.289 The disposal

287 Museo Gregoriano Profano, 651 (10135)(10075).

288 Dio 78(79).31.3, 79.32.2-3; Herodian, 5.4.3, 5.3.10;HA, Car. 9.2, Macr. 9.4, 14.2, 15.2, Elag. 1.4; E.Kettenhoffen (1979) 23-28;A. Birley (1988) 224, no. 49. Aneastern tetradrachm, went so far as to proclaim Elagabalusthe legitimate son of Caracalla and Plautilla; H. Mattingly,BMCRE cliv, n. 3.

289 Dio 79(80). 20.2; Herodian, 5.8.9; HA, Elag 17.4-7,23.7; Epit.Caes. 23.5-7. Alternate versions of the story re-count the sewer drain was too small for the corpse, and asa result the body was thrown into the Tiber from the Pons

the severans 189

of his body in the Tiber earned Elagabalus theposthumous nickname, Tiberinus.290 After hismurder, the Senate passed a decree that the nameof Antoninus should be erased from the publicannals when referring to Elagabalus, since he wasunworthy of the name which had been borne bythe revered emperors Antoninus Pius, MarcusAurelius, and even Caracalla.291 The Senatorialsanctions were clearly enforced as forty of theninety-two surviving inscriptions which refer toElagabalus have had the name of Antoninuseradicated.292 As part of his literary damnatio, thename and deeds of Elagabalus are closely linkedwith two earlier condemned emperors, Nero andCommodus.293

Elagabalus’s Portrait Typology

Although he reigned for four years and his coinsreveal at least two distinct portrait types, only sixunaltered sculpted likenesses of Elagabalus havesurvived the damnatio memoriae.294 Herodian de-scribes Elagabalus as a handsome boy and theemperor’s first numismatic portraits depict himas a youth with a closely cropped coiffure;295 hiseyes are wide beneath strongly arching brows, hisnose is slightly hooked, his lips are full, with thelower lip more full than the upper, his chin issmall, and is sometimes depicted as receding.Sculpted replicas of the first type clarify certaindetails of the numismatic portraits: the hair onthe temples joins the locks which cover the fore-head well over the eyes. This creates a fairlynarrow set of bangs that are rendered as small,

comma shaped locks all brushed towards theproper right.

Elagabalus’s second numismatic portrait typedepicts him with essentially the same physiogno-mic details as the first, although often in moreexaggerated form. Thus, his eyes are wider, hisbrows more arched, his nose more hooked, andhis lips more full. The coiffure is longer, consist-ing of tousled curls. The locks over the foreheadare brushed to the proper right. The length ofthe facial hair varies. The type occurs with shortsideburns, long sideburns, long sideburns andmoustache, and full beard. The more exagger-ated and exotic facial features of this type em-phasize the emperor’s foreign origins and maycorrespond to his increasingly public perfor-mances of the rites of Elagabalus.

The Destruction of Elagabalus’s Images

A coin portrait of Elagabalus, on an issue fromNicea, was deliberately defaced in antiquity witha chisel.296 Other coins from Nicea, as well asNeapolis, Pieria, Sebaste, Sidon, and Tyre werealso countermarked.297 The countermarks in-clude a small male bust, perhaps of SeverusAlexander, an A (presumably for Alexander), orsymbols associated with the cities which issuedthe coins. Like the coins of Geta from easternmints which were also defaced and counter-marked, the coins of Elagabalus may have beentreated in this manner as a practical alternativeto wholesale recalling and melting down of hisissues. Once again, countermarking and deface-ment of Elagabalus’s coins were effective ways ofdenigrating his memory and at the same timeexpressing support and loyalty for the new em-peror, Severus Alexander. Coins honoring themother of Elagabalus, Julia Soemias, his wife,Aquilia Severa, and his grandmother, Julia Maesawere also countermarked.298 Although JuliaSoemias undoubtedly suffered a collateral con-

Aemilius, see D.G. Kyle (1998) 223-4. See also, E. Gowers(1995) 28, n. 49.

290 Dio (79)80.21.3; HA, Elag. 17.5; for Vitellius, seeSuet. Vit. 17 and supra.

291 HA.Elag.17.4, 18.1, Sev.Alex.1.1-2.292 O.F. Butler (1910) 147.293 HA.Elag. 1.2 and SevAlex. 7.4.294 Herodian, 5.5.6, mentions a painted portrait of

Elagabalus which was hung in the Curia in Rome beforethe emperor’s arrival in the capital and Dio 79(80).12.22

discusses a golden statue of the emperor, remarkable forits many adornments.

295 5.3.8, 5.6.10.

296 A. Kindler (1980) 5.297 A. Kindler (1980) 4-5.298 A. Kindler (1980) 4.

chapter eight190

demnation together with her son, there is noevidence that his wives or grandmother under-went official damnationes and the countermarkingof their coins is undoubtedly a by-product of thesanctions against Elagabalus.299

The Transformation of Elagabalus’s Images

Elagabalus/Severus Alexander

The reconfiguration of Elagabalus’s likenessesinto portraits of Severus Alexander would natu-rally have been facilitated by the similarities inage and facial features which existed between thetwo cousins. These physiognomic similarities alsoaccount for the fact that Elagabalus is the onlyemperor of the second or third centuries whoseimages were recarved immediately after his con-demnation. And in fact, four portraits of Elaga-balus have been refashioned into representationsof his cousin and successor, Severus Alexander.

The most impressive of the reconfigured like-nesses, an over life-sized statue in Naples, how-ever adopts a methodology of alteration uniqueamong the reused marble images of condemnedemperors (cat. 7.17; fig. 193a-c).300 This portrait,worked from a single block of marble, depicts theemperor in heroic nudity in a version of theCumae/Munich Diomedes type. The originalface of the statue has been detached from theback of the head and a new likeness of SeverusAlexander has been affixed as if it were a maskThe attachment of the facial features is exactlyanalogous to the reworking of the bronze eques-trian portrait of Domitian/Nerva from Misenum(cat. 5.7; fig. 123a-c), in which the face ofDomitian has been cut from the head and newfeatures of Nerva attached like a mask. The short,a penna locks framing the new face of Severus

Alexander’s contrast with the fuller, plasticallymodeled curls of Elagabalus’s first coiffure cov-ering the rest of the head.

Discovered in the Baths of Caracalla, thestatue was part of the substantial collection ofancient sculpture assembled by the Farnese inRome.301 Elagabalus continued work on theBaths, initiating construction on the great enclo-sure wall, and in its initial incarnation, the Naplesportrait commemorated these building activitiesand linked Elagabalus to his Severan predeces-sor Caracalla.302 The baths’ sculptural decora-tion, including earlier statues and newly commis-sioned works, was carefully chosen both forsubject matter and scale.303 The colossal heroicdepiction of Elagabalus is entirely consistent withthe other heroic statuary decorating the baths.Although contemporary and later sources recordElagabalus’s participation in chariot racing andother forms of athletics, charges of effeminacywere also leveled against him and the athleticemphasis of the Naples portrait may have beenadditionally intended to visually refute suchcharges.304

The Naples portrait’s initial creation from asingle block of marble certainly accounts for theunusual method of its reworking. Because of thestatue’s nudity, preparation of a mortis and theaddition of a new head worked for insertionwhich would have left a visible join was likelydeemed unsatisfactory. Furthermore, the fact thatthe facial features were not recut, but entirelyreplaced , strongly suggests that the original like-ness of Elagabalus was intentionally mutilated.The statue’s location in one of the most promi-nent and popular buildings in Severan Romewould have rendered it a prominent target fordeliberate defacement. Furthermore, the versionof Severus Alexander’s likeness, with long, fullsideburns and a moustache, was not introduceduntil 225, suggesting that the disfigured portraitof Elagabalus may have remained on display as

299 Their coins may have been countermarked in theeast because they were considered part of the emissions ofElagabalus. A bronze portrait, likely representing AquiliaSevera, from Sparta has been intentionally mutilated, butits destruction is the result of Christian iconoclasm ratherthan damnatio memoriae; see L.A. Riccardi (1997) and alsoM. Donderer (1991-2) 258-9, no. 22, fig. 259.

300 Museo Nazionale Archeologico, 5993.

301 Fittschen-Zanker I, 119.302 HA.Elag.17.8-9; L. Richardson, jr.(1992) 387 (“Ther-

mae Antoninanae [Caracallae]).303 M. Marvin (1983) 347-84.304 Herod. 5.6.1-2.

the severans 191

a highly visible and public symbol of the con-demned emperor’s denigration for at least threeyears.305 The fine workmanship and scale of thestatue indicate that it formed an important andexpensive part of the decoration of the Baths,and, as yet another example of site specific im-agery, its wholesale removal was undesirable. Thedetachment of the face of Elagabalus and theaddition of Severus Alexander’s portrait featurescomprise a practical solution to the statue’s trans-formation. The portrait’s current sculpturalanomalies, namely the contrasting coiffures, theoverly broad profile of the head and the mask-life effect of the face, would have been substan-tially minimized if profile views of the statue wererestricted by its placement in a niche or betweencolumns.

A colossal portrait of Severus Alexander in theTerme has also been refashioned from a preex-isting image of Elagabalus (cat. 7.18; fig. 194a-c).306 The hair over the left temple has been cutback and recarved; the resulting arrangement oflocks, which are brushed back from the temple,is nearly identical to that on a portrait of SeverusAlexander in the Sala dei Busti of the Vatican.307

Evidence of recarving beneath both sideburnsdocuments the removal of the longer facial hairof Elagabalus’s second type. The original highlypolished surface of the skin, also present in Elaga-balus’s type 2 replica in the Stanza degli Impera-tori, has been roughened in many areas withcross-hatching. The resulting image is especiallyclassicizing in its handling of sculptural details,partially retained from the original and partiallythe result of recarving of the eyes and brows. Asan heroic image of Severus Alexander, this clas-sicizing style is consonant with its colossal scale.

The Terme head was discovered with a pen-dant portrait of Gordian III, in 1874 during

excavations near the Tempio Rotondo at Os-tia.308 The portrait of Gordian III is of nearly thesame size as the head of Severus Alexander, but,is vastly different in style. The head of GordianIII lacks the overriding classicism of the portraitof Severus Alexander and contains many veristicelements including the addition of carved eye-brows and pupils, the indication of two verticalfurrows above the nose, a moustache, and cleftchin. In addition, the portrait of Gordian IIIemphasizes rounded forms and calligraphiccurves, whereas the Elagabalus/Severus Alex-ander exhibits a rectilinear, block-like structuralgeometry. The Tempio Rotondo, begun underthe Severans and probably finished under Gor-dian III, was closely modeled on the Pantheonand the entire complex seems to have functionedas an Augusteum.309 The original portrait of Ela-gabalus is likely to have been commissioned forthe temple or its precinct, recarved to SeverusAlexander, and at the completion of the complex,a portrait of Gordian III was created, commen-surate in scale with the reworked image ofSeverus Alexander, but reflecting new stylistictrends.

A head formerly in the Palazzo dei Conser-vatori and now in the Centrale Montemartini hasalso been recut from a representation of Elaga-balus, although the recarving was apparentlynever completed (cat.7.19).310 The hair of theoriginal portrait has been smoothed away witha flat chisel, but the general shape and volumeof the coiffure, especially over the forehead andtemples, closely conforms Elagabalus’s type 1.The hair was probably cut down in this mannerto give the cranium an even flatter shaped oc-ciput which is a distinctive feature of SeverusAlexander’s child portraits of 222-224 A.C.. In

305 On Severus Alexander’s portrait typology seeFittschen-Zanker I, 117-23, nos. 99-103, and infra.

306 Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 329.307 Inv. 361, inv. 632; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner

(1971) 154, 197, pl. 54 (with earlier literature); M.Bergmann (1977) 27, no. 17, pls. 2,3; D. Stutzinger in Antikeund frühes Christentum (Frankfurt 1979) 387-88, no. 7, withfig.; Fittschen-Zanker I, 119, no. 17, Beil. 86; S. Wood(1986) 60, 125, pl. 18.26.

308 Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv.326, h. 0.63 M; E. Talamo in MusNazRom 1.1 (Rome 1979)310-12, no. 186 with fig. (with earlier literature); M.Wegner, J. Bracker, and W. Real (1979) 19, 27, pl. 9;Fittschen-Zanker I, 130, n. 6; S. Wood (1986) 37-39, 130,pl. 5.8; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 367, fig. 329.

309 C. Pavolini (1983) 33, 110.310 Braccio Nuovo 3.24, inv. 2457 (Centrale Monte-

martini 2.81, formerly Antiquario Communale, inv. 10476).

chapter eight192

an extremely unusual approach to the recon-figuration, the ears and nose of the original im-age have been removed and cavities prepared forthe insertion of new ones. Perhaps the originalnose and ears had been damaged in an attack onthe image. The artist responsible for reworkingthis portrait may have ultimately decided that theseparately worked nose and ears would create anunsatisfactory and unconvincing likeness of thenew emperor and, for this reason, the refashion-ing of the head was never completed. Alterna-tively, Severus’s Alexander’s second, more ma-ture type may have been introduced before thereworking of this likeness could be completed.

A fourth representation of Severus Alexander,in Kansas City has also been refashioned froman image of Elagabalus (cat. 7.16; fig. 195a-d).311

The portrait retains the fully modeled and curlycoiffure of Elagabalus’s second portrait type overthe occiput, but his hairstyle has been chiseledaway at the back of the head, and the locks atthe front have been reconfigured with the apenna arrangement typical of Severus’Alexander’s likenesses. Like the Naples Elaga-balus/Severus Alexander, the use of long side-burns and moustache suggests a date of ca. 225for the recarving, and at least a three year pe-riod of storage for the original portrait followingElagabalus’s assassination. The portrait has beenconsiderably reduced in scale, so much so thatthe ears have been entirely recut. The originalear canals are still visible below the lobes of thenew ears and an indentations along the jaw linemark the much lower position of the initial earlobes. Like the Montemartini Elagabalus/SeverusAlexander, the Kansas city portrait is unusual forits complete reworking of the ears, which maysuggest that the original ears had been deliber-ately damaged prior to the transformation. Inaddition, the treatment of the bedding for thenose of the Kansas City portrait suggests that it,too is an ancient repair or addition, perhapspointing to an attack on the original representa-tion prior to its reconfiguration.

The Removal of Elagabalus’s Images

As in the past, the portraits of Elagabalus weretargeted for destruction and removal just as hisinscriptions were effaced, his coins disfigured andcountermarked, and his corpse desecrated. Strongcorroboration for the warehousing of Elagabalus’simages in Rome is provided by an unfinishedhead in Oslo which was discovered together witha portrait of Geta.312 The head, a replica of thesecond and final type, is also worked for inser-tion and the surface of the skin on the neck andcheeks still betray signs of the chisel, never hav-ing received a final finish. A mass of hair aboveand behind the right ear is only blocked out;individual locks in this area have not been indi-cated, in contrast to the corresponding section ofthe coiffure on the left side of the head which hasbeen completed. The portrait was likely beingcarved at the time of Elagabalus’s assassinationand the work was abandoned and the imagestored in a sculptural depot which also includedthe likeness of Geta.313

Other well preserved representations of Elaga-balus confirm the storage of his images in Romeand its vicinity and include portraits in the MuseoCapitolino,314 Copenhagen,315 the Louvre,316 and

311 Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, 45-66.

312 Nasjonalgalleriet, inv. SK 1434, h. 0.33 m.; S. Sande(1991) 78-79, no. 64, pl. 63 (with earlier literature). Thenose of the portrait is missing and there is some damageto the chin.

313 Oslo, Nasjonalgalleriet 600, inv. 1433, see supra. Theanomalies occasioned by the image’s unfinished state andits close affinities with the other type 2 replica in the Stanzadegli Imperatori have engendered doubts about thisportrait’s authenticity. However the unfinished state, as wellas the reputed archaeological context, speak strongly infavor of an ancient date.

314 Stanza degli Imperatori 55, inv. 470, h. 0.32 m; ex-Collection Albani B 117; Fittschen-Zanker I, 115-117, no.98, pls. 120-21 (with earlier literature); S. Wood (1986) 32,49-51, 123, pl. 11.14; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 362-3, fig. 320.

315 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 756a, inv. 2073; h.0.52 m.(type I); S. Nodelman (1965) 378-81, n. 104, pls. 163-64;H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 66, 107; V. Poulsen(1974) 137-8, no. 137, pls. 218-19 (with earlier literature);M. Bergmann (1977) 25, pls. 2.1, 3.2-3; Fittschen-ZankerI, 114, Beil. 81a, 82 (Elagabalus); F. Johansen (1995b) 42-3, no. 12 (with figs.)(with earlier literature). The portraitis unrestored, with incidental damage to the tip of the nose,the mouth, the right eye, and the rims of the ears.

316 Musée du Louvre, MA 1077 (type 1); H.B. Wiggers

the severans 193

Gotha.317 The Capitoline portrait is certainly themost well known representation of Elagabalus; ithas suffered negligible damage and preservesmuch of its ancient surface finish . Restorationsare limited to the nose and left side of the upperlip; otherwise, the portrait is exceedingly wellpreserved. The head is worked for insertion intoa draped statue or bust, from which it must havebeen removed after the damnatio.318 The Copen-hagen head is also very well preserved and sur-vives with its original bust form, which iscuirassed and draped with a paludamentum. Thepiece comes from Rome, where it was likelywarehoused following Elagabalus’s downfall. Theportraits in the Louvre and Gotha also exhibitno marks of deliberate defacement, and providefurther evidence for the removal and storage ofElagabalus’s representations in Rome andItaly.319

A poorly preserved and very fragmentary rep-resentation of Elagabalus documents the morecursory disposal and utilitarian reuse of his im-ages.320 After it’s removal from display, the backof this portrait was cut down and dressed in orderto create a flat surface rendering it suitable forreuse as building material or as a paving stone.321

It is possible that the portrait had been intention-

ally vandalized prior to its reuse.A second fragmentary visage, restored in the

18th century as an Antonine female portrait inNewby Hall, may survive from a type 2 portraitof Elagabalus.322 Although the ancient face is splitinto two halves and the nose is restored, the eyesare intact and there is no internal evidence ofdeliberate disfigurement. While the shape of theeyes and configuration of the sideburns accordwell with Elagabalus’s type 2 portraits in theMuseo Capitolino and Oslo, the configuration ofthe locks over the forehead vary considerably,and may have been substantially altered duringthe 18th century reconfiguration of the image. Inaddition, the forehead is substantially lower thanthe securely identified replicas and it lacks theirincised moustaches. If the ancient section of theNewby Hall portrait did in fact representElagabalus, it would appear to be a variant of hissecond portrait type.

Elagabalus’s name has been erased in numer-ous inscriptions. A fragmentary statue base, re-used as a marble step behind the Curia in Rome,originally honored Elagabalus and his motherJulia Soemias.323 Their names an titles have beeneffaced from the inscription. The base was origi-nally carved with relief sculpture on one of itslong sides and two of its short sides. The long sidedepicted a river deity, while the short sides aretoo damaged to permit identification of the re-liefs. The inscription is apparently later than thereliefs and reads:

........................... AVG AVIAE[AVG]VSTI NOSTRI ET

////////////////////////////////////AVGUSTAE

[TOT]IVSQVE DOMUS DIVINAE

......[A]VRELIVS TITUS M AVRELI

The name of Elagabalus probably appeared inthe missing section of line one, followed by thename of Julia Maesa, invoked as his grandmotherat the end of the line. Julia Soemias’s name wasinscribed at line three and has been entirely

and M. Wegner (1971) 40, 74, 109 (with earlier literature);Fittschen-Zanker I, 114, Beil. 81b; K. Kersauson (1996)392-3, no. 180, with figs. (with earlier literature); The noseof the Paris portrait is a restoration and there is minordamage to both ears. The head has been attached to a bustto which it does not belong.

317 Landesmuseum (type 1); S. Nodelman (1965) 379-81, n. 106 (Elagabalus); H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner(1971) 62 (not Caracalla) 100-01, 106 (not Geta); Fittschen-Zanker I, 114, Beil. 81c-d (Elagabalus). The nose, chin, andpart of the right brow are restored in the Gotha head.

318 The original portrait statue or bust may have de-picted Elagabalus wearing the toga or in the priestly garbof Elagabal; Fittschen-Zanker I, 115, n. 1.

319 The Louvre image was part of the Campana Col-lection and is likely to have been discovered in Rome orits vicinity. The Gotha head is presumably from Italy.

320 Rome, Musei Capitolini, Magazzino di Via Porticod’Ottavia, no inventory number, H. 0.31 m; Fittschen-Zanker I, 114-15, no. 97, pl. 119 (with earlier literature).Although the portrait is badly weathered and damaged, thenarrow arrangement of the locks over the forehead ensuresthe portrait’s identification as a replica of type 1.

321 Fittschen and Zanker, I, 114.

322 Ripon, Newby Hall 20; EA 3121; E. Bartman (2001)1-2, fig. 1.

323 Antiquario Forense; A. (1951-52) 50-54; E.R.Varner, (2001a) 49.

chapter eight194

excised.324 The inscription was reused as a stepbehind the Curia. The erasure of the Curia dedi-cation attests to the eradication of Elagabalus andSoemias’s names and the removal of their imagesfrom the Forum, as well as to the further utilitar-ian reuse of their monuments. In addition, theinscription documents the care which was takento destroy Elagabalus’s monuments in the vicin-ity of the seat of the Senate. The inscription’srather humble reuse is also a further from ofdenigration and recalls the reuse of the relief ofAgrippina and Nero face down as a paving slabat Aphrodisias (fig. 91) or the erased inscriptionof Plautianus from the Ostian Thermopolium.

Four images of Elagabalus survive on cameos.Three of these are single portraits of Elagabalus’sfirst type: one in Bonn,325 one in Gannet,326 andone in Paris.327 All three cameos depict the em-peror with laurel crowns and the Gannet andParis cameos include cuirass and paludamentum. Afourth gem is a highly unusual representation ofElagabalus.328 The emperor, bearded and wear-ing a corona, is depicted nude and ithyphallic. Hestands in a chariot being pulled by two nakedwomen who wear Severan Scheitelzopf coiffures.Elagabalus holds a whip in his right hand andthe reigns to the chariot in his left. An enigmaticinscription appears above and below the figuresand reads: +A3-+;3 ;+35!C. The gem seemsto confirm an anecdote in the Historia Augustawhich describes the emperor riding in a pabillumpulled by naked women.329 The gem may com-memorate some rite associated with the worship

of the sun god Elagabal or, conversely, it mayhave been created after the emperor’s murderas a kind of posthumous denigration of his mem-ory.

All six of Elagabalus’s extant likenesses whichhave not been recarved, as well as the threereworked portraits, come from Rome or its vi-cinity. Those portraits at the capital which werenot destroyed must have been removed frompublic display and warehoused. Several wereactually reused. No portraits of Elagabalus havecome to light in the provinces, which suggests thatprovincial likenesses may have been destroyed ingreater numbers than in Rome.

The Collateral Condemnation of Julia Soemias

Julia Soemias acted as chief Augusta during thereign of her son, Elagabalus (A.D. 118-222),eclipsing in importance her young sons threewives, Annia Faustina, Aquilia Severa, and JuliaCornelia Paula.330 Together with her mother,Soemias appears to have controlled the govern-ment331 and she is the only empress recorded tohave attended meetings of the Senate as if shewere a rightful member.332 Soemias may have

324 On the evidence of the barely discernable remainsof a B and an S after the middle of the line, A. Bartoli hasconvincingly suggested that the line originally read: [IVLIAESOEMIADIS] B[A]S[SIANAE], (1951-52) 53.

325 Akademischen Kunstmuseum, plaster cast of a lostcameo, probably sardonyx, 2.2 x 1.9 m.; W.R. Megow(1987) 247, no. A 165, pl. 51.1.

326 Eglise Ste. Croix, sardonyx cameo; W.R. Megow(1987) 248, no. A 166, pl. 51.2 (with earlier literature).

327 Musée du Louvre, cameo in the “Crown ofCharlemagne,” 4.8 x 3.7 cm; W.R. Megow (1987) 248, no.A 167.

328 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles304, 1.9 x 2.2 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 247, no. A 164,pl. 50.5 (with earlier literature).

329 Elag. 29.2.

330 For Soemias see M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987) 394-95, no. 460. For Annia Faustina, see RE, “Annius,” 2311,no. 115; for Julia Aquilia Severa, see RE, “Iulius,” 915, no.557; and for Julia Cornelia Paula see RE, “Iulius,” 925-26, no. 564.

331 HA. Elag. 2.1.332 Deinde ubi primum diem senatus habuit, matrem suam in

senatum rogari iussit. quae cum venisset, vocata ad consulum subselliascribendo adfuit, id est senatus consulti conficiendi testis, solusqueomnium imperatorum fuit, sub quo mulier quasi clarissima loco virisenatum ingressa est (Then, when he had his first day withthe Senate, he ordered that his mother be asked into thesenate-house, after she had come, having been called to theconsular seats, she was present for the writing, that is, sheacted as a witness to the preparation of the decree of theSenate, and he (Elagabalus) was the only emperor underwhom a woman entered the Senate like a man, as if shewere a member, HA.Elag.4.1-2. Julia Maesa is also said tohave attended Elagabalus in the Senate, HA.Elag. 12.3. AndDio states that Maesa and Soemias stood flanking him whenhe announced the adoption of Severus Alexander to theSenate in A.D. 221, 79(80)17.2. Tacitus describes AgrippinaMinor being present at a meeting of the Senate during theprincipate of her son, Nero, but she was concealed behinda screen, Ann.13.5.

the severans 195

even been in charge of a mulierum senatum whichElagabalus is said to have established on theQuirinal Hill.333 In addition to the title of Au-gusta, Soemias is commemorated as MaterAugusti and Mater Castrorum.334 Soemias sharedher son’s downfall and was murdered togetherwith him on 11 March A.D. 222.335 Her corpsewas subjected to the same indignities as the bodyof Elagabalus: its head was cut off, it was draggedthrough the streets, and eventually thrown intothe sewers which ran to the Tiber.336 Julia Soe-mias is the only empress recorded whose corpsewas desecrated publicly as an act of poena postmortem.337 The Roman Senate is reported to haveimmediately passed a law after her death mak-ing it a capital offence for anyone to allow awoman to enter the Senate.338

The collateral condemnation which Soemiassuffered together with Elagabalus has insured thatno securely identified sculpted likenesses of theempress have survived.339 As already noted some

of her coins have been countermarked and hername has also been erased in inscriptions, suchas the statue base from the Curia which wasreused as a step.340 The name of Julia Soemiaswas inscribed at line three and has been entirelychiseled out. On the evidence of the barelydiscernable remains of a B and an S after themiddle of the line, A. Bartoli has convincinglysuggested that the line originally read: [IVLIAESOEMIADIS] B[A]S[SIANAE].341 The erasure ofthe Curia dedication attests to the eradication ofSoemias’s name and images following her deathand damnatio.

Severus Alexander and Julia Mammaea

After the assassination of Elagabalus and JuliaSoemias in 222, the Praetorian Guard proclaimedthe dead emperor’s young cousin, Gessius Alex-ianus Bassianus as the new Augustus. Alexianus

333 Fecit in colle Quirinali senaculum, id est mulierum senatum,in quo ante fuerat conventus matronalis, HA, Elag. 4.3. Senaculumoriginally denoted any place in which the Senate gatheredbefore they were formally convoked. Three are mentioned:one in conjunction with the Curia Hostilia, one in the vi-cinity of the Temple of Bellona, and one near the PortaCapena, L. Richardson, jr. (1992) 348, “Senaculum.” It isalso associated with the meeting place of the conventusmatronalis on the Quirinal, and ultimately the institution ofthe women’s senate itself, see L. Richardson, jr., ibid,Senaculum Mulierum . The conventus matronalis was apparentlymade up of high ranking women who met on certain fes-tival days (sollemnibus...diebus) or to confer ornamentum conjugiiconsularis on women, especially relatives of the emperor, whohad married outside the nobilitas, HA. Elag. 4.3-4. In aneffort to denigrate Soemias, the author of the Historia Au-gusta goes on to list the kinds of absurd decrees which theempress and her senatus mulierum concerned themselves with,Elag. 4.4. The Historia Augusta records that Aurelian plannedto restore the institution of the Senaculum later in the thirdcentury, Aur. 49.6-7.

334 Herod. 5.8.8; RE 949.335 HA.Elag.18.2-3; Dio 79(80).20.2. Herod. 5.8.8-10.336 Dio 79(80).20.2; Herod. 5.8.9; HA. Elag. 17.4-7; 23.7;

Epit.Caes. 23.5-7.337 The bodies of Lollia Paulina and Octavia were

beheaded, but not otherwise abused; see infra and E.R.Varner (2001a) 70-72.

338 HA. Elag.18.3.339 Although several portraits have been identified as

Julia Soemias, they do not form a replica series, and noneare close enough to the numismatic representations ofSoemias to permit secure identification. The hairstyle of a

portrait in a Swiss private collection identified by C.Trümpler-Ris as Julia Soemias differs substantially fromcoin likenesses of the empress, H. Jucker and D. Willers,eds. (1982) 170-71, no. 70, with figs. Coins depict Soemiaswith the hair waved differently over the temples and ears,and a much smaller chignon nestled into the hair on thenape of the neck, BMCRE 536-539 nos. 38-60, 576, no. 293,595-98, nos. 373-87, pls. 85.17-19, 86.1-2, 91.13, 94.10-15. RIC 4.2, 25, 45, 48, 60, nos. 207, 234-48, 400-408, pl.7.6-8. Trümpler-Ris suggests that the damage which theSwiss portrait has sustained, namely to the forehead, eyes,cheeks and chin has been caused by damnatio memoriae, buttypically, mutilation caused by damnatio includes the mouthas well and the damage here seems incidental; see infra.Likewise, a portrait in Stockholm identified by J. Meischneras Julia Soemias lacks strong correspondences with thenumismatic representations of the empress (1964) 94-6, no.74, fig. 63. A portrait of a Severan woman as VenusAnadyomene with Isiac drapery and the Egyptian offeringjar in the Galleria Chiaramonti of the Vatican 8.1, inv.1306; P. Liverani [1989] 25 from the Forum at Palestrinawas tentatively associated by J.J. Bernoulli with Soemias(1894) 93-4, pl. 27. Although N. Agnoli (2002) 14 has re-vived Bernoulli’s suggestion, the portrait does not conformto Soemias’s numismatic portraits in details of coiffure andphysiognomy and is likely a representation of a privatewoman. See also H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 161-63 and E.R. Varner (2001a) 48-9.

340 For the countermarked coins, see A. Kindler (1980)4; on the erased inscriptions and Julia Soemias’s damnatio,see E. Kettenhoffen (1979) 151-3.

341 A. Bartoli (1951-52) 53.

chapter eight196

had been declared Caesar and adopted byElagabalus in the previous year under the nameMarcus Aurelius Alexander. He added Severusto his names as Augustus, reigning as MarcusAurelius Severus Alexander, in an effort to linkhimself with the dynasty’s founder, SeptimiusSeverus. He was approximately fourteen at thetime of his accession and his mother, JuliaMammaea, who was declared Augusta, acted asregent for her son. Severus Alexander’s rule lasted13 years, until he and his mother were assassi-nated on 22 March 235 at Vicus Britannicus bytheir own troops, who had grown dissatisfied withthe emperor’s unsuccessful attempts to quell si-multaneous disturbances on both the Parthianand German frontiers. Maximinus Thrax, a sol-dier of humble origin, seized power after themurders.

Although neither Alexander nor Julia Mam-maea received any official sanctions against theirmemories after their deaths, some of their por-traits and inscriptions were nonetheless deliber-ately defaced or destroyed. The isolated instancesof the destruction of the monuments of SeverusAlexander and Julia Mammaea must have beenthe result of spontaneous demonstrations againsttheir memories, rather than the expression of anofficially sponsored or centrally initiated attemptto defame them. As in the past, such spontane-ous demonstrations would have served to expressdissatisfaction with the last of the Severans and,more importantly, loyalty to the new emperorMaximinus Thrax. But these demonstrationswere limited in scope, for Severus Alexander waseventually deified in 238 under Gordian III and,in general, he is very favorably treated by con-temporary and later historians. However, thesespontaneous demonstrations are symptomatic ofthe increase in the intentional mutilation of por-traits, which had begun under Commodus andcontinued unabated throughout the Severanperiod.

The Mutilation and Destruction of SeverusAlexander’s Images

Severus Alexander’s name and titles have beenerased in several inscriptions.342 These erasureswere carried out under Maximinus, for SeverusAlexander’s name has been restored in many ofthe erased inscriptions after his deification in238.343 At the same time his inscriptions wereerased, two of his portraits also were intention-ally damaged. A fragmentary portrait in theMuseo Capitolino has been split apart with achisel (cat. 7.22; fig. 196a-b).344 The head is bro-ken off above the eyes and the chisel blows whichcaused the break are clearly visible above the lefteye. The nose has also been chiseled off. In con-trast to the deliberately damaged areas, the sur-face of the skin is well-preserved. The defacementof the Capitoline head suggests that images inRome were mutilated in response to the news ofSeverus Alexander’s murder and the accession ofMaximinus Thrax. A fragmentary bronze por-trait, now in the Terme, may also have beenattacked and then thrown into the Tiber, whereit was discovered near the Ponte Sisto (cat.7.23).345 The people of Rome, far removed fromthe German frontier where Maximinus was de-clared emperor, may have felt it especially poli-tic to express their fidelity to the new emperorand regime by visually denigrating the memoryand monuments of his predecessor.

A mutilated bust length portrait of SeverusAlexander in a Swiss private collection was dis-covered together with two fragmentary portraitsof Julia Mammaea (cat. 7.24). As usual with de-liberately defaced images, damage is concentratedin the areas of the eyes, nose, mouth and chin,while the rest of the head is well preserved. Frag-ments of the bust form with toga contabulata arealso preserved. The portrait’s discovery, togetherwith the fragmentary representations of JuliaMammaea, suggest that they were stored or

342 G.M. Bersanetti (1964) 18, n. 3; A. Belezza (1964)77, n. 37.

343 G.M. Bersanetti (1964) 18, n. 3.344 Magazzini, inv. 1431.345 Inv. 124492.

the severans 197

buried together following their disfigurement.Another bust length portrait in Munich depict-ing the emperor with toga contabulata was attackedand the eyes, nose, mouth, chin and ears oblit-erated (cat. 7.21).

An over-life-sized bronze head of SeverusAlexander in Bochum also has also been inten-tionally disfigured (cat. 7.20; fig. 197).346 Thehead, severed from its original cuirassed statue,was discovered at Carnuntum, the seat of gov-ernment for Upper Pannonia. Gouges to the rightside of the head, the right temple, the corner ofthe right eye, the right cheek, and left brow allappear to have been deliberately caused by adolabra (pick-axe).347 As B. Andreae has recog-nized, the damage has resulted from a kind ofassassination in effigy.348 Furthermore, the van-dalization of this portrait is clearly the result ofa spontaneous demonstration, likely carried outby soldiers, against the images of SeverusAlexander, which were intended to show supportof the new emperor, Maximinus Thrax.

It is possible that the portrait was set up inCarnuntum by Cassius Dio, who was the legatusaugusti in Pannonia from 223-228.349 During thereign of Severus Alexander, Dio records that thetroops in the Danube region were restive andmutinous, and the image may have been in-tended to uphold the emperor’s authority for thetroops who were contesting his supremacy.350 Asa visual representation of Severus Alexander’sauctoritas, the portrait may have been especiallyliable to denigration following the emperor’smurder and its mutilation recalls the importantroles which images of Galba and Vitellius playedin the military disturbances in Germany duringthe civil wars of A.D. 68-9.351 The geographicalcontext and martial imagery of the image mayindicate that the military were both the agentsand the audience of the portrait’s mutilation.After its destruction and removal from the

cuirassed statue body, the head must have beenreplaced with a new portrait, very likely ofMaximinus himself. Like the mutilated miniaturebronze bust of Caligula (cat. 1.3; fig. 2a-b) or thedecaptiated bronze heads of Nero and Macrinus(fig. 87), the Bochum portrait’s defacement anddisposal is highly unusual, in that bronze imageswere normally melted down for their metal con-tent.

Julia Mammaea

Julia Mammaea’s name and titles have also beenerased in several inscriptions and four of hersurviving portraits were deliberately mutilated.352

Repeated blows from a square hammer havedisfigured an over life-sized portrait of JuliaMammaea in Ostia (7.26; fig. 198).353 Damageis concentrated in the area of the face; the fore-head, both eyeballs, the nose, most of the mouth,and part of the left cheek have all been obliter-ated. With the exception of weathering to the topof the head, the other surfaces of the portrait arewell-preserved including the finely carved detailsof the coiffure. Traces of the square instrumentused in the attack on the forehead are readilyvisible. The eyeballs have essentially been gougedout of the head with a chisel and, as in otherinstances of this kind of trauma, comprises bothan anthropomorphic attack on the sensory organsas well as an attempt to deprive the image of itspersonal identity. The head is worked for inser-tion and was discovered at Ostia, reused as partof the paving of the decumanus. After its deface-ment the portrait was removed from its statue orbust form and discarded or warehoused until itslater utilitarian reuse as paving material. Thesevere damage which has been inflicted on theface rendered the head useless for recarving intoa new likeness, hence its reuse in another con-text.

The face of a representation of Julia Mam-maea in the Louvre has also been deliberately

346 Kunstsammlungen der Ruhr-Universität.347 B. Andreae (1979) 98; C. Letta (1981) 42.348 B. Andreae (1979) 108; C. Letta (1981) 42.349 C. Letta (1981) 44.350 79(80).1.3; C. Letta (1981) 43.351 See supra.

352 G.M. Bersanetti (1964) 18, n. 3.353 Ostia, Museo, inv. 26.

chapter eight198

disfigured (cat7.27; fig. 199).354 The portrait de-picts the Augusta with a diadem and is workedfor insertion into a draped bust form (or statue).The left brow, both eyeballs, the nose, mouth andchin have all attacked with a chisel. The rest ofthe portrait is generally well preserved, again un-derscoring the intentional nature of the disfigure-ment. In addition the two fragmentary portraitsof Julia Mammaea in a Swiss private collection(cat. 7.28) and in Bochum (cat. 7.25).355 discov-ered in Italy together with the deliberately dam-aged portrait of Severus Alexander provide fur-ther persuasive evidence for the intentionalmutilation of her likenesses (cat. 7.24). In thesetwo representations, only the face is preservedand in both the noses have been entirely de-stroyed. The hair may have been worked sepa-rately as a marble wig.

As part of joint commemorations with her son,it is not surprising that Julia Mamaea’s portraitsand inscriptions were included in the limiteddestruction which befell her son’s monuments asa result of spontaneous demonstrations.356 Shewas, in effect, the reigning Augusta, despite Alex-ander’s short-lived marriage to Sallustia BarbiaOrbiana, and she wielded enormous power andinfluence.357 On coins, Julia Mammaea is grantedthe extraordinary title, mater universi generis hu-mani.358 Contemporary and somewhat later his-torians, who generally treat Severus Alexanderfavorably, are much more harsh in their judge-ment of Julia Mammaea; the failure of the youngAugustus’s reign is largely blamed on his motherand her greed.359 Julia Mammaea’s exceptionalposition and prominence, as well as the negative

opinions about her, account for the destructionof her images as a result of spontaneous demon-strations.

Conclusion: A Crescendo of Desecration andDestruction

Although there are far fewer individual condem-nations than in the Julio-Claudian period, thephysical evidence for the destruction and muti-lation of images from the Severan period is stag-gering, and in many ways marks the apogee ofthe phenomenon of the repression of commemo-rative monuments. The period boasts the mostwidespread and virulent condemnation in Romanhistory in the damnatio of Geta ruthlessly pursuedby his brother Caracalla. The wholesale destruc-tion of images is clearly documented by the caseof Plautianus, who is anecdotally reported by Dioto have enjoyed more portrait honors thanSeptimius Severus and Caracalla. Despite Dio’sremarkable assertion, no securely identifiableportraits of Plautianus have survived. Extremelyfragmentary portraits of Geta in Venice andRome provide further evidence for the wholesaledestruction of Severan images.

The Severan period furnishes additional pow-erful evidence for erasure in relief, which comple-ments the earlier removal of Commodus from theAurelian panels. Indeed, the Arch of the Ar-gentarii has become a visual locus for discussionsof relief portrait suppression. Representations ofPlautianus, Plautilla and Geta have all beeneradicated from the arch, and the resulting blankpassages in the reliefs speak volumes. All threeobliterated individuals are tellingly presentthrough their conspicuous absences. With itsabraded, recessed, and recarved surfaces, thededicatory inscription of the Arch also stands asa seminal example of insciptional condemnation,eclipsed only by the obliteration and alterationof the attic inscription on the Arch of SeptimiusSeverus in the Forum Romanum. Erasure is alsoa potent form of emendation for coins, as evi-denced by an extraordinary series of bronze is-sues from Stratonicea, and elsewhere in the east,in which Geta’s portraits have been effaced.

354 No. 3552 (inv. MND 2137).355 “Julia Mammaea B,” Bochum, Kunstsammlungen

der Ruhr-Universität, inv. S 1090.356 A sardonyx cameo in Köln which may depict fac-

ing portraits of Severus Alexander and Julia Mammaea haspossibly suffered damage as a result of a damnatio, Römisch-Germanisches Museum 72, inv. nr. RGM 31.55, 1.9 x 1.4cm; W.R. Megow (1987) 309, nr. E 7, pl. 50.8-9; however,the lack of imperial insignia and the generic nature of theportraits speaks against such an identification.

357 HA, SevAlex. 14.7, 60.2.358 CIL 2.3413; E. Kettenhoffen (1979) 161.359 Herod.6.1.8; HA.SevAlex. 14.7, 63.5.

the severans 199

As in the later second century, there are es-sentially no Severan portraits which werereconfigured as a result of condemnations. Forexample, representations of Geta and Pautillawhich have been recut, were not recycled untilthe middle third and fourth centuries, respec-tively. The exception to this are the portraits ofElagabalus which were refashioned into likenessesof his young cousin and successor, SeverusAlexander. These sculptural transformations mayhave been facilitated by the similarities in age,physiognomy, and coiffure between the two cous-ins, as well as the lack of the complicating fac-tor of beards in their images.

The anthropomorphic disfigurement ofsculpted images continues with increased fre-quency in the Severan period and Macrinus isthe first Roman ruler for whom all of his surviv-ing marble portraits have been deliberatelymutilated. In addition, representations of Plau-tilla, Geta, Diadumenianus, Severus Alexanderand Julia Mammaea have all been intentionallyattacked. Disfigured portraits of Severus Alex-ander and Julia Mammaea provide the first in-controvertible corroboration for the phenomenonof spontaneous destructive demonstrations, be-cause their memories were never officially orunofficially condemned, and Severus Alexanderwas, in fact, subsequently deified. Other kinds ofmutilation are also in evidence during the Seve-ran period. In particular, the decapitated like-nesses of Geta from the Arch of SeptimiusSeverus at Lepcis Magna would have been evoca-tive visual emblems of his posthumous denigra-tion. His portrait is technically absent from the

relief, but his mutilated body remains as a signi-fier of his condemnation. Similarly, his headlessimage is another powerfully denigrative markerin the Berlin tondo. The closely related practiceof corpse abuse also occurs in this period, withthe body of Septimius’s Severus’s rivals ClodiusAlbinus and Pescennius Niger desecrated, as wellas those of Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Elagabalusand Julia Soemias. Indeed, the extended and verypublic abuse of the corpses of Elagabalus andJulia Soemias and their ultimate disposal as refusein the Tiber is notable in the annals of imperialcondemnations. Julia Soemias is the first and onlyimperial woman whose remains are known tohave been defiled so drastically and so publicly.

Although the military had been intimatelyinvolved in earlier condemnations, especially inthe period of unrest immediately following thesuicide of Nero in 68, intriguing evidence for thearmy as an active agent in pursuing condemna-tions is provided by Geta’s damnatio. In the ac-count given by the Historia Augusta, Caracalla firstcalls upon the military to declare his murderedbrother a public enemy, rather than the Senate.Active involvement in the condemnation on thepart of the Roman army may also help to explainthe remarkably wide geographic distribution ofsurviving inscriptional and sculptural evidence forGeta’s condemnation. Furthermore, the soldiers’participation in and promotion of Geta’s damnatiosignals the major role they would play in theselection of succeeding emperors during the thirdcentury following the assassination of SeverusAlexander and the demise of the Severan dy-nasty.

chapter nine200

Maximinus Thrax, Maximus, and Caecilia Paulina

For nearly fifty years between 235 and 284, thethird century was marked by a rapid successionof emperors, often chosen by the army. Follow-ing the murders of Severus Alexander and JuliaMammaea in 235, the Senate reluctantly con-firmed the army’s choice of emperor, Gaius Ju-lius Verus Maximinus, reputedly the son of aGothic peasant and a woman of the Alani tribe.1

After embarking on a military career, he even-tually held the governorship of Mesopotamia.2 In235, Maximinus was stationed on the Rhine incommand of the troops who revolted againstSeverus Alexander and these soldiers salutedMaximinus as their new emperor.

Maximinus continued to wage war along theRhine, and engaged in several battles in whichhe was victorious. However, from the outset, hisreign was plagued by revolts.3 In March of 238,Marcus Antonius Gordianus Sempronianus Ro-manus (Gordian I), the governor of Africa, wasdeclared emperor together with his homonymousson (Gordian II). The Senate supported the twonew emperors. However, Capellianus, the gov-ernor of Numidia, defeated the Gordian parti-sans in April and Gordian II was killed in thebattle. Shortly afterwards, Gordian I committedsuicide. The Senate was undaunted, and declaredMarcus Clodius Pupienus Maximus and DecimusCaelius Calvinus Balbinus as the new augusti.These two in turn appointed Marcus AntoniusGordianus (Gordian III Pius), the thirteen yearold grandson of Gordian I and nephew of Gor-dian II, as Caesar.

Upon hearing of the uprising in Africa, Max-iminus marched on Italy. After reaching Italy,Maximinus was unable to capture Aquilea, andsustained heavy losses during the siege of the city.The Legio II Parthica became dissatisfied withthe emperor and, on 10 May, they murderedhim, together with his son Maximus, who heldthe titles of caesar and princeps iuuventutis. Herodi-an records that the corpses of the father and sonwere subjected to poena post mortem and were leftfor anyone to desecrate or trample on and ulti-mately as carrion food for birds and dogs; theheads were cut off and sent to Rome.4 As in thepast, portraits of Maximinus played an importantsymbolic role in his overthrow; immediatelybefore Maximinus and Maximus were assassinat-ed, the imagines of Maximinus were ripped fromthe Praetorian standards to signal his downfall.5

At the time of the Gordians’ revolt in Africa,the Senate declared both Maximinus and Max-imus hostes, thus ensuring the destruction of theirmonuments.6 The honors which the father andson had been awarded were revoked and theirnames erased from inscriptions and papyri.7 TheSenate’s sanctions against Maximinus coincidedwith a false rumor that he had actually beenkilled, prompting plebs to overthrow his portraitsin Rome: deiectae sunt statuae et imagines eius qui hostis

CHAPTER NINE

THE LATER THIRD CENTURY (235-285)

1 HA. Max. 1.5.2 On the career of Maximinus, see G.M. Bersanetti

(1965).3 HA. Max. 10; 11.2-5; Tyr. 31.7, 12; 32.1-3.

4 8.5.9.5 Herod. 8.5.9.6 HA, Max. 15.2; Gord. 11.1, 7-10; Max.Balb. 1.4. See

also, ILS 1188.7 HA, Max. 26.3, 5; Herodian records that the names

of Maximinus and Maximus were erased from African in-scriptions at the time of the Gordian’s revolt and theirportrait dedications were removed and replaced with im-ages of the Gordians, 7.7.2. On the erased African inscrip-tions, see G.M. Bersanetti (1965) 68. n. 2; see also, ILS 487-89 and R. Cagnat (1914) 173. For the papyri, which alsohave the names of Maximinus and Maximus erased, seeE. Van’t Dack (1974) 876.

the later third century 201

fuerat iudicatus.8 In addition, the Senate orderedthat paintings commemorating Maximinus’sGerman victories which had been erected out-side the Curia were to be taken down andburned.9 Furtheromore, outside of the capital,after Maximinus and Maximus were killed atAquileia, the citizens of a neighboring town re-sponded to the news by overturning Maximinus’sstatues: in oppido igitur vicino statim Maximini statu-ae atque imagines depositae sunt.10

Maximinus Thrax’s Portrait Typology

Maximinus’s extant sculpted representationscorrespond closely to those numismatic likenesseswhich include the title Germanicus.11 Maximi-nus wears a short, closely cropped coiffure whichreveals the contours of the skull, and a lightlyincised beard and moustache. His forehead iscreased by horizontal furrows and two verticalfurrows are depicted above the bridge of his nose.The nose itself is hooked and prominent. Themouth is long, and the lips are not overly fleshy.The shape of the head is massive and rectangu-lar, while the neck is thick and full.

The Mutilation and Destruction of MaximinusThrax’s Images

As with Macrinus, all of Maximinus Thrax’ssurviving marble images have been deliberatelymutilated, a vivid testimony to the denigrationof his memory. Despite the fact that Maximinusnever visited the capital and was despised by boththe Senate and plebs, these six likenesses are fromRome or its environs. The most fragmentaryimage, formerly in the Terme and now in theMuseo Palatino, consists of the top of the headending just below the eyes (cat. 8.4; fig. 200a-c).12

Although it is only partially preserved, the vir-tuoso treatment of the coiffure, forehead, brows,and eyes clearly mark it as the finest replica ofMaximinus’s only portrait type.13 The piece wasdiscovered on the Palatine where it was likelydisplayed somewhere in the imperial palace com-plex, which also accounts fro its extremely highartistic quality. The image has been destroyed asa direct result of the Senate’s repudiation ofMaximinus’s authority and may have carried outby official representatives of the Senate, or bypalace functionaries, wishing to comply with theSenatorial sanctions against Maximinus and toexpress support for the new regime of the Gor-dians.

Modern restorations currently obscure theancient mutilation inflicted on Maximinus’s im-ages in the Museo Capitolino (cat. 8.3)14 and theLouvre (cat. 8.2).15 In the Capitoline portrait, aportion of the left brow, the nose, and the lefthalf of the chin and both ears have been restoredin marble. In addition, the head is severelycracked from repeated blows. The Louvre por-trait has suffered even more serious disfigure-ment. Modern restorations include the rightbrow, right eye, most of the left eye, the nose,the left half of the lower lip, the chin, and mostof the left ear. The rest of the head, and the bustform, which appears to belong, are much betterpreserved and underscore the deliberate natureof the image’s defacement. Like the Capitolineportrait, the bust in the Louvre must have beendamaged as a result of the sanctions againstMaximinus or, slightly afterwards, when his deathwas announced at Rome. The likeness was dis-covered at the Villa of Quintilii, on the Via Appiaoutside of Rome, probably during the excavationsof 1850-51.16 The mutilated image is likely tohave been stored or buried at the Villa, whichwas the largest of the suburban villas in the envi-

8 HA. Gord. 13.6. See also, Herod. 7.7.1-2.9 HA.Max. 12.11; Herod. 7.2.8.10 HA. Max. 23.7.11 R. Delbueck (1940) 65-67, pl.1.6,9-10,13;H.B. Wig-

gers and M. Wegner (1971) pl. 67.12 Museo Palatino, Sala 8, formerly Museo Nazionale

Romano delle Terme, inv. 52681.

13 H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 228.14 Stanza degli Imperatori 46, inv. 473.15 MA 1044.16 A. Ricci, ed. (1998) 108-9; R. Paris, ed. (2000) 23. A

bust of Philip the Arab (St. Petersbur, Ermitage A 31) wasalso discovered at the Villa during excavations carried outin 1764.

chapter nine202

rons of Rome and had become imperial proper-ty under Commodus.

Two other portraits of Maximinus from Romehave been intentionally defaced as a result of hisdamnatio. Both are currently displayed on thefacade of the Casino Aurora Ludovisi and havebeen attached to modern busts (cat.8.5-6; figs.201-2).17 Although they are very poorly pre-served, the heads are recognizable as likenessesof Maximinus, with strong similarities in theircoiffures and physiognomies to the better pre-served replicas.18 Both brows, the nose, the lips,the chin and both ears are restored in one por-trait. Restorations to the second portrait includethe nose and the chin. The surfaces of both headsare very corroded as a result of their long expo-sure to the elements while displayed on the fa-cade of the Casino. Nevertheless, the loss of fa-cial features which both portraits have sufferedwas almost certainly the result of vandalizationcarried out at the time of Maximinus’s downfall.

A portrait in Copenhagen, exhibits signs thatit, too, has been intentionally mutilated in antiq-uity (cat. 8.1).19 The head is over life-sized andworked for insertion. The nose, chin, and therims of both ears have been attacked with achisel.20 There are some minor abrasions to thesurface of the marble, but the portrait is gener-ally well preserved and still displays the originalporcelain-like finish of the skin. Like the HarvardMacrinus, the contrast between the highly pol-ished surfaces and the damaged facial featuresagain highlight the intentional nature of theportrait’s disfigurement. After its mutilation, theportrait must have been removed from the stat-ue into which it was inserted.21 Maximinus’s

numismatic images have also been attacked.Obverses with facing portraits of Maximinus andhis son Maximus from Elaea and Pergamum havebeen entirely obliterated.22 As in the past, theseeffacements are forceful and graphic remindersof the emperor’s denigration.

Maximus’s Portrait Typology

The monuments of Maximinus’s son, Gaius Ju-lius Verus Maximus, were included in the sanc-tions enacted against his father.23 Coin portraitsof Maximus depict him with a short militaryhaircut, similar to that worn by his father. He isbeardless and has a prominent, hooked nose. Hismouth is fairly small, the lips somewhat fleshy,and the lower lip recedes slightly. The chin is firmand the jaw is heavy. Like his father, the shapeof the face is rectangular and massive.

The Mutilation and Destruction of Maximus’s Images

Two heads worked for insertion, now in Copen-hagen, have been deliberately mutilated (cat. 8.7-8; figs. 203-4).24 Like the portrait of Maximinusin Copenhagen, the combination of disfigured fa-cial features with the highly polished surfaces ofthe skin in these two portraits vividly underscoresthe intentional nature of their destruction. In oneportrait both eyes and the nose have been van-dalized. The other has been more severely dam-aged with its eyes and the pupils almost entirelyobliterated. The nose has been destroyed and thelips are also damaged. Nevertheless, the preser-vation of the high polish of the skin suggests thatthese portraits, as well as the portrait of Maxi-minus in Copenhagen, were stored or buried ina secure location after their disfigurement. And

17 T. Schreiber (1880) nos. 158 and 160.18 K. Fittschen (1977b) 319-26. Two additional portraits

displayed on the facade of the Casino exhibit general sim-ilarities to the portraits of Maximinus, T. Schreiber (1880)no. 159, 161; K. Fittschen (1977b), figs. 7-10; L. de Lache-nal MusNazRom 1.6, 247-50, no. VIII.14, 252-54, no.VIII.15, with figs.; Both are badly corroded. Because thesimilarities are somewhat generic, K. Fittschen identifiesthe heads as private portraits, (1977b) 319-26; see also L.de Lachenal, MusNazRom 1.6, 247-50, no. VIII.14, 252-54,no. VIII.15.

19 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 744, inv. 818.20 These areas were formerly restored in marble.21 In addition to the sculpted portraits which have been

deliberately damaged, D. Salzmann mentions a sestertiusfrom a private collection in Munich in which the portraitof Maximinus has been reconfigured (1984) 295, n. 44.

22 K. Regling (1904) 142-4; K. Harl (1987) pl. 12.5-6.23 HA.Max. 26.5.24 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 745, inv. 819 and 746, inv.

823.

the later third century 203

indeed, all three images appear to have been partof the group of five “colossal” heads inserted intogate statues recorded by T. Schreiber and J.J.Bernoulli as being displayed at the Villa Ludovisiat the end of the nineteenth century.25 In addi-tion to being stylistically similar to one another,both heads of Maximus bear striking resemblanc-es to the Copenhagen portrait of Maximinus, es-pecially in the handling of the highly polished skinsurfaces. All three heads are almost certainly theproducts of the same sculptural workshop. Orig-inally these portraits, together with the other two“colossal” portraits whose whereabouts are nolonger known, may have formed part of a por-trait gallery, depicting the father and son in var-ious guises.26 The damage to the facial featuresprevented the recarving of these images. How-ever, the bodies into which they had been insert-ed are likely to have been reused with the addi-tion of new portrait heads. The combineddestruction of the images of the father and sonfrom the presumed portrait gallery recalls theobliteration of their facing portraits on the coinsfrom Elaea and Pergamum. All or many of theportraits may have been found together, suggest-ing that after their mutilation they were storedor warehoused in the same location, perhaps asculptural depot, perhaps in the Horti Sallus-tiani.27

The Removal of Maximus’s Images

A third portrait of Maximus in Copenhagen islife-sized and is worked for insertion into a draped

bust or statue.28 Although the portrait lacks itsnose, chin and the rims of both ears, all of whichwere formerly restored in marble, it does notexhibit the corresponding damage to the eyespresent in the other two likenesses, and, as aresult, it is unlikely that the portrait was delib-erately defaced. Rather, the head must have beenremoved from its original context and ware-housed following Maximinus’s overthrow.

Caecilia Paulina

Maximinus’s wife, Caecilia Paulina, was deceasedat the time of her husband’s accession. On coinsand in inscriptions she is commemorated asDiva.29 Numismatic portraits depict Paulinaveiled and wearing a deeply waved hairstylewhich reveals her ears. Her eyes are wide, hernose is long and slightly hooked. Her mouth issmall and the lips are fairly full. Her chin is firm.These numismatic portraits emphasize Paulina’sphysiognomical resemblance to both her husbandand son.30 No sculpted portraits have been iden-tified for Paulina, but it is likely that if any wereproduced, they were included in the destructionwhich befell the images of Maximinus and Max-imus.

Pupienus and Balbinus

After the death of Maximinus Thrax in May of238, Pupienus and Balbinus failed to maintaincontrol of the empire and were murdered by thepraetorians in July. Herodian records that theircorpses were totally mutilated and left exposed.31

25 T. Schreiber (1880) nos. 321-325 and J.J. Bernoulli(1894) 117. Bernoulli lists the measurements of the headsas ranging from 0.45 m. for the smallest to 0.58 cm. forthe largest. This is not incompatible with the measurementsof the Copenhagen heads. The Maximinus Thrax measures0.43 m., while both portraits of Maximus measure 0.42 m.It is possible that the other two portraits mentioned byBernoulli, whose whereabouts are no longer known, werethe larger portraits.

26 See also K. Fittschen (1977b) 319-326 and Fittschen-Zanker I, 125-126, ns. 4-5.

27 K. Fittschen (1977b) 319-20; M. Donderer (1991-2)220, n. 116.

28 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 759, inv. 826, h. 0.34 m.;H.B.Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 232, 234 (with earlier lit-erature); H. von Heintze (1964) 161-62, pl. 16a; M. Berg-mann (1977) 32-34; S. Wood (1986) 66-67, 127. The por-trait was originally in the Jakobsen Collection inCopenhagen and was presumably purchased in Italy. F.Johansen (1995b) 106-7, no. 42.

29 For example, CIL 10.5054; see also R. Cagnat (1914)172; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 229.

30 On the use of presumably fictive physiognomicalresemblances between imperial husbands and wives, see S.Wood (1981) 59-68; R.R.R. Smith (1985) 214-5; E.R.Varner (1995) 191-93

31 8.8.7; see also HA.Max.Balb. 6.14.6.

chapter nine204

Nevertheless, there is no mention of official sanc-tions pursued against the murdered emperors.Their names are not erased in honorific inscrip-tions and portraits of both men have survived.Significantly, Balbinus’s sarcophagus is extantand includes portraits of the emperor and hiswife; the sarcophagus preserves no evidence ofintentional mutilation or destruction.32 Neverthe-less, the names of Pupienus and Balbinus havebeen erased in certain papyri, likely spontaneousand scattered reactions to the news of their over-throw and this raises the distinct possibility thatother monuments may have been affected.33 Forinstance, the portrait statue of Balbinus as Jupi-ter discovered in the harbor at Piraeus, may havebeen thrown into the harbor after news of theassassination of Pupienus and Balbinus reachedAthens.34 Indeed, fragments of a pendant portraitof Pupienus which include the plinth, part of theeagle and face were also discovered in the har-bor and may provide additional evidence for theintentional destruction of these images.35

Gordian III

Pupienus and Balbinus we were succeeded bytheir young Caesar, Gordian III. Gordian ruledthe empire for almost six years, initially under theinfluence of his mother Maecia Faustina, andlater that of his praetorian praefect, Gaius Sab-

inus Aquila Timestheus. In 243, the young em-peror launched a campaign against the Persians.However, the troops became dissatisfied withhim, and on 25 February 244 he was assassinat-ed, perhaps at the instigation of Philip the Arab,the successor of Timestheus as praetorian prae-fect. Gordian III was succeeded by Philip whoreported to the Senate that Gordian had died ofnatural causes.

The Mutilation and Destruction of Gordian III’sImages

Although no official sanctions were enactedagainst the memory of Gordian III and he wasin fact deified under Philip the Arab, certainmonuments may have been subjected to the sameisolated and spontaneous destruction as those ofPupienus and Balbinus or earlier with SeverusAlexander and Julia Mammaea.36 Indeed, abronze portrait of Gordian III from Nicopolis adIstrum has been intentionally attacked as resultof such spontaneous demonstrations, and itsmutilation closely parallels that of the bronzeSeverus Alexander in Bochum (cat. 8.9; fig.205).37 Like the Severus Alexander, the head hasbeen attacked, perhaps by a pickaxe, causingdamage to the nose and the ears have been sev-ered from the head. Again, the destruction of theportrait functioned as a kind of mutilation of theyoung emperor in effigy, perhaps carried out bydissatisfied troops. The severing of the ears fromthe portrait is striking and they have been at-tacked as vital auditory organs. After its vandal-ization, the head was thrown into the River Jan-tra (Jantros) where it was discovered in 1897. Theportrait provides important additional confirma-tion of the disposal of images in bodies of waterin the provinces. The spontaneous mutilation ofimperial portraits and monuments in the thirdcentury, like the bronze head of Gordian III, arevisible expressions of the volatile political situa-tion in this period.

32 Rome, Catacombs of Praetextatus; H. B. Wiggers andM. Wegner (1971) 249 (with earlier literature); H. Meyer(1986) 279-290 (with earlier literature). D.E.E. Kleiner(1992) 384-85, fig. 356; D.E.E. Kleiner in E.R. Varner, ed.(2000) 54, fig. 10. Meyer does entertain the possibility thata damnatio was enacted against Pupienus and Balbinus, 282.Meyer also suggests that the sarcophagus is a later produc-tion and represents a kind of rehabilitation of his memo-ry. The style of his portraits, however, as well as those ofhis wife, and her coiffure would be consistent with an earlierdate.

33 E. Van’t Dack (1974) 876; H. Meyer (1986) 282-3.34 Piraeus, Museum, h. 2.02 m.; H.B. Wiggers and M.

Wegner (1971) 258, pls. 56b and 78b; S. Wood (1986) 44,n. 54, 70, 129 (with earlier literature); M. Donderer (1991-2) 223, n. 129; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 366, fig. 327.

35 Piraeus, Museum (Garden and Magazzini) 125 A;C.C. Vermeule (1959) 109; C.C. Vermeule (1968) 403;H.G. Niemeyer (1968) 112, no. 125; H.B. Wiggers and M.Wegner (1971) 244-45.

36 HA, Gord. 31.7.37 Sofia, National Archaeological Museum, inv. 1497.

the later third century 205

Philip the Arab, Philip Minor and Otacilia Severa

Marcus Julius Verus Philippus, born ca. 204, wasthe son of Marinus, an Arab chief who enjoyedRoman equestrian status.38 After the death ofGordian III, Philip concluded a treaty with thePersians and returned to Rome. His wife, Mar-cia Otacilia Severa was declared Augusta, andhis son Philip Minor was hailed as Caesar andPrinceps Iuventutis. Philip’s reign began favorably,with military successes in Dacia in 247.39 In 248,the millenial anniversary of the foundation ofRome was celebrated with Ludi Saeculares.40 How-ever, the remainder of Philip’s reign was marredby numerous revolts. Finally, in June of 249,Trajan Decius, commander of the forces in Pan-nonia and Moesia was declared emperor by histroops.41 Philip marched against Decius, but wasdefeated and killed, together with Philip Minor,at Verona.42

Philip the Arab’s Portrait Typology

The historical sources are notoriously incompletefor Philip’s reign and there is no mention of anofficial damnatio enacted against him. However,his name, as well as those of Philip Minor andOtacilia Severa, are erased in inscriptions andpapyri, which confirm that there were demon-strations against their memories and monu-ments.43 In addition, Trajan Decius is reportedto have been hostile to his predecessor’s memo-ry and the Historia Augusta numbers Philip among

the condemned emperors Caligula, Nero, Vitel-lius, and Maximinus, further suggesting that hiscondemnation was officially sanctioned.44 Oncoins, Philip is depicted with a very short, mili-tary coiffure and closely shaved beard. His fore-head is fairly low and often marked by two hor-izontal furrows. The eyes are large and wide, andare set beneath long brows. The nose is large andusually hooked, sometimes with a bump belowthe bridge. The mouth consists of very full lipswhich turn downward at the corners. Naso-labiallines are occasionally indicated. The chin is firmand partially rounded.

The Removal of Philip the Arab’s Images

Only two sculpted images representing Philip,now in St. Petersburg45 and the Vatican,46 havesurvived from antiquity. Both portraits are largebusts which depict the emperor wearing the togacontabulata. The St. Petersburg likeness was dis-covered in 1764 in the area imperial holdings atthe Villa of the Quintilii on the Via Appia.47 TheVatican bust was discovered between 1777-80during excavations of a villa at Tor Paterno. Itis exceedingly well preserved. Only the tip of thenose and rim of the left ear are restored.48 Thevilla housed a large collection of portraits whichincluded likenesses of Agrippina Minor,49 Hadri-

38 Philip also had his father deified, after he becameAugustus.

39 Philip’s major victory was over the Carpi.40 Based on the Varro’s foundation date of 753 B.C.,

A.D. 248 would have marked the end of Rome’s first mil-lenium. HA, Gord. 33.2-3.

41 Decius had formerly been Philip’s Praefectus urbi andhad urged Philip against abdicating when the latter hadoffered to give up the principate in 248.

42 Alternatively, Philip Minor may have been taken bythe Praetorians to their camp after the battle and murderedthere.

43 R. Cagnat (1914) 173-74. For the erased papyrimentioning Philip the Arab and Philip Minor, see E. Van’tDack (1974) 876.

44 Eus. EcclHist. 6.29.2; HA.Aur.42.6.45 Ermitage, inv. A 31, h. 0.70 m.; M. Wegner, J. Brack-

er and W. Real (1979) 32-33, 36, pls. 11b, 12b, 14b (withearlier literature); D. Kiang, “The Iconography of Philipthe Arab,” AJA 85 (1981) 201; Fittschen-Zanker I, 120-121,ns. 7-10; S. Wood (1986) 41, 132 A. Ricci, ed. (1998) 36,106, no. 73, pl. 13.3.

46 Braccio Nuovo 124 (formerly 121), inv. 2216, h. 0.71m.; D. Kiang (1978) 75-84, pls. 3-4; M. Wegner, J. Brack-er and W. Real (1979) 32. 40, pls. 11a, 12a (with earlierliterature); D. Breckenridge (1982) 505, pl. 20; Fittschen-Zanker I, 120-121, ns. 7, 10; S. Wood (1986) 39-42, 77,84, 110, 132, p.6.9; R. Neudecker (1988) 237-40, no. 69.9,pl. 24.1; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 368-9, fig. 332.

47 U. Schädler in A. Ricci, ed. (1998) 36; R. Paris, ed.(2000) 23.The nose, rims of the ears and sections of thedrapery are restorations.

48 The tabula and plinth of the bust are ancient but donot belong to this portrait.

49 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1917.67; R. Neudecker

chapter nine206

an,50 Aelius Caesar (?),51 Antoninus Pius,52 Faus-tina Maior,53 Faustina Minor (?),54 a privateSeveran female,55 and an undated private femaleportrait.56 The bust of Philip the Arab is the latestof these images. In light of the erased inscriptions,it seems unlikely that portraits of Philip wouldhave continued to be displayed in Rome follow-ing his overthrow, especially in the context of animperial residence, like the Villa of the Quintili.Neither bust exhibits any signs that it was inten-tionally mutilated, which suggests that they mayhave been removed from display at the villas andstored, in contradistinction to the Louvre Max-iminus Thrax from the Villa of the Quintiliiwhich was intentionally mutilated before beingwarehoused or buried.

The two surviving portraits of Philip from theVillas are outnumbered by extant sculpted like-nesses of his son Philip Minor (4 portraits), andhis wife Otacilia Severa (3 portraits). As it isimprobable that portraits of Philip Minor andOtacilia originally exceeded those of Philip, thediscrepancy in surviving likenesses suggests thatimages of Philip were destroyed in antiquity.

Philip Minor’s Portrait Typology

Philip Minor was granted the titles of Caesar andprinceps iunventutis after his father’s accession. Al-though only a boy, he held the consulship, at leasttwo times and he was eventually awarded the titleof Augustus. Philip Minor’s coinage is fairly ex-

tensive and his public prominence was engi-neered in an effort to firmly establish a newdynasty. The numismatic portraits reveal a youthwith short military haircut, similar to that of hisfather, a smooth, fairly low forehead, wide eyesbeneath arching brows, straight aquiline nose, afull mouth, and firm, rounded chin.

The Removal of Philip Minor’s Images

Four sculpted portraits are similar enough to thenumismatic likenesses to permit their identifica-tion as Philip Minor.57 None of them have beenintentionally mutilated. Three are in marble andare now in Munich,58 Ostia,59 and Toulouse.60

The Munich and Toulouse heads have been cutor broken from their original busts or statues,while the Ostia piece is worked for insertion. Thefourth portrait, in Los Angeles, is of bronze andis reputedly from Asia Minor.61 The disk-likeattachment to the head supported a radiatecrown. The head has apparently been severedfrom a nude body. The radiate crown under-scores the Philip Minor’s indispensable role in thedynastic propaganda of his father. Like the ear-lier decapitated bronzes, its ritual beheadingburial must have been conceptually more impor-tant than recovering any intrinsic value throughmelting it down. After the death of Philip Minorit no longer would have been politically expedi-

(1988) 239, no. 69.25 (with earlier literature).50 Rome, Palazzo Chigi; R. Neudecker (1988) 238, no.

69.6 (with earlier literature).51 Formerly Rome, Palazzo Chigi; R. Neudecker (1988)

239, no. 69.18.52 ex Hope Collection; R. Neudecker (1988) 238-9, no.

69.7, pl. 24.3 (with earlier literature).53 Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum, inv. 933.27.2; R.

Neudecker (1988) 239, no. 69.8, pl. 24.4 (with earlier lit-erature).

54 Whereabouts unknown; R. Neudecker (1988) 239, no.69.26 (with earlier literature).

55 Munich, Glyptothek 354; R. Neudecker (1988) 239,no. 69.10, pl. 24.2 (with earlier literature).

56 Whereabouts unknown; R. Neudecker (1988) 239, no.69.24 (with earlier literature).

57 The iconography of Philip Minor is still debated.However, the recent proposals by S. Wood seem mostprobable and are followed here (1986) 132-33.

58 Glyptothek, cat. 360, h. 0.XX m.;H.B. Wiggers andM. Wegner (1971) 189 (with earlier literature); M. Wegn-er, J. Bracker and W. Real (1979) 46; S. Wood (1986) 97-98, 133, pl. 49; S. Wood (1987) 124, fig. 5.

59 Museo, inv. 1129, h. 0.18 m.; H.B. Wiggers and M.Wegner (1971) 189-90; M. Bergmann (1977) 35-38, pl. 4.1-2; R. Calza (1977) 75-76. no. 96, pl. 69 (with earlier liter-ature); M. Wegner, J. Bracker and W. Real (1979) 25, 46;Fittschen-Zanker, 120, n. 6; S. Wood (1986) 132.

60 Musée St. Raymond, 30.128 (lifesized); H.B. Wiggersand M. Wegner (1971) 199 (with earlier literature); B.Andreae ( 1977) fig. 126; Fittschen-Zanker I, 120, n. 6; S.Wood (1986) 132.

61 J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 79.AB.120, h. 0.22 m.;J. Frel (1981) 104, 131, no. 86, with fig.; S. Wood (1986)132.

the later third century 207

ent to display his portraits, especially since theyhad reflected his father’s ill-fated dynastic ambi-tions. It is likely that the four surviving portraitsof Philip Minor were removed from their origi-nal contexts and warehoused following his death.

Otacilia Severa’s Portrait Typology

Otacilia Severa was prominently featured on thecoinage of her husband’s reign, and she is oftendepicted together with her husband and son andcelebrated as the mother of the heir to theEmpire.62 Otacilia’s numismatic portraits depicther as a mature woman with a coiffure that isrigidly waved, parted in the center and drawn upin a Scheitelzopf extending to the top of her oc-ciput. Her ears are left uncovered. The foreheadis low and rounded. Her eyes are long and al-mond-shaped. The nose is aquiline and thecheeks broad. The upper lip is fairly thin, whilethe lower lip is much more full. The chin is smallwith a fleshy underchin.

The Removal of Otacilia Severa’s Images

Three marble portraits, representing Otacilia,correspond closely with the numismatic likeness-es. They are in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (fig.206),63 the Uffizi,64 and Petworth House.65 Ot-

acilia’s ultimate fate is unknown, but her nameis erased in inscriptions, and it is likely that hermemory and monuments were collaterally con-demned along with those of her husband andson.66 All three of her portraits are well preservedand it is likely that they were removed from dis-play and warehoused after her husband’s over-throw. The Conservatori portrait was part of thesame sculptural cache as the Conservatori type1 likeness of Lucilla from the domus near theColosseum, whose pieces were later incorporat-ed into a garden wall of the Villa Rivaldi.

Trajan Decius, Herrenius Etruscus, and Hostilian

Gesius Messius Quintus Decius was born into aprominent local family of Budalia near Sirmium,ca. 190. After the defeat of the two Philips atVerona in 249, he returned to Rome, where theSenate confirmed his position as Augustus andgranted him the additional name Trajan. Dur-ing Decius’s brief reign, Kniva, the king of theGoths mounted a major offensive against theRomans. Decius moved against the Goths andenjoyed some initial successes. However, in Julyof 251, Decius suffered a devastating defeat.Decius himself was killed in battle, as was his son,Herrenius Etruscus, who had been declared co-augustus earlier in the year. Most of the Romanforces under their command were also wiped out.Decius was the first Roman emperor to be killedin battle against a foreign enemy. He was suc-ceeded by the governor of upper and lowerMoesia, Trebonianus Gallus.

Trebonianus Gallus ensured the deification ofDecius and Herrenius. After his accession, Gal-lus raised Decius’s youngest son Hostilian to therank of co-Augustus, although Hostilian diedshortly thereafter. Gallus also withheld the rankof Augusta from his own wife, out of respect forDecius’s widow, Herrenia Etruscilla, who hadbeen declared Augusta during her husband’s

62 Bimetallic medallion from Rome, c. A.D. 245-47,Kent 39, 311, no. 457, pl. 126. Antoninianus from Rome,obv. Philip Minor, rev. Philip Maior and Otacilia, as PatriAvg and Matri Avg. c. 246-47, RIC 97, no. 229, pl. 8.10;see also RIC 95, 212 (as: obv. Otacilia, rev. Philip Maiorand Minor) and RIC 102, 261 (dupondius or as: obv. PhilipMinor, rev. facing busts of Otacilia and Philip Maior,Concordia Augustorum) for Otacilia’s other coins, see alsoRIC 82-86, nos. 115-47, 92, no. 196, 93-95, nos. 198-212,pls. 7.8-20, pl. 9.6-7.

63 Braccio Nuovo 3.23, inv. 2765 (Centrale Montemar-tini 2.95) , h. 0.26 m.; Fittschen-Zanker I, 34-35, no. 37,pls. 45-46 (with earlier literature); S. Wood (1986) 84, 132,pl. 38.51; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 378, fig. 348; E.R. Var-ner (2001a) 52-3, fig. 53.

64 inv. 1914.271; h. 0.29 (head); M. Wegner, J. Brack-er and W. Real (1979) 57, 50-61 (with earlier literature);Fittschen-Zanker I, 34; S. Wood (1986) 132.

65 H. 0.52 m.; M. Wegner, J. Bracker and W. Real

(1979) 57, 60-61 (with earlier literature); Fittschen-ZankerI, 34; S. Wood (1986) 132.

66 R. Cagnat (1914) 174.

chapter nine208

reign. Nevertheless, the names of Decius and histwo sons, Herrenius Etruscus and Hostilian, areerased in certain inscriptions, and such demon-strations may have had an effect on their por-traits.67

Numismatic portraits of Decius depict him asan older man with a closely cropped militarycoiffure, which recedes substantially at the tem-ples. The coins show him as both clean-shaven,and with a short beard and moustache. His fore-head is broad, tall, slightly rounded and markedby horizontal furrows. The eyes are wide, and thebrow is fairly straight. His nose is large and some-what hooked. The cheeks are gaunt, and naso-labial lines are indicated. The mouth is small andthe lips are fairly thin. The chin is also small andthe jawline is narrow. Five portraits, three ofmarble and two of bronze, can plausibly be as-sociated with Decius on the basis of the numis-matic evidence. One of the marble likenesses isa full length statue depicting the emperor in theguise of Mars,68 while the other two have beencut or broken from the statues or busts to whichthey originally appertained.69 The survival of thetwo bronze heads, now in Florence70 and Deva,71

may indicate that they were severed from theiroriginal busts or statues, like the bronze portraitsof Nero, Macrinus, Severus Alexander (cat. 7.20),Gordian III (cat. 8.9) and Philip Minor, afterDecius’s overthrow. The archaeological contextof the Florence head is not known, but the Deva

head was discovered at Ulpia Traiana (Sarmige-tusa), in the geographical region in which Deciuswas defeated and killed.

Trebonianus Gallus

Gaius Vibius Afinius Trebonianus Gallus wasborn ca. 206 into a distinguished family of Etr-uscan origins from Perusia. His reign was marredby renewed disasters on the Persian frontier anddisturbances on the German border. These mil-itary setbacks culminated in 253 when Aemilian,the governor of Lower Moesia, was declaredemperor in opposition by his troops and he ad-vanced into Italy. As a result of the invasion,Gallus and his son Volusianus, who had beendeclared co-augustus, were murdered by theirown forces.

The ancient sources make no mention of anofficial damnatio against Gallus. However, it islikely that his memory and monuments weredisparaged during the brief reign of his succes-sor Aemelian (July/August - September/October253). The portraiture of Trebonianus Gallus isextremely problematical. His coin images depicthim with a short military coiffure and a closelycropped beard and moustache. He has a fur-rowed forehead, wide eyes beneath archingbrows, a large prominent nose, which is some-what hooked. His mouth is fairly small, with athin upper lip and fuller lower lip. His chin is alsosmall and rounded and in some coin portraitsthere is a fleshy underchin.

A colossal bronze statue in New York hasstrong parallels with the coin likenesses and prob-ably represents Gallus.72 The colossal scale of thepiece indicates that it is indeed an imperial por-trait. It depicts the emperor nude, with a man-tle draped over his left shoulder and forearm. Thestatue was discovered near S. Giovanni in Lat-erano at the beginning of the ninenteenth cen-

67 R. Cagnat (1914) 173; For Hostilian, see CIL 11.3088.68 Palazzo dei Conservatori, Centrale Montemartini,

inv. 778, h. 2.17 m.; M. Wegner, J. Bracker and W. Real(1979) 67 (with earlier literature); S. Wood (1986) 44, 79,133, fig. 46; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 369-71, figs. 334-35.

69 Stanza degli Imperatori 52, inv. 482, h. 0.24 m.;Fittschen-Zanker I, 130-133, no. 110, pls. 135-7 (withearlier literature); S. Wood (1986) 22, 42-3, 77-78, 104, 133,fig. 10; D.E.E. Kleiner, (1992) 369-71, fig. 333.

Würzburg, Museum der Universität, h. 0.32m.; S.Wood (1986) 133 (with earlier literature).

70 Museo Archeologico, inv. 14013, h. 0.32 m.; M.Wegner, J. Bracker and W. Real (1979) 65, 84-86, 87-88(with earlier literature); S. Wood (1986) 133.

71 Museum, inv. 19.903, h. 0.25 m.; M. Wegner, J.Bracker and W. Real (1979) 64-65, pl. 27 (with earlier lit-erature); Fittschen-Zanker I, 131, n. 12 (private portrait);S. Wood (1986) 133.

72 Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 05.30, h. 2.406;M. Bergmann (1977) 44-45; M. Wegner, J. Bracker andW. Real (1979) 65, 84-86, 89-90 (with earlier literature);A.M. McCann (1981) 630-32, pls. 5-6; S. Wood (1986) 43-45, 91, 133, pl. 8.11; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 371-2, fig. 336.

the later third century 209

tury. It has been pieced together from severalfragments, but only a section of the back is miss-ing and the statue is generally well-preserved. Inantiquity, the area of the Lateran was the site ofthe barracks of the emperor’s personal horseguard, the equites singulares and it is possible thatthe portrait was originally displayed there. Theportrait may have been hacked into to piecesafter the murder of Gallus by his troops and itsstorage or burial could account for its preserva-tion. If so, the portrait’s fate has parallels withthe mutilated bust of Diadumenianus, also dis-covered in the area of the equites singulares.

Aemilian and Cornelia Supera

Marcus Aemilius Aemilianus is the next of thethird century emperors whose memory was con-demned. Born in Mauretania, Aemilian wasappointed governor of Lower Moesia in 252. Inthe spring of 253, he engineered a great victoryover the Goths and his troops acclaimed him asemperor in July or August. When Aemilianmarched into Italy as rival emperor, the senatedeclared him a hostis at the request of Trebon-ianus Gallus.73 After Gallus’s murder, Aemilianentered the capital, and the Senate confirmed hisposition as Augustus.

In the meantime, Publius Licinius Valerianus,in command of the forces on the Upper Rhine,had been summoned by Gallus in order to aidhim in his conflict with Aemilian. Valerian con-tinued his march to Rome, despite news of Gal-lus’s death. His soldiers declared him emperor,and when Aemilian’s troops learned of this, theymurdered Aemilian and swore allegiance toValerian in September, or October of 253. TheSenate confirmed Valerian as the new augustus.The names of both Aemilian and his wife, GaiaCornelia Supera, who had been declared augusta,are erased in inscriptions.74 Coin portraits of bothare somewhat generic. Aemelian is depicted withshort military coiffure and beard, furrowed fore-

head, prominent, hooked nose, naso labial lines,and rounded chin. These numismatic portraitsare fairly close to those of his predecessor, Tre-bonianus Gallus.75 Cornelia’s numismatic like-nesses depict her with a stiffly waved coiffure witha Scheitelzopf which is pulled up over the top ofher head. She has a rounded forehead, archingbrows, wide eyes, an aquiline nose, and a fairlysmall mouth and chin.76 No sculpted portraits ofeither have been identified with certainty.77 Thebrevity of Aemilian’s reign, coupled with theprobable damnatio inflicted after his murder, al-most certainly accounts for the lack of three-di-mensional portraits.78

Soldier Emperor/Valerian?

A head inserted into large bust, now in Antioch,may represent Aemelian’s successor, Valerian,and has possibly been recut from a portrait of oneof his imperial predecessors.79 Valerian’s numis-matic images portray him with a short coiffure.He is often depicted beardless or with a closelycropped beard. His forehead is slightly roundedand sloping. The brows are arching the eyes arewide. The nose is aquiline with a slight indenta-tion at the bridge. The cheeks are full and heavy.The upper lip is thin while the lower lip is morefull. The chin is small and rounded and a fleshyunder chin is often depicted. The Antioch por-trait agrees fairly closely with the numismatic

73 Aur. Vict. Caes. 31.3.74 AEpigr (1911) 104; R. Cagnat (1914) 172-73.

75 As first observed by R. Delbrueck 1940) 94-95; B.M.Felletti Maj (1958) 211; M. Wegner, J. Bracker and W. Real(1979) 97.

76 On the “scarcely individualized” character of thesenumismatic portraits, see B.M. Felletti Maj (1958) 213.

77 See B.M. Felletti Maj (1958) 211-24, and M. Wegn-er, J. Bracker and W. Real (1979) 97-100.

78 In contrast several portraits of Balbinus (3 +3 on hissarcophagus) and Pupienus (5) have survived, although theyreigned for approximately the same amount of time asAemilian (April-July 238).

79 Museum, h. 0.64 m.; W. Campbell (1936) 9, fig. 16;R. Stillwell, ed. (1938) 172, no. 134, pl. 5; G.M.A. Han-fmann (1959) 748; D. Brinkerhoff (1963) 209; J. Bracker(1966) 66; C.C. Vermeule.(1968) 404; D.M. Brinkerhoff(1970) 13-19, figs. 10-11; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner(1971) 246; M. Wegner, J. Bracker and W. Real (1979) 20,102, 156 (with earlier literature).

chapter nine210

images, especially in the shape of the forehead,the nose, mouth, chin and underchin.80 It alsofinds compelling parallels in a portrait of Vale-rian formerly in the Museo Nuovo of the Palaz-zo dei Conservatori.81 The Antioch head isplaced directly between the two shoulders and itstenon does not include any of the chest, whichis usual for portraits worked for insertion into cui-rassed statues; in the Antioch portrait, the sec-tions of the chest visible above the cuirass areworked with the bust form rather than with theportrait head. The bust form itself may have beencut down from a full-length portrait statue.82 Ev-idence of recarving of the head includes: theunusual and rather cursory treatment of thecoiffure; the incredibly asymmetrical handling ofthe eyes; the slight recession of the chin; and thebase of the neck which seems too wide in com-parison with the size of the head. However, in-sufficient remnants of the original likeness havebeen preserved and identification of the individ-ual initially represented is not possible. Aemelian,Trebonianus Gallus, or Trajan Decius are allpossible candidates.

“Celsus”

The Historia Augusta presents additional intrigu-ing, if ambiguous, literary evidence concerningthe mutilation of images in the third century. Thechapter of the history devoted to the “thirty ty-rants” (tyranni triginta) includes a brief life ofCelsus, a North African who ruled for seven daysduring the reign of Gallienus. Ceslsus is some-what fancifully reported to have been killed by“Galliena” a North African cousin of Gallienus.After his death, the inhabitants of Sicca (el-Kef

in Tunisia) fed Celsus’s corpse to the dogs in aparticularly brutal example of poena post mortem(corpus eius a canibus consumptum est Siccensibus.83

The passage is also notable for its descriptionof the “crucifixion” of a likeness of Celsus, alsocarried out by the inhabitants of Sicca: et novoiniuriae genere imago in crucem sublata persultante vul-go, quasi patibulo ipse Celsus videretur (and in a newkind of outrage, his portrait was hoisted on across, with the crowd running around as if theywere seeing Celsus himself on the gibbet).84 Al-though Celsus, as well as the destruction of hisportrait and the mutilation of his corpse, is like-ly an invention of the author, the passage doesprovide important testimony for the practice ofexecutio in effigie (execution in effigy). Clearly, theintended audience(s) of the Historia Augusta wereexpected to believe that images may have beenused in this way during the period of politicalupheaval in the third century. It also suggests thatimages may have continued to be executed orcrucified in the fourth and fifth centuries and thatthe scene may have been recognizable to thereaders of the Historia Augusta. Furthermore it un-derscores the crucial roles which imperial repre-sentations continued to play in periods of polit-ical transition.

Gallienus, Salonina, Valerian Minor, Saloninus andMarianianus

Publius Licinius (Valerianus?) Egnatius Gallienuswas declared Co-Augustus when his father, Vale-rian entered Rome in 253. The two ruled joint-ly until Valerian was taken captive by the Per-sians in 260. Gallienus continued to rule as soleAugustus, but his reign was marred by increasedconflicts along the German frontier, several ri-val claimants to the throne, and a deterioratingeconomic situation. In 268 Gallienus was assas-sinated as the result of a plot, which may have

80 G.M.A. Hanfmann was the first to propose the iden-tification of the Antioch bust as Valerian (1959) 749.

81 Sala 10.12, inv. 184; Fittschen-Zanker I, 133-134, no.111, pls. 138-139.

82 The bust has been unevenly cut down on either sideand the back has been cursorily hollowed out. The off-center tenon at the base of bust form above the plinthsuggests that the upper torso was fitted into a second pieceof marble in order to comprise a full-length statue. SeeD.M. Brinkerhoff (1970) 14-15.

83 HA Tyr.Trig. 29.4.84 Tyr.Trig. 29.4: J. von Schlosser (1910-11) 184; W.

Brückner (1966) 192; D. Freedberg (1989) 259; P. Stewart(1999) 169.

the later third century 211

included Gallienus’s immediate successor, Clau-dius Gothicus, as well as the future emperor,Aurelian.85 During his reign Gallienus had in-curred the enmity of the senatorial aristocracy byexcluding them from important positions of com-mand.86 Immediately after his murder, the Sen-ate demonstrated their dissatisfaction with Gal-lienus by voting to have his corpse thrown downthe Gemonian steps and then into the Tiber andhis memory was deprecated in public by both thenobility and the plebeians.87 Gallienus’s surviv-ing son, Marinianus, who had been appointedconsul in 268, was put to death by order of theSenate.88 The troops stationed in Rome, initial-ly outraged by Gallienus’s assassination, wereinduced by a donation of twenty aurei to have thename of Gallienus entered into the public recordas a tyrant: Gallienum tryrannum militari iudico infastos publicos rettulerunt.89 The names of Gallienus,his wife, Julia Cornelia Salonina, and his twoeldest sons Valerian Minor and Saloninus areerased in inscriptions.90 However, Claudius Go-thicus induced the Senate to deify Gallienus, sothe defamation of his memory and monumentsmust have been limited to the brief period be-tween his murder and his deification.91 Despite

the literary evidence, fourteen portraits of Gal-lienus have survived, which speaks against anysystematic destruction of his images.92 Moreover,none of these portraits exhibits any signs of in-tentional mutilation. However, a bronze head inKephallania, which appears to be a variant ofGallienus’s Louvre type, has been intentionallysevered from its original body and discarded ina well as a result of his condemnation, recallingthe earlier decapitated bronze images.93

Carinus

Like Gallienus, Carinus is vilified in the ancientsources, especially the Historia Augusta where hischaracter and reputation are closely linked withearlier condemned emperors including Nero,Vitellius, and Domitian.94 Marcus Aurelius Car-inus was the eldest son of the emperor Carus.After the death of Carus in 283, Carinus ruledthe empire jointly with his brother Numerian,with Carinus controlling the west and Numeri-an the east. Numerian died, or was killed, in 284and the troops under his command refused toacknowledge Carinus as sole emperor, and inopposition, acclaimed Diocletian as Augustus.The armies of Carinus and Diocletian met in 285at Margus along a tributary of the Danube, and85 Others implicated in the plot included Heraclianus,

the Praetorian Praefect, and the military commanders Mar-cianus and Cecropius, HA, Gall. 14.1-5; see also J. Scheid(1984) 182.

86 Aur. Vict. Caes. 33.31-34.87 Ibid.: At senatus comperto tali exitio satellites propinquosque

per scalas Gemonias praeceps agendos decrevit, patronoque fisci incuriam perduci effossos oculos pependisse satis constat, cum irruensvulgus pari clamore Terram matrem, deos quoque inferos precaretur,sedes impias uti Gallieno darent. Ac ni Claudius confestim recptaMediolani urbe tamquam postulato exercitus parcendum, qui forteeorum supererant, praecepisset, nobilitas plebesque atrocius grassaren-tur. Et patres quidem praeter commune Romani malum orbis stim-ulabat proprii ordinis contumelia, quia primus ipse metu socordiaesuae, ne imperium ad optimos nobilium transferretur, senatum mili-tia vetuit et adire exercitum.

88 Zon. 12.26.89 HA, Gall. 15.2.90 R. Cagnat (1914) 173-4. Valerian Minor and Saloni-

nus predeceased Gallienus, both/Valerian Minor were/wasdeified.

91 Claudius Gothicus apparently engineered the deifi-cation of Gallienus in order to placate the army. The apo-theosis notwithstanding, the Historia Augusta is extremelydisparaging towards Gallienus and his reign is comparedto that of Domitian and Commodus, Carus 3.3. The hos-

tile literary tradition may be a remnant of the senatorialdissatisfaction with Gallienus. In addition, the character anddeeds of Gallienus are defamed in the Historia Augusta inorder to present his successor, Claudius Gothicus, the (fic-tive) ancestor of Constantine in a more favorable light.

92 Type 1: Berlin, Staatliche Museen, no. 423; CastleHoward; Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 767b, inv.3388; Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori57, inv. 360; Rome, Palazzo Braschi, Salone, inv. 487; Type2: Brussels, Musée Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, inv. A 3558;Lagos, Museo Regional, inv. 1418; New York, Art Mar-ket (Sotheby’s, 1984); Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 512;Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 1223; Rome, Magazinni deiMercati Traianei, inv. 98; Rome, Museo Capitolino,Magazzini, inv. 2572; Rome, Museo Nazionale Romanodelle Terme, inv. 644; Rome, Museo Torlonia 603; Type3: Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 768, inv. 832. SeeFittschen-Zanker I, 135, 137, and S. Wood (1986)134-35.

93 Kephallenia, Museum; A.M. McCann (1981) 636, pls.10.19, 11.21; A. Oliver (1996) 153.

94 Carus. 1.3.

chapter nine212

although Carinus appeared to be winning thecontest, he was apparently assassinated by oneof his senior officers.95 Carinus’s memory wascondemned and his name, as well as that of hiswife, Magnia Urbica, are erased in inscriptions.96

Carinus’s Portrait Typology

Carinus’s numismatic likenesses portray him witha short military coiffure combined with a distinc-tive full, curly beard. His forehead is low andstraight. His eyes are large and wide, set beneathlong, arching brows. The nose is aquiline, withan indentation at the bridge. The lower lip is full,and the chin is basically rounded.

The Removal of Carinus’s Images

A marble portrait of Carinus in the Palazzo deiConservatori compares very closely with thenumismatic images (fig. 207).97 The head, wellover life-sized, is worked for insertion into a cui-rassed statue. It was likely discovered during ex-cavations carried out near the Piazza VittorioEmanuele on the Esquiline, an area of imperialproperty in antiquity.98 The head remains in anextremely good state of preservation. Only thelower front edge of the tenon has been restoredand there are light abrasions to the brows, face,tip of the nose, and ears. Like the other well-

preserved portraits of condemned emperors dis-covered on the Esquiline, it is inconceivable thatthe portrait continued to be displayed on impe-rial property and it must have been removed andwarehoused or buried.99 The statue into whichit was initially inserted may have been reusedwith the addition of a new portrait head. The lackof any other securely identified sculpted portraitsof Carinus suggests that his images were gener-ally destroyed. Portraits of Carinus’s wife andAugusta, Magnia Urbica and his deified son,Nigrinianus are featured on the coinage, but nocomparable sculpted portraits have survived, andtheir memories and monuments were collateral-ly condemned.100

Carausius and Allectus

Diocletian and Maximian’s authority was serious-ly challenged in Britain for almost a decade,where, from 286/7-296 Carausius and his suc-cessor Allectus ruled in opposition to the tetrar-chy. M. Aurelius Carausius Mausaeus had beenin charge of Maximian’s naval fleet in the En-glish channel, but was condemned to death byMaximian. Carausius fled to Britain and wasdeclared Augustus in his own right late in 286,or early in 287. In 293 he suffered an importantdefeat at the Gallic port city of Gesoriacum atthe hands of Constantius Chlorus. In that sameyear he was murdered at the instigation of Al-lectus, who was himself declared emperor. Allec-tus was defeated by the forces of ConstantiusChlorus.101

95 Epit. 38.8; Eutr. 9.20.96 R. Cagnat (1914) 173-74. RE 2, 2455 (Hentze); On

the damnatio see, G. Gullini (1960) 6; M. Sapelli, MusNazRom1.1, 300; S. Wood (1987) 131, n. 92.

97 Sala dei Magistrati 9, inv. 850 (Centrale Montemar-tini 2.83), h. 0.425 m.; Fittschen-Zanker I, 141-42, no. 117,pls. 145-146; C. Häuber in M. Cima and E. La Rocca, eds.(1986) 177, n. 25, 193, n. 296, fig. 121; D.E.E. Kleiner(1992) 376, fig. 344.

98 The head is often cited as coming from the CastroPretorio, Fittschen-Zanker I, 141, 142, n. 1; however, C.Häuber has rather conclusively demonstrated that it camefrom the Esquiline in M. Cima and E. La Rocca, eds. (1986)177, n. 25, 193, n. 296, fig. 121. There is some confusionas to whether the portrait is that referred to in BullCom 1(1872) 296, no. 36 (from the Esquiline) or in BullCom 15(1887) 92, no. 9 (Castro Pretorio). Whether the head is fromthe Castro Pretorio or the imperial holdings on the Es-quiline, it still was removed from its original context andstored or buried in one location or the other.

99 Nero/Domitian, Museo Nazionale Romano delleTerme, inv. no. 226; Domitian, Centrale Montemartini,inv. no. 1156; and Commodus as Hercules, Palazzo deiConservatori, Sala degli Arazzi, inv. 1120.

100 Despite H. von Heintze’s attempts to identify theyouth on the Acilia sarcophagus as Nigrinianus (1959b) 175-91. See S Wood (1987) 131 and M. Sapelli in M.R. Di Minoand M. Bertenetti, eds. (1990) 145-6; Wood has also sug-gested that a bust of a young boy with paludamentum in theCapitoline may possibly represent Nigrinianus (Stanza degliImperatori, inv. 481) (1987) 131. However, the Capitolineportrait’s resemblances to numismatic likenesses of Nigrin-ianus are tenuous.

101 On the careers of Carausius and Allectus, see P.J.Casey (1994).

the later third century 213

Evidence for the images of Carausius andAllectus is provided by coins where both emper-ors are shown with short military coiffures andbeards, similar to those of Diocletian and Max-imian. Allectus’s hair and beard are generallyrepresented as slightly more full and curly thanthose of Carausius.102 Given Carausius’s condem-nation by Maximian, and the position of bothCarausius and Allectus as emperors in oppositionto the Tetrarchy, their monuments were un-doubtedly destroyed following their downfalls. Adeliberately defaced denarius of Carausius appearsto have been mutilated under Allectus.103 Thecoin was minted at either London or Rutupiaeand Carausias’s facial features have been inten-tionally attacked on the obverse, while one of theclasped right hands on the reverse has been ef-faced. The mutilation of Carausias’s portraitfeatures follows the standard pattern for visualdenigration, while the effacement of the righthand effectively rescinds earlier messages of con-cordia between Carausias and Allectus.

Conclusion: Condemnation and Political Crisis

Because it was a period of maximum instabilityfor the Roman Empire, the middle years of thethird century, c. 235-84, were rife with condem-nations. As in the past, condemnations and theconcomitant repression of visual representationscontinued to mark political transitions, whichwere nearly unremitting during these years. Thefirst of the soldier emperors, Maximinus Thrax,suffered a fate very similar to that of Macrinus.

102 As, for instance, RIC 86, 88, 114; P.J. Casey (1994)pl. 5.9-10.

103 Numismatik Lanz München, Auktion 42 (29 Novem-ber 1987) no. 734.

After his power base had eroded with the Sen-ate and people of Rome, he was eventually killedin battle and his memory condemned. As withMacrinus, all of the surviving marble portraits ofMaximinus have been intentionally disfiguredand his condemnation also encompassed thememory and monuments of his son and heir,Maximus.

Very few principes during this period were ableto establish political legitimacy and dynastic sta-bility with the result that reigns are predictablyshort. These facts, coupled with the general com-plications resulting from the social, economic,military and political chaos of the times, haveproduced a dearth of physical evidence for con-demnations, or alternatively a wealth of negativeevidence. For many of these emperors there arefew surviving visual images, or none at all. Never-theless, portraits continued to be destroyed,mutilated and warehoused. Coins also remainedtargets in condemnations and the period is brack-eted by examples of numismatic damnatio, be-ginning with defaced issues of Maximinus Thraxand Maximus, and ending with damaged coinsof Carausius. In addition, the disfigurement ofGordian III’s bronze image from Nicopolis adIstrum confirms the continued occurrence ofspontaneous demonstrations, comparable to thesimilarly damaged bronze head of Severus Alex-ander in Bochum.

As so many of these emperors were also char-acterized as usurpers or tyranni, their corpses weresubjected to poena post mortem. The bodies ofMaximinus, Maximus, Pupienus, Balbinus andGallienus are all reported to have been desecrat-ed. Additionally, the vivid description of the vi-olation of corpse of the invented usurper “Cel-sus” as well as the crucifixion of his portrait neatlyunderscores the conceptual intersection of imageand corpse abuse.

chapter ten214

Maximian

Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maximianus was bornat Sirmium, c. 240. His successful military careerensured his elevation to the rank of caesar afterDiocletian’s defeat of Carinus in 285 and by 286,Maximian was declared co-augustus in the west.In 293, the Tetrarchy was established and Con-stantius Chlorus was appointed Maximian’s jun-ior colleague. Although he was apparently quiteunwilling to relinquish power, Maximian wasforced to abdicate together with Diocletian on 1May 305.1

In 306, Maximian’s son Maxentius enlisted thesupport of his father against the ruling tetrarchsand Maximian resumed his former title of Au-gustus. However, the alliance of father and sonwas short-lived and Maximian eventually sidedwith his son-in-law Constantine against Maxen-tius. After the Council of Carnuntum in 308,Maximian refused to relinquish his position asecond time. His troops were eventually besiegedby those of Constantine at Masilia and he ulti-mately surrendered. As a result, Maximian wasforced to commit suicide in 310.

After Maximian’s death, Constantine pursueda damnatio against his father-in-law’s memory andmonuments in the territories under his control.2

Lactantius, writing shortly after the death ofMaximian (ca. 314-318),3 describes the removaland destruction of Maximian:’s portraits. eodem-que tempore senis Maximiani statuae Constantini iussu

revellebantur et imagines ubicumque pictus esse(n)t detra-hebantur (At the same time, statues of the elderMaximian were abolished by order of Constan-tine, and his portraits, which were displayedeverywhere, were dragged down,).4 In direct op-position to Constantine’s condemnation of Max-imian, Maxentius had his father deified and is-sued coins from the mints at Rome and Ostia inhonor of Divus Maximianus (310-12), despite thefact that Maximian had joined forces with Con-stantine.5 Later, Constantine himself reversed hisposition and rescinded the damnatio against hisfather-in-law and issued coins in honor of DivusMaximianus (317-18).6

Most of Maximian’s numismatic likeness areschematic with the result that sculpted images areextremely difficult to identify with certainty.7

CHAPTER TEN

THE EARLY FOURTH CENTURY

1 On the possibility that the abdication was engineeredby Galerius, see M. Cullhed (1994) 14-31.

2 The damnatio may not have been officially promulgateduntil after the death of Constantine; see Eus. Vita Const. 1.47;T.D. Barnes (1973) 34-35 and (1981) 47.

3 On the controversy surrounding the date of the com-position of De Mortibus Persecutorum, see T.D. Barnes (1973)29-46.

4 Mort.Pers. 42.1.5 RIC 6.381-83, nos. 243-44, 250-51 (Rome) and 403-

4, nos. 24-26 (Ostia); R. Calza (1972) 120, pl. 24.64 (Os-tia); M. Cullhed (1994) 77.

6 As part of a series of consecration issues which alsoincluded Claudius Gothicus, the fictional founder of theConstantinian dynasty, RIC 7.180, 252, 310-11, 395, 429-30, 503, R.A.G. Carson (1981) 33, no. 1291; see also M.Cullhed (1994) 22. Constantine probably promoted the con-secration of Maximian because he was the grandfather ofConstantine’s sons and heirs, T.D. Barnes (1978) 16, n. 6.

7 Klaus Fittschen has suggested the following four por-traits: Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 771b, inv.2691; Ostia, Museo, inv. 1844; Rome, Musei Vaticani,Galleria Chiaramonti 47.19, inv. 1981; Rome, Musei Vat-icani, Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 10217; Fittschen-Zanker I, 144, n. 41. However, these portraits do not ap-pear to represent the same individual and certainly do notform a replica series. One individual feature of Maximi-an’s coin portraits is a short, sometimes snub nose. Thenoses on the portraits from Fittschen’s group which are pre-served (the Ostia and two Vatican portraits) are fairly largeand prominent and somewhat hooked. For other discussionsof Maximian’s portraiture, see, R. Calza (1972); M. 107,117-18, 139-40, 178-79, ns. 584, 731; and H.P. L’Orange(1984) 24-25, 104-105.

the early fourth century 215

Maximian is however, represented together withthe other members of the first tetrarchy in theporphyry groups in Venice and Rome.8 Lactan-tius’s account confirms that some of Maximian’sportraits were removed from public display anddestroyed, which may also account for the lackof securely identified portraits.9 Indeed, physicalevidence for the damnatio of Maximian is entire-ly confined to the provinces. Not surprisingly, hisname is not erased in major dedicatory inscrip-tions at Rome, which was controlled by his sonMaxentius from 306-12, including that of theBaths of Diocletian and Maximian.10 Neverthe-less, a painted portrait effaced from frescoes for-merly decorating a room devoted to the imperi-al cult in Luxor corroborates Lactantius’s reportof the destruction of Maximian’s images. A cen-tral chamber of the Temple of Ammon was re-modeled during the tetrarchic period, when anapse and frescoes were added. The frescoes nolonger survive, but were recorded in watercolorsexecuted by J. Gardner Wilkinson in the nine-teenth century.11 The program included twoimperial processions, the emperors enthronedreceiving tribute, and, in the apse, the fourmembers of the first tetrarchy, Diocletian, Max-imian, Galerius, and Constantius Chlorus, stand-

ing. The two senior emperors are depicted at thecenter of the apse, flanked by their junior col-leagues. The left senior tetrarch has been hasbeen deliberately erased from the compositionand this figure was undoubtedly Maximian.12

Maximian’s excision from the frescoes must haveoccurred shortly after his death, during the briefperiod when Lucius Domitius Alexander heldAfrica in opposition to Maxentius. The erasureof the Luxor fresco directly recalls the erasure ofGeta’s portrait features from the Berlin tondo,also from Egypt, and is another powerful expres-sion of abolitio memoriae for painted images.

Undoubtedly, some of Maximian’s publicimages were removed from display at variouslocations s throughout the Empire. The remov-al of his portraits in the provinces is further con-firmed by a statue base removed from a tetrapy-lon commemorating the members of the firsttetrarchy, which decorated the front of the Tem-ple of Hadrian at Ephesus.13 The statue of Max-imian was apparently not replaced until the endof the fourth century when a likeness of Theo-dosius was set up in its place.

Maxentius, Galeria Valeria Maximilla and Romulus

Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maxentius, born c.276-83, was the son of Maximian and Eutropia.14 Inorder to cement the ties among the members ofthe first tetrarchy, Maxentius was married c. 293to Valeria Maximilla, the daughter of Galerius,Caesar in the East. Having been passed over inthe establishment of the second tetrarchy after theretirement of Diocletian and Maximian in 305,Maxentius was eventually declared emperor bydisaffected troops stationed in Rome in 306.15

8 Vatican tetrarchs, H. P. L’Orange (1984) 6-8, 27, 99,pls. 5, 7; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 403-4, figs. 368-9.

Venice Tetrarchs, H.P. L’Orange, (1984). 4, 6-8, 103,pls. 4, 6; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 401-3, figs. 366-7.

Although L’Orange, and others have identified theVatican tetrarchs as representing the second tetrarchy, thegroups almost certainly come from Rome or its environsand it is inconceivable that images commemorating a con-sortium of power which Maxentius did not recognize andwas in opposition to would have been created in an areaunder his control. All four of the Venice tetrarchs, whichare generally believed to represent the members of the firsttetrarchy, have been intentionally mutilated, with deliber-ate damage to the noses, mouths, ears, and badges. Thismutilation is a Christian desecration of the portraits of thoseperceived as persecutors and not the result of Maximian’sdamnatio.

9 H.P. L’Orange (1984) 24.10 CIL 6.1130=3.242=ILS 646.11 U. Monneret de Villard (1953) 85-105; J.G. Deck-

ers (1973) 1-34; I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner (1975) 225-51; J.G.Deckers (1979) 600-52; J. Elsner (1995) 173-6, figs. 22-24.

12 I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner (1975) 227.13 I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner (1975) 247.14 On the evidence for the date of Maxentius’s birth,

see M. Cullhed (1994) 16, n. 26. Eutropia’s confession, afterMaxentius’s birth that he was, in fact, illegitimate, shouldprobably be connected with posthumous attempts to black-en his reputation; T.D. Barnes (1982) 34.

15 28 October; Lact. Mort.Pers. 26.2. As the son ofMaximian, and son-in-law of Galerius, Maxentius may havereasonably expected to have been made part of the sec-

chapter ten216

Maxentius enjoyed wide popular and militarysupport in central and southern Italy, Sicily,Sardinia, Corsica, Africa, and possibly Spain.16

Attempts by Severus, Augustus in the West af-ter the death of Constantius Chlorus, and Gale-rius to attack Rome and depose Maxentius wereentirely unsuccessful; Severus was defeated andexecuted (by Maximian) and Galerius abandonedhis attempt.17 In 308, at the conference of Car-nuntum, Maxentius was declared a hostis. Shortlyafterwards, Lucius Domitius Alexander, the pra-etorian praefect in Africa revolted, and Maxen-tius’s grain supply was cut off. In 311, Maxen-tius’s other praetorian praefect, Gaius RufiusVolusianus, was sent to Africa where he defeat-ed Domitius Alexander, but not before there wasa severe famine at the capital. Finally, in 312,Constantine captured Segusio, Augusta Tau-rinorum, Verona, and Mutina in rapid succes-sion in his advance on Rome, where he engagedMaxentius at the Pons Mulvius. Maxentius wasdefeated and drowned during the encounter on28 October.18 Maxentius’s condemnation fol-lowed as a natural consequence of his defeat andhis previous declaration as a hostis in 308. As partof the damnatio, Maxentius’s corpse was removedfrom the Tiber and its head cut off and paradedthough the streets of Rome.19 The Roman Sen-ate moved quickly to publicly repudiate theirformer support of Maxentius by dishonoring hismemory and monuments. The defeated emper-or was publicly characterized as a tyrannus in theinscription from the Arch of Constantine.20

Naturally, Maxentius is also vilified by earlyChristian writers, eager to exalt the reputationof Constantine.21

Maxentius’s Portrait Typology

Nevertheless, during his six year reign, Maxen-tius was honored with portraits and his sculptedand numismatic representations are remarkablyconsistent. Coin portraits, even the most abstractor expressionistic issues, depict Maxentius witha very distinctive coiffure, which combines a shortmilitary hairstyle with carefully arranged commashaped locks over the forehead.22 A left profileon a metropolitan Roman medallion of 308, aswell as a frontal portrait on an Ostian aureus of308-312 reveal that these comma shaped locksare essentially parted in the center, with the locksover the right eye combed lightly to the properright and the locks over the left eye combed light-ly to the proper left.23 Maxentius wears a close-ly cropped beard and moustache. His foreheadis low and his eyes are wide, set beneath long,arching brows. The nose is long and aquiline.The mouth is small, and in some examples thelower lip appears to recede slightly. The chin isfirm, and often squared.

The Mutilation and Destruction of Maxentius’sImages

Four sculpted portraits conform closely to thenumismatic likenesses and are clearly replicas ofa single type.24 Modern restorations to a head inStockholm mask ancient mutilations to the por-

ond tetrarchy. M. Cullhed marshalls the literary and his-torical evidence for Galerius’s blocking the accession of bothMaxentius and Constantine (1994) 14-31.

16 On the territories controlled by Maxentius, see M.Cullhed (1994) 68-70.

17 Lactantius, Mort.Pers. 26.6-7; Anon. Vales 7; M.Cullhed (1994) 36-7.

18 Eumen. Paneg. 12(9).18; Lact. Mort.Pers. 26.3; M.Cullhed (1994) 32.

19 Paneg. 9 (11) 18.3.20 CIL 6.1139.21 See, for instance, Eus. Eccl.Hist. 8.14.1-6. Eusebius

also acknowledges Maxentius’s favorable treatment of the

Christians, although he sese Maxentius’s motives as self-serving and falsely pious. The archaeological record sup-ports Maxentius’s policy of toleration of the Christians. Twoof Rome’s earliest public churches, S. Crisogono and S. Se-bastiano fuori le mura were constructed or substantially re-modeled during his reign. T.L. Herres (1982) 261, 344.

22 Aureus, Rome, 307-12, RIC VI, 373, no. 173. Thearrangement of locks over the forehead recalls Julio-Clau-dian and Trajanic coiffures and must certainly have beenintentional revival on the part of Maxentius. After his defeatof Maxentius, Constantine also adopts a coiffure whichcontains Julio-Claudian/Trajanic references.

23 Roman medallion, R.A.G. Carson (1981) 23, nr.1246; Ostian aureus, R.A.G. Carson (1981) 24, no. 1253.

24 On the iconography of Maxentius, see especiallyC. Evers (1992) 9-21; H. P. L’Orange (1984) 34-36, 114-16.

the early fourth century 217

trait (cat. 9.1; fig. 208a-b).25 The eyes have beenattacked with a hammer and the nose, (lower lip),chin, and most of the ears have all been inten-tionally destroyed. The mutilation of the facialfeatures and destruction of the eyes follows theestablished patterns of anthropomorphic attackson the sensory organs. The square shape of thetenon indicates that this head was originally partof a cuirassed representation of Maxentius. As amilitary image of the overthrown leader, theStockholm portrait may have been especially li-able to vandalization following Constantine’svictory. The statue itself may have been recon-figured through the addition of a new portraithead, likely of Constantine himself.

The Transformation of Maxentius’s Images

Maxentius/Constantine

In addition to the removal of images of Maxen-tius, Constantine’s efforts to obliterate the mem-ory of his defeated rival encompassed the appro-priation of Maxentius’s major building projects,including the monumental Basilica Nova to theeast of the Forum Romanum on the Via Sacra,the circus complex on the Via Appia, and theimperial baths on the Quirinal.26 Significantly,sculpted likenesses were also appropriated and

recarved. Indeed, the reign of Constantine isremarkable for the renewed interest in the recut-ting of portraits, after the relatively limited evi-dence for the practice in the second and thirdcenturies. As a mark of this renewed interest insculptural transformation, four of Constantine’ssurviving portraits from Rome have been refash-ioned from likenesses of Maxentius.

Although its origins as a Maxentian portraitare seldom discussed, the colossal portrait ofConstantine in the cortile of the Palazzo deiConservatori is certainly the most famous of theserecarved images, and as such it holds enormouslyimportant implications for the history of damna-tio as well as for the development of Constantin-ian portraits and sculptural styles (cat. 9.4; fig.209a-d).27 The head is worked for insertion intoan acrolighic seated statue. It was discovered in1486 during the pontificate of Innocent VIIICybo (1484-1492) in the ruins of the BasilicaNova. Fragments of the arms, left breast, legs,both feet, right arm, right hand, and possiblesecond right hand have survived.28 The discov-ery of the left breast, portions of the left shoul-der and arm in 1951 indicates that the originalimage of Maxentius depicted the emperor in theguise of Jupiter, seated, with upper torso bare andmantle draped over the hips, and holding a scep-ter in his right hand.29

The head itself exhibits unmistakable signs ofrecutting. The forehead of the portrait has clearlybeen cut back beneath the hairline as part of thetransformation of the coiffure, creating a flattrough in this area in profile. The wide, archingbrows and large eyes have essentially retainedtheir Maxentian characteristics including thepouches beneath the eyes. The emphasis on the

25 Nationalmuseum, inv. 106.26 On the basis of mortar and brick type, T.L. Heres

has demonstrated that the Basilica was completed entirelyby Maxentius; the addition of the northern apse, often at-tributed to Constantine, should be dated to the late fourthor early fifth century and may be the work of Honorius(1982) 223-32. Similarly, the brickwork of the “Baths ofConstantine” on the Quirinal indicate a Maxentian datefor the sturcuture, E.M. Steinby in A. Giardina, ed. (1986)142. In addition to the Basilica, Baths and Circus complex,the six years of Maxentius reign witnessed extensive newbuilding and restoration to earlier structures, including“The Temple of Romulus,” “The Temple of MinervaMedica,” the Secretarium Senatus, the Statio Municipi-orum, the Basilica Aemilia, the Temple of Venus andRoma, the Severan baths on the Palatine, the Lateran Pal-ace, the churches of S. Crisogono and S. Lorenzo Fuori leMura, and possibly a restoration of the Ara Pacis. For abrief survey of Maxentius’s building activity, see M. Cull-hed (1994) 49-60. On the restorations of the Ara Pacis, seeN. Hannestad (1994) 13-66.

27 Inv. 1622.28 The second right hand was not discovered with the

other fragments in the Basilica but was rather reused in amedieval wall on the slope of the Capitoline. Although itis of Parian marble, like the majority of the fragments, itis not entirely clear that it is from the same colossus, P.Pensabene, L. Lazzarini, and B. Turi (2002) 254.

29 Gianni Ponti of the Sovrintendenza Archeologica diRoma has discovered that the right hand has been incor-rectly restored with the index finger extended, rather thancurled around the scepter.

chapter ten218

eyes endows the image with its acknowledgedspiritual and hieratic quality which was clearlya feature of the likeness of Maxentius. The dis-tinctive treatment of the ears, as well as the typeof marble used for most of the statue, namelyParian, may indicate that the portrait has beenreconfigured twice, and that it originally repre-sented Hadrian.30

The visual discrepancies occasioned by therecarving are exaggerated because of the colos-sal scale of the portrait, but are substantially lessvisible when the portrait is viewed from below.The portrait was displayed in the Basilica’s west-ern apse, which would have masked many of theasymetricalities and exaggerations that are onlyvisible in profile. The configuration of the colos-sus as a representation of Maxentius as Jupiterwas designed for the overwhelming scale of thebasilica’s interior. Like other colossi transformedas a result of damnatio, the image was site-specif-ic and appropriated or cannibalized by Constan-tine as a very visible symbol of his triumph overMaxentius.

A second portrait of Constantine, in the MuseoCapitolino, is also a modified likeness of Max-entius (cat. 9.3; fig. 210a-c).31 The coiffure of theportrait has been drastically recut over the fore-head, but traces of the original Maxentian coif-fure, which curved down lower in the center, arestill visible. The recarving of the facial featureshas also resulted in an inorganic rendering of themusculature of the cheeks, with little indicationof the structure of the bones beneath. Indeed, theresulting recarved image is a both remarkablygeneric and abstract. Nevertheless, identificationof the portrait was likely secured in antiquity byan accompanying inscription.

A cuirassed portrait of Constantine, now dis-played on the Campidoglio, also exhibits clearsigns of reworking (cat. 9.2; fig. 211).32 The plinthof the portrait is inscribed CONSTANTINUSAVG. The statue was one of four Constantinian

portraits from the Baths of Maxentius and Con-stantine on the Quirinal.33 This statue, and oneinscribed CONSTANTINUS CAES likely rep-resenting Constantine II were brought to theCampidoglio under Pope Paul III Farnese in1535.34 The head of the Constantine Augustusis overly large in profile, the ears are too largein proportion to the head, suggesting that theimage is recarved. An indentation in the foreheadindicates that the coiffure has also been recut. Inaddition, the head has an exaggerated downwardtilt and is slightly smaller in proportion to thebody than in the corresponding representation ofConstantine Caesar, which appears to have beencreated ex novo and likely represents ConstantineII.

A colossal cuirassed statue of Constantine inthe narthex of the Lateran also originally be-longed to the four statue group from the bathson the Qurinal (cat. 9.5). Its’ plinth is similarlyinscribed CONSTANTINUS AVG but the por-trait’s larger scale and different style of letteringdifferentiate it from the pair on the Campidoglio.Its pose, with outstretched left arm is a mirrorimage of the Constantine Casear, and also dis-tinguishes it from the Constantine Augustus. TheLateran image includes numerous indications thatit has been refashioned. The Baths of Constan-tine, like the Basilica Nova, were primarily thework of Maxentius.35 The inscriptions on theplinths of the statues appear to be recut. H.P.L’Orange has proposed that the group was aConstantinian reworking of an earlier tetrarchicmonument, perhaps intended to celebrate Con-stantine’s new position as sole ruler after thedefeat of Licinius in 324.36 However, it seems

30 C. Evers (1991); P. Pensabene, L. Lazzarini, and B.Turi (2002) 254.

31 Stanza terrena a destra I.25, inv. 1769.32 Fittschen-Zanker I, 144-5, no. 120.

33 On the group, see L’Orange (1984) 58-67; Kleiner(1992) 436-7.

34 Fittschen-Zanker I, 145-7, no. 121, pls. 149-50. Thecolossal cuirassed portrait, also inscribed CONSTANTI-NUS AVG, in the narthex of S. Giovanni in Laterano isanother of the four statues discovered in the baths. Thefourth statue is now lost; A. Claridge (1998) 235. Howev-er, the Lateran statue differs from the Campidoglio por-traits in scale and in the style of lettering on the plinth.

35 M. Cullhed (1994) 56; M. Steinby in A. Giardina ed.,(1986) 142.

36 (1984) 63-65.

the early fourth century 219

more likely that the group, or part of it, was sitespecific to the baths as constructed by Maxen-tius and subsequently appropriated and alteredby Constantine, as in the case of the colossus. Ifthe Constantine Caesar statue on the Campi-doglio represented Constantine’s second son,Constantine II, the group could have been trans-formed as early as 317, the year in which hereceived the title Caesar. It is unclear what theoriginal group may have consisted of, but per-haps two slightly different cuirassed representa-tions of Maxentius in pose and scale (the Later-an statue and the Campidoglio Augustus). Theslightly larger proportions of the head of theConstantine Caesar suggest that it, and possiblythe lost statue may have been added later, tocelebrate Constantine and his sons.

The Removal of Maxentius’s Images

Three additional portraits exhibit no signs ofdeliberate mutilation and all are likely to havebeen removed from public display after Maxen-tius’s damnatio. Two of the portraits, in Dresden(fig. 212),37 and Hannover.38 are worked for in-sertion. Sections of both ears and the back of thehead are missing in the Dresden portrait. TheHannover head lacks its ears and tip of the noseand its surfaces are badly abraded. The Dresdenand Hannover heads were inserted into togatestatue bodies, perhaps capite velato.39 Both por-traits must have been removed from their stat-ues following Maxentius’s damnatio; the state ofpreservation of the Dresden likeness indicate thatit was warehoused following removal, while the

badly abraded surfaces of the Hannover headsuggests that it has suffered long immersion inwater. As in the past, this image may have beenthrown into a body of water as a mark of Max-entius’s posthumous denigration. A third portraitof Maxentius, in the Museo Torlonia, has beenattached to an ancient bust to which it does notbelong (fig. 213).40 The Torlonia likeness is fromRome or its environs and was removed from itsoriginal context following Maxentius’s over-throw.41 In addition to the sculpted portraits,Maxentius’s likeness has been preserved on onecameo/intaglio.42 The gem depicts Maxentiuswith standard coiffure and profile and wearingthe corona civica, as on several monetary issues.

The removal of honorific representations ofMaxentius is corroborated by a statue base in theForum,43 as well as erased inscriptions, includ-ing another base from the Forum dedicated byMaxentius to Mars Pater Invictus.44 In addition,an inscription which commemorated the reded-ication of the Colossus of Nero to Maxentius’sdeified son Romulus was removed and incorpo-rated into the attic of the arch of Constantine.45

The Collateral Condemnation of Galeria ValeriaMaximilla and Romulus

Images of Galeria Valeria Maximilla are likelyto have been removed or destroyed collaterallywith those of her husband Maxentius.46 As thedaughter of Galerius, Maximilla’s marriage toMaxentius, which probably took place in 293 theyear in which the dyarchy formally became atetrarchy, was intended to link the family of the

37 Antikensammlung, inv. 406, h. 0.264m (face) H. P.L’Orange (1984) 35, 114, pl. 27a-b (with earlier literature);Fittschen-Zanker I, 143-44, n. 2, 145, n. 8; 149, 157, ns.1, 7; J. Meischner (1986) 235, n. 56; M. Bergmann in Al-banien (Hildesheim 1988) no. 430-31, no. 343; C. Evers(1992) 11-21, figs. 2, 8, 14.

38 Kestner-Museum, inv. 1979.1, h. 0.492 m.; theportrait lacks its ears, and most of its nose, and its surfac-es are badly abraded; C. Evers (1992) 9-21, figs.1,2,4,7,9,11,12 (with earlier literature).

39 See C. Evers (1992) 20-21.

40 No. 600, precise measurements unavailable, lifesized;C. Gasparri and I Caruso (1980) 226, no. 600; H. P.L’Orange (1984) 35, 115, pl. 26a-b (with earlier literature);C. Evers, (1992) 11-12.

41 Only the nose of the portrait has been restored.42 Cades Collection; R. Calza (1972) 193-4, no. 109,

pl. 64.212.43 CIL 6.31394a=33857.44 CIL 6.33856=ILS 8935.45 P. Peirce (1989) 404; M. Cullhed (1994) 6146 On Maximilla, see, RE suppl. 6 (1903) 662; R. Calza

(1972) 196; M Wegner, in H. P. L’Orange (1984) 152.

chapter ten220

junior emperor in the East with that of the se-nior emperor in the West. Maximilla bore twosons, including Romulus, who died and wasdeified c. 309.47 As the mother of Maxentius’sheirs, and, later his deified son, Maximilla wouldhave been honored with portraits, especially inRome, the capital of her husband’s territory.48

Maximilla was not, however, featured on Max-entius’s coinage which makes attempts to iden-tify sculpted portraits highly speculative. Never-theless, an intentionally mutilated image in theMuseo Capitolino bears strong iconographic sim-ilarities to the representations of Maxentius andmay represent Maximilla (cat. 9.6; fig. 214).49

The portrait includes a version of the Scheitelzopfhairstyle popular in the later tetrarchic period.50

The handling of the eyes, with their enlargedouter corners, the modeling of the cheeks, theshape of the mouth, and the linear, calligraphictreatment of the strands of hair are especiallyclose to the portraits of Maxentius in Dresdenand Stockholm.51 Such similarities of iconogra-

phy and style are often typical of representationsof imperial couples.52 The head has been delib-erately attacked with a hammer or chisel, caus-ing extensive disfigurement to the forehead, lefteye, nose, mouth and chin which is very similarto that suffered by the Stockholm likeness ofMaxentius (Cat 9.1). If the Capitoline portraitrepresents Maximilla, as seems highly likely, itmust have been defaced at the time of the em-press’s collateral condemnation together with herhusband.

Maximinus Daia

As the nephew of Galerius, Maximinus Daia waschosen to become Caesar in the East after theabdication of Diocletian and Maximian in 305.In 308, at the council of Carnuntum, Maximi-nus was passed over in favor of Licinius for therank of Augustus. Nevertheless, Galerius’s troopsrefused to recognize the council’s decision andin 310, declared their commander Augustus.After the death of Galerius in 311, Maximinusand Galerius vied for control of east, and on 1May 313, Galerius suffered a decisive defeat atCampus Serenus in Thrace. Maximinus fled toTarsus, where he became sick and died in Au-gust. Maximinus’s memory was condemned andEusebius vividly describes the destruction whichbefell Maximinus Daia’s images:

BDäJ`H Jg ("D 9">4µÃ<@H "ÛJÎH 6@4<ÎH•B’<JT< A@8X:4@H ßBÎ Jä< 6D"J@b<JT<•<"(@DgL2g\H, *LFFg$XFJ"J@H 6" *LFT-

<L:fJ"J@H 6"Â 2g:4FXFJ"J@H JbD"<@H *4"xBD@(D"::VJT< *0:@F\T< •<gFJ08\JgLJ@,(D"N"\ Jg ÓF"4 gÆH J4:¬< "ÛJ@Ø Jg 6"ÂJä< "ÛJ@Ø B"\*T< 6"J"x B”F"< •<X6g4<J@B`84< "Ì :g< ¦> àR@LH gÆH §*"N@H Õ4BJ@b-:g<"4 FL<gJD\$@<J@

As for Maximinus himself, he was the first to bepublicly proclaimed by the rulers as an enemycommon to everyone, and he was entered intothe public records as a most ungodly, ill-omened,and god-hating tyrant. His painted portraits and

47 On the sons, see Lact. Mort.Pers. 9.9; Paneg.19(XII).16.5; ILS 672, 673.

48 And indeed, an inscription from the Via Labicana,in which Maximilla is commemorated as Nobilissima Fem-ina, a title awarded to imperial women in the Late Romanperiod and apparently used here for the first time, providesevidence for such portrait honors ILS 667; this title mayhave been intended to commemorate Maximilla’s positionas the daughter of the reigning Augustus in the East, seeRE 794. R. Calza has suggested that because this portraitwas dedicated by Romulus to his mother, she may havepredeceased him (supra n. 103) 196. If so this would meanthat Maximilla died before 309, and this may help to ex-plain the lack of sculpted as well as numismatic likenesses.M. Cullhed has interpreted the inscription as nobilis feminainstead of nobilissima, (1994) 32.

49 Magazzini, inv. 106.50 For instance, as seen in coins minted in the east of

Galeria Valeria, the step-mother of Maximilla, RIC 6, 15,33, 64, 109, 478, 489, 524-5, 547-9, 572-3, 626-8, 632-3,637, 639, 654-5, 671-3, pls. 9.196, 10.43, 11.29, 34, 13.57,14.58; F. Gnecchi, I, 13, 14, pl. 6.3; For the iconographyof Galeria Valeria see R. Delbrueck (1933) 46, 55, 166; R.Calza (1972) 148-152; H.P. L’Orange (1984) 151, pl. 72.i;and infra.

51 Fittschen-Zanker III, 117 and supra. Alternatively, thestrong physiognomic similarities between the Capitolinehead and the Dresden and Stockholm portraits of Maxen-tius could suggest that the head represents Maxentius’s sis-ter, Fausta, the wife of Constantine, however, the hairstyleof the Capitoline head is not does not find close parallelson Fausta’s numismatic portraits.

52 See, for instance, S. Wood (1981) 59-68; R.R.R.Smith (1985) 214-5; E.R. Varner (1995) 191-93.

the early fourth century 221

those of his children, which had been set up intheir honor in all cities, were thrown on the groundand utterly broken, and the faces of some werecovered with dark paint and made worthless. Andthe statues which had been erected in his honorwere also hurled down and broken in a similarmanner, and as objects of derision and playthings,they were exposed for anyone to mock and dis-honor.53

Although portraits in Berlin,54 Chieti,55 andLeiden56 have been associated with Maximinus,none can be identified with certainty, and noneexhibit any signs of intentional mutilation.

Prisca, Galeria Valeria and Candidianus

Prisca, the wife of Diocletian, and her daughterGaleria Valeria, the widow of Galerius wereexecuted as a result of their political alliance withMaximinus Daia. Galeria Valeria was married toGalerius in A.D. 293. Galeria bore Galerius onesone, Candidianus and she was awarded the ti-tle of augusta in 305, at the time of her father’sretirement and her husband’s assumption of theposition of augustus. After the death of Galeriusin 311, both Galeria Valeria and her motherPrisca lent their support to Maximinus Daia inopposition to Licinius. Maximinus Daia may haveeven planned to marry Galeria Valeria in orderto validate his position.57 After the defeat ofMaximinus Daia, Licinius ordered the executionsof Prisca, Galeria Valeria, and Candidianus.58

Prisca was not honored with numismatic por-traits,59 but images of her daughter, GaleriaValeria are featured prominently on the coin-age.60 In addition, she was originally depicted in

a tondo on the smaller Arch of Galerius at Thes-salonika (cat. 9.8; fig. 215).61 This relief portraithas been recut to represent a female deity withturretted crown (Fortuna or a city presonifica-tion), almost certainly in response to GaleriaValeria’s condemnation. No three dimensionalportraits of Prisca, Galeria Valeria, or Candidi-anus can be positively identified and may be theresult of their fall from power in 314/15 and theirsubsequent damnationes under Licinius.

Crispus and Fausta

Crispus was the eldest surviving son of Constan-tine by his first wife or concubine, Minervina. Hewas born c. 303-5, and held the consulship to-gether with his half-brother Constantine II. Al-though still relatively young, on 3 July 324 heenjoyed a major naval victory over Licinius andseemed destined for an illustrious career or eventhe principate. However, he was executed inMarch of 326, his memory condemned and hisname erased in inscriptions.62 Crispus’s downfallis linked with that of his stepmother Fausta whowas killed shortly after him and the two may havebeen involved in a plot to overthrow Constan-tine.

As Constantine’s eldest son and a potentialheir, Crispus was honored with numismatic por-traits and they depict him with a distinctive coif-fure of long, comma shaped locks parted in thecenter of the forehead;63 the locks at the templesand in front of the ears reverse direction and curlback up towards the central part.64 Crispus isrepresented with a low forehead, large eyes be-neath long arching brows, slightly hooked noseand small mouth.

Although it is bearded, an unfinished head inOstia reproduces Crispus’s coiffure as seen on his

53 Ecc.Hist. 9.11.254 Skulpturengalerie, inv. 4132; H. P. L’Orange (1984)

32, 112 (with earlier literature).55 Museo Nazionale, inv. 4296; H. P. L’Orange (1984)

112-13 (with earlier literature).56 Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, inv. I 1961-63; H. P.

L’Orange (1984) 32, 113 (with earlier literature).57 M. Cullhed (1994) 81.58 Lact. Mort.Pers. 36.1-2; 50..1-2.59 Her likeness may occur on a frieze from the Mau-

soleum of Diocletian at Split; M. Wegner in H.P. L’Orange(1984) 141, pl. 13 c (with earlier literature).

60 RIC 6, 15, 33, 64, 109, 478, 489, 524-25, 547-9, 572-33, 626-8, 637, 654-5, 671-3, pl. 9.196, 10.43, 11.29, 34,13.57; 14.58; F. Gnecchi (1912)1. 13, 14, pl. 6.3.

61 Museum, inv. 2466.62 See, for instance, CIL 10.517.63 Silver miliarensis from Nicomedia (325), RIC 89; Gold

solidus from Nicomedia (325); RIC 104; see also R. Calza(1972) pls. 95.336 (solidus from Nicomedia), 95.337 (solidusfrom Trier [325]), 96.340 (gold medallion from Ticinum).

64 The central part is confirmed by one of the gold solidifrom Nicomedia and the gold medallion from Ticinumwhich are left profiles.

chapter ten222

coins, and many of the physiognomical details,including the slightly hooked nose.65 If the por-trait does, indeed, represent Crispus, his condem-nation may have interrupted its completion, asin the unfinished portrait of Domitian in theGetty (fig. 136a-d). Likewise, an unfinished por-trait from Constantinople now in Berlin, whichalso reproduces details of Crispus’s centrallyparted coiffure, may have been left incompleteat the time of his execution.66

Crispus’s stepmother, Flavia Maxima Fausta,the daughter of Maximian and sister of Maxen-tius, was married to Constantine in A.D. 300 andbore five children, three sons (Constantine II,Constantius II, and Constans) and two daughters(Constantia and Helena III).67 She was award-ed the title of Nobilissima Femina, and on 8 No-vember 324 and subsequently her importancewas further underscored by the additional titleof Augusta. As with Valeria Maximilla and Gale-ria Valeria, Fausta’s marriage with Constantinewas carefully engineered to stabilize the alliancebetween her father Maximian and his junior col-league, Constantius Chlorus. Fausta’s position asthe daughter of one ruler and wife of another isduly enshrined in the panegyricus of A.D. 307.68

Fausta was implicated in the events surround-ing Crispus’s downfall and execution in A.D. 326.After Crispus’s execution in 326, Fausta waslocked in the caldarium of her baths at the Do-mus Faustae in Rome and she suffocated orburned to death. Her memory was subsequent-ly damned and her name erased in inscriptions.69

As had happened so often in the past, her con-demnation is cloaked with allegations of sexualmisconduct, in this case of an incestuous naturewith her stepson Crispus. The allegations of sex-

ual misconduct served to blacken her reputationand mask the political ramifications of her ac-tions. It is not surprising that Fausta may haveturned against Constantine, who was responsiblefor the deaths of both her father and brother.

Prior to her death, Fausta was undoubtedlyhonored with numerous public images. After thedeaths of her father Maximian and her brotherMaxentius, Fausta’s role shifted within the dynas-ty and she is primarily celebrated as the motherof Constantine’s heirs. Her likeness was dissem-inated on coins, where she is depicted with aversion of the Scheitelzopf or a more simple hair-style which is centrally parted, waved and gath-ered into a bun at the back of the neck. Some-times the two coiffures are conflated. Fausta’sfacial features are regular and include a low fore-head, aquiline noes, small pointed chin, and longneck.70 Fausta is prominently represented onthe Ada Cameo, which was created ca. A.D.317-20.71 The cameo depicts bust length portraitsof Fausta, her husband, their two sons Constan-tius II and Constantine II, and Helena being car-ried aloft on the backs of two eagles. Fausta issimilarly celebrated as wife and mother on abronze medallion in Nantes which depicts herwith Constantine and all three of her sons.72

Fausta’s commemoration on coins, medallions,and cameos, as well as the surviving marble andbronze likenesses of her husband, sons, andmother-in-law indicate that Fausta enjoyed por-

65 Museo, inv. 45, h. 0.28 m (without the neck); R.Calza (1972) 275-76, no. 185, pls. 95.335, 96.341; H. P.L’Orange (1984) 133 (with earlier literature).

66 Staatliche Museen, Frühchristliche-byzantinischeSammlung, inv. 4694, h. 0.27 m.; R. Calza (1972) 189-90,no. 189, pl. 97.347; H. P. L’Orange (1984) 67, 129, pl. 45b;T.M. Schmidt (1987) 54-6, fig. 4.

67 RE, “Fausta,” no. 3, 2084-86.68 Pan.Lat. 6.8-10; see also S. MacCormack (1981) 177,

264.69 R. Cagnat (1904) 174.

70 For Fausta’s numismatic portrait typology see: R.Calza (1972) 249; M. Wegner in H.P. L’Orange (1984) 152-55; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 443.

71 Trier, Stadtbibliotek; H.P. L’Orange (1984) 127, 138,147, 154, pl. 74.a, with previous literature. Although thecameo has been variously dated, even as early as the Clau-dian period, a Constantinian date is virtually assured bythe configuration of the imperial family (i.e., older veiledwoman, emperor, son, empress, son). Because of the ap-pearance of two rather than three sons, the came is likelyto have been made between the birth of Constantius II inA.D. 317 and Constans in 320; see also, Diana E.E. Kleiner(1992) 441-42, fig. 403; E.R. Varner (2001a) 85.

72 Nantes, Musée Debrée; M. Wegner in H.P.L’Orange (1984) 123, 132-33, 145, 149-50, pl. 75a, withprevious literature. The woman in the medallion has alsobeen identified as Helena, with whom Fausta may havebeen deliberately conflated; see D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 442-43.

the early fourth century 223

trait honors on a similar scale. Nevertheless, hercondemnation mandated the removal and de-struction of her images and has ensured that nosculpted representations of the empress can beidentified with certainty.73

Conclusion: the Return of Sculptural Recycling

The resurgence in sculptural recycling stands outas an important development of the early fourthcentury. If the representations of Elagabalus re-configured into likenesses of Severus Alexanderare discounted as somewhat anomalous becauseof the youthfulness of the two emperors and theirfamilial similarities, the portraits of Maxentiusrecut to Constantine are the first examples in overtwo centuries of the sculptural recycling of ma-ture male rulers. Significantly, sculptural recy-cling was not a limited byproduct of Maxentius’scondemnation, but a major component in Archof Constantine, where relief portraits of reveredpredecessors, Trajan, Hadrian, and MarcusAurelius were reworked into likenesses of Con-stantine. This kind of positive, prospective recy-cling recalls similar practice in Ptolemaic Egyptin which later Ptolemies wished to link themselvesto their powerful and respected ancestors.

Constantine expropriated the portraits of hisdefeated rival Maxentius, as well as the architec-tural monuments of his incredibly ambitiousbuilding program in Rome. Just as Constantine’svisage visually cannibalizes representations of

Maxentius in recut likenesses, such as the colos-sal portrait from the Basilica Nova, so too doesConstantine co-opt the commemorative functionof Maxentius’s architectural achievements. Con-stantine’s expropriations of Maxentius’s imagesand monuments mirrors in microcosm his trans-formation of the Roman empire from a predom-inantly pagan to a fundamentally Christian en-tity.

The process of condemnation and historicalcensure known as damnatio memoriae did not ceasewith the reign of Constantine, but there is nolonger the persuasive body of physical evidencein the form of mutilated, damaged or recycledportraits. Later in the century, sanctions presum-ably were enacted against Julian, as well as usurp-ing emperors, such as Flavius Eugenius in thewest who was ultimately defeated by Theodosiusin 394. Inscriptional, as well as historical evidenceindicates a damnatio also for Flavianus Nicoma-chus, a prominent supporter of Eugenius.74 TheTheodosian Code records sanctions against theeunuch Eutropius, who was condemned after afailed coup against Theodosius in 399. The sanc-tions mandated the destruction of all represen-tations in bronze or marble of Eutropius in placesboth public in private.

Omnes statuas, omnia simulacra, tam ex aere quam exmarmore seu ex fucis quam ex quacumque materia quaeapta est effingendis, ab omnibus civitatibus oppidis locisqueprivatis ac publicis praecipimus aboleri.

We prescribe that all of his statues, all of hisrepresentations, whether made out of bronze orof marble, or of paint, or whatever material suit-able for making images are to be abolished fromall cities and towns, in locations both public andprivate.75

The specification of both public and private lo-cations employs nearly identical language to thesanctions passed against Messalina (nomen et effi-gies privatis ac publicis locis demovendas).76

73 Several likenesses have been associated with Faus-ta, but none of them find sufficient correspondences withher numismatic representations to permit secure identifi-cation, see M. Wegner in H. P. L’Orange (1984) 152-55.Although Wegner identifies an underlifesized bronze bustin Arles as a secure likeness of Fausta (Musée Lapidaire;[1984]153, pl. 75a-c; see also D.E.E. Kleiner [1992] 443,fig. 405 and F.P. Arata [1993] 194, pl. 47.1-2), the hair-style of the bust is quite different from any of those wornby Fausta on coins, medals or gems. The Arles coiffure isclosest to that seen on a follis from Lyon (RIC 7, 137, no.235), a medallion from Trier (R.A.G. Carson [1981] 31no. 1284, with fig.), and a follis from Heraclea (Carson[1981] 36, no. 1308). However, the hair on the Arles bustis pulled directly back from the face, causing the locks torun in a conspicuous horizontal direction, while Fausta’scoiffure on the coins has the locks running vertically, fram-ing the face, and then crimped in large horizontal waves.

74 The damnatio and subsequent rehabilitation are treat-ed at length by C. W. Hedrick (2000).

75 Cod. Theod. 9.40.17.; P. Stewart (1999) 161; C.W.Hedrick (2000) 100-101.

76 Tac. Ann. 11.38.3.

chapter ten224

Spontaneous demonstrations had earlier beencarried out even against the images of Theodo-sius himself and his family at Antioch, in the“Riot of the Statues” in 387.77 Early in the fifthcentury, the memory of Stilicho was condemnedin 408, and an erased statue base remained in situin the Forum Romanum as a mark of his deni-gration.78

Damnatio memoriae remained a remarkably re-silient and persistent feature of the Roman his-torical landscape throughout the imperial peri-od. Despite evolving and shifting political, social,and economic patterns, post mortem sanctionswhich mutilated and transformed the visual re-alities of Roman daily life continued to indelibly

stamp the often cataclysmic changes in rulers andregimes which characterized the imperial system.Indeed, images proved crucial to the communi-cation and interaction between subject and rulerduring periods of political transistion and crisis.Furthermore, artistic representations of con-demned rulers and other members of the impe-rial family provided an indispensable physical andcathartic outlet. The disfigurement, dismember-ment, destruction and reconfiguration inflicted onthese images were important manifestations of theexperiential aspect of Roman art in both theoryand practice. Ultimately, the conspicuous conti-nuity exhibited in the processes of historical cen-sure and redaction as manifested in the visualrecord of imperial portraits, spanning over fourcenturies, stands as a defining attribute of Romancultural identity and romanitas.

77 P. Stewart (1999).78 CIL 6.31987; C. W. Hedrick, jr. (2000) 110.

caligula 225

Mutilated Portraits

1.1. Aquiliea, Museo Archeologico, inv.128

h. 0.12 m.marble fragmentprovenance: unknownpublications: H. Jucker (1982) 111, pl. 15.1-2; D. Boschung (1989) 120, no. 49, pl. 39.5-6 (with earlier literature); E.R. Varner (2001)48; here, 24, 44, 114, fig. 3.

The Aquileia fragment is the sole remainingsection, consisting of chin, mouth, and nose froman over-life-sized representation of Caligula,which appears to have been destroyed with ahammer or chisel following Caligula’s condem-nation.

1.2. Sagunto, Museo ArqueológicoH. 0.25 m.fragmentary marble headprovenance: Saguntum, Forumpublications: D. Hertel (1982) 261-3, no. 3, pl.43a-6; D. Boschung (1989) 122, no. *66 (Tibe-rius); D. Kreikenbom (1992) 196-7, no. 3.58;E.R. Varner (2001) 48; here, 24, 44.

D. Boschung identifies this fragment as Tiberi-us, but the arrangement of the hair over the lefttemple finds close parallels to Caligula’s portraitsin Genoa (Museo Civico 614), Los Angeles (J.Paul Getty Museum, 72.AA.155), Richmond(Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, 71-20), andVenice (Museo Archeologico, inv. 142). Thedamage to the portrait itself also supports anidentification of this portrait as Caligula, a con-demned emperor, rather than his predecessor,Tiberius. The head may be associated with frag-

ments of a seated statue also discovered at theForum.

1.3. Switzerland, Private Collectionh. 0.97 m.bronze bustprovenance: unknown (Italy?)publications: H. Jucker (1973) 20; H. Jucker(1982) 112; D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12, 49-50, 54-57, 91, 92, 100, 115, no. 30, pls. 27.1-4, 45.1 (with previous literature); A. Barrett(1989)178, n. 30; J. Pollini (1993) 425, and n.14; E.R. Varner (2001) 47; here, 6, n. 30, 23-4, 39, n. 148, 44, 45, 49, 130, 150, 197, fig.2a-b.

One of the only portraits of Caligula to exhibitexplicit signs of intentional disfigurement, thisminiature bronze cuirassed bust has been at-tacked with a small hammer or other squareheaded instrument. In an anthropomorphic at-tack on the image, the eyes have been deliber-ately gouged from the head. The small scale ofthe portrait suggests that it was either displayedin the context of a public or private shrine, oralternatively, it may have decorated a militarystandard.

Altered Portraits

Caligula/Augustus

1.4. Condeixa-a-Nova, Museu Monografi-co de Conimbriga, inv. 67.388

h. 0.45 m.marble headprovenance: Conimbriga, Forum, 1967publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 5, no. 3, n.5; D. Kreikenbom (1992) 172-3, no. 3.27; D.

CATALOGUE 1

MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITS OF CALIGULA

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits226

Boschung (1993a) 86, 149, no. 89. pl. 169 (withprevious literature); here, 33.

The portrait was discovered together with itsstatue plinth containing the feet wearing calcei andpart of the toga. The image has been reconfig-ured into Augustus’s Prima Porta type and maydepicted the emperor capite velato. Sections ofCaligula’s main type coiffure are still visible overthe temples and the sideburns maintain a long-er, Caligulan length. The face has been recarvedand the resulting loss of sculptural volume has inthis area has caused the profile to be dispropor-tionately wide and the cap of hair overly large.

1.5. Cophenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyp-totek 611, inv. 746

h. 0.30 m.marble headprovenance: Sardispublications: D. Boschung (1993a) 35-37, 75-76, 79, 136, no. 60, pls. 1.7, 64, 68.3 (with pre-vious literature); F. Johansen (1994) 92-3, no.34 (with figs.); here, 33, fig. 21a-d.

The portrait is one of the rare examples to havebeen reworked into Augustus’s Forbes type, rath-er than the predominant Prima Porta type. Thehair over the forehead has been entirely recarved,with the locks swept to Augustus’s right. The hairat the back of the head retains much of its Caligu-lan orientation, including the swallow-tail part onthe nape of the neck, derived from his main type(type 1). The wide forehead and hollow templeshave also been retained from the original like-ness, as has the configuration of the full reced-ing lower lip. The brows have recut, to give thema more straight and flat profile. The reductionof marble carried out in the area of the face hasnot been matched in the area of the occiput andback of the head, causing the portrait to have anunnaturally wide profile. The preserved sectionsof the neck are also disproportionately broad in

comparison to the reduced volumes of the low-er face.

1.6. Cuenca, Museo Arquelógico Provin-cial el Almudi

h. 0.26 m.marble headprovenance: Segobriga, Theaterpublications: D. Boschung (1993a) 48-49, 76,79, 86, 150, no. 91, pls. 91, 165.8 (with pre-vious literature); here, 33.

This fragmentary portrait has been reworkedfrom Caligula’s main type to Augustus’s PrimaPorta. The longer Caligulan locks swept forwardon the nape of the neck have not been altered.The reconfiguration of the likeness has caused thetop of the head to be unusually flat.

1.7. Lisbon, Museu Nacional de Arquelo-gia e Etnologia, inv. 21520 A

h. 0.52 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Mértolapublications: D. Boschung (1993a) 158-59, no.118, pls. 127, 165.9 (with earlier literature);here, 33.

The hair over the forehead has been recut intoAugustus’s Prima Porta arrangement, but themass of the coiffure has been retained fromCaligula’s main type and is no longer commen-surate in scale with the greatly reduced volumesof the face. The head is also overly broad inprofile and at the base of the neck. Suggestionsof ageing have been added to the countenanceincluding slightly sunken cheeks and faint naso-labial lines.

1.8. Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum,78.AA.261

h. 0.39 m.marble (Luna?) head worked for insertionprovenance: Pietrabbondante, Italypublications: K. Vierneisal and P. Zanker(1979) 75, no. 6.10; H. Jucker (1981a)247-50;J. Frel (1981) 28; D. Boschung (1993a) 145-

caligula 227

46, no. 79, pls. 60, 68.2 (with earlier literature);E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 122, no. 19, with figs.;here, 32, 33, fig. 19a-d.

Although Boschung has argued that the portraitis not recarved from a portrait of Caligula, butthat it might be reworked from one of Augustus’sother portrait types ([1993a] 145-6), the headbetrays many signs of its original incarnation asa likeness of Caligula. The configuration ofCaligula’s coiffure over the forehead has beenentirely recarved, and the new locks were creat-ed out of the pre-existing mass of the coiffure andforehead. The central locks have been dramati-cally undercut, creating a marked hole in theemperor’s forehead. The longer locks whichappear on the nape of the neck in Caligula’sportraits have been shortened as evidenced by thetraces of horizontal marks caused by a claw chiselin this area, but the configuration with swallow-tail part at the center remains from the originalCaligulan arrangement. The reworking of thehair on the top of the head and over the ears hasresulted in an asymmetrical contour for the topof the skull. The right sideburn has been reducedin length and a flat cut is still very visible on itsbottom edge. The left side of the top of the headand area over the ears is flatter where the orig-inal coiffure has been more drastically cut back,while the right side of the head presents a morerounded profile in an area where the hair is muchmore full. Retouching of the nose has also causedthe area above the bridge of the nose to be asym-metrical

1.9. Mantua, Palazzo Ducale, inv. 6615h. 0.29 m.marble headprovenance: Italy (Rome or environs?)publications: D. Boschung (1993a) 76, 80, 162,no. 126, pl. 138 (with earlier literature); here,32.

Although the hair over the forehead has beenreworked into Augustus’s Prima Porta configu-ration, Caligula’s main type coiffure is still clearlyevident at the back and nape of the neck. The

portrait has also generally retained the youthful,smoothly modeled facial features of the originallikeness and no signs of aging have been add-ed.

1.10. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Scala 7,inv. 230

h. 0.31 m.marble headprovenance: presumably Romepublications: D. Boschung (1993) 176, no. 164,pl. 160.1-2 (with earlier literature); here, 31,33.

P. Zanker was the first to raise the possibility thatthe portrait is reworked from Caligula (Fittschen-Zanker I, 6, no. 5, n. 4, pl. 8). Augustus’s recutPrima Porta arrangement over the forehead isunusually shallow and short and the parting ofthe locks over the inner corner of the left eye fromCaligula’s main type coiffure has been main-tained. Signs of aging, present in several of Au-gustus’s posthumous images, have also beenadded to the portrait. The recutting of the facehas caused the top of the head to be too large inproportion to the face.

1.11. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,formerly Sala degli Orti Mecenaziani 7,inv. 2394 (Centrale Montemartini 1.61)

h. 0.39 m.marble (Parian?) head worked for insertionprovenance: via del Mare (via di Teatro delMarcello), near the Theater of Marcellus, 1937publications: A. Claridge (1990) 143-4, fig. 11e;Boschung (1993) 45, 49, 75, 175, no. 162, pls.92, 149.7 (with previous literature). P. Zank-er raised the possibility that the portrait mightbe recarved from Caligula, Fittschen-ZankerI, 3-6, no. 3, pls. 4-6, especially n. 5; M. Ber-toletti, , M. Cima, and E. Talamo, eds. (1997)53 (with fig); here, 31, fig. 17a-b.

The portrait has been recut from a replica ofCaligula’s main type into Augustus’s Prima Por-ta type. The part over the inner corner of the lefteye from the original Caligulan configuration of

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits228

the locks over the forehead is still visible. In aneffort to make the forehead more narrow, thetemples have been recut, with the result that theleft temple is visibly more sunken than the right.The hair behind the right ear has also been large-ly recarved, with a noticeable loss of volume inthis area of the head. The top of the head is nolonger extant and was a separately worked pieceof marble attached with a tenon whose squaremortis still survives in the portrait. The large flatsurface at the top of the head and slightly angledsurfaces mark the extent of the addition. It isunclear whether the original image of Caligulawas pieced, or if the piecing was a result of thetransfiguration process. The latter may be morelikely.

1.12. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gre-goriano Profano, inv. 9953

h. 0.715 m.colossal marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Cerveteri, Roman Theater (1846)publications: Boschung (1993a) 76, 180, 182,no. 174, pl. 139 (with earlier literature); C.B.Rose (1997) 83-4, cat. no. 5; here, 31, 32, 45,fig. 18a-b.

Caligula’s coiffure has been almost entirelyworked away and replaced over the forehead withAugustus’s Prima Porta arrangement. The lockson the nape of the neck have been shortened asevidenced by the roughened surfaces directlybelow them. The hair above and behind bothears has been worked over with a punch in anattempt to remove Caligula’s arrangement oflocks. The sideburns have also been noticeablyshortened, leaving smooth, raised surfaces be-neath them. Asymmetricalities in the eyes indi-cate that they, too, have been reduced in size.The left eye is longer than the right and not aswide in the center. The mouth has been short-ened by carving in the corners. Chisel marks arestill visible at the left of the upper lip towards theouter corner. The recarved mouth is asymmet-rical, being longer on its right side. The chin hasbeen reduced in size and squared off and nowrecedes from the frontal plane of the face. The

reconfigured volume of the head is too small inproportion to the width of the neck. However,the tendons of the neck, which bulge unnatural-ly, suggest that an attempt was made to reducethe size of the neck in order to make bring it intoscale with the reduced size of the head.

A substantial section of the back of the headat the right side is missing and was restored af-ter the head’s excavation. The restorations havebeen removed and picked surfaces in these ar-eas may be ancient and suggest that this sectionof the head was separately pieced. Fragments ofa hand, an arm, and a knee of the statue werealso discovered, but have been lost.

1.13. Tomar, Convento de Cristo,h. 0.6 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Tomarpublications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 5, no. 3, n.5; D. Kreikenbom (1992) 176, no. 3.33; D.Boschung (1993a) 86, 190, no. 198, pl. 168(with earlier literature); here, 33.

The head is colossal in scale and has been recon-figured into a replica of Augustus’s Prima Portatype. Nevertheless, the hair on the back of thehead has been maintained from Caligula’s maintype. The portrait is very badly weathered andit is impossible to determine if any superficialsigns of ageing were added to the refashionedimage.

1.14. Tunis, Musée du Bardo, C 72h. 0.28 m.marble headprovenance: El Djem (Thysdrus)publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 5, no. 3, n. 5;D. Boschung (1993a) 87, 191, no. 201, pl. 172(with earlier literature); here, 33, fig. 22a-c.

The Caligulan coiffure has been entirely chiseledaway from the rear of the portrait, and left in aroughened state. The locks over the foreheadhave been recut into Augustus’s Prima Portaarrangement. The image has been reconfiguredwith very slight signs of aging including a slight

caligula 229

horizontal furrow in the forehead and partiallysunken cheeks.

1.15. Zadar, Museumh. 2.3 m.marble statue (standing Jupiter)provenance: Aenona, Roman Forum, 1777publications: D. Kreikenbom (1992) 163-4, no.3.15; D. Boschung (1993a) 76, 80, 193, no.207, pls. 140, 219.2 (with earlier literature);C.B. Rose (1997) 135-6, cat. 65, pls. 179-80;here, 32, 36, fig. 20a-d.

The statue is carved from a single block of mar-ble and the sculptural reconfiguration of the headinto a replica of Augustus’s Prima Porta type fromCaligula’s main type (type 1), has caused the headto be disproportionally small in comparison to thebody. The hair on top of the head behind thecorona civica has been worked over with the pointand the marble left rough in this area. The great-er sculptural mass of Caligula’s hair is still visi-ble directly below the corona. Caligula’s hair hasbeen shortened on the nape of the neck, but hislonger locks, swept forward, are still visible, es-pecially behind the right ear. The size of thecrown, as well as the size and position of the earshave been determined by the Caligulan originaland are too large in proportion to the reducedvolumes of the lower face. Indeed, the lowersections of the face have had much more mar-ble removed during the portrait’s recarving andas a result, is much narrower than the upper faceand head. The neck, largely maintained intactfrom the original, is also overly broad in com-parison to the altered proportions of the lowerface and jawline.

Caligula/Tiberius

1.16. Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Liebieghaus(formerly Basel, private collection)

h. 0.37 m.marble head, capite velatoprovenance:unknownpublications: H. Jucker (1981a) 250-52, fig. 16;D. Kreikenbom (1992) 193-4, no. 3.54, pl. 12a-d; here, 33.

Traces of Caligula’s coiffure, with locks partedover the inner corner of the left eye are still vis-ible. Raised surfaces beneath the current locksmark the extent of the recutting. The facial fea-tures have been slightly altered, but generallymaintain the youthful and idealizing physiogno-my of the Caligulan original.

Caligula/Claudius

1.17. Aquileia, Museo Archeologico, inv.108

h. 2.01 m.provenance: Aquileia, near the western Romanwall (February 1894)marble statue (head [luna]; body [Greek?marble])publications: V. Santa Maria Scrinari (1972)30, no. 83, figs. 83a-b. H. Jucker (1981) 268,n. 95; H.R. Goette (1986) 727-8, n. 48; D. Bos-chung (1989) 48, n. 30; M. Denti (1991) 87-90, no. 19, pls. 32.1-2, 33.1-4, 34.1; B. Andre-ae (1993) 123, p. 24.1-2; C.B. Rose (1997) 82,cat. 3, pl. 59; H. Meyer (2000) 96-97, figs. 191-2, 194, 201; here, 29, 61, fig. 12.

The statue represents the emperor wearing thegeneral’s paludumentum. The hair over the fore-head has been reconfigured into an approxima-tion of Claudius’s main type arrangement, andmost of the pre-existing Caligulan coiffure hasbeen carved away. Although light horizontalfurrows have been added to the forehead, as wellas the suggestion of naso-labial lines, the portraitretains many details of Caligula’s physiognomy,especially the eyes and configuration of themouth. As the head and body are of two distinctmarble types, Luna for the head, and an unde-termined, probably Greek marble for the body,it is uncertain if the head and body belongedtogether in the original Caligulan incarnation.

1.18. Berlin Staatliche Museen, Antiken-Abtei-lung, inv. 1965.10,

h. 0.44 m.marble bust (cut down from a statue)provenance: said to be from Acerra

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits230

publications: D. Boschung (1989) 29, note 12,44, 46-47, note 29, 52, 56, 92, 113, no. 23,sketch 22; pls. 24.1-2,47.3 (with previous lit-erature); here, 27.

The Caligulan hair on the top and upper sidesof the head has been carved away and these areaswere perhaps filled out with a new hairstyle instucco. Caligula’s locks have been allowed toremain, however, on the back of the head andthe nape of the neck and are comparable in treat-ment to the small bronze bust now in New Yorkin the White-Levy Collection ( ex Schinz-Rüeschcollection). The locks over the forehead are alsoretained from Caligula’s main type. The bust hasbeen cut down from a full length image with bareupper torso, originally representing the emper-or in divine or heroic guise.

1.19. Fano Museo Civicoh. 2.25 m.marble statueprovenance: Fano (Fanum Fortunum)publications: F. Battistelli and L de Sanctis(1984) 54-5, fig. 91; D. Kreikenbom (1992)197-8, no. III.60 (with earlier literature); B.Andreae (1993) 123-4, pl. 25.1-2; here, 32, 37,fig. 6a-c.

The arrangement of the hair over the foreheadis a loose variant of Claudius’s main type, but stillcontains the parting of locks over the left eye fromthe original Caligulan coiffure. The facial featureshave been substantially recarved and the currentproportions of the face are too small in relation-ship to the overall volume of the head. The headitself is unnaturally broad in profile and the neckis too wide in proportion to the refashioned face.Signs of aging have been added to the imageincluding horizontal and vertical furrows in theforehead, slight pouches beneath the eyes, naso-labial lines, and a fleshy underchin. The eyes arelarger than in many of Claudius’s unaltered like-nesses and have mostly retained from the origi-nal likeness. The head is worked separately andin its reduced aspects is too small for the body.The neck, however, is consonant with the pro-

portions of the body, which suggests that the headis original to the statue.

1.20. Grosseto, Museo Archeologico ed’Arte della Maremma, inv. 97765

h.unavailablemarble (luna) head (with corona civica).provenance: Rusellae, Collegium of the Au-gustalespublications: H. Jucker (1981a) 266, n. 91; U.Baldini, M. Cristofani, G. Maetzke (1983) fig.126; R. Amedick (1987) 50-51; C.B. Rose(1997) 116-8, no. 45.15 (with earlier literature);S. Wood (1999) 128; here, 28, 29, 80, 99, fig.10.

The coiffure of the portrait has been refashionedfrom Caligula’s main type (type 1) into Claudi-us’s main type. Caligula’s coiffure remains largelyunaltered behind the left ear and in front of thefillet and sticks noticeably out from the reducedvolume of the head. The mass of the original hairis also still present at the back of the head, as isCaligula’s swallow tail part on the nape of theneck. The hair on top of the head is not articu-lated but simply worked with a flat chisel. Theocciput is also too large in comparison to thecurrent mass of the face. The ears, too, are dis-proportionately large and set too high up on thehead. The eyes have been recarved and the lefteye has been cut back into the surfaces of the faceat its outer corner. The receding lower lip is afeature inherited from the original likeness. Therecarving of the chin has caused it to retreat fromthe frontal plane of the face. The volumetricreduction of the face has caused the both thecorona to appear too large and the neck to wideand long in proportion to the face. The crownitself has been drastically cut back in the areaimmediately over the hair framing the forehead,where the lower leaves are significantly smallerand lack the plasticity of the leaves above. Therandomly drilled holes which articulate the re-cut sections of the crown are the termination ofmore deeply drilled channels separating theleaves, still visible in the unaltered passages.

Although C.B. Rose feels that the head was not

caligula 231

recut until the reign of Nero, it seems just as likely(and in fact more probable) that the head wasactually recarved under Claudius. The triangu-lar shape of the lower face Rose sees as both aremnant of the original Caligulan image, as wellas an indication of a posthumous Neronian date([1997] 71 [Neronian], 117 [Caligulan]). How-ever, it is largely a product of the reconfigura-tion process. The signs of aging which Roseobserves in the Grosseto portrait as also indica-tive of a Neronian date are not especially emphat-ic in comparison to other likeness recut in theClaudian period, such as that in the Palazzo deiConservatori (Cenrale Montemartini, cat. 1.31).The second, veiled portrait of Claudius fromRusellae (Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Artedella Maremma, inv. 97766) is more likely tohave been added under Nero. Claudius’s veilwould have visually linked him as divus to theveiled images of the two divae preserved from thecycle, Livia and Drusilla. In addition, the scaleof the head is much larger than most of portraitsand approaches the colossal seated images ofAugustus and Livia, as well as the headless cui-rass which may in fact have originally been aportrait of Nero himself added at the same timeas the veiled Claudius. However, if Rose is cor-rect in assigning the reworking of the head withcorona civica to the Neronian period, it wouldindicate that the portrait of Caligula was likelyremoved from the cycle, stored for at least thethirteen years of Claudius’s reign, and then re-cut sometime after 54.

1.21. Hannover, Kestnermuseum, inv.1978.15

h. 0.25 m.marble headprovenance: (Italy)publications: D. Boschung (1989) 29, note. 12,44-5, 56, 113, cat. no. 24, sketch 23, pl. 24.3(with earlier literature); A. Mlasowsky (1992)90-92, fig. 14; here, 27, fig. 7a-b.

The top of the forehead has been cut down inorder to reduce its mass and breadth; these cutsare clearly visible in profile. Caligula’s arrange-

ment of hair over the forehead, with locksbrushed outward from the central part and re-versing their direction over the temples, remainsundisturbed despite the recutting of the foreheaditself. Regular holes drilled in this area indicatethat the Caligulan coiffure would have beenmasked by the addition of a corona civica, or, moreprobably, Claudian locks in stucco or separatepieces of marble (see H. Jucker [1981a]277 andA. Mlasowsky [1992] 91).

1.22. Istanbul Archaeological Museum,inv. 87

h. 0.240 m.marble headprovenance: Nicomediapublications: Inan-Rosenbaum 65, no. 22, pl.14.1-2; D. Boschung (1989) 123, cat. no. *78(Claudius)(with earlier literature); here, 30, fig.16a-b.

The recarving of the portrait and the resultingidealized Claudian facial features have caused theportrait to be variously identified as Augustus,Germanicus, Drusus Maior, Caligula, and Clau-dius. The arrangement of the hair over the fore-head, as well as the long locks swept forehead onthe nape of the neck have been almost entirelyretained from the original Caligulan image. Thewide forehead and eyes are also almost entirelyunaltered. The lower section of the face has beenrecut and the mouth reconfigured with the re-sult that the chin now recedes from the frontalplane of the face. The portrait has been mount-ed on an ancient cuirassed bust to which it didnot originally belong.

1.23. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum,inv. 4648

h. 2.350 m.marble (Proconessian) togate statueprovenance: near Kanli Köprüpublications: Inan-Alforldi-Rosenbaum (1979)288-89, no. 278, pls. 30.3-4, 197 (with earlierliterature); here, 30.

Caligula’s main type coiffure with central part is

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits232

still visible. Signs of aging have been added in-cluding horizontal furrows in the forehead andthe suggestion of naso-labial lines. The lowersection of the faced has been cut back.

1.24. Mantua, Palazzo Ducaleh. 0.51 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Italy (Rome?)publications: D. Kreikenbom (1992) 199, no.3.62, pl. 15b-d, 16 a (with earlier literature);here, 30, fig. 13a-c.

Slight signs of aging have been added to theportrait including naso-labial lines and pouchesbeneath the eyes and a vertical furrow above thebridge of the nose. Caligula’s longer locks havenot been altered on the nape of the neck. Thevolume of the coiffure and crown at the top ofthe head is overly large in comparison with thereduced proportions of the lower section of theface. The recarving of the chin has also causedit to recede slightly from the frontal plane of theface.

1.25. Naples Museo Nazionale Archeolog-ico, inv. 150-215

h. unavailablemarble headprovenance: unknownpublications: previously unpublished; here, 30.

Caligula’s main type coiffure has been removedfrom the top and back of the head and not re-placed, but the configuration of the locks over theforehead has been retained. Superficial signs ofageing have been added to the portrait, includ-ing horizontal furrows in the forehead, slightpouches beneath the eyes, and naso-labial lines.

1.26. Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 1219h. 0.370 m.marble headprovenance: unknownpublications: H.R. Goette (1986) 727-28, n. 48;K. de Kersauson (1986) 188-9, no. 88 (withearlier literature); here, 30.

The current coiffure is a variant of Claudius’smain type. The locks on the top and back of thehead have been roughly worked with a chisel inan effort to suppress the original hairstyle. Theright sideburn and locks on the right side of thenape of the neck have also been cut down. How-ever, traces of Caligula’s main type coiffure arestill visible around the area of the left ear. Thechin has been reduced in size, causing it to re-cede from the frontal plane of the face, andmaking the lower section of the face appear toosmall in proportion to the top of the head.

1.27. Parma, Museo Nazionale d’AntichitàParma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichitá, no. 1, inv.280 (1870), 834 (1952)

h. 2.22 m.marble statueprovenance: Velleia, Julio-Claudian Basilica,(3-17 June 1761)publications: C. Saletti (1968) 45-49, no. 10,pl. 31-34 (with previous literature); H. Niem-eyer (1968) 84, no. 4;H. Blanck (1969) 27-9,no. A 2, pls. 2-3; K.P. Goethert (1972) 237-39; H. Jucker (1977) 204-212, 238; D. Bos-chung (1989) 97-98; H.R. Goette (1989) 33,34, n. 147 a, 39, n. 179, 119, no. 104, pl. 7.5;H. von Heintze in A. Cambidoglou, ed. (1995)263-4; C. B. Rose (1997) 66, 121-26, cat. 50,pls. 132, 135-136; here, 32, n. 84, 38, 79-80,97, 258, 276, fig. 34a-b.

The original statue of Caligula appears to havebeen created out of a single block of marble, andafter his condemnation, the head detached anda new likeness of Claudius added. The tenon ofthe current head does not fit well in its socket.Although an attempt has been made to match theinterior and exterior folds of the toga which coverthe head with those of the statue body, a majordiscrepancy is apparent on the fold closest to theneck on the inner right side of the veil. Theportrait head of Claudius seems too large for thebody, especially when compared to the propor-tions of the other togate figures from the Velle-ian statuary cycle. Roughly 1:5 for Claudius, asopposed to 1:6 for the other togate figures. Clau-

caligula 233

dius’s head is also carved for insertion different-ly than the others in the series, with the left edgeof the veil cut substantially higher than those ofthe other sculptures. On close examination, themarble of the head seems slightly whiter than themarble of the body, which is not the case withthe other togati.

1.28. Perugia, Museoh. 0.65 m.marble headprovenance: Carsulaepublications: D. Kreikenbom (1992) 198-9, no.3.61, pl. 15 a (with earlier literature); here, 30,fig. 15a-c.

Deeply carved naso-labial lines and slight furrowsin the forehead are the most ostensible signs ofageing added to this portrait. There is also thesuggestion of sagging pouches of flesh beneatheach eye. The locks over the forehead have beenshortened, but the part over the inner corner ofthe left eye remains from the original Caligulanarrangement.

1.29. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Magazzini,inv. 151

h. 0.275 m.marble headprovenance: unknown (presumably Rome orenvirons)H. Jucker (1981a)271-2; D. Boschung (1989)29, note 12, 44, 47, 114, no. 26, sketch 25, pl.24.5 (with earlier literature); E.R. Varner, ed.(2000) 116-19, no. 17, with figs.; here, 29, fig.11a-d.

Caligula’s main type coiffure, consisting of swal-lowtail part in the center, with locks radiating outon either side and a change in direction of locksnear the outer corner of each eye, is still readilyvisible over the forehead. A second raised rowof locks, also present in a portrait of Caligula inCopenhagen (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 637a, inv.2687) is discernable above this arrangement.Remains of iron pins are preserved among thelocks of the forehead. Their irregular placement

suggests that they are not for the addition of acorona but rather for small pieces of marble. Thesemarble pieces, now lost, presumably would havebeen elements of Claudius’s hairstyle, most like-ly of his main type, superimposed over the ex-isting Caligulan coiffure. The entire reworking ofthe hair seems to have been filled in and com-pleted with stucco. The artist who refashionedthis portrait, instead of entirely recarving the hairover the forehead as is the case with the colossalhead from Otricoli, chose to use added pieces ofmarble and stucco in combination with minimalrecarving. As preserved, the resulting arrange-ment may have been a variant of the coiffure ofClaudius’s main portrait type. The hair at the topand back of the head of the Vatican MagazziniCaligula/Claudius has been carved away and thecoiffure in these areas may also have been com-pleted in stucco. The marble and stucco additionsto this head can be viewed as experiments in thedeveloping technology of reworking portraits. Ingeneral, simply recarving the hair must have beenpreferred as a more permanent form of refash-ioning a likeness, since stucco would not haveweathered well in portraits exposed to the ele-ments.

1.30. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala Roton-da 551, inv. 242

h. 0.78 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Otricoli, “Julio-Claudian Basili-ca,” 1779publications: D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12, 44,47, 87, 100, 113-14, no. 25, sketch 24, pl. 24.4(with earlier literature); D. Kreikenbom (1992)197, no. III. 59; C.B. Rose (1997) 70, 97-8, cat.25, pl. 92; G. Spinola (1999) 263-5, fig. 44;E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 11; here, 10, n. 60,27-28, 29, 32, 45, 167, fig. 9a-d.

Details from Claudius’s earlier Kassel type havebeen added to this colossal marble portrait, orig-inally a replica of Caligula’s main type. A newfringe of bangs has been carved into the foreheadbeneath the existing Caligulan coiffure. As partof the transformative process, the head has also

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits234

been endowed with very superficial signs of age-ing, mainly evident in the slightly sunken cheeksand suggestions of naso-labial lines. Nevertheless,the resulting portrait is the most youthful andidealizing of Claudius’s surviving sculpted por-traits. The recutting has also engendered sever-al assymmetricalities, further exaggerated by thecolossal scale of the image. There is an unnatu-ral bulge in the forehead directly above the bridgeof the nose, indicating an area where insufficientmarble from the original portrait has been re-moved; the left eye is longer and thicker than theright; the nose has a pronounced S-shaped bendin its center; and the mouth is longer at the rightside, where it also curves down farther and iscarved more deeply at the corner. Asymmetricali-tes are present in varying degrees in most impe-rial portraits, but can be especially prominent inreworked likenesses as a result of recarving.

1.31. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,Braccio Nuovo, inv. 2443 (Centrale Mon-temartini 2.74)

h. 0.358 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: (presumably) Rome or environspublications: D. Boschung (1989) 120, no. 50,pl. 40.1-2 (with earlier literature); H. von Hei-ntze in A. Cambidoglou, ed. (1995) 262, pl.89.2-4; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 11; here, 10,n. 60, 26, 101, n. 159, 231, fig. 4a-d.

This is arguably the most veristic of Claudius’sportraits, as earlier noted by H. von Heintze(Helbig4 2 [1966] 421, n. 1618), and it attests tothe overwhelming impact reconfigured images ofcondemned emperors can have on the stylisticdevelopment of their successors’ portraiture. Theportrait has been recut from Caligula’s main typeinto a variant of Claudius’s own main type, asfor instance a well known replica in SchlossErbach (K. Fittschen [1977a] 55-58, no. 17, pl.19; H. Jucker [1981a] 276, n. 108). Because, somuch of the hairstyle has been retained from theCaligulan image, the reversal of the direction ofthe locks at either edge of the forehead, clearlyevident in unaltered replicas, such as that in

Schloss Erbach, is suppressed. A raised lump ofmarble marks an area where the volume of thelonger Caligulan locks have not been entirelyremoved. Slightly raised surfaces at the edge ofClaudius’s truncated sideburns also indicate thatthey have been reduced in length. A small, raisedarea beneath the right ear suggest that the ear-lobes themselves have been reduced in size. Inany case, the right ear is now carved much clos-er to the skull and is much less clearly articulat-ed than the left and both ears are not anatom-ically accurate.

The addition of the Claudian physiognomicdetails, which required a much more vigorousmodeling of facial surfaces than would have beenpresent in the original portrait of Caligula, ne-cessitated a great reduction in the volume of thehead. The right side of the neck and tenon havebeen cut down so that the reworked head couldbe inserted into a new and smaller statue bodycommensurate with the portrait’s reduced scale.Many of the anomalies caused by the recarving(i.e., high occiput, asymmetrical ears, differingtreatment of hair on the right and left sides ofthe head, and overly modeled facial features) arenot so apparent when the head is seen from belowand the profile views are restricted, which indi-cates that the reworked portrait was very likelyintended for placement high up, perhaps on aplinth or pedestal and within a niche.

1.32. Vaison, Musée Municipal, inv. 128B

h. 1.90 m.marble statueprovenance: Vaison, Roman Theater (scaenaefrons)publications: H. Jucker (1982) 107; C.B. Rose(1997) 70, 131-2, cat. 58, pl. 170 (with earlierliterature); here, 30, 32, 58.

The statue is carved from a single block of mar-ble and represents the emperor as Jupiter, in thestandard standing type with hip mantle. Thereconfiguration has resulted in disproportion-alites, most notably in the head, whose currentsculptural volume is too small in comparison to

caligula 235

the mass of the corona civica and body. Caligula’smain portrait type has been reworked into aversion of Claudius’s earlier, more youthful type,suggesting that the reconfiguration took placeearly in his reign, perhaps shortly after his acces-sion. The refashioned portrait was eventuallypaired with a cuirassed portrait of Nero, itselfultimately recut to Domitian (Cat. 2.58).

1.33. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum18, inv. IX A 23

h. 14.5 cm.chalcedony cameoprovenance: unknown (presumably created atRome)publications: D. Boschung (1989) 51-2, 90,116, no. 36, sketch 29, pl. 30.4 (with earlierliterature); J.J. Herrmann, jr. (1991) 45; here,27, 40, fig. 8a-b.

The Vienna cameo is one of the few survivingimperial gem portraits of condemned emperorsto have been refashioned. The recarving neces-sitated a reduction in the size of the face whichhas contributed to the head appearing too smallin proportion to the length of the neck, the sizeof the bust form, and the mass of the hair andcorona. A second row of locks, reflecting Claudi-us’s main portrait type has been added beneaththe existing Caligulan locks over the forehead.The physiognomy has been drastically refash-ioned, essentially through the addition of veris-tic signs of aging. The original Caligulan imagedepicted the emperor capite velato and the currentcorona has been recarved from the original veil,which is still visible at the top of the head. Suchextensive recarving of gems is uncommon andwas largely dependent on the extent of surfacesavailable for refashioning. Of the nine likeness-es of Caligula on gems, only the Vienna cameohas been reconfigured, which must have beenpartly the result of the added surface area pro-vided by both the veil and the fairly high reliefof the original portrait of Caligula.

Cat. 1.34. Woburn Abbeyh. 0.402 m.; h. (of ancient portions) 0.222 m.marble headprovenance: Rome (purchased between 1822-23)publications: E. Angelicoussis (1992) 56-57, no.25, figs. 121-24, 128 (with earlier literature);here, 26-27, fig. 5.

Like the Montemartini portrait (cat. 1.11), thehead in Woburn Abbey stands as one of Clau-dius’s most strikingly veristic representations. Theportrait is remarkable for its assymetricalities anddisproportionalities, all by-products of its recon-figuration. As is common in recarved portraits,the neck is too wide for the face. The recut hairconforms to Claudius’s main type, but Caligula’smain-type coiffure remains on the back and sideof the head and the long Caligulan locks havenot been shortened on the nape of the neck. Inaddition, Caligula’s central part has been retainedover the forehead. Cutting is clearly visible in themarble in front of the hair on the left templewhere Caligula’s coiffure has been slightly mod-ified.

Caligula/Titus

1.35. Arles, Musée Réattu, Cellar Depoth. 0.46.2 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Fontvielleitpublications: D. Boschung (1989) 29, note 12,44-45, 49, 50, 53, 55, 89-90, 113, cat. no. 22,sketch 21, pl. 23.1-4 (with earlier literature);here, 34, fig. 23.

The Arles portrait is worked for insertion and theflat surfaces of the back of the head and neckindicate that the portrait probably portrayed theemperor capite velato. The configuration of locksover the forehead with central part has beenmaintained from Caligula’s main type (type 1).The ears and nose of the portrait are damagedand there are extensive abrasions to the surface,caused by the portrait’s incorporation into a lat-er wall. Boschung suggests that the portrait is

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits236

probably reworked to Claudius ([1989] 113) butH. Jucker’s identification of the portrait as Ti-tus is much more plausible ([1981] 313-4), espe-cially given the reconfiguration of the chin whichendows the new image with the heavy underchincharacteristic of Titus’s standard images.

1.36. Athens, National Museum, RomanCollection, inv. 348

h. 29 cm;marble headprovenance: SmyrnaD. Boschung (1989) 112-113, no. 21, pl. 22.1-4 (with earlier literature); M. Donderer (1991-2) 221, n. 123; here, 34, fig. 24.

The portrait retains the central parting of Caligu-la’s main type (type 1). The locks at the left tem-ple have been cut back, as have the locks in frontof the left ear. As a consequence, the left profileview of the head differs noticeably from the right.The lips have also been recarved. Boschung’ssuggestion that the portrait has been reworkedinto an image of Claudius is unconvincing ([1989]113), and H. Jucker’s earlier proposal that it isrecut to represent Titus is more persuasive (1988]311-13). The upper lip has been reduced to a thinline, so that the lower lip no longer recedes sub-stantially, as it can in Caligula’s portraits, mak-ing the mouth more consonant with Titus’s rep-resentations.

Unusually for an imperial portrait, the eyes ofthis image were worked separately and inserted,raising the possibility that the original may havehad standard eyes carved together with the head,which were damaged at the time of Caligula’sdownfall.

Caligula/Claudius Gothicus (?)

1.37. New York, Collection of ShelbyWhite and Leon Levy Collection

h. 0.407 m.marble headprovenance: unknownpublications: M.L. Anderson in D. von Both-mer, ed. (1990) 224, with fig; E.R. Varner inE.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 11-12, fig. 1; here, 34,fig. 25a-e.

The distinctive arrangement of locks behind theears find their closest parallel in the type 1 por-trait of Caligula in Tunis (Institut Nationald’Archéologie et d’Art). Although not as compel-ling as the similarities with Claudius Gothicus,the resulting image also finds correspondences innumismatic representations of his near contem-poraries, Aurelian or Florian. However, Aureli-an’s beard generally grows down onto his neck,which is not the case with the Levy-White heador coin portraits of Claudius Gothicus. Florianreigned only two months, so it is very unlikelythat the Levy-White head represents that emper-or.

Caligula/Deity

1.38. Algiers, Museumh. 0.90 m.marble headprovenance: Iol Caesareapublications: D. Kreikenbom (1992) 223-4, no.4.3, pl. 26a-b (with earlier literature); here, 34,66.

The original coiffure has been almost entirelycarved away, but elements of Caligula’s hairstyleare still clearly visible on the nape of the neck.The portrait has been retrofitted with holes fora radiate crown, suggesting that the head hasbeen reconfigured as representation of Sol, orApollo Helios.

nero 237

Multilated Portraits

2.1. Cagliari, Museo Nazionale, inv. 6122,h. 0.51 m.marble bust (nude, cut down from full lengthstatue?)provenance: Italy (mainland)publications: U. Hiesinger (1975)115, 118,120-22, pl. 24.41-2; H. Jucker (1981a) 309;E.R. Varner (2001) 48; here, 49-50, 114, fig.42.

The Cagliari portrait has been attacked with achisel, and the facial features have been disfig-ured. It also preserves a unique, added elementof textual denigration, as the word victo (to theconquered) has been scratched along the upperchest. The graffito was likely intended as an ironicand derogatory inversion of and pun on victori (tothe victor).

The unusually long bust from suggested to H.Jucker that the bust had been cut down to itscurrent format from the upper part of a fulllength statue and the cutting down of the statuemay have been carried out by the sculptor, Zan-da, who donated the portrait to the Museum (H.Jucker [1981a] 309). If so, the damaged and frag-mentary state of the statue itself may also havebeen a result of Nero’s condemnation. Two x’scarved at each clavicle may be sculptor’s markspreparatory to removing the head from the tor-so. The portrait was originally a replica of Nero’ssecond type, but, like Nero’s portrait in Worces-ter, numerous signs of recarving and evidence forstucco additions suggest that it was updated lat-er in Nero’s principate into a version of his thirdor fourth portrait type.

2.2. Cos, Museum, inv. 4510h. unavailablemarble headprovenance: Cos, Agorapublications: L. Laurenzi (1955-56) 140, no.192; V. Poulsen (1962) 99, no. 65; C.C. Ver-meule (1968) 389, no. 5; U. Hiesinger(1975)116, n. 22; H. Jucker (1976) 238, fig. 10;H. Meyer (2000) 25, 57, figs. 37-38, 111-12;E.R. Varner (2001b) 48; here, 49-50, 114, 171,186.

The Cos portrait has been cut or broken from astatue or bust and is the most substantially mu-tilated of Nero’s surviving marble images. Theface has sustained damage to the eyes, nose,mouth and chin in the t-shaped pattern typicalof intentionally disfigured images. The mutilationhas been inflicted with a chisel.

2.3. Syracuse, Museo Nazionale, inv. 6383h. 0.25marble head (fragment)provenance: Syracuse, Roman Forumpublications: V. Poulsen (1954) 294, figs. 1-2;V. Poulsen (1962) 100, no. 65; N. Bonacasa(1964) 45, no. 52, pl. 24.1-2; J. and J. Ch. Balty(1966) 537; L. Fabbrini (1966-67) 138-40; U.Hiesinger (1975)115, pl. 20.32; S. Maggi (1986)48, 50, n. 15, fig. 8; J.M. Croisille (1999) 398,fig. 8; E.R. Varner (2001b) 48, here, 48, n. 24,50, 114, fig. 43.

This fragmentary face belongs to a type 2 imageof Nero with corona civica. The portrait may havebeen destroyed after Nero’s suicide, and its frag-ments stored or buried in the environs of theForum at Syracuse, where it is likely to have beenpublicly displayed.

CATALOGUE 2

THE MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITS OF NERO

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits238

2.4 (?). Vicenza, Museo Civico, inv. EI-19h. 1.64 m.marble statue (standing Jupiter)provenance: Vicenza (Vicetia), Roman The-aterpublications: M. Denti (1991) 206-9, no. 4, pls.63.2, 64.4, 65.1-2 (with earlier literature); E.R.Varner (2001b) 48, here, 50.

The face of the portrait has been shorn off andthe damage appears to be intentional. The longlocks swept forward on the nape of the neck arecharacteristic of all three of Nero’s portrait typesproduced during his principate (types 2-4).

2.5. Vienne, Musée Archéologiqueh. 0.195 m.marble head (fragment)provenance: Vienne, Odeumpublications: A. Bruhl (1962) 645, fig. 10; H.Jucker (1964) 87, fig. 6; M. Bergmann and P.Zanker (1981)332; H. Jucker (1981a) 304-306,fig. 74 (Nero reworked to Domitian); E.R.Varner (2001b) 48, here, 50, 69, 114, fig. 44.

The Vienne fragment originally pertained to atype 4 portrait of Nero which probably formedpart of the Odeum’s sculptural decoration. Af-ter its destruction, which might be associated withevents surrounding the revolt of Vindex in Gaul,the fragments may have been stored or buriedat the Odeum. The shorter locks over the fore-head and their slightly curving arrangement in-dicate to H. Jucker ([1981a] 304-6) that thisportrait has been reworked to Domitian; howev-er, the portrait is in much too fragmentary a stateto determine this with certainty.

Altered Portraits

Nero/Augustus

2.6. Alexandria, Greco Roman Museum,inv. 24043

h. 0.79 m.(colossal) marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Athribispublications: F. el Fakharani in N. Bonacasa

and G. Rizza, eds. (1988) 277, fig. 1; D.Kreikenbom (1992)173-4, no. 3.29; D. Bos-chung (1993a) 81-82, 139, no. 65, pls. 144,194.7 (with previous literature); S. Walker andP. Higgs, eds. (2000) 188, no. 3.46, with fig.,(with earlier literature); here, 61, n. 137, 62,64.

The hair over the forehead has been recut intoAugustus’s Prima Porta coiffure, but traces ofNero’s longer type 3 locks are still clearly visibleat the back and sides of the head. In addition,the locks at the right of Augustus’s foreheadwhich curve to the left stick substantially out fromthe general mass of the reconfigured coiffure andtheir mass has been largely retained from Nero’shairstyle. The shape of the brows and generalcontours of the mouth are also remnants of theNeronian likeness. The eyes themselves havebeen enlarged from the smaller eyes of Nero’stype 3, with the result that they are now overlylarge in proportion to the face and are givenfurther prominence by the heavy upper lids. Theears are also disproportionately large and stickout from the head in a manner characteristic ofmany of Nero’s images, but not usually those ofAugustus. There is also the slight suggestion ofNero’s full underchin in profile.

2.7. Aquileia, Museo Archeologico Nazi-onale, inv. 12

h. 2.2 m.marble togate statue (capite velato)provenance: Aquileia, near the Roman Circuspublications: M. Denti (1991) 85-7, no. 18, pls.30.1, 31.1-4; D. Boschung (1993a) 81, 84, 141,no. 69, pl. 143, 214.2 (with earlier literature);C.B. Rose (1997) 82, cat. 3, pl. 58; here, 61,fig. 71.

Reconfigured into Augustus’s Prima Porta type,Nero’s type 3 hairstyle is still clearly visible overboth temples. Very slight signs of aging, mostlyvisible in profile, have also been added to thefacial features, including faint naso-labial lines,pouches beneath the eyes and the suggestion ofsagging flesh in the area of the cheeks.

nero 239

2.8. Luni, Antiquario, CM 1033h. 0.43 m.marble relief headprovenance: Lunipublications: D. Boschung (1993a) 82, 161, no.124, pl. 145 (with earlier literature); M. Berg-mann (1998) 111-12, pl. 24.4; here, 61, n. 137,62-63, 119, fig. 73.

Nero’s type 4 coiffure is still evident on the napeof the neck, as is the wavy arrangement on thetop of the head. The parting of the locks on theback of the neck is also a feature of Nero’s por-traits. The hair over the forehead has been re-cut into Augustus’s Prima Porta coiffure. A longrectangular cutting and holes in the head overthe right ear and temple are evidence for theaddition of a radiate crown, likely in metal.

2.9. Padua, Museo Civico, inv. 819h. 0.30 m.marble headprovenance: precise provenance unknownpublications: D. Boschung (1993a) 80-81, 84,168-9, no. 146, pl. 141 (with earlier literature);here, 61.

Nero’s longer type 2 sideburns, as well as the hairon the nape of the neck have been cut back, andthe hair over the forehead reconfigured intoAugustus’s Prima Porta hairstyle. The physiog-nomy has been modified, principally through theaddition of slight signs of ageing, including slightlysunken cheeks and light naso-labial lines.

2.10. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala deiBusti 274, inv. 715

h. 0.33 m.marble (Pentelic) bust with corona spicaeaprovenance: Rome, possibly Vigna Galletti(later displayed at the Villa Mattei [Celimon-tana]), sold to the Vatican in 1770publications: C. Chirasi-Colombo (Berlin1981) 423-5; P. Liverani (1990-91) 164-65, figs.1-2 (reworked from Domitian type 3); D. Bos-chung (1993a) 73-74, 63, 67, 182-83, no. 176,

pls. 113, 225.4 (with earlier literature); B.S.Spaeth (1994) 92, fig. 16; B.S. Spaeth (1996)23, fig. 9; G. Spinola (1999) 128, no. 124; here,11, n. 63, 61-62, fig. 72a-b.

Although the locks over the forehead have beenrefashioned as Augustus’s Prima Porta arrange-ment, most of the coiffure has been retained fromthe original type 3 portrait of Nero, especiallyevident in the crucial area over the right templewhere the original Neronian locks reverse direc-tion . P. Liverani has suggested, instead, that theportrait is recarved from a type 3 portrait ofDomitian, based on the spiraling arrangement oflocks on the back of the head and the steppedarrangement on the top of the head ([1990-91]165). These are also features of Nero’s third andfourth types, and the long locks of the Vaticanportrait are nearly identical in arrangement to theNero’s type 3 portrait on the Palatine, as well asmodern reflections of this type in Florence andModena. The recarving of the facial features hasalso resulted in physiognomical asymmetricali-ties::the right eye is wider and bulges out slight-ly farther than the left and the mouth is alsosomewhat longer on the right side.

2.11. Rome, Palazzo Colonna, fid. no. 54h. 0.345 m.marble headprovenance: presumably Rome or environs(purchased in 1781 from the sculptor V.Pacetti)publications: F. Carinci, H. Keutner, L.Musso, M.G. Picozzi, eds. (1990) 247-50, withfigs. (With earler literature); D. Boschung(1993a) 80-81, 84, 178, no. 168, pl. 142.1 (withearlier literature); here, 61, fig. 70.

The head has been mounted on an ancient to-gate statue to which it does not belong. Most ofthe back of the left side of the head, beginningin front of the ear is a modern restoration. Theprincipal transformation has been centered on thehair over the forehead which now replicatesAugustus’s Prima Portra arrangement. Nero’stype 2 locks are still visible above the right ear

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits240

and on the nape of the neck. The physiognomyhas been largely left intact from the originalNeronian likeness.

2.12. St. Germain-en-laye, Musée des An-tiquités Nationales, inv. 63734

h. 0.35 m.marble headprovenance: Marseillespublications: D. Boschung (1993a) 81, 184, no.179, pl. 142.2-4 (with earlier literature); here,61.

Originally a type 2 likeness of Nero, the portraithas been altered into a replica of Augustus’sPrima Porta type. The hair over the forehead hasbeen rearranged, and Nero’s central part re-placed with the typical Prima Porta configura-tion. The sideburns, as well as the longer Nero-nian hair on the nape of the neck have all beenshortened.

Nero/Claudius

2.13. Balitimore, Walters Art Museum,inv. 23.118

h. 0.36 m.marble headprovenance: precise provenance unknownpublications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981)346, no. 9, figs. 21a-d (recarved to Ves-pasian[?]) (with earlier literature); J. Pollini(1984) 552, n. 45; D. Kreikenbom (1992) 210-11, no. 3.84; here, 63.

This head is broken at the neck and has beenattached to a modern bust. Much of the coiffurehas been substantially recut into a conflation ofClaudius’s main type hairstyle with part over theinner corner of the left eye, and a subsidiaryhairstyle which arches slightly over the forehead.The locks directly behind the left ear which arecombed forward are remnants of Nero’s typethree and four coiffures. The shape of the browshas not been altered from the original likeness.However, the eyes have been recut in order to

make them larger. The left eye is now smallerthan the right. The mouth itself has been short-ened and the lips recarved. The shape of the chinand jaw line have been reduced in volume, withthe result that the chin now recedes from thefrontal plane of the face. Nero’s fleshy underchinis clearly visible beneath the recarved chin andjaw.

Nero/Galba

2.14. Paris, Bibliothèque National, Ca-binet des Médailles 251

8.8 x 6.6 cm.sardonyx cameoprovenance: precise provenance unknownpublications: W.R. Megow (1987) 216-18, no.A 106, pl. 36.3 (with earlier literature); H. Bornand K. Stemmer (1996) 97, 100, fig. 55; E.Borea and C. Gasparri, eds. (2000) 556, no.32, with fig.; here, 63, 106-107, fig. 74.

The portrait has been endowed with realisticsigns of ageing such as furrows in the foreheadand strong naso-labial lines appropriate for rep-resentations of Galba. Nevertheless, the full wavycoiffure has been largely retained from the pre-existing type 3 representation of Nero. The nosehas been recut at the bridge, causing it to behooked, a characteristic feature of Galba’s numis-matic portraiture. The neck has also been re-touched in order to add Galba’s characteristicadam’s apple. The neck and aegis are too broadfor the current proportions of the head. In ad-dition, sections of the face, from the foreheaddown, where the physiognomy has been recut,are in lower relief and give the cameo an unusu-ally modulated surface.

Nero/Vespasian

2.15. Baltimore, Walters Art Museum,inv. 23.119

h. 0.66 m.marble (Thasian?) head worked for insertionprovenance: Pergamum, formerly in the col-

nero 241

lection of J.P. Lambros, Athens, and G. Dat-tari, Cairo; purchased by the Walters in 1912publications: J. Inan and E. Alföldi-Rosen-baum (1979) 89, no. 37 pl. 31; C.C. Vermeule1981) 300, no. 256, with fig. (with earlier lit-erature); P. Zanker (1983) 23-24, 47-48, pl. 30;J. Pollini (1984) 547, 552-55, pl. 73.10-12; D.Kreikenbom (1992) 211, no. 3.85, here, 53.

The portrait has been recut from a replica ofNero’s second portrait type into Vespasian’s moreyouthful secondary type. Nero’s coiffure has beenchiseled away on the top and back of the headand no new locks have been carved in this are.The right sideburn is essentially that of the orig-inal portrait of Nero, although slightly reducedin length. The left sideburn has been more sub-stantially reduced in size, but the arrangementof locks remains from the Neronian original. Theroughened surface of marble beneath the currenthairline on the back of the neck indicates that thehair has been shortened in this area. The lockson the nape of the neck are combed forward asthey are in Nero’s second portrait type, althoughthey, too, have been somewhat shortened. Raisedsurfaces in the marble behind the ears suggestthat the original coiffure extended nearly to theback of the ears. The shapes of the eyes and themouth, with its receding lower lip, are remnantsof the earlier image of Nero. The suggestion ofa fleshy underchin and ears which stand out fromthe head are also characteristic of portraits ofNero’s second type.

2.16. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 98.768h. 0.115 cm.chalcedony bustprovenance:publications: J. Hermann in Art of the AncientMediterranean (Boston-Nagoya 1999) 39, 235,illustrations p. 152; here, 55.

A highly unusual example of a reworked minia-ture glyptic portrait, the Boston chalcedony stillretains traces of the longer Neronian coiffure.

2.17. Cleveland, Art Museum, inv.29.439a

h. 0.41 m.marble head worked for insertion into a togatestatueprovenance: purchased from the Joseph Brum-mer Gallery, New York in 1929, perhaps froma lot purchased by the Brummer Gallery fromthe Pier Tozzi Gallery in Florence on Sept. 171928publications: R. Howard (1958) 139-41, ills.;Art News (Oct. 19) 1, 13, ill.; M. Bieber (1944)72-73, fig. 11; Handbook of the Cleveland Muse-um of Art (Cleveland 1958) no. 40; M. Wegn-er, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 73;P. Zanker (1982) 308, fig. 201; J. Pollini (1984)547-52, 555, pl. 72.1-5; E.R. Varner, ed.(2000) 136, no. 27, with figs.; here, 53, fig. 49a-c.

The head is worked for insertion into a togatestatue or bust and has been refashioned from animage of Nero’s fourth portrait type into Vespa-sian’s more idealized secondary type. A sharplydelineated line is visible at the back of the headwhere the hair has been cut back. The arrange-ment of locks behind and over the ears and thesideburns have not been changed and are char-acteristic of Nero’s fourth type. The small, fleshyeyes have not been substantially recut from theoriginal likeness. The receding lower lip alsoremains from Nero’s portrait. The top of the headhas been roughened and the remains of two irondowels are still extant. Apparently the top of thehead was completed in stucco, perhaps in aneffort to give the cranium more of a domedshape, which Vespasian’s portraits generallyexhibit. The portrait is very classicizing in appear-ance. The longer locks which have been retainedfrom Nero’s likeness and the row of commashaped locks across the forehead make this like-ness exceedingly evocative of Julio-Claudianportraiture.

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits242

2.18. Copenhagen, National Museum inv.3425

h. 0.39 m.marble head worked for insertion into togatestatue (or bust)provenance: unknownpublications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 75 (with earlier literature);M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)337-41, no.4, fig. 16a-d; here, 53-54.

Although refashioned as a secondary type por-trait of Vespasian, traces of a lightly incised beardwhich has not been entirely removed are stillvisible beneath both sideburns. The beard re-mains from the original type 3 Neronain likenessand is a feature of the only surviving replica ofNero’s third portrait type in the Museo Palati-no. Like the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek portrait (inv.1979, cat. 2.19), the contour line of the brows hasbeen retained from Nero’s likeness. The ovalshape of the face, the receding lower lip and theslight underchin are also vestiges of the originalportrait of Nero. The ears of the portrait aredamaged, but they originally stood out from thehead, another clear feature of Nero’s portraiture.

2.19. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyp-totek 463, inv. 1979

h. 0.41 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: purchased in Rome (Alberici1903).publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981)341-43, fig. 18a-b (with earlier litera-ture); F. Johansen (1995a) 26, no. 2, (with figs.n), here, 53, fig. 47a-d.

Refashioned into a secondary type Vespasian, theshape of the eyes and brows have been retainedfrom the original type 2 likeness of Nero. Thehair on the top and back of the head has beenentirely worked away with a flat chisel, but rough-ened surfaces in these areas attest to the origi-nal extent of the Neronian coiffure. The artistresponsible for the recarving has also attemptedto make the chin more prominent and the jaw

line more emphatic by reducing the shape of thechin and carving in the marble between the lowerlip and chin. As a result, the chin recedes dras-tically from the frontal plane of the face and theneck is too thick for the reduced size of the head.Interestingly, the corona is too small even for thereduced proportions of the reconfigured face,suggesting that it must have been carved from thepreexisting mass of Nero’s hair, and thus not afeature of the original portrait (M. Bergmann andP. Zanker [1981] 343).

2.20. Grosseto, Museo Archeologico ed’Arte della Maremma

h. 0.42 m.marble head worked for insertion into a togatebodyprovenance: Rusellae, “Basilica” of the Bassi,Portico, (1977).publications: P. B. Pacini (1978) 41-43; M.Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)332, n. 8;here, 53-54, 244.

The head is slightly over life sized and has beenrefashioned into Vespasian’s secondary type. Thelonger hair on the nape of the neck of the orig-inal type 4 portrait of Nero has been cut back,resulting in a sloping hairline on the back of theneck. The general orientation and pattern ofNero’s locks appear to have been essentially re-tained behind the left ear, at the occiput, and onthe nape of the neck. Nero’s fleshy underchin isclearly visible in both profile views. Like theChiaramonti portrait (cat. 2.25), indications ofage have been added to the Rusellae head includ-ing two strong horizontal furrows on the fore-head, a vertical furrow above the nose, strongnaso-labial lines and wrinkles on the neck. Thesquarish shape of the tenon suggests that it mayhave originally been intended for a cuirassedstatue body, although it is too small to havebelonged with the large Neronian cuirass fromthe cycle of Julio Claudian portraits at the Col-legium of the Augustales.

nero 243

2.21. London, British Museum, inv. 1890h. unavailablemarble head worked for insertion into a cui-rassed statueprovenance: Carthage, 1835-6publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 10-12, 76, pl. 2 (with earli-er literature); A. Claridge and J.B. Ward-Per-kins (1976) no. 4; M. Bergmann and P. Zank-er (1981) 334, 344, no. 8 fig. 20; J. Pollini(1984) 551; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 172, fig. 138;here, 53, fig. 50a-b.

The tenon is square indicating that the head haspresumably been worked for insertion into acuirassed statue (or bust form). The head hasbeen recarved into Vespasian’s secondary type.The Neronian coiffure at the top and back of thehead has been removed and the surfaces leftrough, with pick marks clearly visible. Howev-er, the longer curving locks of Nero’s third por-trait type are still clearly visible over the temples.The receding lower lip, large ears which standout from the head, and the treatment of eyes andbrows have also been retained from the originalportrait. The remains of Nero’s fleshy underchincontinue to be visible in profile. The recarvinghas caused the neck to be very wide on the leftside. Indications of aging have not been over-emphasized in this portrait.

2.22. Lucus Feroniae Magazzini (formerlyRome, Museo Nazionale di Villa Giulia)

h. unavailableprovenance: Lucus Feroniae, temple near theForummarble head worked for insertion into a togatestatuepublications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 11, 80, pl. 7a (with earlierliterature); A. Moretti and G. BordenacheBattaglia (1975) 109, pl. 27; B. Andreae (1977)fig. 363; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981)318-9, n. 2, 334; V. Paladini (1981) pl.4.13; J. Pollini (1984) 550-51, ns. 29, 31;Fittschen-Zanker I, 33, no. 27, n. 6; F. Johan-sen (1995a) 9 fig. 6; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000)

12; here, 10, n. 58, 52-53, fig. 46a-d.

Although refashioned as a replica of Vespasian’ssecondary type, the head, contains strong phys-iognomical elements of Nero’s fourth portraittype, especially in the handling of the brows andeyes. In addition it has retained the more youthfuland classicizing features of the original, makingit Vespasian’s most idealized surviving marbleportrait.

2.23. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romanodelle Terme, inv. 38795

h. 0.31 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Castel Porzianopublications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 410-412, no. 49, fig. 66a-d; A. Amadioin MusNazRom I.9.1 192-93, no. R 145 (withearlier literature); M. Anderson and L. Nista(1988) 52, no. 8 (L. Nista); E.R. Varner, ed.(2000) 12, here, 10, n. 59, 54, fig. 52a-d.

The head is slightly under lifesized and was dis-covered with other marble fragments and build-ing material. It is the most realistic of Vespasian’smain type portraits. Nevertheless, Nero’s longertype 2 hair is still visible on the right side of theneck and the original hair on the top of the headhas only been cursorily smoothed over with achisel. Evidently the reworking was never com-pleted in this area, perhaps because it is notreadily visible when the portrait is viewed fron-tally and from below.

2.24. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano.Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 53

h. 0.35 m.marble headprovenance: Tiberpublications: M Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 335-37, no. 2, fig. 14; A. Amadio inMusNazRom I.9.1, 184-87, no. R 142 (withearlier literature); E. Calandro in A. La Regi-na ed. (1998) 90 (with fig.); A. La Regina, ed.(2001); here, 54, fig. 53a-e.

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits244

The head has been broken from a statue or bustand was discovered in the Tiber. The surface ofthe portrait is badly corroded as a result of its longimmersion in the Tiber, but signs of recarving arestill visible. The portrait has been reconfiguredinto Vespasian’s main type. Close examinationof the left side of the head reveals traces of thehair and sideburns of Nero’s third portrait type.Behind the right ear, chisel marks from the re-working have not been smoothed away. Thelower lip of the recarved portrait recedes, as itwould have done it the original portrait of Nero.Although the rims of the ears have been knockedoff, their position indicates that the ears wereoriginally prominent, another hallmark of Nero’sportraiture. As a result of the recutting, the chinretreats from the frontal plane of the face and,in profile, the forehead slopes back at an unnat-uralistic angle. In an attempt to add the charac-teristic signs of aging of Vespasian’s main portraittype, the eyes have been extensively recarved,causing them to be set well back into the head.The right eye is much rounder than the left andhas a much fuller pad of flesh beneath it. Thetop left corner of the right eye has also beencarved very deeply into the head, giving thewhole eye and socket an awkward cast.

2.25. Rome, Musei Vaticani, GalleriaChiaramonti 7.9, inv. 1291

h. 0.39 mmarble head worked for insertionprovenance: presumably Rome or environspublications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 337, no. 3, figs. 15a-d; A. Amadio inMusNazRom I.9.1, 186; P. Liverani (1989b) 24(with earlier literature); here, 53-54, 242, fig.51a-e.

Originally a type 4 portrait of Nero, whose coif-fure is still clearly visible behind the ears, theportrait has been reconfigured into a version ofVespasian’s secondary type. Nevertheless, severalrather emphatic signs of ageing have been add-ed to the portrait, making it more veristic thanmany of Vespasian’s secondary type portraits.The portrait’s insistence on verism finds paral-

lels in the reconfigured portrait in Grosseto (cat.2.20).

2.26. Rome, (formerly) Villa Borghese(currently Palazzo dei Conservatori)

h. unavailablemarble headprovenancepublications: EA nos. 285-37; M Bieber (1944)73; J. Pollini (1984) 552, n. 43; here, 53, fig.48.

The head, recycled into a replica of Vespasian’ssecond type, has been inserted into a togate statuefrom Gabii to which it does not belong and whichlikely dates to c. 161-80. J. Pollini was the firstto raise the possibility that the head had beenrecarved from a portrait of Nero. Traces ofNero’s type 3 hairstyle are clearly visible abovethe both ears. The sideburns have been slightlyreduced in length, but are still relatively long. Thehair on the nape of the neck has also been short-ened, but the beginnings of Nero’s characteris-tic swallowtail part are preserved. The recedinglower lip and prominent ears are remnants of theoriginal portrait of Nero. The small eyes have alsobeen retained from Nero’s type 3 portrait. Thebrows have been recut, causing them to be asym-metrical. The overall volumetric reduction of thehead has caused the chin to recede from thefrontal plane of the face, and the neck to beproportionately too wide and long in compari-son to the head itself.

2.27. Seville Museo Arquelógico, inv.7.906h. 0.408 m.marble head worked for insertion into togatestatue or bustprovenance: Écija (1972)publications: C. Fernández-Chicarro y de Dios(1973) 174-80, pls. 24-26; M. Bergmann andP. Zanker (1981)335, no. 1, fig. 13a-c; J. Pol-lini (1984) 551; J. Arce, S. Ensoli, and. E. LaRocca, eds. (1997) 401, no. 199, with fig.; here,53, 60.

The image has been refashioned into Vespasian’s

nero 245

secondary type, but the hair over the forehead,at the back of the head, the treatment of thebrows and the profile all point to the portrait’sorigins as a replica Nero’s second portrait type.Nero’s arrangement of locks has been workedaway with a chisel on the left side of the headbehind the ear and at the back of the head, aswell as above the hairline at the back of the neck.As in Nero’s portraits, the lower lip recedes.Because of the recutting, the chin retreats fromthe frontal plane of the face. Although the naso-labial lines are fairly emphatic, the furrows on theforehead are not emphasized and the resultingportrait is fairly youthful.

2.28. Seville, Museo Arquelógico, inv.1060

h. 0.62 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Italicapublications: D. Kreikenbom (1992) 212, no.3.89, pl. 18a-b (with earlier literature); here,53, 60.

In its current incarnation, the portrait is a ver-sion of Vespasian’s secondary type. Nero’s coif-fure has been entirely worked away over theforehead and at the temples, but the altered like-ness retains the broad shape of the upper headcharacteristic of Nero’s images. The smooth fore-head has been retained from the Neronian por-trait as has the general configuration of the eyes.Schematic naso-labial lines and furrows aroundthe mouth have been added as indications ofaging. The precise arrangement of Nero’s long-er locks from his type 3 and 4 images have beenworked away with a flat chisel at the back of thehead and nape of the neck but their volume andgeneral shape his not been altered. If carved inthe original Neronian portrait, the occiput hasalso been entirely removed.

2.29. Tunis, Musée du Bardo, inv. C 1025h. 0.46 m.marble head worked for insertion into togatestatueprovenance: Temple of Apollo, Bulla Regia.

publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 14-15, 83, pl. 6d (with pre-vious literature); A. Beschaouch, R. Hanoune,Y. Thébert, (1977) 131-32, fig. 131; M. Berg-mann and P. Zanker (1981)343, no. 7 fig. 19;V. Paladini (1981) pl. 4.14; here, 54, fig. 54.

The portrait has been refashioned from a type2 representation of Nero into a version of Ves-pasian’s main, more realistic type. Although theeyes have been recarved and the right eye is nowsmaller than the left, the brows over the eyes havebeen maintained from the original Neronianimage.

2.30. Turin, Museo di Antichità, inv. 244h. unavailablemarble headprovenance: unknownpublications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 14, 83, pl. 7c-d; M. Berg-mann and P. Zanker (1981)334, 341, no. 5,figs. 17a-c; here, 54, fig. 55a-b.

The portrait has been attached to a modern bustand is reworked from a replica of Nero’s secondportrait type. The locks over the right templeremain from Nero’s portrait, as do the shape ofthe eyebrows and the fleshy underchin. The hairon the top and back of the head has been rough-ened with a chisel, but new locks have not beencarved in this area. Remnants of iron dowelsbehind the ears may indicate that these areas ofthe hair were completed in stucco.

2.31. Verria Museum, inv. 373,h. 0.50 m.marble head with laurel crownprovenance: Verria?publications: D. Kreikenbom (1992) 210, no.3.83 (with earlier literature); here, 54-55.

The portrait is an example of Vespasian’s maintype, but the longer locks at the back of the headare clearly remnants of Nero’s third or fourthtype. In addition, his fleshy underchin is still

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits246

visible. The removal of marble from the area ofthe face with no corresponding reduction to thevolumes at the back of the head, has caused theprofile to appear disproportionately wide. Inaddition, the corona is too large for the reducedproportions of the face. D. Kreikenbom has sug-gested that the image has been reworked twice:initially into a representation of Vitellius and laterto Vespasian ([1992] 210.). This seems unlikely,however, since Nero’s memory was rehabilitat-ed under Vitellius and the damnatio revoked orin abeyance.

Nero/Titus

2.32. Alexandria, inv. 26958h. 0.30 m.marble headprovenance: Egyptpublications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 85; M. Bergmann and P.Zanker (1981) 376, no. 26; H. Jucker (1981b)702-4, fig. 29a-b; here, 56, 64.

The reconfiguration of this portrait has renderedit a type 1 likeness of Titus. However, the Nero-nian type 4 pattern of locks, which are combeddirectly forward from the back of the head isclearly visible behind the right ear. The recarv-ing of the hair over the forehead has caused theforehead to be unusually high, as in the Louvreportrait (cat. 2.38). As with the recut Louvre por-trait, M. Bergmann and P. Zanker ([1981] 376)again relate the original portrait to Nero’s sec-ond type. Nevertheless, the thick modeling of thelocks and their arrangement are far closer toNero’s fourth type.

2.33. Castel Howard, (Forschungsarchivfür römische Plastik Köln, neg. no. 1025/05, 1025/06, 918/10)

h. unknownmarble headprovenance: Italy (Rome?)publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 375, n. 27; Fittschen-Zanker I, 34, no.

28, n. 4. Beil. 17c-d (with earlier literature);here, 56.

Nero’s type 2 hairstyle is clearly visible behindthe right ear despite the reconfiguration into atype 2 image of Titus. The hair on the nape ofthe neck is also fairly long, as in Nero’s secondportrait type. The brows have been recut in orderto give them Titus’s arching contour. Althoughthe mouth has been reduced in length, Nero’sthin upper lip and full, receding lower lip havenot been substantially altered.

2.34. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyp-totek 664a, inv. 1843

h. 0.44 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Italypublications: F. Johansen (1995a) 32, no. 5,with figs. (with earlier literature); here, 56, fig.56a-d.

Despite its refashioning as a type 1 replica ofTitus, traces of longer locks behind the ears andon the nape of the neck, as well as the fleshyhandling of the facial features and small eyes allbetray the head’s origins as a type 3 portrait ofNero. In addition the configuration of the locksover the forehead and the right temple, with itsreversed orientation, have been substantiallymaintained from Nero’s third portrait type.Rather deep horizontal furrows have also beenadded to the forehead as part of the restructur-ing process.

2.35. Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi Inv.1914.126

h. 0.30 (head and neck)marble head worked for insertionprovenance: presumably Rome or environs (exLudovisi Collection, 1669)publications: G.A. Mansuelli (1961) 73-4, no.71, fig. 70 (with earlier literature); M. Wegn-er, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 86;K. Fittschen (1977) 64, no. 3; M. Bergmannand P. Zanker (1981)376-78, no. 27, fig. 46a-

nero 247

b; B. Palma, MusNazRom 1.6, 104-5, fig; here,56, fig. 57.

The head has been recut into a variant of Titus’ssecond (Erbach) type. Nevertheless, the hairlineat the back of the neck is sharply and abruptlydefined where Nero’s longer locks from type 3or 4 have been shortened.. The shape of thebrows has been retained, although the eyes them-selves have been recarved, causing the right eyeto be significantly smaller than the left. The fullunderchin remains from the original portrait, butthe chin and jawline have been recut. The cur-rent position of the chin recedes substantiallyfrom the frontal plane of the face.

2.36. Hannover, Sammlung des Herzogsvon Braunschweig

h. 0.255 m.marble headprovenance: unknownpublications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 100 (with previous litera-ture); K. Fittschen in Die Skulpturen der SammlungWallmoden (Göttingen 1979) no. 29, fig.; M.Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 375-76, no.25, fig. 45a-d; here, 56.

Originally a type 2 portrait of Nero, the portraithas been reconfigured as a type 1 Titus. Long Sshaped locks and the central part in the hairlineon the nape of the neck are plainly Neronianfeatures. The longer hair on the right side of thehead also remains from the original portrait. Thebrows have been slightly recarved to arch upwardat the outer corner, but the almond shaped eyeswith crisply delineated upper and lower lids havenot been recut. The original mouth and fleshyunderchin have also been retained.

2.37. Olympia Museum, no. A 126h. 2.08 m.marble (Pentellic) cuirassed statueprovenance: Olympia, Metroonpublications: K. Stemmer (1978) 33-4, no. III5, pl. 18.1 (with earlier literature); R. Bol(1986) 294, fig. 13; K. Hitzl (1991) 32, 46-49,

no. 4, 59, 67, 75, 85, 93, pls. 20-25 (with earlierliterature); G. Koch (1995) 323-26, pl. 74.2;C.B. Rose (1997) 147, no. 80; here, 56, 57, 72.

Currently a conflation of Titus’s two portraittypes, the image retains elements of the originaltype 3 Neronian hairstyle. The mass of the hairbehind the crown of the head and at the occiputis also too large in proportion to the face and thevolume of hair over the forehead. A section ofthe longer Neronian locks is also evident at thecenter left of the forehead.

2.38. Paris, Musée du Louvre MA 3562h. 0.432 m.marble head worked for insertion.provenance: Italy?publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 91; M. Bergmann and P.Zanker (1981)375, no. 24, fig. 44a-c; K. deKersauson (1996) 36-7, no. 8, with figs; here,56, 246.

The head has been recarved into a version ofTitus’s first portrait type. Nero’s type 4 coiffure,with long locks combed forward, has not beenrecarved on the left side of the head or behindthe right ear and the locks in these areas find theirclosest parallels in Nero’s Munich portrait. Thelocks over the forehead and at the temples havebeen radically recut and as a result, the foreheadis much higher than in standard portraits of Titus.The configuration of the brows, which curvedown at the outer corners, has also been retainedfrom the Neronian likeness. The general shapeof the mouth, with receding lower lip has notbeen altered. M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)prefer to see the Louvre head as a reworking ofa replica of Nero’s second type. However, thehair and profile of the lower face are much clos-er to Nero’s fourth portrait type.

2.39. Rome, Villa Borghese, Sala del Er-mafrodito 171, inv. 748

h. 0.66 m.marble headprovenance: presumably Rome or environs

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits248

publications: J.J. Bernoulli (1894) 55, no. 4(Domitian); R. Calza (1957) 14, no. 133-34; M.Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966)24, 95, pl. 17c-d; M. Bergmann and P. Zank-er (1981)375, n. 27; P. Moreno and C. Stefani,eds. (2000) 144, no. 4, with fig, here, 56.

The head is currently displayed on a cuirassedbust to which it does not belong and has beenrecarved into Titus’s second (Erbach) type. Trac-es of the coiffure and youthful facial features ofNero’s second type are still discernible. The locksover the forehead and the forehead itself, havebeen recut, with the result that there is a notice-able bulge over the bridge of the nose. The chinand lower section of the face have also beenreduced in size, causing the chin recedes from thefrontal plane of the face. The hair at the backof the head has shortened along the nape of theneck.

2.40. Trieste Civico Museo di Storia eArte, inv. 3139

h. 0.48 m.marble head worked for insertion with corona(laurel)provenance: Trieste, Roman Theaterpublications: G. Daltrop, U. Hausmann andM. Wegner (1966) 98, pl. 19.c-d; M. Denti(1991) 44-49, no. 8, pl. 9.1-4 (with earlier lit-erature); here, 56, 57, fig. 58.

Vestiges of Nero’s original type 3 coiffure brushedforward behind the ears are still clearly visible.The reduction of volume to the facial featuresresulting from the reconfiguration as a type 2(Erbach) image of Titus, has caused the laurelcrown to be disproportionately large and the neckto appear overly wide at its base.

Nero/Domitian

2.41. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 88.639h. 0.35 m.marble head worked for insertion into a togatestatue

provenance: Tusculum, “Villa of Domitian”publications: M. Comstock and C.C. Ver-meule (1976) 217, no. 345, with figs. (withearlier literature); M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981)356-59, no. 17, fig. 30a-b; A. Amadioin MusNazRom 1.9.1, 196; J.J. Herrrmann, jr.(1991) 45; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 140, no. 28,with figs.; here, 59, 126, fig. 64a-c.

Refashioned as a type 1 portrait of Domitian, thearrangement of the locks over both the ears andon the sides of the head still closely follows thecoiffure of Nero’s fourth type as seen in all threesculpted replicas (Munich, Oslo, and Worcester).The hair on the nape of the neck has been cutback. The fleshy eyes, with small upper lids andheavy lower lids remain from the original por-trait of Nero as well. The prominent ears are alsoa feature of Nero’s portraiture. The heavy un-derchin of Nero’s portrait has been reduced insize, making the chin somewhat overly long inprofile.

2.42. Cologne, Römisch-GermanischesMuseum

h. 0.44 m.marble headprovenance: Colognepublications: D. Kreikenbom (1992) 216-7, no.3.98 (with earlier literature), here, 59, 60, 126.

The hair over the forehead has been reworkedinto a subdued version of Domitian’s type I ar-rangement with central part. Domitian’s fullercurls have not been added and the image essen-tially retains the less volumetric comma shapedlocks of Nero’s portraits. Remnants of Nero’s type3 coiffure are still plainly visible over the righttemple where the locks curve towards the backof the head. The arrangement of the hair at theback of the head, as well as the long locks sweptforward on the nape of the neck are also rem-nants of Nero’s third portrait type.

nero 249

2.43. Madrid, Madrid, Museo Arqueológi-co, inv. 2770

h. 0.16 m.marble headprovenance: Almedinillapublications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 28, 39, 88, 102, pl. 19b (Ti-tus) (with earlier literature); M. Bergmann andP. Zanker (1981)369-70, no. 20; here, 60, 126.

Refashioned as a type 3 likeness of Domitian, thehead has been cut or broken from a statue orbust. The length of the locks over the foreheadand temple have been reworked, but their ar-rangement is consistent with Nero’s type 3 coif-fure. The small, fleshy eyes appear to be a local,schematized rendition of a standard element ofNero’s iconography. The shape of the mouth,chin, and underchin directly recall his type 3replica now in the Museo Palatino. The recut-ting of the hair has also caused the face to bedrastically out of proportion with the back of thehead, especially in the right profile.

2.44. Madrid, Prado, inv. 321 Eh. 0.27 m.marble headprovenance: presumably Rome or environspublications: S. Schröder (1993) 158, no. 38-40, with figs. (with previous literature); here,59, 126.

The portrait probably formed part of a series ofbusts of the twelve Caesars assembled in Romein 1562 by Cardinal Ricci da Montepulciano forPhillip II (S. Schröder [1993] 6). The portrait hasbeen refashioned as a type 1 image of Domitian,but traces of Nero’s type II coiffure have beenretained on the nape of the neck and around theears. Nero’s receding underlip is also still in ev-idence.

2.45. Minden, Domschatz,7.1 x 6.4 cmsardonyx cameoprovenance: Rome (?)publications: W.R. Megow (1987) 97, n. 294,

101, 107-8, 123, 218-220, no. A107, pl. 36.4(with earlier literature). K. Jeppesen (1993)166-7, fig. 4; here, 60-61, 132, fig. 69.

The coiffure and facial features have been exten-sively recarved, causing a reduction in the over-all proportions of the head. Consequently, boththe neck, corona and mass of the hair are far toolarge for the current size of the face. Nero’s longerlocks have been cut back over the forehead, infront of the ears and on the nape of the neck, buttraces of Nero’s original type 2 coiffure are stillclearly visible in these areas. The locks on topof the head have also been reworked into Domi-tian’s waved arrangement. Nero’s aquiline nosehas been made hooked by recutting the sardonyxin the area of the bridge of the nose.

2.46. Munich, Glyptothek, 394 (formerly 249)h. 2.25 m. (with plinth), h. 0.30 m (chin to topof skull)provenance: Labicum, Roman Villa (1758)publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 32, 41, 102, pl. 23a, 25c, d(with previous literature); M. Bergmann andP. Zanker (1981)370-73, no. 22, pl. 41a-d; A.Amadio in MusNazRom 1.9.1, 196; C. Mader-na (1988) 180, 192, 211, 232, 240, 242; D..E.E.Kleiner (1992) 176, fig. 144; F. Johansen(1995a) 11, fig. 8; here, 58-59, 67, 125-126,131, fig. 62a-b.

Extensive restorations to the statue were carriedout by Bartolomeo Cavaceppi in the eighteenthcentury. Although the head has been broken fromthe body and reattached, the piece was originallycarved from a single block of marble and theportrait certainly belongs to the body. The hairhas been almost entirely recarved into Domitian’stype 1 arrangement, but traces of Nero’s type 3coiffure are still evident. The locks on the rightside of the nape of the neck have been shortened,but their arrangement corresponds closely toNero’s type 3 portrait in the Museo Palatino. Thecurls over and in front of the right ear also findparallels in the Palatine portrait. The hair on thecrown of the head has been worked over with a

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits250

flat chisel and the final surfaces left unfinished.This area would have been largely masked by theaddition of a corona or diadem, for which dowelholes exist throughout the coiffure. The eyes, withtheir thin upper lids and heavier lower lids, aswell as the shape of the brows, have been retainedfrom the original portrait of Nero. Nero’s fullcheeks do not appear to have been reduced andhis mouth has not been substantially recut. How-ever, the original heavy jawline has been nar-rowed. Nero’s fleshy underchin is still visible inprofile. The unaltered neck is too thick in pro-portion to the reduced volumes of the head.

2.47. Munich, Glyptothek, 418h. 0.37 m.marble headprovenance:publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981)352-54, no. 14, figs. 271-d (with earlierliterature); A. Amadio in MusNazRom 1.9.1,196; here, 59, 126.

The hair on the top and back of the head hasbeen worked away with the chisel as part of thereconfiguration into Domitian type 1, but enoughremains on the nape of the neck and over thetemples to identify Nero’s type 4 coiffure. Thesideburns also appear to have been cut back. Thesmall fleshy eyes and conformation of the browshave been retained from Nero’s portrait. How-ever, the recarving of the cheeks, mouth, and chinhas reduced the volume of the face, causing theneck to be unnaturally thick. Nevertheless, likethe Terme portrait (cat. 2.52), the recarving ofthe Munich head has resulted in a subtle andconvincing likeness of Domitian’s first portraittype.

2.48. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeolo-gico, inv. 5907

h. unavailablemarble headprovenance:publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981)366, no. 19, fig. 37a-c; here, 60, 126.

A rare type 2 portrait of Domitian, the head hasbeen reconfigured from a pre-existing type 2portrait of Nero. The locks on the right side ofthe nape of the neck have been shortened but theextent of their original mass is still apparent. Thebrows have been recarved and are now ratherhigh and arching, but Nero’s straighter browlinecan still be seen above the left eye. The eyes havebeen reworked, making the left wider and long-er than the right. The lower half of the face hasbeen reduced in volume with the result that theneck is too wide.

2.49. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeolo-gico, inv. 6061

h. 0.72 (with bust)marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Rome or environs (ex FarneseCollection)publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 36-7, 103, pl. 32a-b (withearlier literature); M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981)369-70, no. 21, fig. 40; H. Jucker (1981a)297; MusNazNap 1.2, 158, no. 33, with fig.;here, 60, 126, fig. 66a-b.

In transforming the image into a type 3 portraitof Domitian, the original coiffure has been re-moved with a punch/point at the top and left sideof the occiput. Most of the hair has been re-carved, but traces of Nero’s third style coiffureare still visible above and in front of the right ear.The locks at the back of the neck have beenshortened; roughened areas beneath the currenthairline are indications of the length of the orig-inal hairstyle. Traces of Nero’s longer sideburnscan also be discerned in front of both ears. Theforehead has been substantially cut back. A dra-matic bulge over the bridge of the nose marksthe extent of the preexisting portrait in this area.The brows have also been recarved and made tocurve downward at the outer corners. However,the line of Nero’s straighter brows is still visibleto either side of the bridge of the nose. The eyeshave been recut in an effort to make them lessfleshy. The eyes are remarkably asymmetrical,with the right eye considerably smaller and low-

nero 251

er than the left. The general configuration of themouth remains from Nero’s type 3 portrait al-though it has been slightly reduced in length. Asa result, the mouth is somewhat longer on theright side. Nero’s fleshy underchin has not beenremoved.

2.50. Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Anti-chità, inv. 146 (1870), 827 (1954)

h. 2.04 m. (statue),h. 0.365 m. (head)marble cuirassed statueprovenance: Velleia, Julio Claudian Basilica (3-17 June 1761)publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 91, 104-5, 111; H. Niem-eyer (1968) 95, no. 46; C. Saletti (1968) 52-57, no. 12, pls. 39-42 (with earlier literature);K.P. Goethert (1972) 244-45; H. Jucker (1977)212; K. Stemmer (1978) 8-10, no I 4, pl. 1.4;M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)394-98, no.36, fig. 57a-d; S. Adamo Musecettola in Do-miziano/Nerva (1987) 49, fig. 56; C.B. Rose(1997) 121-6, cat. 50, pls. 152-3; here, 9, 58,80, fig. 61a-c, and cat. 5.13.

This statue is the only cuirassed image from theBasilica and it was discovered in the open cen-tral section, rather than in the surrounding col-onnades or rooms, where most of the other stat-ues were found. All of this may indicate that theoriginal Neronian image was not part of thegroup dedication initially and was brought to thecomplex after its alteration into an image ofDomitian, or even after its final reworking intoa likeness of Nerva. Remnants of Nero’s type 4coiffure are clearly visible on the occiput, behindthe ears, and on the nape of the neck. Nero’slonger locks have clearly been reduced in lengthon the nape of the neck, but still follow the pat-tern of his hairstyle. Although the brows and lidssurrounding the eyes have been extensively re-cut, resulting in strident asymmetricalities, thesmall shape of the eyes has been retained fromthe original. The ears which stand out from thehead are typical of Nero’s portraiture as is thereceding underlip. Nero’s fleshy underchin is stilldiscernible, but the multiple recarvings of the

chin and jawline have caused the chin to recederemarkably from the frontal plane of the face.Despite the fact that the tenon has been slightlytrimmed, the original portrait of Nero appearsto belong to the cuirass. The recutting of thetenon was necessitated by the reduction in thewidth of the neck. The cutting down of the neckhas caused it to bend unnaturally on the left side.

2.51. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degliImperatori 14, inv. 427

h. 0.18 (fragment)marbleprovenance: presumably Rome or environs (excoll. Giustiniani; ex coll. Albani (B121)publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 35, no. 31,pls. 32-33 (with earlier literature); J.M. Croisille(1999) 403, fig. 20; H. Meyer (2000) 136, fig.254; here, 59, 114.

The likeness is extremely fragmentary and iron-ically, it was reconstructed in the late sixteenthor early seventeenth century as a portrait of Nero.The ancient fragment consists of the hair overthe forehead and the left temple, the foreheadand left temple, the eyes, most of the nose, theupper lip and the left cheek. Prior to 1631 it wasincorporated into a modern likeness of Nero. Inantiquity, the locks over the forehead and lefttemple were reduced and recarved into Domi-tian’s first coiffure. But the ancient hair at thefront of the top of the head clearly recalls the comain gradus formata hair style of Nero’s third andfourth portrait types. The shape of the brows andsmall eyes is also consonant with an identifica-tion of the initial portrait as a replica of Nero’sthird or fourth type. The ancient fragment pre-sumably came from Rome or its environs.

2.52. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano.Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 226

h. 0.35 m.marble headprovenance: presumably Rome or environs (exMuseo Kircheriano)publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981)349-52, no. 12, fig. 25a-d; Fittschen-

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits252

Zanker I, 35; A. Amadio in MusNazRom I.9.1196, no. R 149, with figs (with earlier litera-ture); here, 59, 126, 141, n. 48, 212, 250, 264,fig. 63a-d.

The head has been recut into a replica of Domi-tian’s first portrait type. The current neck is amodern restoration in plaster. Much of the coif-fure has also been restored in plaster, but the hairon the right side of the head, over the right earand on the right temple generally conform toNero’s fourth portrait type. The small, deeply seteyes, the receding lower lip, and the fleshy un-derchin have also been retained from the origi-nal likeness of Nero. There is a slight depressionin the marble at the top of the forehead, whereNero’s longer bangs have been shortened. Therecarving of this portrait has been subtly handledand the resulting image of Domitian lacks theasymmetricalities of physiognomy and facial dis-tortions that are often a product of more radicalreworkings.

2.53. Rome, Musei Vaticani, BraccioNuovo, 126 (formerly 129), inv. 2213

h. 2.45 m., statue, h. 0.30 m., head, chin toskullmarble cuirassed statueprovenance: presumably Rome or environs,formerly Palazzo Giustiniani; D. de Rossi(1704) pl. 89; M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 33-34; 41, 107, pls. 23b,28a-b (with previous literature); K.T. Erim(1973) 140, fig. 14; K. Stemmer (1978) nos.683, 737; C. Gasparri (1980) 54, n. 34; C.C.Vermeule (1980b) 4, 78, fig. 39; M. Bergmannand P. Zanker (1981) 354-56, no. 15, fig. 28a-d (plaster cast of head); W. Grünhagen (1986)315; pl. 52a;R. Gergel (1987) 26, fig. 15; W.Grünhagen (1986) fig. 315, 52a; M. Pfanner(1989) 219, fig. 35; L. Buccino in G. Fusconied. (2001); 242-44, with fig.; here, 57-58, 70,n. 206, 72, 125, fig. 59.

The head appears to belong with the body andthey are shown together in the engraving afterF. Perrier from the catalogue of the Galleria

Giustiniani c. 1635, as well as in D. De Rossi’sillustration of 1704. The head has been refash-ioned from a conflation of Nero’s second andthird portrait types into a type 1 Domitian. Thelocks over the ears and at the nape of the neckconform to Nero’s type 2 coiffure. The arrange-ment of the locks on the right side of the napeof the neck, combed forward, with a downwardcurl at the ends, finds compelling parallels inNero’s type 2 portraits in the Museo Palatino (ex.Terme, inv. 616) and the Louvre (no. 3528). Thelength of the locks on the back and nape of theneck has been reduced, as attested by the roughsurface of marble below the hairline. The delin-eation of the brows, with the broad, calligraphiccurve at the outer corner is also characteristic ofNero’s type 2 portraits. The small, slightly por-cine eyes with thin upper lids and heavy lowerlids as found in Nero’s type 3 portraits, have alsonot been refashioned. The mouth, with its reced-ing lower lip has essentially been retained fromNero’s likeness, although the corners of themouth have been retouched. By lightly carvingin the corners, the mouth has been given anupward cast at the outer edges, a characteristicfeature of Domitian’s portraits. Nero’s roundedchin has been slightly recut and made moresquare. The diminished mass of the recarvedportrait has caused the neck to be somewhat toowide and long and the head to appear slightlytoo small in proportion to the cuirassed body.The current proportions are approximately 1:7.5.The more massive, original portrait of Nerowould have been in proportion to the body,which further supports to the likelihood that thehead and body do, in fact, belong together.

2.54. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gre-goriano Profano no. 644, inv. 4065,

h. 0.26 m.marble relief fragmentprovenance: presumably Rome or environs.publications: H. Jucker (1981a) 295-302, figs.68-70; G. Koeppel (1983) 141-2, fig. 47 (withearlier literature); here, 60, 62-63, 119, 126,fig. 68.

nero 253

The image, refashioned as a type 3 portrait ofDomitian, preserves holes in the hair over theforehead for the addition of a radiate crown,likely a feature of the original portrait of Nero.Elements of Nero’s type 3 coiffure are still plainlyvisible framing the forehead in the recut likenessas is the coma in gradus format arrangement at thetop of the head. The handling of the eyes andthe fleshy face have also been retained from theNeronian image. The fragmentary head providesimportant evidence for the production reliefsculpture honoring Nero in the capital.

2.55. Rome, Villa Margherita (AmericanEmbassy), wall along the Via Boncompag-ni

h. unavailablemarble headprovenance: presumably Rome or environspublications: L. de Lachenal, MusNazRom 208-9, no. 7.42, with fig. (with earlier literature);D. Kreikenbom (1992) 217, no. 3.99; here, 60,126, fig. 67.

Reworked into a type 3 likeness of Domitian, thehead still retains easily recognizable vestiges ofNero’s own third type coiffure over the right ear.The breadth of the face as well as the width ofthe neck are also remnants of the Neronian imageand are somewhat out of scale with the reducedproportions of the refashioned hair.

2.56. Seville, Seville, Museo Arqueológi-co Provincial, inv. 1996/8

h. 0.51 m.marble head worked for insertion with coronacivicaprovenance: Muniqua house 6, wellpublications: T. Hauschild (1984) 193; W.Grünhagen (1986) 309-323, pls. 51-54; M.Donderer (1991-2) 265, no. 11; W. Trillmichet al. (1993) 351, pl. 135; J. Arce, S. Ensoli,and. E. La Rocca, eds. (1997) 401, no. 200,with fig.; P. Stewart (1999) 164; here, 59, 60,126.

W. Grünhagen has characterized this portrait as

a provincial variant of Domitian’s third portraittype. He wishes to date the portrait to the earlyyears of Domitian’s principate, on the basis of thecorona civica, which he suggests is only worn byreigning emperors. This however is not the case.Domitian could conceivably have worn the coro-na as caesar and heir to Vespasian and Titus. Andin fact, a type 2 portrait of Domitian in Napleswhich presumably predates his accession, includesa corona (Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv.6058; cat. 2.X). The hairstyle and youthful phys-iognomy of the Munigua portrait proclaim it tobe a variant of type 1. The hair is arranged incomma shaped locks across the forehead, allcombed from right to left. The locks combedforward over the temples find close parallels inthe Vasto type 1 portrait of Domitian, which hasalso been reworked from a type 4 portrait ofNero. The configuration of the coiffure, as wellas the broader facial structure of the image haveall been retained from the original type 4 like-ness of Nero. The locks behind both ears havebeen chiseled over. The hair on the nape of theneck have also been shortened. The lower halfof the face has been substantially recarved, withthe result that the top of the head and coronaappear much too massive in proportion to the restof the face. The chin also recedes drastically fromthe frontal plane of the face.

2.57. Stuttgart, Württembergisches Landesmu-seum, 64/28

h. 0.42 m.marble headprovenance: precise provenance unknown(from the art market)publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981)356, no. 16, fig. 29a-d, here, 59, 126.

Currently a type 1 portrait of Domitian, the headretains the orientation of curling locks brushedforward from the occiput seen in Nero’s type 3images. The treatment of the eyes, as well as themore massive proportions of the face and neckare also features held over from the Neroninanoriginal. The hair has been considerably short-ened on the nape of the neck. So much so, in fact,

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits254

that it is unusually short for Domitian’s likenesses.The reconfiguration of the portrait has alsocaused it to be especially broad in profile.

2.58. Vaison-la-Romaine, Musée Muni-cipal, inv. 300.315

h. 1.84 m.marble cuirassed statueprovenance: Vaison, Roman Theater,publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 108 (with earlier literature);H. Niemeyer (1968) 103, no. 78; K. Stemmer(1978) 77, no. VII 4, pls. 50.4, 51.1-2; F.Salviat in L’Archéologie 41 (Feb.-Mar. 1980) 81-83, with figs; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981)373-74, no. 23, fig. 43a-b; M. Fuchs(1987)169-70; C.B. Rose (1997) 131-2, no. 59,pl. 169; here, 58, 72, 125, 234, fig. 60a-b.

The head belongs with the body. The face hasbroken away from the head and been reattached.The portrait itself has suffered much weatherdamage, but conforms to Domitian’s first portraittype. The original arrangement of locks on thetop and sides of the head have been roughlychiseled over, but the waved coiffure on the topof the head, as found in Nero’s third and fourthportrait types, is still visible in profile. No newlocks have been carved in this area. Although ithas been reduced somewhat in length, Nero’slonger hair is still visible on the nape of the neck.The eyes have also been recut. Nero’s small fleshyeyes have been made longer and wider. Therecarving has caused the left eye to be muchwider than the right. Furthermore, the recut eyesappear too large in relation to size of the face andare set very noticeably back into the head. How-ever, the treatment of the brows, which gentlycurve at the outer corners, remains from Nero’sthird and fourth portrait type. The mouth, whichturns slightly down at the corners and has a re-ceding underlip, conforms to surviving replicasof Nero’s last two types, as does the general formof the head and chin. M. Bergmann and P.Zanker suggest type 4 as more likely than type3 for the original. Neronian likeness ([1981]374).

2.59. Vasto, Museo Civicoh. 0.28 mmarble headprovenance:publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 359-61, no. 18, fig. 32a-d; here, 59, 126,fig. 65.

A provincial variant of Domitian’s first portraittype, the locks in front of the ears, most of thelocks over the forehead, and the sideburns havebeen substantially retained from Nero’s fourthcoiffure. The locks which are still indicated to-wards the front of the skull comprise the frontedge of Nero’s wavy hairstyle.

Nero/Trajan

2.60. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. no.1983.11

3.1 x 3.5 cm.sardonyx cameoprovenance: from a French private collectionpublications: W.R. Megow (1987) 112, 225-26,no. A17, pl. 41.5 (with earlier literature); here,63, 64, fig. 75.

One of a handful of imperial gems to have beenmodified, Nero’s type 3 hairstyle has been leftsubstantially intact in the cameo, although asecond row of locks which reverse the directionof the original Neronian coiffure has been light-ly carved over the forehead. The physiognomyhas also been modified, with the forehead slightlyrecut, naso-labial lines added, and the shape ofthe chin altered.

Nero/Antinous

2.61. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ca-binet des Médailles, 238

5.9 x 4.8 cm.sardonyx cameoprovenance: unknownpublications: W.R. Megow (1987) 97, n. 294,111, 113-14, 308, no. E6, pl. 42.10 (with ear-lier literature); here, 63-64, fig. 76.

nero 255

The hairstyle has been refashioned into Anti-nous’s curly coiffure, but the straighter locks ofNero’s second type are present over the occiput.In addition, the central part of Nero’s coiffure isalso still visible in the curls over Antinous’s fore-head. In addition, there are traces of Nero’s long-er hair on the nape of the neck beneath thecurrent hairline. The facial features have beenentirely recarved, necessarily reducing the size ofthe face, with the result that it is now too smallin comparison to the mass of the coiffure, coronaand bust form. In order to keep the neck com-mensurate in scale with the smaller recarvedfacial features, it, too, has been reduced in size,causing a noticeable gap between the neck andpaludamentum at the left shoulder.

Nero/Gallienus

2.62. Columbia, Missouri, University ofMissouri, Museum of Art and Archaeol-ogy, acc. no. 62.46

h. 0.42 m.marble head worked for insertion into a togatestatue capite velatoprovenance: Egyptpublications: H. Jucker 1981b) 692-4, figs. 22a-d (recarved Nero); Bergmann and Zanker(1981)406-7, no. 46 (Nero recarved in the thirdor fourth century); C.C. Vermeule (1981) 297,no. 253, with fig. (Nero) (with earlier literature);M. Fuchs (1997) 88, pl. 8.2-4; E.R. Varner inE.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 146 no. 30, with figs.;here, 64, fig. 77a-d.

The nose is largely destroyed and there is dam-age to the left eye and the left half of the fore-head. Nero’s type 3 coiffure is still clearly visi-ble, especially over the temples. The portrait hasbeen reconfigured as a representation of Gallie-nus which conflates the shorter beard of his firsttype, in use between 253-60, with the fuller coif-fure of his last three types. The hair over theforehead has been recarved, although it is toodamaged in this area to discern the precise Gal-lienic arrangement intended. The hair on thenape of the neck has also been cut back, and the

hair over the right ear has been slightly recut..The eyes have been retouched, with the resultthat the left eye is smaller and higher than theright. The cheeks have also been reduced involume to make the face more lean. The leftcheek is currently much broader than the rightand the mouth is asymmetrical. There are alsotraces of cutting on the left side of the neck andthe along the edges of the tenon. The recuttingof the upper lip has caused the mouth to beasymmetrical, with the left side being shorter thanthe right. Nevertheless, traces of Nero’s fleshyunderchin are still clearly visible in profile.

Nero/Constantinian Emperor

2.63. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romanodelle Terme, Magazzini, Inv. 126279

h. 0.53 m.marble headprovenance: presumably Rome or environspublications: Bergmann and Zanker (1981)320,408-9, no. 47, figs. 64a-c; A.L. Cesarano, Mus-NazRom 9.2, 420-22, no. R320, with figs. (withearlier literature); D. Kreikenbom (1992) 206,no. 3.75, here, 64-65, fig. 78.

The head is poorly preserved; the nose is goneand the entire surface is extensively weathered.Nevertheless, elements of Nero’s fourth typecoiffure are still present in the hair over the fore-head. The eyes have been substantially refash-ioned to make them larger. The recutting of theeyes has caused them to be set well back beneaththe brows, which further emphasizes the eyesthrough the resulting contrast of light and shad-ow. Full underlids have also been added to theeyes, a feature consonant with a Constantiniandate for the recarving. As is often the case inreworked portraits, the recutting of the eyes hascaused the left eye to be significantly larger thanthe right eye.

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits256

Possibly Altered Portraits

Nero/Private Individuals (?)

2.64. Hannover, Sammlung des Herzogsvon Braunschwieg

h. 0.21 m.marble headprovenance: purchased in Rome (eighteenthcentury)publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 406, no. 45, fig. 63a-c (with earlier lit-erature); here, 65-66.

Traces of what appear to be Nero’s type 1 coif-fure are visible at the back of the head and onthe nape of the neck. The reconfigured hairstyleis one worn in the Julio-Claudian through theTrajanic periods. If the original did indeed rep-resent Nero, it is the only surviving type 1 por-trait to have been transformed and it is difficultto identify the portrait’s new identity. K. Fittschenhas suggested one of the sons of Vitellius, but thisseems unlikely given his promotion of Nero’smemory (in Die Skulpturen der Sammlung Wallmoden[Göttingen 1979] no. 27). Alternatively, it maybe an extremely rare example of an imperialportrait refashioned as a private individual.

2.65. New Haven, Yale University ArtGallery, inv. 1961.30

h. 0.30 m.marble (Thasian?) headprovenance; possibly Italy,publications: S. Matheson in E.R. Varner, ed.

(2000) 71, fig. 1; E.R. Varner in E.R. Varner, ed.(2000) 150-3, no. 31, with figs.; here, 65-66, fig.79a-d.

The portrait has been cut or broken from a statueor bust and contains several indications that itmay have been recut from a Type 3 portrait ofNero. The mass of the coiffure is clearly too largein proportion to the face. The change in orien-tation of the locks over the right temple, as wellas the wavy arrangement on the top of the headfind parallels in Nero’s type 3 portrait in theMuseo Palatino (ex Terme, inv. 618). The hairon the back of the neck may also have been cutdown, causing the hairline to slope. The chin andjaw line of the Yale head have been reduced involume, causing the chin to recede from the fron-tal plane of the face. Traces of a light beard arealso discernible along portions of the jaw line. Ifthe portrait did originally represent Nero, it hasbeen transfigured into a private Hadrianic like-ness and would be a highly unusual example ofan imperial image reconfigured as a private in-dividual.

other julio claudians 257

Messalina

Mutilated Portraits

3.1. Dresden, Albertinum, Skulpturen-sammlung, cat. 358

h. unavailablemarble headprovenance: unknownpublications: S. Wood (1992) 219-34, figs. 5-6 (with previous literature); T. Mikocki (1995)187, no. 249, pl. 14; S. Wood (1999) 276-80,pls. 126-7; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 15; here,96.

Substantial blows to the portrait have smashedinto four pieces from which the image has beenreassembled.

3.2. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chi-aramonti 39.9, inv. 1814

h. 0.29 m.marble headprovenance: presumably Rome or environspublications: P. Liveriani (1989) 86; S. Wood(1992) 219-34, figs. 7-8, with previous litera-ture; T. Mikocki (1995) 187-8, no. 250, pl. 23;E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 15, fig. 7; here, 96, fig.99.

The nose and upper lip have been destroyed andreplaced with modern restorations. The head-dress has also been attacked and damaged. Thesurfaces of the portrait are badly corroded, sug-gesting sustained immersion in water.

S. Wood has recently rethought her identifi-cation of this portrait as Messalina and no long-er feels it is a replica of the same type as the

portraits in Dresden (cat. 3.1) and the Louvre([1999] 276-77, 286-89, figs. 128-9). She suggeststhat the portrait may be intended to representMessalina’s daughter, Claudia Octavia, and thatthe deliberate damage to the portrait would beequally appropriate for Claudia Octavia. Woodfeels that the Chiaramonti head does, however,stress the physical similarities between motherand daughter. It seems highly unlikely that por-traits of Octavia Claudia would resemble Mes-salina after her overthrow and damnatio. It is morelikely that Octavia’s images would have stressedher resemblance to her father Claudius. Indeed,her childhood portraits from the statue groups atBaiae and Russelae stress her Julio-Claudianfacial characteristics and her physiognomical sim-ilarities to Claudius (and ultimately her adoptivebrother Nero). Wood’s original identification ofthe portrait seems more probable.

Altered Portraits

3.3. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeolo-gico. inv. 6242

h. unavailableprovenance: Italypublications: S. Wood (1999) 247, n. 114 (withearlier refs.); E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 13, fig.3; E.R. Varner (2001a); here, fig. 97, 101a-d.

Raised surfaces behind the left shoulder lockindicate the extent of the original coiffure anddrilled channels throughout the mass of the hairalso remain from the original configuration. Therecutting of the facial features has resulted in theright eye protruding much more from the sur-face of the face, an asymmetrical cast to the

CATALOGUE 3

MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITSOF THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits258

mouth, and the chin receding from the frontalplane of the face. Drilled holes which punctuateAgrippina’s waved coiffure are the remnants ofdeepest extent of the void spaces in the curls fromMessalina’s hairstyle and they do not align withthe current arrangement. The overall reductionin sculptural volume entailed by the reconfigu-ration of the coiffure has resulted in the headbeing noticeably flat at the top when seen inprofile and too small in proportion to the body.

3.4. Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità,inv 146 (1870), inv. 830 (1952)

h. 1.69 mmarble statueprovenance: Velleia, Julio-Claudian Basilica(3-17 June 1761)publications: C. Saletti (1968) 26-33, no. 2,120-22, pls. 3-6, with earlier literature; H.Jucker (1973) 25, n. 6; H. Jucker (1977) 205-6, 208-9; Fittschen-Zanker III, 6, n. 4; D. Bos-chung (1989) 96-7; A. Claridge (1990) 143,148, figs. 10, 22; S. Wood (1992) 473, n. 64;C.B. Rose (1997) 121-3, pl. 133, 148-9; E.R.Varner (2001a) 79-80, 96-97; here, 32, n. 84,fig. 100a-c.

The portrait was initially created as a pendantwith the Caligula/Claudius (cat. 1.27). After Mes-salina’s downfall, her head was apparently cutfrom the statue and a mortis prepared for a newportrait of Agrippina Minor. The same method-ology for reconfiguration had been adopted forthe Caligula/Claudius. The current head ofAgrippina exhibits numerous signs that it is areplacement: it is too small in comparison to themore massive proportions of the body; the foldsof the drapery covering the head do not accu-rately match that which covers the body; mosttellingly, the tenon does not sit firmly in its cav-ity; furthermore, the shallow treatment of thedrapery surrounding the neck indicates that thehead and body of the original portrait werecarved from a single block of marble. The re-working of this image was first proposed by H.Jucker ([1973] 25, n. 6 and [1977] 205-206;followed by D. Boschung [1989] 97). C.B. Rose,however, sees no indications of reuse ([1997]123).

galba, otho, and vitellius 259

Otho

Mutilated Portrait

4.1. Ostia, Magazzini, inv. 446h. 0.42 m.fragmentary colossal marble headprovenance: Ostia, sewer near the Temple ofHercules (1938)publications:R. Calza (1964) 47. no. 65, pl. 37(Domitian); M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 81 (not Domitian); H. Jucker(1983) 148, n. 75; N. Hannestad (1986)117,and n. 1; (Otho); N. Hannestad (1988)328, figs. 5-6 (Otho); M. Donderer (1991-2)224, n. 140, fig. 4, 265, no. 10; D. Kreiken-bom 209-10, no. 3.81, pl. 17c-d; here, 107-108, fig. 103.

The facial features including the eyes, nose andlips have been disfigured and the image brokenin pieces. Abrasions, caused by hammer or chis-el blows, are scattered over the surface of thecheeks. Most of the face below the lower lip ismissing, as is the back of the head.

Vitellius

Altered Portraits

Vitellius/Vespasian

4.2. Hannover, Kestnermuseumh. 0.53 m.marble headprovenance: possibly from the Tiberpublications: A. Mlasowsky (1992) 86-93, no.8, with figs.; here, 109, fig. 105a-b.

The thick neck of the original representation ofVitellius is especially visible in the left profile

view. The portrait has been refashioned intoVespasian’s main type, but the heavy rolls of fleshon the neck are retained from the original like-ness.

4.3. Thessalonika, ArchaeologicalMuseum, inv. 1055

h. 0.32 m.marble headprovenance: Thessalonikapublications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop and U.Hausmann, (1966) 82; C.C. Vermeule (1968)513; A. Rüsch (1969) 130, figs. 42-43; M. Berg-mann and P. Zanker (1981) 346, no. 10, fig.22a-c; here, 109, fig. 106a-c.

The head is broken in the area of the neck. Theheavy facial features, and underchin, thick neckare remnants of the original portrait of Vitellius.The forehead has been cut back, causing it toslope backwards at a slightly awkward angle. Itis also somewhat higher than in other replicas ofVespasian’s main type which have not been re-carved.

4.4. Trier, Rheinisches Landesmuseum,ST 5223

h. 0.38 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Trier (?)publications: M. Wegner in Römer am Rhein(Köln 1967) 139, no. A 13, pl. 23; M. Berg-mann and P. Zanker (1981) 349, no. 11, fig.23a-b; here, 109, fig. 107a-b.

The portrait has been recarved into a version ofVespasian’s more youthful secondary type. Thefront half of the neck has been substantially cutdown, but the thickness of the back half remainsfrom the Vitellian likeness.

CATALOGUE 4

THE MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITS OF A.D. 69

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits260

Mutilated Portraits

5.1. Anacapri, Museo della Torreh. 0.362 m., w. 0.763 m.fragmentary marble reliefprovenance: Naples or environs ?publications: F. Magi (1954-55) 45-54, withfig.; E.R. Varner (2001) 49; here, 113-14.

This fragmentary relief depicts an imperator intunica and paludamentum, Minerva, Roma, lictors,a horse and cuirassed soldier. Correspondenceswith frieze A of the Cancelleria reliefs, the ap-pearance of Minerva (Domitian’s patron deity),and technical details in the treatment of the curlycoiffure of one of the lictors strongly suggest thatthe emperor represented is in fact Domitian. Theemperor’s head appears to have been deliberatelyremoved from the relief in an act of vandalism.

5.2. Castel Gandalfoh. 0.48 m.fragmentary marble reliefprovenance: Castel Gandalfo, Villa of Domi-tianpublications: P. Liverani (1989a) 17-18, no. 1.,figs. 1-3 (with earlier literature); E.R. Varner(2001) 49; here, 113, fig. 108.

The facial features of this fragmentary cuirassedportrait in relief have been attacked and entire-ly eradicated. Domitian’s type 3 coiffure is, how-ever, still very much in evidence at the sides andtop of the head. The background also revealstraces of wings, suggesting that the portrait comesfrom a larger composition, perhaps historical incharacter and intended to celebrate Domitian’smilitary victories.

5.3. Rome, Art Marketh. 0.86 m.marble cuirassed torsoprovenance:publications: K. Stemmer (1978) 112-13, no.XI 2, pl. 75.2; R. Gergel (1991) 246, n. 70;E.R. Varner (2001) 49; here, 114.

The cuirass contains a relief depiction of Domi-tian, as well as his patron goddess Minerva. Bothof their heads have been effaced from the breast-plate.

Altered Portraits

Domitian/Augustus

5.4. Zaragoza, Museo de Zaragoza enTarazona 80-5-1

h. 16 cm.chalcedony head worked for insertionprovenance: Zaragoza (1980)publications: M. Beltrán Lloris, J. Royo, andJ. Paz (1980) 117-19; M. Beltrán Lloris (1984)103-34 (with earlier literature); S. AdamoMuscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 49; D. Boschung(1993a) 193-4, no. 208, pl. 199; J. Arce, S.Ensoli, and. E. La Rocca, eds. (1997) 355, no.l 92, with fig; here, 125.

Domitian’s type 3 coiffure is still present in therear portions of the head, while the locks overthe forehead have been reconfigured into Augus-tu’s Prima Porta arrangement. The radical recut-ting of the hair over the forehead and much ofthe forehead itself has caused this area of the headto slope back dramatically when seen in profile.The hooked nose is also a feature of the Domi-

CATALOGUE 5

MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITS OF DOMITIAN

domitian 261

tianic image and not standard in representationsof Augustus.

Domitian/Titus

5.5. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Braccio Nuo-vo 26, inv. 2282h. 0.26 m. (head)marble togate statueprovenance: Rome, gardens near the LateranBaptistery (1828)publications: H.R. Goette (1989) 40, n. 183; 127,no. 290, pl. 12.1 (with earlier literature); M.Donderer (1991-92) 244, no. 27; here, 123-24.

The coma in gradus formata arrangement of Domi-tian’s type 3 coiffure has been smoothed over,although its remnants are still visible in left pro-file. The reworking of the top of the coiffure hasresulted in the top of the head being unnatural-ly flat, especially from the rear. The orientationof the locks over the forehead and left templehave been retained from the Domitianic original.The hair over the right temple has been onlyslightly shortened. The eyes have been recarvedand are currently set well back into the face. Thelength of the mouth has been reduced by carv-ing in the corners, which has lent a prominenceand heaviness to the cheeks which is not a stan-dard feature of Titus’s portrait typology. The chinhas been recut, causing it to recede slightly fromthe frontal plane of the face. The entire jawlinehas also been redone, in order to give the face amore square shape. In its current configuration,the portrait borrows details from both Titus’sErbach and Herculaneum type.

The overall reductions carried out in the vol-ume of the head has caused the neck to be toothick in proportion to the face. The current head,even with its sculptural mass reduced as a resultof the reconfiguration is too large for the body,suggesting that head in its original Domitianicincarnation did not belong with this body. Thetwo must have been combined as part of therecycling process. Nevertheless, the discrepan-cies in the proportions of the head to body wouldnot have been noticeable if the statue were dis-

played fairly high up and viewed from below.That this is the optimal viewpoint for the re-worked portrait is borne out by the cursory re-carving of the top of the coiffure.

5.6. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chia-ramonti 31.20, inv. 1687

h. 0.33 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: presumably Rome or environspublications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 380, no. 29, figs. 48a-d; P. Liverani(1989b) 73 (with earlier literature). G. Legrot-taglie (1999) 93, pl. 23a-d; here, 124, 130, n.156, fig. 128a-d.

The head is worked for insertion into a togatebust or statue and traces of the drapery are stillevident on the left shoulder. Traces of Domitian’stype 3 hairstyle are plainly visible at the side andback of the head, where the hair exhibits thespiral configuration characteristic of Domitian’sportraits. The chin has been recut and somewhatreduced, adding emphasis to the heavy un-derchin.

Domitian/Nerva

5.7. Baia, Museo Archeologico dei Cam-pi Flegrei nel Castello di Baia, inv. 155743

h. 1.28 m.bronze equestrian statueprovenance: Miseno, sacellum of the Augustalespublications: A. Amadio, MusNazRom 1.9.1,215; Domiziano/Nerva (with earlier literature);MusNazNap 1.2, 112, no. 86. G. Dareggi (1982)9, n.24; M. Torelli in A. M. Vaccaro and A.M.Sommella, eds. (1989) 93, fig. 64; J. Berge-mann (1990) 82-6, no. P.31, pls. 56-8; D.E.E.Kleiner (1992) 201; J. Pollini (1993) 425; A.Oliver (1998) 148; S. Adamo Muscettola in P.Miniero, ed. (2000) 29-34, figs. 1a-e; E.R.Varner, ed. (2000) 12; A. Ramage and N. Ra-mage (2001) 170, fig. 5.26; here, 114, 120-22,190, 280, fig. 123a-c.

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits262

The Misenum statue is the only surviving bronzeimperial image to have been altered as a resultof condemnation. Domitian’s facial features havebeen severed from the back of the head andreplaced with a new face representing Nerva. Asa result the entire rear portion of the head fromthe ears back remains from the original Domi-tianic likeness. Ancient repairs to the statue sug-gest that it may have been attacked and damagedat the time of Domitian’s overthrow.

5.8. Berlin, Schloss Klein-Glienicke, inv.G1 324

h. 1.7 m.fragmentary marble statueprovenance: unknownpublications: F.W. Goethert (1972) 8, no. 51,pl. 26; N. Himmelman (1972) 275-76; M.Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 400-401, no.38, fig. 59; D. Kreikenbom (1992) 220-21, no.3.105, pl. 25; here, 115-116.

The orientation of the locks over the foreheadand at the temples have been retained fromDomitian’s likeness. The mouth also has a typ-ically Domitianic cast. The chin has been recut,with the result that it recedes from the frontalplane of the face. The neck is also very thick incomparison to the current mass of the head. Thetorso of the statue is also preserved and the han-dling of its musculature finds strong stylistic par-allels to that of the green basalt statue of Her-cules from the Domus Augustana, now in Parma(Museo Nazionale d’Antichità; D.E.E. Kleiner[1992] 181-3, fig. 152); on the Berlin torso’s af-finities with the Parma Hercules, see M. Berg-mann and P. Zanker (1981) 401.

5.9. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek542, inv. 1454

h. 2 m.marble statue (standing Jupiter)provenance: presumably Rome or environs(Palazzo Orsini)publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 391, no. 32, fig. 53; C. Maderna (1988)160, no. JS 4, pl. 3.2 (with earlier literature);

F. Johansen (1995a) 84, no. 30 (with figs. n);here, 115-16, fig. 111a-e.

The arms of the statue and large portions of themantle are modern restorations in marble. Orig-inally a type 3 representation of Domitian, thestatue has been refashioned into a likeness ofNerva. Domitian’s coiffure is essentially unal-tered. However, the addition of a second row oflocks over the forehead has caused the foreheadto slope back and to be longer and lower thanin unreworked likenesses of Nerva, especially theportrait in the Vatican (Cortile Ottagano 101a,inv. 975). The physiognomy also retains much ofits youthful Domitianic aspect. The recutting ofthe chin has caused it to recede from the frontalplane of the face. The mouth has also been con-siderably shortened in length.

5.10. Holkham Hallh. 0.35 m., 0.77 m. (with bust form)marble headprovenance: reportedly Tivoli, 16th centuryexcavations; purchased in Rome by ThomasCook, 1717publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop and U.Hausmann (1966) 109 (with earlier literature);M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 398-400,no. 37, fig. 58a-b; D. Kreikenbom (1992) 220,no. 3.104, pl. 24; E. Angelicoussis (2001) 116-118, no. 22, pls. 42, 43.1-4; here, 116, fig. 114.

Much of Domitian’s type 3 coiffure has been leftintact in the portrait, although shortened over theforehead and at the temples in order to make thehairline recede. The resulting configuration of theforehead has caused it to appear too narrow inproportion to the more massive area of thecheeks, which has been retained from the orig-inal Domitianic image. The thick locks combedforward on the nape of the neck are a well-knownfeature of Domitian’s third portrait type. The hairalong the left temple has been clearly cut backand only summarily reworked. The eyes havebeen recut, in order to make them less wide, butthey have maintained their Domitianic length.The mouth and jawline have been altered and

domitian 263

the mouth is currently both longer and higher onthe right side. The chin has been made smaller,with the result that it recedes from the frontalplane of the face. An adam’s apple has beencarved into the existing surfaces of the neck andthe neck itself has been retouched on the left side.Nevertheless, the neck has not been substantial-ly reduced in volume and it is currently too broadin comparison to the altered proportions of thelower face and jaw. D. Kreikenbom ([1992] 220)has suggested on the basis of the heavy underchinthat the likeness has been reworked from animage of Vitellius, while E. Angelicoussis prefersto see Vespasian as the original ([2001] 116-8).However, heavy underchins are often simply theresult of recarving and the clear vestiges of Domi-tian’s coiffure confirm the portrait’s original iden-tity.

5.11. Leipzig, Archäologisches Institut derUniversität (now destroyed)

h. 0.495 m.marble headpublications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 389-90, fig. 52 (with earlier literature);G. Legrottaglie (1999) 93; here, 116-117, fig.117.

Domitian’s type 3 hairstyle has been little alteredin this portrait and is still clearly visible on thetop of the head and behind the ears. The prin-cipal transformation of the coiffure is limited tothe locks over the forehead. . The eyes have beenrecut and are now set well back beneath thebrows. The chin has been recut, causing it torecede from the front of the face.

5.12. Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv.83.AA.43;

h. 0.33 m.marble headprovenance: unknownpublications: H. Jucker and D. Willers,eds.(1982) 113, no. 45, with figs.; E.R. Var-ner, ed. (2000) 166, here, 118, fig. 119a-d.

The Domitianic type 3 coiffure is still plainly

visible at the left temple, behind the right ear andon the top and back of the head. The locks overthe forehead have been transfigured. The gen-eral mass of the hair has been reduced more onthe right side of the head than the left. The eyeshave been recarved in an effort to make themsmaller with the resulting in unequal sizes andshape. The right eye has a fairly regular almondshape while the left eye has an S-shaped curveto its lower lid. The left eye is also positionedfarther away from the center of the face than theright. A raised surface in the marble before theright ear marks the original surface of Domitian’sportrait. The lips have been recarved and themouth is slightly longer and higher up at the rightside. Although the chin and the area around themouth have been recarved and substantially re-duced in volume, sections along the back of thejawline have not been so radically recut andretain the fuller and fleshier forms of the origi-nal Domitianic portrait. The reworking of thechin has caused it to recede from the frontal planeof the face. The head is pieced together fromthree separate sections of marble and the ancientiron pin for attaching the back section is stillextant. As the top and back sections still preservesstrong elements of Domitian’s type 3 coiffure, thepiecing must be original to the portrait and pre-date its transformation into a likeness of Nerva.

5.13. Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Anti-chità, inv. 146 (1870), inv. 827 (1954)

h. 2.04 m. (statue),h. 0.365 m. (head)marble cuirassed statueprovenance: Velleia, Julio Claudian Basilica (3-17 June 1761)publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.Hausmann (1966) 91, 104-5, 111; H. Niem-eyer (1968) 95, no. 46; C. Saletti (1968) 52-57, no. 12, pls. 39-42 (with earlier literature);K.P. Goethert (1972) 244-45; H. Jucker (1977)212; K. Stemmer (1978) 8-10, no I 4, pl. 1.4;M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)394-98, no.36, fig. 57a-d; S. Adamo Musecettola in Do-miziano/Nerva (1987) 49, fig. 56; C.B. Rose(1997) 121-6, cat. 50, pls. 152-3; here, 9, 58,117, fig. 61a-e, and cat. 2.50.

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits264

The coiffure is an extremely schematic renditionof Nerva’s hairstyle, with a part over the innercorner of the right eye and faint traces of Domi-tian’s type 1 hairstyle have survived the secondreworking. The forehead has been reworked andcurrently bulges out over the bridge of the nose.The temples have been drastically recut in or-der to make them hollow. The recarving of theeyes has caused the upper lids to be remarkablyheavy and to protrude unnaturally. The eyesthemselves are very asymmetrical, with the righteye currently much smaller than the left. Themouth is smaller on the left side than the right.As a result of being cut back twice, the chinretreats dramatically from the frontal plane offace. Just below the jaw line, the neck bulges outquite noticeably. The neck has also been re-worked, with the result that it has a noticeableS-shaped curve when viewed frontally. The sub-stantial reduction in the volume of the face hascaused the ears, which essentially remain fromthe initial likeness of Nero, to stick out substan-tially from the side of the head.

5.14. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanzadegli Imperatori, inv. 417

h. 0.38 m.;marble headprovenance: presumably Rome or environs (exAlbani Coll. [D 59?])publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 394, no. 35, fig. 56a-d; Fittschen-ZankerI, 37, no. 34, pl. 38 (with earlier literature); S.Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 53, fig.61, here, 116, fig. 113a-d.

The portrait is displayed on a modern bust formand is an unusual (unique?) example of a type 1portrait of Domitian reconfigured as Nero. M.Bergmann and P. Zanker compare the arrange-ment to the type 1 portrait of Domitian (recarvedfrom a portrait of Nero) in the Terme, inv. 226(cat. 2.52) ([1981] 394). The original Domitian-ic coiffure is plainly visible at the back of thehead. The forehead has been cut back and nowbulges out unnaturally over the inner corners ofthe eyes, giving a suggestion of the original sculp-

tural mass. Although most of the nose is a mod-ern restoration, the extremely narrow bridge pro-vides evidence for a reduction in the breadth ofthe nose in antiquity. The eyes have been slightlyrecut in order to make them smaller and moreconsistent with Nerva’s portraiture. As a result,they are asymmetrical, with the left eye beinglarger than the right and the left eye socket be-ing larger and deeper than the right. The re-carved chin recedes considerably from the fron-tal plane of the face.

5.15. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romanodel Palazzo Massimo alle Terme inv. 318

h. 0.60 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: presumably Rome (ex MuseoKircheriano)publications: A.A. Amadio, MusNazRom 1.9.1,212-6, no. R165, with figs. (with earlier liter-ature); here, 116, fig. 116a-d.

The provenance has been variously listed as thePalatine (M. Wegner, G. Daltrop and U. Haus-mann [1966] 112, 133) and as the Tiber, H.Götze ([1948] plate caption). Anomalous stylis-tic elements caused by the recarving, such as thebaroque handling of the coiffure, have contrib-uted to doubts concerning the portrait’s authen-ticity, or have caused scholars to consider theportrait a posthumous image, dated to the endof Trajan’s reign or into the reign of Hadrian (see,for example, H. Götze [1948] 153 [late Hadrian-ic]; B.M. Felletti Maj [1953] no. 165 [late Tra-janic/early Hadrianic]; M. Wegner, G. Daltrop,and U. Hausmann 112 [late Hadrianic]; H. vonHeintze [1969] 373 [late Trajanic/earlyHadrianic]). The recarved coiffure is a simplifiedversion of Nerva’s hairstyle which omits the sec-ond part in the locks over the left eye. Raised androughened surfaces beneath the current hairlineon the back and sides of the neck indicate areaswhere Domitian’s type 3 coiffure has been cutback. Marble has also been removed from behindthe ears in an effort to reduce the overall volumeof the portrait. The recutting of the mouth hascaused the area around it to be sunken into the

domitian 265

surface of the face while the chin has been re-cut, causing it to recede from the frontal planeof the face. The reconfiguration in these areas hascontributed to the undulating effects of the por-traits surfaces.

5.16. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romanodel Palazzo Massimo alle Terme inv.106538

h. 0.46 m.marble head worked for insertion into a togatestatueprovenance: Tivoli, Sanctuary of HerculesVictorpublications: V. Picciotti Giornetti, Mus-NazRom 1.1, 278-79, no. 172, with fig. (withearlier literature); M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 392-94, no. 34, figs. 55a-d; D.E.E.Kleiner (1992) 200-201, fig. 170; A. La Regi-na, ed. (1998) xxx; here, 118.

Domitian’s type 3 arrangement is still present inthe coiffure behind the ears, at the back of thehead and along the nape of the neck. The fore-head has been cut back and now slopes backunnaturally when seen in profile. The nose re-tains its general length from Domitian’s portrait,although its breadth has been reduced in certainareas, causing it to be crooked at the tip. Themouth has been recarved, with the result that itis shorter and more full than in unreworkedportraits of Nerva. The overall reduction in thevolume of the portrait has caused the nose to beunusually prominent in profile.

5.17. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Rome,Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Pro-fano

marble (Luna?) reliefprovenance: Rome, Palazzo della CancelleriaG. Koeppel (1984) 29-34, no. 7-8, figs. 11-12(with earlier literature); E. Simon (1985) 543-56; F. Ghednini (1986) 291-309; S. AdamoMuscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 49, 52, fig. 60a-b; N.H. and A. Ramage (1991) 132-3, figs.5.13-14; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 191-92, figs.158-9; J. M. Pailler and R. Sablayrolles (19940

18-19, figs. 1-2; D. Kinney (1997) 144, fig. 19;H. Meyer (2000) 125-40, figs. 228-235, 237,240, 245-7, 249-52, 258-59 E.R. Varner, ed.(2000) 12, fig. 2; here, 5, 36, n. 115, 60, 114,119-120, fig. 122a-b.

A type 3 portrait of Domitian has been recon-figured as Nerva in Frieze A of the Cancelleriareliefs. The locks over the forehead have beenworked away and no new locks carved, butDomitian’s coiffure has been essentially left un-altered on the top and sides of the head.. Theforehead has also been cut back and now slopesback at a very unnaturalistic angle. The eyes havebeen slightly recarved and the right eye is con-siderably smaller than the left, an effect not readi-ly visible when the relief is viewed frontally. Thenose has been modified to make it more hooked.The chin and jawline has been reduced in sizeand the left cheek carved in, in an effort to givethe face Nerva’s thinner, more elongated shape.Rasp marks are still clearly visible on the leftcheek and neck. The chin recedes from the fron-tal plane of the face and the jawline lacks organicclarity. Roughened areas in the marble aroundthe head where the portrait is attached to thebackground suggest the extent of the originallikeness of Domitian.

5.18. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala deiBusti 317, inv. 674

h. 0.48 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: presumably Rome or environspublications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 391-92, no. 33, fig. 54a-d (with earlierliterature); G. Spinola (1999) 143, no. 131(modern?); here, 116, fig. 112a-b.

Domitian’s type 3 coiffure is still clearly visibleon the top and sides of the head. The foreheadhas been slightly adjusted, and, consequentlybulges out over the inner corners of both eyes.These bulges give some indication of the origi-nal extent of the Domitianic portrait in theseareas. The eyes have been reduced in size andthe right eye socket is now noticeably deeper than

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits266

the left. The nose has been made more narrowand is somewhat crooked. The size of the mouthhas been reduced, with the result that it is con-siderably shorter on the right side.

5.19. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala Roton-da, no. 548, inv. 246

h. 2.44 m.marble statue (seated Jupiter)provenance: Romepublications: S.V. Rocca, ed. (1982) 49 (withfig.). H. Jucker (1983) 139-41, pls. 4, 5.1-4, 6.3-4; C. Maderna (1988) 52, 163-4, no. JT a, pl.13.1 (with earlier literature); R.R.R. Smith(1988) 174-75, no. 104, pl. 61.2-4; C.C. Ver-meule (1989) 619; Kreikenbom (1992) 26-7,50-51, 53, 111, 148-51, no. 2. 22, 265; G.Spinola (1999) 257-58, no. 13; here, 118, fig.120a-b.

R.R. Smith has identified the portrait as a Hel-lenistic ruler ([1988] 174-5), but, the style andphysiognomy of the piece support the identifica-tion as Nerva (see C.C. Vermeule[1989] 619).The portrait was discovered during the pontifi-cate of Benedict XIV in 1767 near the Aurelianwalls, between the Lateran and S. Croce inGerusalemme. Shortly afterwards, it was exten-sively restored by Bartolommeo Cavaceppi,whose substantial restorations have further com-plicated the portrait’s identification. Nevertheless,distinctive elements of Nerva’s physiognomy,including the high narrow forehead, deep naso-labial lines, and narrow chin are clearly presentin the likeness. In addition, the exaggerated signsof aging present in the portrait would be highlyunusual in an image of a Hellenistic ruler. Ulti-mately, the ancient reworking of the piece ac-counts for many of its anomalous details.

Domitian’s type 3 coiffure is still present be-hind the left ear. The brows have been recarvedand as a result are unnaturalistically sunken intothe surface of the face. The eyes have also beenrecarved and heavy bags added beneath them.The lower sections of the face have been alteredto make the cheeks appear flaccid and naso-la-bial added. The reworking of the eyes and brows

has caused asymmetricalities in this area of theface. The right eye socket is currently muchdeeper than that of the left. Reworking of themouth has also caused it to be asymmetrical, withthe right side appearing longer than the left. Theoverall reductions to the volume of the head,caused both by the ancient recarving and Cava-ceppi’s eighteenth century reworking, have result-ed in the head being much too small in compar-ison to the torso, while the neck is too long inproportion to the head.

5.20. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,Sala Verde, inv. 423

h. 0.36 m.marble headprovenance: presumably Rome or environs (exMuseo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 12,ex Palazzo Braschi, Salone)publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, no. 37-38, no.35, pl.s 38-39 (with earlier literature); S. Ad-amo Muscettola, “Una statua per due im-peratori. L’eridità difficile di Domiziano,”Domiziano/Nerva 53, fig. 62; here, 116, fig. 115a-e.

The recarved coiffure still maintains its Domitian-ic configuration at the back of the head andabove the left ear. In contrast, the hair over theright ear has been more substantially shortenedand conspicuously worked away. Sections of locksover the forehead also remain from the original.Furrows have been added to the forehead. How-ever, owing to the limited volume available, theyare simply incised into the surfaces and lack anysculptural modeling. The nose has been refash-ioned and is asymmetrical with a visible bend atits bridge and does not attain the characteristiclength of Nerva’s nose in unaltered and coinportraits. The mouth and chin have been sub-stantially recut and the mouth and nose are fairlyclose together. The area around the mouth issunken into the surface of the face. The chinretreats greatly from the frontal plane of the faceand the heavy underchin and suggestion of jowlsremain from the portrait of Domitian.

The neck is unusually broad for Nerva and hasbeen largely maintained from the more massive

domitian 267

proportions of the Domitianic likeness. A veryslight Adam’s apple, an important feature ofNerva’s physiognomy, has been carved into theneck.

5.21. Stuttgart, WürttembergischesLandesmuseum, inv. arch. 68/3

h. 0.293 m.marble (Greek?) head worked for insertionprovenance: unknownpublications: U. Hausmann (1975) 36, 124, no.10, figs. 29-31; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker(1981) 401-402, no. 39, fig. 60a-b; here, 116-117.

Domitian’s type 3 coiffure has been substantial-ly retained. The recut chin recedes from the fron-tal plane of the face. In an effort to reduce thesize of the neck and articulate the Adam’s apple,it has undergone sizeable reworking. As a result,in profile the chin is unusually thin and slopesforward at an unnaturalistic angle.

Domitian/Trajan

5.22. Olympia, Olympia, Museum, inv. A 129h. 0.325 m.provenance: Olympia, near the temple ofZeus, 1876 and 1879publications: H.R. Goette and K. Hitzl (1987)289-293, pls. 27.1-2, 28.1-2; here, 122.

The current hairstyle is a variant of Trajan’sOpferbildtypus, but remnants of Domitian’s type 3coiffure have been retained at the back of thehead. The eyes have also been extensively re-worked and now have heavy upper lids.

5.23. Oslo, Nasjonalgalleriet, inv. SK 1154h. 0.327 m.marble headprovenance: reportedly acquired in Rome (exColl. C. Paus)publications: S. Sande (1991) 58, no. 45, pl.44 (with earlier literature); here, 123.

Domitian’s coiffure has been almost entirely

worked away and replaced with Trajan’s decen-nalia type hairstyle. However, the shape of theeyes and the mouth have not been substantiallyaltered from their Domitianic incarnation. Thechin and jawline have been recut, resulting in aheavy underchin not normally found in imagesof Trajan.

5.24. Ostia, Museo, inv. 14h. 0.48 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Ostia, lime kiln of the Caseggia-to del Serapide in 1937publications: R. Calza (1964) 59, no. 88, pl.51; G. Arbore Popescu (1998) 193, no. 3 (withfig. n); here, 123.

The portrait has been refashioned as Trajan’sOpferbildtypus. There are clear signs of the cuttingback of the hair at the back of the neck , althoughtraces of Domitian’s third type coiffure arepresent above the cuts. The configuration of theeyes and mouth have also been retained from theDomitianic original. The current neck is too widefor the reduced volume of the head and thecurrent ears too large.

The piece was found, together with a head ofHadrian, and the arms and legs of the statues towhich both portraits belonged. While the por-traits were likely displayed together as a pair, theportraits differ in both marble and style. TheHadrian was likely created during his reign as apendant to the recut Domitian/Trajan.

5.25. Ostia, Museo, no. 24 (now lost)h. 0.35 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Ostia, Via delle Corporazioni(1913)publications: W.H. Gross (1940) 81-82, 127,no. 23, pl. 14a-b; R. Calza (1964) 56, no. 84,pl. 48; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)405-6, no. 44; here, 122-123.

Although traces of the Domitianic type 3 hair-style are still visible at the side and back of thehead, the hair over the forehead has been refash-

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits268

ioned into Trajan’s second (Bürgerkronen-Ty-pus). The extreme flatness of the top of the headdocuments the removal of Domitian’s wavy ar-rangement. The hooked nose and much of theshape of the mouth with its receding underlip arefeatures of the original portrait. The forehead andbrows have been recarved. The forehead bulgesout noticeably over the nose and the right browarches up much higher at the outer corner thanthe left. The chin recedes from the frontal planeof the face. The reworking of the lower half ofthe face has caused the neck and top of the headto be disproportionately wide.

5.26. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romanodelle Terme, inv. 61160

h. 0.27 m.basalt headprovenance: from the Roman art marketpublications: S. Sorrenti, MusNazRom 1.9.1,219-20, no. R 167, with figs.(with earlier lit-erature); B. di Leo in M. L. Anderson and L.Nista, eds. (1989) 63, no. 5, with fig.; here, 123,fig. 127a-d.

There is damage to the upper left side of the headand the neck. The tip of the nose has been re-stored in plaster. The wavy arrangement of theDomitianic type 3 hairstyle is still slightly visibleon the top of the head. The arrangement of thelocks over the right eye and temple find no ex-act parallels in any other sculpted replicas ofTrajan’s Opferbildtypus, and have likely beencaused by the reconfiguration. In addition, theportrait’s recutting has caused the neck to appearfairly thick.

5.27. Sabratha, Museumh. 0.53 cm.marble togate statueprovenance: Sabratha, Forumpublications: H.R. Goette (1989) 41-42, n. 194,128, no. 314, pl. 12.3 (with earlier literature);here, 122, fig. 124.

The forehead and nose have been damaged. Theportrait has been transformed from a type 3

Domitian into a type 2 (Bürgerkronen-typus)Trajan. Domitian’s coiffure is still visible at theback of the head.. The mouth has been recut, butstill retains its Domitianic shape. Naso-labial lineshave been added to the face. The neck has notbeen significantly reduced and is consequently toothick in comparison to the altered proportions ofthe head..

5.28. Split, Archeological Museum, inv. C222

h. 0.48 m 0.54 m..marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Issa (Vis), forumpublications: N. Cambi in Antike Porträte ausJugoslavien (1988) 106-7, no. 105; D. Kreiken-bom (1992) 107, pl. 34 (with earlier literature);here, 122, fig. 125a-b.

The hair over the forehead has been recarvedinto a variant of Trajan’s “Paris 1250-Marie-mont” type (see Fittschen-Zanker I, 41). The hairat the back of the head and on the nape of theneck has all been worked away with a chisel andpoint. Slight traces of Domitian’s type 3 arrange-ment are still, however, visible over the left earand at the temples. The more massive structureof the lower face and configuration of the mouthhave also been retained from the Domitianic like-ness. The reconfiguration of the portrait hascaused the head to be disproportionate with theface too heavy and broad for the reduced vol-umes of the coiffure and occiput, which may havebeen masked through the addition of a separatelyworked crown. The portrait appears to have beenpaired with a togate image of Vespasian whosebody is now in Vienna (Vienna, KunsthistorischesMuseum, inv. I 669; D. Kreikenbom [1992] 107,247-48, cat. V 23).

5.29. Venice, Museo Archeologico, inv.249

h. 0.30 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: presumably Rome or environs(Grimani Legacy, 1586)publications: G. Traversari (1968) 57, no. 35,

domitian 269

fig. 37a-b (with earlier literature); M.Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 404, no. 43;B. Di Leo in M.L. Anderson and L. Nista, eds.(1989) 63, no. 5; G. Arbore Popescu, ed (1998)195, no. 4 (with fig.); here, 123, fig. 126a-c.

Sections of the eyebrows, the nose, upper lip,chin, a portion of the left cheek, and parts of theears have all been restored in marble. Domitian’stype 3 hairstyle, still visible at the back of thehead, has been recut over the forehead intoTrajan’s type 1 arrangement. Roughened andraised areas in the marble beneath the hairlineover the forehead mark the extent of the recarv-ing in this area. The eyes have been recut andthe right eye is now considerably larger and setfarther forward in the face than the left. Thelower section of the face has been cut down involume, as has the neck, causing it to bulge outunnaturally on the right side.

Domitian/Constantinian Emperor

5.30. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv.89.6

h. 0.392marble head worked for insertionprovenance: presumably Rome or environs (exLudovisi Collection);publications: M. Comstock and C.C. Ver-meule (1976) 242, no. 379, with fig. (with ear-lier literature); B. Palma, MusNazRom 1.4, 194,n. 21; L. de Lachenal, MusNazRom 1.6, 57-59,with fig.; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 172-4, no.40, with figs.; here, 124, fig. 129a-d.

The piece is usually compared to the portrait inthe Fitzwilliam museum (see M. Comstock andC.C. Vermeule [1976] 242 and L. de Lachenalin MusNazRom 1.6, 58). The portrait has suffereda harsh modern cleaning, but the smooth surfacesof the face also seem to be a feature of the orig-inal Flavian portrait, as is the typically Domitianicmouth and chin. The eyes have been recut inorder to give them additional emphasis. Theupper lids have been very sharply delineated andthe iris and pupils have been drilled, which nat-urally would not have been a feature of the orig-inal.

Domitian/Fourth Century Emperor

5.31. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cab-inet des Médailles

h. 9.5 cm.sardonyx headprovenance: unknownpublications: E. Bablelon (1924) 128, fig. 52;W.F. Vollbach (1958) pl. 20; R. Calza (1972)238, no. 150, pl. 82.289; M. Bergmann andP. Zanker (1981) 409-10, no. 48, fig. 65a-c;here, 125, fig. 130a-b.

The arrangement of locks at the back of the head,with its rows of curls above the hairline have beenretained from the Domitianic type 3 portrait. Thelocks over the forehead and the forehead itselfhave been recut, giving it an unnatural slope inprofile. The general cast of the physiognomy hasalso been retained from the original.

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits270

Commodus

Mutilated Portraits

6.1. Phillipi, Museum, inv. 469h. unavailablemarble headprovenance: Phillipipublications: M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980)88, pl. 7.1; E.R. Varner (2001) 50; here, 138-39, 171, 186, fig. 138.

The head has been broken from a bust or stat-ue. The eyes, nose, and mouth of the image havebeen attacked and effaced in the t-shaped formattypical of intentional disfigurement.

6.2. Rome, Antiquario Communale sulCelio, without inv. no.

h. 0.26 m.marble headprovenance: presumably Romepublications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 85, no. 77,pl. 94, here, 138.

The facial features have been entirely obliterat-ed and the bottom section of the head is shearedoff.

6.3. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanzadegli Imperatori 30, inv. 445h. 0.29 m. (chin to top of head)marble headprovenance: presumably Romepublications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 83-85, no. 76,pls. 86, 90; here, 138.

The portrait is currently displayed on a Hadrianicbust to which it does not belong. Most of the facehas been entirely destroyed and restored. Themodern restorations include much of the hairover the forehead and sections of the beard infront of the ears and in the area of the chin.Other than the mutilated facial features, the restof the portrait is exceedingly well preserved.

6.4. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chi-aramonti, 3.13, 706, inv. 1235

h. 0.83 (with bust)marble bustprovenance: Ostiapublications: M. Wegner (1939) 268 (withearlier literature); R. Calza (1977) 23, no. 20,pl. 17; M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980) 92;P. Liverani (1989) 17; here, 138, fig. 137.

Modern restorations mask the severe inflicted onthe face of this type 1 portrait of Commodus. Theeyes, nose, and mouth have all been intention-ally disfigured. The rest of the portrait, includ-ing the bust form, is generally well preserved.

Altered Portraits

Commodus/Pupienus?

6.5. Mantua, Palazzo Ducale, inv. 6812ih. 0.47 m.marble head with lionskin, worked for inser-tionprovenance: presumably Rome or environspublications: J.J. Bernoulli (1891) 235, no. 55;A. Levi (1931) 66, no. 141, pl. 75b; G. Lip-pold (1934) 370; M. Wegner (1939) 258-59; M.

CATALOGUE 6

MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITS OFCOMMODUS, LIVILLA, CRISPINA AND

ANNIA FUNDANIA FAUSTINA

commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina 271

Wegner and R. Unger, (1981) 84; Fittschen-Zanker I, 87; E. Flisi (1989) 93-106, pls. 19-21 (with earlier literature); here, 139-140.

The replacement of Commodus’s type 5 hairstylewith incised a penna locks suggests a date for therecarving of this image in the mid third centu-ry. The resulting combination of short hair andlong curly beard is also seen in surviving sculpt-ed portraits of Pupienus created during his brieftenure as co-Augustus with Balbinus in 238. Thelionskin has also been refashioned and original-ly may have covered more of the head, as in thebust in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (E. Flisi[1989] 95).

6.6. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chi-aramonti 27.8, inv. 1613 (formerly Mag-azzini, 690)

h. unavailablemarble head worked for insertion into a cui-rassed statueprovenance: presumably Rome or environspublications: G. von Kaschnitz-Weinberg(1936-37) 285, no. 690, pl. 108; M. Wegner(1939) 269; M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980)92; Fittschen-Zanker I, 87; E. Flisi (1989) 93-106; P. Liverani (1989) 65; here, 139-140, fig.139a-c.

Commodus’s fifth and final type coiffure has beenentirely worked away and replaced with short apenna locks typical of mid third century portraits.The beard has also been slightly shortened. Aswith the portrait in Mantua (cat. 6.5), the refash-ioned portraits has strong iconographic similar-ities to the images of Pupienus.

Commodus/Licinius?

6.7. Side, Museum, inv. 35 (old no. 315)h. 0.99 m.fragmentary marble cuirassed statueprovenance: Side, central niche of “buildingM”publications: J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum (1966)86-87, no. 63, pls. 40.1-2, 41.3 (with earlier lit-

erature); H. Blanck (1969) 48-49, no. A. 22,pl. 16; D. Brinkerhoff (1970) 18, n. 64, fig. 20;H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 228 (notMaximinus Thrax); K. Stemmer (1978) 117,no. 471; H.P. L’Orange (1984) 117, here, 140,fig. 140a-c.

The head is broken at the neck and has beenreattached.. Traces of a longer and curlier coif-fure are still present on the back of the neck. Theforehead has been recarved, with the result thatthe brow bulges out noticeably above the nose.Remnants of a longer moustache, which connect-ed with the beard, can still be seen, beneath thecurrent shorter moustache. The incised coiffure,beard, and moustache combined with the moreschematic rendering of the physiognomy suggesta tetrarchic date for the reconfiguration, and H.P.L’Orange has plausibly suggested Licinius as itsmost likely identity ([1984] 117).

Lucilla

Mutilated Portraits

6.8. Guelma, Museum, inv. M. 396h. unavailable (overlifesized)fragmentary marble statue (veiled as Ceres?)provenance: Madauros, Roman Forumpublications: M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980)68, pl. 5.3-4; K. Fittschen (1982) 76, no. 7 (withearlier literature); T. Mickoki (1995) 207, no.390; E.R. Varner (2001b) 50; E.R. Varner(2001a) 74-75 (with earlier literature); here,149, 150, 170-71, 186, fig. 148.

Most of the left eye, the nose mouth and chin ofthis type 1 portrait have been effaced. The restof the statue is well preserved and has not beenattacked, underscoring the facial features as theprincipal targets in the image’s mutilation.

6.9. Izmir, Museum, inv. 3694h. 0.320 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Smyrna, Roman Forumpublications: K. Fittschen (1982) no. 11, with

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits272

previous literature; E.R. Varner (2001) 51;E.R. Varner, (2001a), 73-74; here, 150, 154,170, 171, 186, fig. 149.

The eyes, nose, and mouth of the figure havebeen attacked and disfigured in the typical t-shaped pattern for deliberately mutilated imag-es. The eyeballs have also been intentionallygouged out, underscoring the virulent nature ofthe portrait’s vandalization. Indeed, the mutila-tion of the eyes is a strikingly anthropomorphicattack in effigy intended to obliterate the very soulor essence of the image.

6.10. Rome, Museo Nuovo, Sala 1.9, inv.1781 (Centrale Montemartini 3.85)

h. 0.54 m.fragmentary marble portrait as Venus Gene-trixprovenance: domus on the Quirinal (at onepoint belonging to Plautianus), 1901publications: Fittschen-Zanker III, 25-26, no.25, pl. 34 (with earlier literature); F.P. Arata(1993) 195, pl. 51.1-2; T. Mickoki (1995) 208,no. 397, pl. 33; M. Bertoletti, M. Cima, andE. Talamo, eds. (1997) 103; E.R. Varner, ed.(2000) 15, E.R. Varner (2001a) 73-74 with ear-lier literature) here, 5, n. 28, 149, 150, 161,n. 46, 186, 279, fig. 147.

The fragmentary statue of Lucilla, a type 1 rep-lica, was discovered together with a disfiguredportrait of Macrinus (Museo Nuovo, Sala 7.21,inv. 1757; Centrale Montemartini 3.82) duringconstruction of the tunnel which runs beneath thegarderns of the Palazzo Quirinale and connectsthe Via Nazionale with the Via Tritone along theVia Milano. Only the upper section of the stat-ue survives and it depicts the empress in hersecond portrait type in the guise of Venus Gen-etrix, perhaps to commemorate the birth of herdaughter in 167. Modern restorations mask theextensive damage to the facial features. The nose,mouth, chin and much of the left side of the neckand face have been almost entirely destroyed.The domus also yielded other undamaged sculp-ture including two third century male portraits

(a togate bust [inv. 1794] and a somewhat larg-er heroically nude bust of the same individual ata slightly more mature age [inv. 1790]; a half lifesize portrait of a boy in Greek marble, perhapsan initiate of Eleusis, c. 2nd century A.C. (inv.1871); a statue of Hermes with a sacrificed ram,also in Greek marble, c. 2nd century A.C. (inv.1875) ; a headless, draped statue of Priapus inLuna marble (inv. 1875); and a head of Priapus(inv. 980)(see M. Bertoletti, M. Cima, and E.Talamo, eds [1997] 102-3, with figs. On thediscovery of the sculpture, see L. Mariani [1901]158-179, pls. 9-12; figure 5 depicts the portraitof Lucilla before restorations) (Centrale Mon-temartini 3.80-81, 83-84, 86-87).

Altered Portraits

Lucilla/Helena

6.11. Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, Inv.1914.171

h. 1.0 m.marble seated statue (as Venus)provenance: presumably Rome or environspublications: G.A. Mansuelli (1961) 131, no.171, figs. 168a-c (with earlier literature); R.Calza (1972) 171-72, no. 81, pls. 53.164,54.167-68; H.P. L’Orange and M. Wegner(1984) 144; F.P Arata (1993) 194-96, pls. 48-49; T. Mickoki (1995) 222, no. 490, pl. 35;E.R. Varner in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 13, fig.5; E.R. Varner (2001a) 75-76; here, 5, n. 20,97, 150-51, 154, fig. 151a-b.

The portrait, originally a type 2 representationof Lucilla, has been reconfigured as a likeness ofHelena with a combination of her Scheitelzopfand Haarkranz arrangements. Evidence for thealterations is still clearly visible behind the ears.Because of its potent divine iconography, theoriginal portrait of Lucilla as Venus was proba-bly no longer displayed publicly after her down-fall and warehoused in for almost a century anda half until its reuse, c. 324-326 (F.P. Arata [1993]200.

commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina 273

6.12. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanzadegli Imperatori 59, inv. 496

h. 1.21 m.marble seated statue (as Venus)provenance: presumably Rome or environspublications: Fittschen-Zanker III, 35-36, no.38, pls. 47-48 (with earlier literature); L’Oran-ge and Wegner, 146, pl. 74b-c; F.P. Arata(1993) 185-200 (pls. 42-45); T. Mickoki (1995)222, no. 489, pl. 35; E..R. Varner in E.R.Varner, ed. (2000) 13, fig. 4; E.R. Varner(2001) 75-76; here, 5, n. 20, 97, 150-51, 154,fig. 150a-b.

The portrait is nearly identical in iconographyto the Uffizi image and presents a similar scenariofor its reuse. It was also originally a likeness ofLucilla, the waves of whose type 2 hairstyle arestill visible in the altered coiffure, likewise a com-bination of Helena’s skull braid and hair crownarrangements. The date of the portrait’s recon-figuration should also be placed between 324, theyear Helena assumed the title Augusta, and 326,the celebration of Constantine’s vicennalia (F.P.Arata [1993] 200).

Crispina

Mutilated Portraits

6.13. Castle Howardh. unavailablemarble headprovenance: presumably Romepublications: K. Fittschen (1982) 85, no. 6, pl.50.3-4 (with earlier literature); E.R. Varner(2001) 51; E.R. Varner (2001a) 78; here, 152.

Although now masked by modern repairs, thistype 1 portrait of Crispina exhibits the t-shapeddamage of the facial features typical of vandal-ized portraits. The eyes, nose, and sections of themouth have all been restored.

6.14. Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, Inv.1914.13

h. 0.6 m.marble bustprovenance:publications: K. Fittschen (1982) 85. no. 3, pl.56.1-2, with previous literature; E.R. Varner(2001) 51; E.R. Varner (2001a) 78; here, 152.

Modern repairs to the eyes, nose mouth and chinof this type 2 portrait mask ancient damage inthe typical T-shaped pattern in these areas. Therest of the portrait and bust form are well pre-served and have not been attacked.

6.15. Ostia, Museo, Magazzini, Sala 1,inv. 452

h. 0.23 m.fragmentary marble headprovenance:publications: R. Calza (1977) 24-25, no. 24,pl. 19; M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980) 101;E.R. Varner (2001) 51; E.R. Varner (2001a)78; here, 152.

The facial features of this type 1 portrait ofCrispina have been almost entirely obliteratedwith damage to the nose and mouth. The rest ofthe portrait is very well preserved. The head hasbeen cut or broken from the statue to which itoriginally pertained.

6.16. Ostia, Museo, Magazzini, Sala 7,inv. 1954

h. 0.16fragmentary marble headprovenance: Ostia, near the Capitoliumpublications: R. Calza (1977) 25, no. 25, pl.19, with previous literature; M. Wegner andR. Unger (1980) 101; E.R. Varner (2001) 51;E.R. Varner (2001a) 78; here, 153, 274, fig.153.

Only the top of the head, forehead, left eye andcheek of the image, a replica of Crispina’s sec-ond portrait type, are preserved. The head ap-pears to have been violently attacked with a

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits274

hammer or other heavy instrument and brokenapart. The damaged image was later used asconstruction material near Ostia’s Capitolium (D.Vaglieri, NSc [1913] 210).

6.17. Rome, Formerly in the Magazzini ofthe Domus Aurea

h. unavailablefragmentary marble headprovenance: Rome (Oppian?)publications: H. Jucker (1981b) 171-8, no. 189,pl. 53.48a-b (with earlier literature). K.Fittschen (1982) 85, no. 5, n. 9, pl. 51.2; E.R.Varner (2001) 51; E.R. Varner (2001a) 78;here, 152.

The head has been quite literally defaced, withthe entire facial features broken away from thehead. The rest of the portrait consisting prima-rily of the neck , the head and coiffure are wellpreserved. The damaged portrait was subsequent-ly “restored” and purchased by the Museum ofArt and Archaeology of the University of Mis-souri at Columbia. The head was returned whenit was discovered to be the Domus Aurea por-trait. Its current whereabouts are unknown.

6.18. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magazzi-ni, inv. 2106/S

h. 0.20 m.fragmentary marble headprovenance: presumably Romepublications: Fittschen-Zanker III, 95-6, no.139, pl. 165 (with earlier literature); E.R. Var-ner (2001) 51; E.R. Varner (2001a) 78; here,153.

Only the rear section of the head, essentiallycomprising the bun of Crispina’s type 2 coiffureis preserved. Like Ostia 1954 (cat. 6.16, the im-age was likely attacked and smashed to pieceswith a hammer.

Annia Fundania Faustina

Mutilated Portraits

6.19. Ostia, Museo, Sala 6.2, inv. 1123h. 1.8 m.marble statueprovenance: Ostia, near the Horrea of Horten-sius (1913)publications: R. Calza (1977) 20-21, no. 17,p. 14 (Cornificia?), with earlier literature; M.Wegner and R. Unger (1980) 101 (not Crisp-ina); Fittschen-Zanker III, 91, no. 130, n. 1(private Antonine woman); C. Pavolini (1983)90; E.R. Varner (2001a) 79-80; here, 153-54,170, fig. 154a-b.

This full length draped statue has been carvedfrom a single block of marble and is of highartistic quality. The coiffure suggests a womancontemporary in age with Faustina Minor maybe commemorated. The facial features have beenattacked with a chisel and the right eye, nose,mouth and chin have been obliterated. A one lineinscription on the statue’s base has also beenerased. The remainder of the statue is exceed-ingly well preserved, including traces of ancientfinish on some of its surfaces. The intensity of theattacks against the image suggests that a womanof some prominence is represented, perhaps thecousin of Marcus Aurelius, Annia FundaniaFaustina who was executed under Commodus inA.D. 192.

the severans 275

Plautilla

Mutilated Portraits

7.1. Houston, Museum of Fine Art, inv.70-39

h. 0.355 m.marble head worked for insertion into adraped statueprovenance:publications: K. Fittschen (1978) 149, n. 29;C.C. Vermeule (1981) 355, no. 306, with fig.(with earlier literature); S. Nodelman (1982)108-117, figs. 6-9; M. Donderer (1991-2) 222,n. 123; E.R. Varner in D.E.E. Kleiner andS.B. Matheson, eds. (1996) 85-6, no. 46, withfig.; E.R. Varner in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000)15, fig. 8; E.R. Varner (2001a) 80-83; E.R.Varner (2001b) 52-3, fig. 3; here, 165-66, 188,fig. 162a-b.

A replica of Plautilla’s third portrait type (“Hous-ton-Malibu-Torlonia” type), the portrait has beenmutilated with a claw chisel, violently gouging theeyes and right cheek. The rest of the portrait iswell preserved.

7.2. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Magazzini,731, inv. 4278

h. 0.23 m.marble (Luna?) headprovenance: presumably Rome or environspublications: G. von Kaschnitz Weinberg(1936-37) 297, no. 731; S. Nodelman (1965)232-33; C. Saletti, (1967) 41; H.B. Wiggers andM. Wegner (1971) 117-18, 127-28, pl. 29a-b;

E.R. Varner in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 176-8, no. 41, with figs.; E.R. Varner (2001a) 80-83, fig. 21; E.R. Varner (2001b) 52, fig. 2; here,165-66, fig. 161a-b.

A chisel has been used to disfigure this type 1image of Plautilla. The nose, ears and chin havebeen entirely obliterated, as has most of themouth. Additional damage has been inflicted onthe forehead, the eyebros, and the left eye. Theremaining surfaces of the portrait are very wellpreserved including the finely sculpted details ofPlautilla’s melonenfrisur. The fresh surfaces of chan-nels cut in the area of the missing ears, as wellas drilled holes, suggest that modern repairs mayhave been initiated but never completed. Thereare similar holes, also presumably for modernrepairs in the areas of damage to the nose andchin.

Altered Portrait

Plautilla/Tetrarchic or Constantinian Empress

7.3. Irvine, California; Collection of Mr.Robert K. Martin

h. 0.275 m.marble headprovenance: unknownpublications: F.K. Yegul (1981) 63-68, figs. 1-4; S. Nodelman (1982) 110, figs. 11-12; E.R.Varner (2001a) 80-83; here, 166-67, fig. 163a-b.

Originally created as a type 3 portrait of Plau-

CATALOGUE 7

MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITSOF THE SEVERANS. PLAUTILLA, GETA, MACRINUS,

DIADUMENIANUS, ELAGABALUS, SEVERUS ALEXANDERAND JULIA MAMMAEA

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits276

tilla, the portrait was updated sometime in theTetrarchic or Constantinian period. The eyes arethe principal focus of the reconfiguration andhave been recarved farther back into the head,made larger, and endowed with heart-shapedpupils, seen in many Tetrarchic and Constantin-ian portraits, but not those of the Severan peri-od. The lower section of the face has also squaredoff in order to make the face look heavier andmore mature. The hair framing the face has beenrecarved into a more stiff and linear arrangement.The coiffure at the back of the head has also beenretouched and a linear pattern of criss-crossingnow enlivens Plautilla’s Scheitelzopf. The presenceof the diadem suggest that an augusta is the sub-ject of the recarved image, but the rather genericfeatures of the physiognomy and the wide prev-alence of the Scheitelzopf in female imperial por-traits in the late third and fourth centuries hindera more specific identification.

Geta

Mutilated Portraits

7.4. Florence, Palazzo Pitti, Museo degliArgenti, Sala I, inv. 1036

h. 0.33 m.marble headprovenance: Italypublications: C. Saletti (1967) 44-50, pls. 15-16; H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 62;Fittschen-Zanker I, 104; E.R. Varner (2001b)51; here, 171, 186, fig. 167.

The portrait is attached to a modern bust. Mod-ern restorations hide ancient damage to the eyes,nose, mouth and chin in the t-shaped pattern ofdeliberately disfigured images.

7.5. Florence, Villa del Poggio Imperialeh. 2.08 m.marble cuirassed statueprovenance: Rome or environs, Della ValleCollectionpublications: C.C. Vermeule (1964) 106, n.

213; K. Stemmer (1978) 67, pl. 42.3; V. Sal-adino (1980) 433-38, pls. 80, 81.1-3, 82.1-2,83.1; Fittschen-Zanker I, 100-101, n. 3; E.R.Varner (2001b) 51; here, 170-171, 186, fig.165a-b.

The statue is carved from a single block of mar-ble and extensive damage has been inflicted onGeta’s type 1 facial features in the areas of theupper brow, the left eye, nose, mouth and chin.The young prince originally held a parazonium inhis left hand. No attempt has been made to sep-arate the head from the body of the statue, as wasthe case with the Velleia Caligula/Claudius(cat.1.27) and the Richmond Caligula, nor havethe damaged facial features been replaced witha new face, as with the Naples Elagabalus/Severus Alexander (cat. 7.17). The portrait mostlikely celebrates the Severan victories in Parthiaand may have formed part of a group dedicationwhich included Septimius Severus and Caracal-la. After Geta’s condemnation this portrait wasmutilated, and, given the well preserved condi-tion of the body, warehoused or buried.

7.6. Guelma, Guelma, Musée Archéo-logique

h. unavailablemarble headprovenance: Guelmapublications: P.G. de Pachtère (1909) 36, pl.7.9; G. Souville (1953) 115-19 pl. 1; S. Nodel-man (1965) 215, 220-21, pl. 124; H. Wiggersand M. Wegner (1971) 23-24, 53-54, 63, pl.9a-b; Fittschen-Zanker I, 102; E.R. Varner(2001b) 51; here, 171, 183, 186, fig. 168.

The facial features of this type 2 portrait havebeen disfigured in the classic t-shaped pattern,with the eyes, nose and mouth obliterated. Thehead’s other surfaces are well preserved. Theintentional mutilation of the Guelma portrait hasimportant implications for the complicated por-trait iconography of the two Severan brothers.The damage to the Guelma portrait must cer-tainly be associated with Geta’s condemnation,and other replicas of the type must then be as-

the severans 277

sociated with Geta, rather than Caracalla.

7.7. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magazzini,inv. 2519

h. 0.17 m.fragmentary marble headprovenance: presumably Romepublications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 100-102, no.87, pl. 105 (with earlier literature); E.R. Var-ner (2001b) 52; here, 171.

This fragment consists of the upper section of atype 1 likeness of Geta, whose coiffure is wellpreserved. The forehead and eyes have beenvandalized with a chisel in an attack which mayultimately have smashed the head to pieces.

7.8. Venice, Museo Archeologico, inv. 79h.. 0.22 m.marble headprovenance: Italypublications: G. Traversari (1968) 44-45, no.24. pl.; H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 99,114; Fittschen-Zanker I, 100-101; E.R. Var-ner (2001b) 51; here, 171.

The facial features have been almost entirelyeffaced by a chisel in this type 1 replica. The restof the portrait is well preserved.

Altered Portraits

Geta/Victoria

7.9. Atlanta, Emory University, MichaelC. Carlos Museum, inv. 2003.25.2

h.rock crystal intaglioprovenance: unknownpublications: unpublished; here, 77, 172, fig.174.

The original composition depicted SeptimiusSeverus and Caracalla extending their righthands over a small tripodal altar with Geta stand-ing behind Caracalla and a figure, presumablyVictoria crowning Semptimius from behind.

Although the intaglio is broken at the left, thehand extending the laurel crown behind Septi-mius is still visible. Septimius is veiled and de-picted with the corkscrew curls over his foreheadcharacteristic of his Serapis type. Caracalla isbeardless, as in his boyhood portrait type and isalso represented wearing a laurel crown andholding a scepter in his left hand. Serapis appearsabove the central altar and VTVXWC is inscribedin the exergue below the figures.

A second figure of victory has been carved overthe figure of Geta. Most of her figure is engravedmuch more deeply into the surface of the crys-tal except for her wings which nearly come to theedge of the intaglio and were carved into the pre-existing blank background. Despite the recutting,the top of Geta’s head, also laureate, is still vis-ible and his profile below his type 1 coiffure hasbeen abraded, canceling his facial features. Mostof the left edge of his toga is still visible and ismerged with Victoria’s drapery and, the goddess-es resulting drapery is unnaturally wide, especiallyat the bottom. Geta’s original left foot, wearinga calceus has been allowed to remain in place.The scepter which Geta held, like that of Cara-calla can also be discerned. The top of a rotuluswhich Geta held is also visible beyond Victoria’sleft edge. The carving of her drapery also differssignificantly form that of Caracalla and Septimiusand is cut in much wider and more rounded folds.The resulting treatment is much less linear thanthe drapery of the original figures, which suggeststhat the artist responsible for re-engraving thecrystal is not the same as the initial carver. Thereis also slight damage to the surface of the gembetween Victoria’s shoulder and wing which mayhave occurred during the recarving.1

The new figure of Victoria has been carvedto parallel the original Victoria crowning Septi-mius and the Caracalla’s original wreath has beensomewhat incongruously extended over the topof his head in order to accommodate the newgesture of crowning. The resulting new compo-

1 Renée Stein, Conservator at the Carlos Museum madethis observation as she was cleaning dark deposits from theintaglio.

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits278

sition is unusual in that Septimius is beingcrowned in the standard manner, with the wreathabove the head, whereas Caracalla’s wreath isalready firmly on his head. Also unusual in Seve-ran compositions is the reduplication of the god-dess herself, which is a byproduct of the gem’sreconfiguration. The Carlos rock crystal is theonly known example of an intaglio recut as aresult of damnatio.

Geta/Mid Third Century Portrait

7.10. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Salone 51,inv. 675

h. 0235 m.marble headpublications: Fittschen-Zanker, I, 105, no. 90,pl. 109 (with earlier literature); here, 172, fig.173.

Geta’s type 2 coiffure has been maintained overthe forehead and temples, but shortened andreplaced with a penna locks elsewhere. The com-bination of plastically rendered curls over theforehead with shorter hair on the cranium is amid third century phenomenon, indicating thatthe original likeness of Geta was stored for ap-proximately forty years. The new portrait’s iden-tification is impossible to secure with certainty.

Macrinus

Mutilated Portraits

7.11. Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum,inv. 32300

3.3 x 2.8 cm.sardonyx cameoprovenance: unknownpublications: W.R. Megow (1987) 247, no. A163, pl. 50.3 (with earlier literature); D. Salz-mann (1989) 564, n. 24; E.R. Varner (2001b)54; here, 84, n. 352, 186-187.

Facing bust length portraits of Macrinus and hisson Diadumenianus have been attacked anddefaced. Macrinus’s image has been disfigured in

the area of the brow, eye and nose, while Diad-umenianus’s facial features have been entirelyeffaced.

7.12. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Univer-sity, Arthur M. Sackler Museum, inv.1949.47.138

h. 0.28 m.marble headprovenance: presumably Rome or environspublications: D. Salzmann (1989) 563, n. 19;A. Brauer and C.C. Vermeule (1990) 155, no.142, with figs. (with earlier literature); M. Don-derer (1991-2) 222, n. 123; E.R. Varner inE.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 191-3, no. 49, withfigs.; E.R. Varner (2001b) 53; here, 150, 186,202, fig. 189a-b.

The striking contrast between the t-shaped dam-age inflicted with a chisel on the eyes, nose andmouth of this type 1 image and the other wellpreserved sculptural details of coiffure and highlypolished skin surfaces underscores the intentionalcharacter of the disfigurement. The ears and chinhave also been destroyed. The portrait’s remark-able artistic quality suggests a metropolitan Ro-man provenance.

7.13. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanzadegli Imperatori, inv. 460

h. 0.37 m.marble headprovenance: Rome or environs (Albani Collec-tion B 177)publications: Fittschen Zanker I, 112-14, no.96, pls. 118-119 (with earlier literature); D.Salzmann (1989) 563, n. 19; E.R. Varner(2001b) 53; here, 160, n. 38, 186, fig. 190a-c.

The head was cut or broken from a bust or stat-ue and has been combined with a cuirassed bustof giallo antico to which it does not belong. Theportrait is a replica of Macrinus’s second type andmodern restorations have been added to repairthe t-shaped damage of the facial features in thearea of the right brow, right eye, nose, lower lipand sections of the beard. The rest of the por-trait is generally well preserved.

the severans 279

7.14. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,Museo Nuovo, Sala 7, 21, inv. 1757 (Cen-trale Montemartini 3.82)

h. 0.40 m.marble head worked for insertion into a cui-rassed portraitprovenance: domus on the Quirinal (at onepoint belonging to Plautianus), 1901publications: Fittschen-Zanker, I, 112-13, no.95, pls. 116-17 (with earlier literature); L. deLachenal in MusNazRom 1.6, 158; S. Wood(1986) 31, 70-72, 123, pl.25.36; D. Salzmann(1989) 563, n. 19; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 361-2, fig. 319; M. Beroletti, M. Cima, E. Tala-mo, eds. (1997) 102-3; E.R. Varner (2001b) 53;here, 5, n. 28, 149, 161, n. 46, 186, fig. 188a-c.

The destruction of the facial features of the thistype 1 portrait encompasses both eyebrows, theleft eyeball, left check, nose, and upper lip. Thet-shaped pattern is familiar. Following the remov-al of the mutilated head from the cuirassed bustor statue to which it belonged, the bust or stat-ue would likely have been reused through theinsertion of a new portrait. The head itself wasdiscovered together with the disfigured image ofLucilla as Venus Genetrix (cat. 6.10) and bothmutilated likenesses may have been warehousedat the domus awaiting some form of eventual re-use.

Diadumenianus

Mutilated Portraits

7.15. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gre-goriano Profano, 651 (10135) inv. 10075?

h. 0.48 m.marble bustprovenance: Rome, excavations for the foun-dations of the Seminario Lateranense (1938)publications: A. Giuliano (1957) 68, no. 80, pl.48 (with earlier literature); B.M. Felletti Maj(1958) 100, no. 32; H. von Heintze in Helbig4

no. 116; S. Nodelman (1965) 165-67, pls. 84-

85; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 111,193; E.R. Varner (2001b) 53-4; here, 188, fig.192a-b.

The head is carved from a single block of mar-ble with the bust. A claw chisel has been em-ployed in the attack on the image, damaging thebrows, eyes, nose, cheeks, upper lip and chin. Therest of the sculpture’s surfaces reveal no tracesof intentional disfigurement.

Elagabalus

Altered Portraits

Elagabalus/Severus Alexander

7.16. Kansas City, Nelson-Atkins Museumof Art, 45-66

h. 0.31 m.marble headprovenance: unknownE.R. Varner in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 200,no. 52, with figs.; here, 11, 192, fig. 194a-c.

Elagabalus’s full and more curly type 2 coiffureis still visible over the occiput, but the shorter hairsurrounding the face corresponds to SeverusAlexander’s images from c. 225. The hair on theback of the neck has been cut back, but the ter-mination of the hair maintains the straight hor-izontal alignment of Elagabalus’s images, ratherthan the V-shaped point more typical of SeverusAlexander. The sculptural volume of the head hasbeen substantially reduced and the ears havebeen entirely refashioned and the original earcanals from the portrait of Elagabalus are stillvisible beneath the current earlobes.

7.17. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeolo-gico, 5993

h. 3,79 m.colossal marble statue in heroic nudityprovenance: presumably Baths of Caracallapublications: K. Fittschen and P. Zanker (1970)248-53, figs. 1, 3, 5; H. B. Wiggers and M.

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits280

Wegner (1971) 189, 249, pl. 50, 56a (with ear-lier literature); M. Bergmann (1977) 27, no. 9;Fittschen-Zanker I, 119; S. Wood (Leiden1986) 44, 58, 125; S. Adamo Muscettola, inDomiziano/Nerva (Naples 1987) 50, fig. 58; C.Maderna 1988) 59, 64, 138, ns. 378, 381, 207-8, no. D 6, pl. 21.3; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 363,fig. 323; E.R. Varner (1992) 350; J. Elsner(2000) 175, n. 32; here, 121, n. 70, 190-91,276, fig. 193a-c.

The palm tree which supports the emperor’sweight bearing right leg is further reference tovictory. The current face of Severus Alexanderis a separately worked piece of marble attachedto the back of the original head, almost as if itwere a mask. The full curls of Elagabalus’s type1 hairstyle at the back of the head contrast withthe short a penna locks of the new attached sec-tion of Severus Alexander’s face. As with bronzeDomitian/Nerva from Misenum (cat. 5.7), a lineis clearly visible in the Elagabalus/Severus Alex-ander marking the join between the new face andoriginal head. This line runs from beneath thechin, in front of the ears and through the top partof the skull. The addition of the new facial fea-tures has caused the head to appear unnatural-istically wide in profile. The position of the newportrait features also fail to properly adjust to thetorsion present in the neck and body. Like theequestrian Domitian/Nerva, the resulting confor-mation of the face is unrealistic and contributessubstantially to the mask like effect of the newlikeness. Nevertheless, the apparent disjunctionbetween new face and old body would not havebeen readily apparent if the statue were displayedin a niche, as is likely, which would have restrict-ed profile views. The discordant effects would alsoare further ameliorated when the portrait isviewed from below.

The degree of facial hair present in the like-ness does not appear in Severus Alexander’sportraits until 225 indicating that at least 3 yearselapsed between the condemnation of Elagabal-us and the reconfiguration of the statue. The factthat Elagabalus’s features have been entirelyreplaced with a new piece of marble, rather than

recarved suggest that his portrait features mayhave been deliberately disfigured. If so, themutilated image may have remained on displayat the baths as a prominent public marker ofElagabalus’s posthumous shame and denigration.

7.18. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano,Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 329

h. 0.59 m.colossal marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Ostia, Tempio Rotondopublications: E. Fileri in MusNazRom 1.9.2(Rome 1989) 360-62, with figs (with earlier lit-erature). E.R. Varner (1992) 350; K. Rieger(2001) 259, fig. 17; here, 191, fig. 194a-c.

The head is worked for insertion into an acroli-thic statue and exhibits numerous signs of recut-ting: the hair over the forehead has been cut backand the surface roughened with a punch for theaddition of a diadem or vegetal crown; in orderto further facilitate the addition of the head or-nament, the right ear has been almost entirelycarved away, but traces of it are still visible. Theleft ear has been partially removed. Evidence forthe removal of Elagabalus’s long and full type 2sideburns exists below the current sideburns. Thebrows have also been recarved, causing the leftbrow to be longer than the right. The eyes them-selves have also been altered and have been setback beneath heavy lids. The pupils are notcarved, as they almost certainly would have beenin the original. The chin has been recut, caus-ing it to recede slightly from the frontal plane ofthe face. The recutting of the head has alsocaused the neck to appear unnaturally thick.

7.19. Rome, Palazzo dei ConservatoriBraccio Nuovo 3.24, inv. 2457 (CentraleMontemartini 2.81, formerly AntiquarioCommunale, inv. 10476)

h. 0.255 m.marble headprovenance: presumably Romepublications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 121-22, no.101, pl. 124 (with earlier literature); S. Wood(1986) 124, here, 191.

the severans 281

The likeness has been refashioned into a repre-sentation of Severus Alexander’s earliest imag-es, in use between 222 and 224. The portraitexhibits rather thick, incised eyebrows almostmeeting over the bridge of the nose. The eye-brows are proportionally larger than the eyes andhave been largely retained from the original type1 likeness of Elagabalus. There are also traces ofthe more fully modeled original surfaces behindand in front of the right ear. K. Fittschen sug-gests that the portrait may actually be a moreradical reworking of Elagabalus’s second type, inwhich the volume of the head has been reduced(Fittschen-Zanker I, 122); however, the shape ofthe eyes and coiffure are much closer to Elagabal-us’s first type.

Severus Alexander

Mutilated Portraits

7.20. Bochum, Kunstsammlungen derRuhr-Universität

h. 0.485 m.bronze head from a cuirassed statueprovenance: Carnuntumpublications: B. Andreae (1979) 98-111, withfigs.; C. Letta (1981) 43-4, figs. 1-3; Fittschen-Zanker I, 120, no. 21, n. 21; M. Donderer(1991-2) 274, no. 9; E.R. Varner (2001b) 55;here, 9, n. 57, 197, 204, 208, 213, 285, fig.197.

The portrait has been attacked with a pick-axe,gouging holes in the right side of the head, theright temple, the corner of the right eye, the rightcheek, and left brow. The portrait appears tohave been severed from the cuirassed statue towhich it originally pertained and then buried.

7.21. Munich, Glyptothek, no. 550h. 0.71 m.marble (Luna) bust with toga contabulatapublications: R. Wünsche (1989); here, 197.

The eyes, nose, mouth, chin and ears of theportrait have all been disfigured and the bust

form itself damaged. The remaining surfaces ofthe head, including finely carved details of thehair, are well preserved.

7.22. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magazzi-ni, inv. 1431

h. 0.165 m.fragmentary marble headprovenance: presumably Romepublications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 122-23, no.102, pl. 125 (with earlier literature); E.R. Var-ner (2001b) 55, here, 196.

This fragmentary portrait has been attacked witha chisel and broken apart. The chisel was alsoused to destroy the nose.

7.23. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romanodelle Terme, Inv. 124492

h. 0.225 m.fragmentary bronze portraitprovenance: from the Tiberpublications: A.L. Cesnaro, MusNazRom 1.9.2,362-3, no. R274 (with fig. n)(with earlier lit-erature); M. Donderer (1991-2) 222, 260-61,no. 7 (with earlier literature); E.R. Varner(2001b) 55; here, 196.

The fragmenary face of a bronze image ofSeverus Alexander, comprising the hair over theforehead and face to just below the mouth, mayhave been vandalized and thrown into the Tiberduring spontaneous demonstrations after hismurder.

7.24. Switzerland, Private Collectionh. 0.314 m.marble (Luna) bust (with toga contabulata)provenance: presumably Italy (discovered withfragmentary portraits of Julia Mammaea,cat. 7.25 and cat.7.28)publications: H. Jucker and D. Willers (1982) 173,no. 71 (with fig. n); E.R. Varner (2001b) 55; here,196, 198, 282.

The eyes, nose, mouth and chin of the imagehave all been disfigured in the usual t-shaped

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits282

pattern. The rest of the portrait has not beendamaged intentionally and is generally well pre-served.

Julia Mammaea

7.25. Bochum, Kunstsammlungen derRuhr-Universität, inv. S 1090

h. 0.18 m.fragmentary (Luna) marble headprovenance: presumably Italypublictions: H. Jucker and D. Willers, eds.(1982) 176-8, no. 73, with figs. (H. Jucker);E.R. Varner (2001a) 51; E.R. Varner (2001b)55; here, 9, n. 57, 198.

Only the face of this image has survived and thenose is damaged. The portrait was discoveredtogether with the intentionally mutilated bust ofSeverus Alexander (cat. 7.24) and another disfig-ured Julia Mammaea (cat. 7.28), both now inSwitzerland.

7.26. Ostia, Museo, inv. 26h. 0.58 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Ostia, Decumanus Maximus,near the theater (originally from the TempioRotondo?)publications: R. Calza (1977) 66-67, no. 83,pl. 61 (with earlier literature); Fittschen-ZankerIII, 31; S. Wood (1986) 126; M. Donderer(1991-2) 222, n. 123; J.P. P. Pensabene (2001)298, fig. 13; E.R. Varner (2001) 55; E.R.Varner (2001a) 50-51; here, 5, n. 26, 9, n. 57,197, fig. 198.

The forehead has been attacked with a squareinstrument whose indentations pockmark thesurfaces in this area. A chisel has been used togouge out the eyeballs, as well as to disfigure the

nose, most of the mouth, and part of the leftcheek. The rest of the portrait is very well pre-served, with the exception of slight weatheringto the top of the head. The mutilated image waseventually reused, face down as a paving stonein the Decumanus.

7.27. Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 3552h. 0.41;marble bustprovenance:publications: H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner(1971) 211, pl. 60 (with earlier literature);Fittschen-Zanker III, 31; S. Wood (1986) 59,126; K. de Kersauson (1996) 424-5, no. 196,with figs., (with earlier literature); E. Bartman(2001) 21-2, fig. 16; E.R. Varner (2001) 55;E.R. Varner (2001a) 50-51; here, 9, n. 57, 197-98.

A chisel has been used to disfigure the image,destroying the left brow, the eyes, the nose, themouth, and the chin. As in other intentionallymutilated images, the portraits other areas arewell preserved. The lower sections of her nestfri-sur on either side of the neck were separatelyworked pieces of marble, now lost.

7.28. Switzerland, Private Collectionh. 0.18 m.fragmentary marble (Luna) headprovenance: presumably Italypublications: H. Jucker and D. Willers, eds.(1982) 174-75, no. 72, with figs. (H. Jucker);E.R. Varner (2001a) 51; E.R. Varner (2001b)55; here, 9, n. 57, 196, 198.

Similar to the fragmentary portrait in Bochum(cat. 7.25) with which it was discovered, togeth-er with the damaged bust of Severus Alexander(cat. 7.24), only the face survives and the nosehas been obliterated.

the later third century 283

Maximinus Thrax

Mutilated Portraits

8.1. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek744, inv. 818

h. 0.43 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: presumably Rome (LudovisiCollection)publications: H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner(1971) 225, 227, pl. 69a (with earlierliterature); V. Poulsen (1974) 161-62, no. 164;M. Bergmann (1977) 30-31, no. 2; K.Fittschen, (1978) 151; M. Bergmann (1981a)187-89; Fittschen-Zanker I, 125, no. 6; L. deLachenal, MusNazRom 1.6, 48, no. II.16, withfig.; SS. Wood (1986) 33-34, 66, 71, 120, 126-27, pl. 2.3; A.L. Cesarano, MusNazRom 1.9.2,370; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 364-65, fig. 324;F. Johansen (1995b) 100-101, no. 39 (with figs.n); E.R. Varner (2001b) 56; here, 202, fig. 203.

A chisel has been used to disfigure the nose, chinand both ears. The remainder of the portrait isvery well preserved and maintains the highlypolished surfaces of the skin.

8.2. Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 1044h. 0.58 m.marble bustprovenance: Rome, Villa of the Quintilii(1850-51?)publications: H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner(1971) 227, pl. 64b (with earlier literature); M.Bergmann (1977) 30-31; Fittschen-Zanker I,125; L. de Lachenal, MusNazRom 1.6, 48; S.Wood (1986) 127; A.L. Cesarano, MusNazRom1.9.2, 370. K. de Kersauson (1996) 563, no.

277, with figs.; A. Ricci, ed. (1998) 108-109,nos. 80, 83, pl. 14.2; here, 201, 202, 206.

The image has been disfigured in the areas of theright brow, right eye, most of the left eye, thenose, the left half of the lower lip, the chin, andmost of the left ear, all now restored in marble.Other surfaces and the bust form itself are wellpreserved.

The bust was formerly part of the Campanacollection. Although de Kersauson has publishedthe bust as an eighteenth century copy of the bustin the Stanza degli Imperatori from the Albanicollection, the piece is by no means an exact (oreven close) copy. Furthermore, it’s associationswith the Villa of the Quintilli as documented byRicci, as well as its damaged state, help to con-firm the portrait’s authenticity and antiquity.

8.3. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanzadegli Imperatori 46, inv. 473

h. 0.275 m.marble headprovenance: Presumably Rome or environs (exColl. Albani, B 199)publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 124-27, no.105, pl. 128-29 (with earlier literature); S.Wood (1986) 33, 137; A.L. Cesarano, Mus-NazRom 1.9.2, 127; E.R. Varner (2001b) 56;here, 201.

The head is attached to a bust to which it doesnot belong. Modern restorations mask damageto the left brow, the nose, the left half of the chinand both ears. Severe breakage, visible in cracksrunning throughout the portrait suggest an ad-ditional attack with a heavy object.

CATALOGUE 8

MUTILATED PORTRAITS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits284

8.4. Rome, Museo Palatino, Sala 8, for-merly Museo Nazionale Romano delleTerme, inv. 52681

h. 0.21 m.fragmenatry marble headprovenance: Rome, Palatinepublications: A.L. Cesarano, MusNazRom 1.9.2,369-72, no. R278, with figs., (with earlier lit-erature); M.A. Tomei (1997) 95, no. 68 (withfig.); E.R. Varner (2001b) 56; here, 68, n. 190,201, fig. 200a-c.

Only the upper section of the head is preserved.The head appears to have been attacked and splitapart by violent blows. There is slight damageto the right brow and both eyes. The rims of bothears are no longer extant. Most of the surfacesare extremely well preserved, including the highpolish of the skin and the finely carved details ofthe hair. The surface between the eyes, the orig-inal position of the bridge of the nose, has beenworked with the punch and chisel. The work inthis area suggests that the piece was repaired inantiquity, or was being prepared for a modernrestoration which was never carried out (A.L.Cesarano, MusNazRom 1.9.2, 372).

8.5. Rome, Villa Ludovisi, Casino Auro-ra

h. precise measurements unavailable (slightlyover lifesized)marble headprovenance: presumably Rome (LudovisiCollection)publications: T. Schreiber (1880) no. 158;K.Fittschen (1977b) 319-26, figs. 3-4; Fittschen-Zanker I, 125; L. De Lachenal, MusNazRom1.6, 246-47, with figs.; S. Wood (1986) 127,no. 5; E.R. Varner (2001b) 56; here, 202, fig.201.

The portrait has recently fallen from the facadeof the Casino, causing severe cracks through thehead, but both brows, the nose, the lips, the chinand the ears are earlier modern restorations. Thehead may be worked for insertion possibly intoa togate statue (S. Wood [1986] 127, no. 5).

8.6. Rome, Villa Ludovisi, Casino Auro-ra

h. precise measurements unavailable (slightlyover lifesized)marble headprovenance: presumably Rome (LudovisiCollection)publications: (pl. ) T. Shreiber, (1880). no. 160;K. Fittschen,(1977b). figs. 5-6; Fittschen-Zank-er I, 125; L. De Lachenal, MusNazRom 1.6,.250-52, with figs.; S. Wood, (1986) 127, no.6; E.R. Varner (2001b) 57; here, 202, fig. 202.

Modern restorations to the head include the noseand the chin, both likely to have been attackedand damaged in antiquity.

Maximus

Mutilated Portraits

8.7. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek745, inv. 819

h. 0.42 m.marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Rome or environs (LudovisiCollection)publications:H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner(1971) 232, 234, pl. 71 (with earlier literature);V. Poulsen (1974) 163, no. 166, pls. 266-267;K. Fittschen (1977b) 320; K. Fittschen(1978) 151-52; M. Bergmann (1981a) 187-89;L. de Lachenal, MusNazRom 1.6, 48-52, no.II.17, with figs.; S. Wood (1986) 66-67, 127,no. 1, pl. 33.23; F. Johansen (1995b) 104-5,no. 41 (with figs. n); E.R. Varner (2001b) 56;here, 202-203, fig. 203.

Both eyes, the nose, chin and edges of the earshave been mutilated. The remainder of the headhas not been damaged and its modeled andpolished surfaces well preserved.

the later third century 285

8.8. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek746, inv. 823

h. 0.42marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Rome or environs (LudovisiCollection)publications: H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner(1971) 232, 234, pl. 70a (with earlier literature);V. Poulsen (1974). 162-63, no. 165, pls. 264-65; L. de Lachenal , MusNazRom 1.6, 52, withfig.; S. Wood (1986) 66-67, 127, n. 2; F. Jo-hansen (1995b) 102-3, no.40 (with figs. n); E.R.Varner (2001b) 56; here, 202-203, fig. 204.

The face has been attacked with a chisel, disfig-uring both eyes, the nose and moth, as well asdamaging both ears. Other than the damage tothe sensory organs, sculptural details of the hairand highly polished flesh are very well preserved.

Gordian III

Mutilated Portraits

8.9. Sofia, National Archaeological Muse-um, inv. 1497

h. 0.37 m.bronze headprovenance: Jantra (Jantros) River (1897)publications: M. Wegner, J. Bracker and W.Real (1979)28-9 (with earlier literature); V.P.Vasilev (1988) 541-6, figs. 1-6; M. Donderer(1991-2) 222, fig. 3, 262, no. 17; E.R. Varner(2001b) 56; here, 9, n. 57, 204, 208, 213, fig.205.

The portrait has been attacked and the nosedamaged. The ears have been severed from thehead. The damage to the portrait is analogousto that inflicted on the bronze head of SeverusAlexander in Bochum (cat. 7.20).

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits286

Maxentius

Mutilated Portraits

9.1. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, inv.106

h. 0.40 m.marble head worked for insertion into a cui-rassed statueprovenance: unknownpublications: D. Stutzinger in Spätantike undfrühes Christentum (Frankfurt 1983) 417-18, no.35, with fig.; H. P. L’Orange (1984) 35, 115-16, pls. 27c-d (with earlier literature);Fittschen-Zanker I 143-44, n. 2, 145, n. 8, 149,152, n. 1; J. (1986) 234-37, fig. 14; C. Evers(1992) 11-21, figs. 6, 10, 13; E.R. Varner(2001b) 56; here, 216-17, 220, fig. 208a-b.

The nose, the lower lip, top of the right ear, andback of the head and neck have all been restored.The modern additions to the portrait hide theancient damage in these areas. The eyes havebeen attacked with a chisel and not restored. Therest of the portrait is well preserved.

Altered Portraits

Maxentius/Constantine

9.2. Rome, Campidoglioh. unavailablemarble cuirassed statueprovenance: Quirinal, Baths of Maxentius andConstantinepublications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 144-5, no.120, pls. 149-50 (with earlier literature); D.E.E.Kleiner (1992) 476, fig. 397; here, 218, fig.211.

The ears are too large in comparison to the re-duced volumes of the head. As in many otherreconfigured portraits, the profile has also be-come overly wide. The current proportions of thehead are too small in comparison to the body.

9.3. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza ter-rena a destra I.25, inv. 1769

h. 0.35 m.marble headprovenance: presumably Romepublications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 143-44, no.119, pl. 148 (with earlier literature); here, 218,fig. 210a-c.

Much the coiffure has been worked over with aflat chisel in order to remove the Maxentianarrangement; no new locks have been indicated.A claw chisel has also been used at the back ofthe head. The reworking of this portrait may nothave been completed, or the portrait may havebeen displayed in a niche which would havehidden the cursorily worked parts of the coiffurefrom view. Like the colossal image in the cortileof the Palazzo dei Conservatori, the eyes andbrows essentially retain their original shape.Recutting in this area has, however, resulted incertain assymetricalities, including the brow overthe left eye being higher than the right and theleft eye being wider and set higher in the headthan the right eye. The mouth has been short-ened but the thinner upper lip and fuller reced-ing lower lip remains from the representation ofMaxentius. Maxentius’s beard has also not beenentirely removed and raised surfaces on the rightcheek follow the line of the original beard.

CATALOGUE 9

MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITS OF THEFOURTH CENTURY

the fourth century 287

9.4. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,Cortile, Inv. 1622

h. 2.97 m.colossal marble head worked for insertionprovenance: Rome, Basilica of Maxentius andConstantine (1486)publications: H. Jucker (1983b) 55-57; U.Peschlow, in Spätantike und frühes Christentum(Frankfurt 1983) 67, fig. 35; H. P. L’Orange(1984) 70-78, 125, pls. 50-54; Fittschen-ZankerI, 147-52, no. 122, pls. 151-52 (with previousliterature); F. Coarelli in A. Giardina, ed.,(1986) 32, and n. 151; A.M Leander Touati(1987), 93-5, pl. 42.4-5. D. Wright (1987) 493-94; C. Maderna (1988) 185-7, no. JT 36; C.Evers (1991) 794-9; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 438-40, figs. 399-401; R. Brilliant (1993) 303-12,fig. 13; M. Cullhed (1994) 52; D. Kinney(1997) 119, 138, figs. 3 and 13; G. Legrotta-glie (1999) 125. S. Ensoli in S. Ensoli and E.La Rocca, eds. (2000) 77, 88; E.R. Varner, ed.(2000) 14, fig. 6; P. Pensabene, L. Lazzarini,and B. Turi (2002) 250-55; here, 11, 217-218,286, fig. 209a-d.

The coiffure has been reconfigured over the fore-head and the forehead itself substantially carvedback as a result. The eyes have been slightlyrecut, accounting for assymetricalities includingthe fact that the left eye is larger and has a larg-er fold of flesh beneath it than the right eye.Maxentius’s aquiline nose has been modified intothe hooked nose of Constantine. As a result, thebulge in the forehead over the brows is exagger-ated and the nose appears too short and pro-trudes unnaturally in profile. Although the mouthhas been recarved, causing it to be noticeablylonger on the left side, it still retains its generalMaxentian shape and receding lower lip. Therecutting of the mouth has also caused the spacebetween the lips to be much wider on the rightside. The chin is fairly deeply cleft, a standardfeature of Maxentius’s portraits, but not usuallyof Constantine’s. Removal of the cleft was clearlyimpractical as it would have substantially reducedthe volume of marble in the lower section of theface. Constantine’s portraits without cleft chins

include: Copenhagen, 744a, inv. 3147 [F. Johans-en [1995b] 170, no. 74, with figs.); Madrid, Pra-do, 125 E (S.F. Schröder [1993]); New York,Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 26229 (H.P.L’Orange, [1984] 69, 123, 48d); Tunis, Muséedu Bardo, C77 (H.P. L’Orange [1984] 55-56,127, pl. 39 c-d). The reconfiguration has alsocaused the neck to be disproportionately large incomparison with the lower section of the face.Additionally, the top of the head seems too smallin proportion to the overall dimensions of theface, but this would have been hidden by theaddition of a metal diadem or crown; cuttings forsuch a headpiece are visible on both temples andon the left side of the coiffure.

F. Coarelli, citing unpublished observations byP. Zanker, mentions that the portrait in all prob-ability is a reworked Maxentius ([1986] 32 andn. 151), as also suggested earlier by H. Jucker([1983b] 55-57), while C. Evers’ has suggestedthat the head might instead be reworked from animage of Hadrian based on the distinctive treat-ment of the ears. The overwhelming physicaldetails of the portrait, however, confirm that theimage’s most recent incarnation prior to its re-cutting to Constantine was as a likeness of Max-entius. Isotopic anaylsis of the marble seems tosupport a double reconfiguration, as most of thefragments (head, left foot, right foot, sections ofthe left leg, right calf, right knee, and the possi-ble second right hand) are Parian marble, whilethe two sections of the neck, and right hand areLuna. Since it is unlikely that Maxentius wouldhave had access to such unusually large blocksof Parian marble from which to create the por-trait ex novo, it may have been recycled from apre-existing representation of Hadrian. Theputative Hadrianic colossus may have been dam-aged, thus necessitating the new right hand andrepairs to the neck in Luna, and accessible in amarble depository (P. Pensabene, L. Lazzarini,and B. Turi [2002] 254). Maxentius’s reuse ofa Hadrianic original would accord well with hisinterest in that emperor as manifested in archi-tectural projects like the rebuilding of the Tem-ple of Venus and Roma.

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits288

9.5. Rome, S. Giovanni in Laterano,Narthex

h. unavailablecolossal cuirassed marble statueprovenance: Quirinal, Baths of Maxentius andConstantinepublications: H. P. L’Orange and M. Wegn-er (1984) 55, 58-9, 126, pls. 43-4 (with earlierliterature); Fittschen-Zanker I, 144, no. 120,n. 3; 147, no. 121, n. 10; 151, no. 122, rep. C13; S. Ensoli in S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds.(2000) 78, fig. 25; here, 218-19.

There is a distinctive indentation in the foreheadwhere it has been cut back. The coiffure behindthe right ear is much greater in volume than thehair over the forehead. The scale of the face isgenerally too small in comparison to the largermass of the corona and the neck, and the rightprofile is unnaturally wide. The left eye is alsolower than the right and includes a much largerpouch of flesh beneath it.

Valeria Maximilla

Mutilated Portrait

9.6. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magazzini,inv. 106

h. 0.26 m.marble headprovenance:publications: Fittschen-Zanker III, 227, no.

177, pl. 206; E.R. Varner (2001b) 57; E.R.Varner (2001a) 55-57; here, 220.

The portrait’s strong stylistic and physiognomi-cal affinities with the surviving sculpted represen-tations of Maxentius, as well as its high artisticquality, suggest that this portrait may representhis wife, Valeria Maximilla. The forehead, lefteye, nose, mouth and chin have been attackedand disfigured. The coiffure and other surfacesof the image are well preserved. The intentionalmutilation of the portrait further suggest that thewoman portrayed suffered some kind of condem-nation.

Galeria Valeria

Altered Portrait

9.8. Thessalonika Museum, inv. 2466h.marble relief portraitprovenance: Thessaloniki, smaller Arch ofGaleriuspublications: M. Wegner in H.P. L’Orange(1984) 151, pl. 21b (with earlier literature) E.R.Varner (2001a) 85-86; here, 97, 221.

Originally a pendant tondo image to one ofGalerius, this relief head appears to have origi-nally represented his wife, the daughter of Dio-cletian, Galeria Valeria. The head has been re-configured as a turretted female deity.

select bibliography 289

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Adriani, “Scavi di Minturno,” NSc (1938) 211.N. Agnoli, Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Palestrina. Le sculture

(Xenia Antiqua Monografie 11, Rome 2002).F. Albertson, rev of M. Bergmann (1994), AJA 100 (1996)

802-3.——, “Pliny and the Vatican Laocoon,” RM 100 (1993)

133-40.——, “Zenodorus’s Colossus of Nero,” MAAR 46 (2001)

95-118.A. Alföldi, “Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser,”

RM 50 (1935) 1-171.——, (“Redeunt saturnia regna VII: Frugifer-Triplemos im

ptolemäisch-römischen Herrscherkult,” Chiron 9 (1979)553-606.

—— and E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum, Die Kontorniat-Medallion(AMUGS 6.1, Berlin 1976).

M.R. Alföldi, “Silberspiegel mit Domitianporträt inKarlsruhe, Festoen. Opgedragen aan A.N. Zadoks-JosephusJitta bij haar zeventigste verjaardag (Scripta ArchaeologicaGroningana 6, Gröningen, ND) 15-22.

U. Aldovrandi, Delle statue antiche che per tutta Roma in diversiluoghi, e case si veggono (Venice 1563).

W. Alzinger, Die Ruinen von Ephesos (Berlin 1972) 46-9.R. Amedick, Frühkaiserzeitliche Bildhauerstile (Rheinfelden

1987).——, “Die Kinder des Kaisers Claudius: zu den Porträts

des Tiberius Claudius Britannicus und der OctaviaClaudia,” RM 98 (1991) 95-104.

J.C. Anderson, jr., “Domitian, the Argiletum and theTemple of Peace,” AJA 86 (1982) 101-10.

——, “A Topographical Tradition in the Fourth CenturyChronicles. Domitian’s Building Programe,” Historia32 (1983) 93-105.

M.L. Anderson, “The Portrait Medallions of the ImperialVilla at Boscotrecase,” AJA 91 (1987) 127-35.

—— and L. Nista, Roman Portraits in Context. Imperial andPrivate Likenesses from the Museo Nazionale Romano (Rome1988).

——, eds., Radiance in Stone. Sculpture in Colored Marble fromthe Museo Nazionale Romano (Rome 1989).

B. Andreae, The Art of Rome (New York 1977).——, “Der Bronzekopf des Kaisers Severus Alexander in

der Sammlung Paul Dierichs,” Plastik. Antike und mo-derne Kunst der Sammlung Paul Dierichs, M. Imdahl andN. Kunish, eds. (Kassel-Bonn 1979) 98-111.

——, “Auftraggeber und Bedeutung der Dirke-Gruppe,”RM 100 (1993) 107-31.

——, “Le statue del palazzo sommerso dell imperatoreClaudio a Baia. Terza puntata,” Forma Urbis 3.6 (1998)32-4.

—— et al., Bildkatalog der Skulpturen des Vatakanischen MuseumsI: Museo Chiaramonti 1-3 (Berlin 1995).

A. Angelicoussis, “The Panel Reliefs of Marcus Aurelius,”RM 91 (1984) 141-205.

——, The Woburn Abbey Collection of Classical Antiquities(Monumenta Artis Romanae 20, Mainz 1992).

Antike Porträts aus Jugoslawien (Frankfurt 1988).Antike und frühes Christentum (Frankfurt 1979).F.P. Arata, “La statua seduta dell Imperatrice Helena nel

Museo Capitolino. Nuove cosiderazioni conseguentiil recente restauro,” RM 100 (1993) 185-200.

G. Arbore Popescu, ed. Traiano ai confini dell Impero (Milan1998).

J. Arce, S. Ensoli, and E. La Rocca, eds., Hispania Romana:da terra di Conquista a provincia dell’impero (Milan 1997).

D. Arnold, J.P. Allen, and L. Green, The Royal Women ofAmarna. Images of Beauty from Ancient Egypt (New York1996).

F. Astolfi, “Il quartiere romano di via in Arcione,” FormaUrbis 3.4 (1998) 33-9.

S. Aurigemma, L’arco quadrifronte di Marco Aurelio e di LucioVero in Tripoli (Libya Antiqua suppl. 3, Rome 1970).

E. Babelon, Catalogue des Camées Antiques et Modernes de laBibliothèque Nationale (Paris 1897).

——, Les Cabinet des Médailles et Antiques 1 (Paris 1924).A. Bahrani, “Assault and Abduction: The Fate of the Royal

Image in the Ancient Near East,” Art History 18 (1995)363-82.

S. Bailey, “Metamorphoses of the Grimani Vitellius ,”GettyMusJ 5 (1979) 105-22.

U. Baldini, M. Cristofani, G. Maetzke, Arte in Toscana 1(Milan 1983).

L.F. Ball, “A Reappraisal of Nero’s Domus Aurea,” RomePapers (JRA supplement 11, Ann Arbor 1994) 182-254.

——, The Domus Aurea and the Roman Architectural Revolution(Cambridge 2003).

J.P.V.D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius (Oxford 1934).——, “The Principate of Tiberius and Gaius,” ANRW 2.2

(Berlin 1975) 86-94.J. Balty, Essai d’iconographie de l’empereur Clodius Albinus,

CollLatomus (85) 1966.——, “Notes d’iconographie sévérienne,” AntCl 41 (1972)

623-42.—— and J. Ch. Balty, “Problèmes d’Iconographie Im-

périale en Sicilie,” AntCl 35 (1966) 527-47.A. Banti and L. Simonetti, Corpus Nummorum Romanorum 18

(Florence 1979).H. Bardon, Les empereurs et les lettres latines d’Auguste à Hadrien

(Paris 1968).T.D. Barnes, “Pre-Decian acta martyrum,” Journal of

Theological Studies 19 (1968) 522-24.——, “Ultimum Antininorum,” BHAC 1970 (1972) 53-74.——, “Lactantius and Constantine,” JRS 63 (1973) 29-46.——, Sources of the Historia Augusta (Brussels 1978).——, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass. 1981).

select bibliography290

——, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge,MA 1982).

A. Barrett, Caligula. The Corruption of Power (New Haven1989).

——, Agrippina. Sex, Power and Politics in the Early Empire (NewHaven 1996).

E. Bartman, “Sculptural Collecting and Display in thePrivate Realm,” Roman Art in the Private Sphere, E.Gazda, ed. (Ann Arbor 1991) 71-88.

——, “Cataloguing Roman Portraits,” JRA 7 (1994) 339-44.

——, Portraits of Livia. Imaging the Imperial Woman in AugustanRome (Cambridge 1999).

——, “Hair and the Artifice of Roman Female Adorn-ment,” AJA 105 (2001) 1-25.

R. Bartoccini, “L’Arco quadrifronte dei Severi a Lepcis,”AfrIt 4 (1931) 116-152.

A. Bartoli, “Ricordi di Elagabalo nella sede del SenatoRomano,” RendPontAcc 27 (1951-52) 47-54.

I.M. Barton, “The Inscriptions of Septimius Severus andHis Family at Lepcis Magna,” Melanges L. Senghor(Dakar 1977) 3-12.

T. Barton, Power and Knowledge: Astrology, Physiognomics, andMedicine under the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor 1995).

S. Bartsch, Actors in the Audience. Theatricality and Doublespeakfrom Nero to Hadrian (Cambridge, Mass. 1994).

P. Bastien, Le buste monetaire des Empereurs Romains 1-3(Wetteren 1992-4).

F. Battistelli and L de Sanctis Museo Civico del PalazzoMalatesteiano (Fano 1984).

G. Bauchhenss, Die grosse Iuppitersäule aus Mainz (Mainz1984).

—— and P. Noelke, Die Iupitersäulen in den germanischenProvinzen (BJb Beih. 41, Cologne 1981).

R.A. Bauman, The Crimen Maiestastis in the Roman Republicand Augustan Principate (Johannesburg 1967).

——, Impietas in Principem (Munich 1974).——, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome (London 1992).——, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome (London 1996).A. Bay, “The Letters SC on Augustan Aes Coinage,” JRS

62 (1972) 109-22.G. Bean, “An Inscription from Amisus,” Belleten 20 (1956)

213-16.M. Beard, “Writing and Religion: Ancient Literacy and the

Function of the Written Word in Roman Religion,”Literacy in the Roman World, J.H. Humphrey ed., (JRASupp. 31, Ann Arbor 1991) 35-58.

G. Becatti, “Il culto di Ercole ad Ostia ed un nuovo rilievovotivo,” BullCom 18 (1939) 37-60.

——, La colonna di Marco Aurelio (Milan 1957).——, La colonna coclide istoriata. Problemi storici, stilistici,

iconografici (Rome 1960).——, “Osservazioni sui rilievi di Marco Aurelio,” ArchCl

19 (1967) 321-31.——, “Il rilievo della Liberalitas di Marco Aurelio,” ArchCl

24 (1972) 59-74.A. Belezza, Massimino il Trace (Rome 1964).G. Bellori and J. Rubeis, Veteres Arcus Augustorum (Rome

1690).M. Beltrán Lloris, “El retrato de ‘Divus Augustus’ del

Municipium Turiaso (Tarazona, Zaragoza). Un pa-limpsesto de época trajana,” MM 25 (1984) 103-34.

——, J. Royo, and J. Paz, “Las excavaciones del MuseoProvincial de Zaragoza en el Municpium Turiaso(Tarazona, Zaragoza),” Caesaraugusta 51-52 (1980) 117-19.

T. Beran, “Leben und Tod der Bilder,” in G. Mauer andU. Magen, eds., Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller (Neu-kirchen-Vluyn 1988) 55-60.

H.W. Benario, “Rome of the Severi,” Latomus 17 (1958)712-20.

H. Bengtson, Die Flavier (Munich 1979).J. Bergemann, Römische Reiterstatuen (Mainz 1990).B. Bergmann, “The House as Memory Theater: The House

of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii,” ArtB 86 (1994) 225-56.

M. Bergmann, Studien zum römischen Porträt des 3 Jhr. n. Chr.(Antiquitas 18, Bonn 1977).

——, rev. V. Poulsen (1974), Gnomon 53 (1981a) 176-90.——, “Zum Fries B der flavischen Cancelleriareliefs,”

MarbWPr (1981b) 19-31.——, “Zum römischen porträts des 3. Jahrhunderts n.

Chr.,” Spätantike und frühes Christentum (Frankfurt 1983)41-59.

——, Der Koloss Neros: Die Domus Aurea und der Mentalitäts-wandel im Rom der frühen Kaiserzeit (TrWPr 13, Mainz1994).

——, Die Strahlen der Herrscher. Theomorphes Herrscherbild undpolitische Symbolik in Hellenismus und in der römischenKaiserzeit (Mainz 1998).

—— and G. Lahusen, “Die römischen Porträtbüsten derSaalburg,” Saalburg Jahrbuch 38 (1982) 12-16.

—— and P. Zanker, “‘Damnatio Memoriae’ UmgearbeiteteNero- und Domitiansporträts. Zur Ikonographie derflavischen Kaiser und des Nerva,” JdI 96 (1981) 317-412.

R.M. Berkowitz “Selected Acquisitions made by the ToledoMuseum of Art 1990-2001,” Burlington Magazine 143.1177 (April 2001).

J.J. Bernoulli, Römische Ikonographie 2.1 (Stuttgart 1886).——, Römische Ikonographie 2.2 (Stuttgart 1891).——, Römische Ikonographie 2.4 (Stuttgart 1894).G.M. Bersanetti, Studi sull’imperatore Massimino Trace (Rome

1964).M.E. Bertoldi, “Recenti scavi e scoperte a Cuma,” BdA 58

(1973) 38-42.M. Bertoletti, , M. Cima, and E. Talamo, eds., Sculture di

Roma Antica. Collezioni dei Musei Capitolini alla CentraleMontemartini (Rome 1997).

R. Bertolotti, G. Ioppolo, and G. Sartorio, La residenzaimperiale di Massenzio (Rome 1988).

A. Beschaouch, R. Hanoune, Y. Thébert, Les Ruines de BullaRegia (Collection de l’École Francaise de Rome 28, Rome1977).

R. Bianchi, ed. Cleopatra’s Egypt, Age of the Ptolemies (Mainz1988).

R. Bianchi Bandinelli, “Per l’iconografia di Germanico,”RM 47 (1932) 153-69.

——, Roma, l’arte romana nel centro del potere (Rome 1969).——, Roma, la fine dell’arte antica (Rome 1970).——, E. Vergara Caffarelli, G. Caputo, The Buried City

(Philadelphia 1967).M. Bieber, “The Roman Sculpture in the Cleveland

Museum of Art,” Art in America 32 (1944) 65-83.

select bibliography 291

R. Billows, “The Religious Procession of the Ara PacisAugustae: Augustus’s supplicatio in 13 B.C.,” JRA 6(1993) 80-92.

W. Binsfeld, Grylloi (Diss., Köln 1956).H. W. Bird, Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus (Liverpool 1994).A. Birley, Marcus Aurelius (London 1966).——, Septimius Severus, the African Emperor (New Haven 1988).H. Blanck, “Zwei unfertige antiken Arbeiten,” Bjb 166

(1966) 171-4.——, Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehrendenkmäler bei

Griechen und Römern (Studia Archaeologica 11, Rome 1969).P.H. von Blanckenhagen and C. Alexander, The Augustan

Villa at Boscotrecase [DAIR Sonderschriften 8, Mainz 1990].J. Bleicken, Senatsgericht und Kaisergericht (AbhGött 3.53,

Göttingen 1962).C. Blinkenberg, Lindos II (Berlin 1941).H. Bloch, “The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of

the Fourth Century,” in A. Momigliano, ed., Paganismand Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford 1963).

P. Pray Bober, Sculptures of the Arch of Septimius Severus at Leptis,(diss., New York University 1943).

J. Bodel, “Monumental Villas and Villa Monuments,” JRA10 (1997) 5-35.

P.C. Bol, ed., Forschungen zur Villa Albani. Katalog der antikenBildwerke I-III (Berlin 1988-92).

R. Bol, “Ein Bildnis der Claudia Octavia aus demolympischen Metroon,” JdI 101 (1986) 294-307.

N. Bonacasa, Ritratti greci e romani della Sicilia (Palermo 1964).—— and G. Rizza, eds., Ritratto ufficiale e ritratto privato. Atti

della II Conferenza Internazionale sul Ritratto Romano. Roma,26-30 Settembre 1984 (Rome 1988).

A. Bonanno, Portraits and Other Heads on Roman Historical Reliefup to the Age of Septimius Severus (BAR Supplementary Series6, Oxford 1976).

L. Bonfante and H. von Heintze, eds., In Memoriam Otto J.Brendel. Essays in Archaeology and the Humanities (Mainz1976) 158.

G.C. Boon, “QUALIS ARTIFEX PERIIT. A Silchester coinand an Unfortunate Parallel,” Numismatic Circular 82(1974) 11.

——, “A Countermarked and Defaced As of Nero,” NC(1978) 178-80.

E. Borea and C. Gasparri, eds., L’Idea del Bello. Viaggio perRoma nel Seicento con Giovan Pietro Bellori (Rome 2000).

H. Born and K. Stemmer, Damnatio Memoriae. Das BerlinerNero-porträt (Sammlung Axel Guttman 5, Mainz 1996).

D. Boschung, “Römische Glasphalerae mit Porträtbusten,”Bjb 187 (1987) 193-258.

——, Die Bildnisse des Caligula (Das römische Herrscherbild 1.4,Berlin 1989).

——, Die Bildnisse des Augustus (Das römische Herrscherbild 1.2,Berlin 1993a).

——, “Die Bildnistypen der iulisch-claudischen Kaiser-familie,” JRA 6 (1993b) 39-79.

—— and W. Eck, “Ein Bildnis der Mutter Traians? ZumKolossalkopf der sogenannten Agrippina Minor umTraiansforum,” AA (1998) 473-81.

——, H. von Hessberg and A. Linfert, Die antiken Skulpturenin Chatsworth (Monumenta Artis Romanae 26, Mainz 1997).

D. von Bothmer, ed., Glories of the Past. Ancient Art from theShelby White and Leon Levy Collection (New York 1990).

J. Bracker, Bestimmung der Bildnisse Gordians III. nach einer neuen

ikonographischen Methode (diss. Westfälische WilhelmsUniversität, Münster 1966).

K.R. Bradley, Suetonius’ Life of Nero. An Historical Commentary(CollLatomus 157, Brussels 1978).

A. Brauer and C.C. Vermeule, Stone Sculptures. The Greek,Roman, and Etruscan Collections of the Harvard UniversityArt Museums (Cambridge, Mass. 1990).

D. Breckenridge, “Imperial Portraiture from Augustus toGallienus,” ANRW 2.12.2 (Berlin 1982) 477-512.

R. Brilliant, The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum,MAAR 29 (1967).

——, “An Early Imperial Portrait Type of Caligula,”ActaAArtHist 4 (1969) 13ff.

——, “Adoption, Substitution and the ‘damnatio memo-riae’ in Severan Monuments,” Acta XI Int. Congress Cl.Arch.- London 1978 (London 1979).

——, “Hairiness: A Matter of Style and Substance inRoman Portraits,”R.T. Scott and A.R. Scott, eds., Eiusvirtutis studiosi. Classical and Postclassical Studies in Memoryof Frank Edward Brown (1908-1988) (Studies in the Historyof Art 43, Center for the Advanced Study in the Visual ArtsSymposium Papers 23, Hanover and London 1993) 303-12.

D. Brinkerhoff, “Changing Methods in the Distribution ofSculpture in the Eastern Mediterranean Area duringthe Later Imperial Age,” AJA 67 (1963) 208-9.

——, A Collection of Sculpture in Classical and Early ChristianAntioch (Monographs on Archaeology and the Fine Arts 22,New York 1970).

British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins of Phoenicia (Bologna1965).

W. Brückner, Bildnis und Brauch: Studien zur Bildfunktion derEffigies (Berlin 1966).

A. Bruhl, “Informations archéologiques: Circonscription deGrenoble,” Gallia 20 (1962) 641-54.

P. Brunt, “The Revolt of Vindex and the Fall of Nero,”Latomus 18 (1959) 531-59.

H.G. Bucholz, “Kaiserporträts auf Tonlampen,” JdI 76(1961) 173-87.

K. Bucholz, Die Bildnisse der Kaiserinnen der Severerzeit nach ihrenFrisuren. (193-235 n. Chr.) (Frankfurt 1963).

L. Budde, Jugenbildnisse des Caracalla und Geta (Münster 1951).——, Severisches Relief in Palazzo Sachetti (Berlin 1955).——, Die Entstehung des antiken Repräsentationsbildes (Berlin

1957).—— and R. Nicholls, A Catalogue of Greek and Roman Sculpture

in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Cambridge 1964).O.F. Butler, Studies in the Life of Heliogabalus, University of

Michigan Humanistic Studies Series 4 (1910).M. Cagiano de Azevedo, “Una dedica abrasa e i rilievi

puteolani dei musei di Filadelphia e Berlino,” BullCom67 (Bulletino del Museo dell Impero Romano 10) (1939) 45-56.

——, “Rilievi storici aureliani,” RM 60-61 (1953-54) 207-10.

R. Cagnat, Cours d’epigraphie latine2 (Paris 1914).P. Cain, Mannerbildnisse neronisch-flavischer Zeit (Munich 1993).S. Calderone, “Teologia politica, successione dinastica e

consecratio in età constantiniana,” in Le culte dessouverains dans l’empire romain (Geneva 1972) 215-61.

G. Calza, Le Necropoli del Porto di Roma nell’Isola Sacra (Rome1940).

select bibliography292

R. Calza, Scavi di Ostia 5. I ritratti, parte 1 (Rome 1964).——, Iconografia romana imperiale da Carausio a Giuliano (287-

363 d.C.) (Rome 1972).——, Scavi di Ostia 9. I ritratti, parte 2 (Rome 1977).——, ed. Galleria Borghese, Collezione degli oggetti antichi (Rome

1957).N. Cambi, “Un contributo all ritrattistica dell’imperatrice

Plautilla,” Ritratto Ufficiale e Ritratto Privato. Atti della IIConferenza Internazionale sul Ritratto Romano, N. Bonacasaand G. Rizza, eds., (Rome 1988) 221-228.

A. Cambidoglou, ed., Classical Art in the Nicholson Museum,Sydney (Mainz 1995).

G. Camodeca, “Ricerche su Puteoli tardo-romana,” Pueteoli4-5 (1981) 59-128.

J.M. Camp, The Athenian Agora. Excavations in the Heart ofClassical Athens (London 1986).

W. Campbell, “Excavations at Antioch-on-the-Orontes,”AJA 40 (1936) 1-10.

B. Candida, I calchi rinascimentali della collezione MantovaBenavides (Padova 1967).

E. Cantarella, I supplizi capitali in Grecia e a Roma (Milan1991).

C. Caprino, A.M. Colini, G. Gatti, M. Pallottino, and P.Romanelli, La colonna di Marco Aurelio (Rome 1955).

N. Bonacasa Carra, Nuovi ritratti romani della Sicilia (Palermo1977).

F. Carinci, H. Keutner, L. Musso, M.G. Picozzi, eds.,Catalogo della Galleria Colonna. Sculture (Rome 1990)

K.K. Carroll, The Parthenon Inscription (New York 1982).R.A.G. Carson, The Principal Coins of the Romans 3. The

Dominate, A.D. 294-498 (London 1981).A. Cassatella and M.I. Conforto, L’Arco di Costantino. Il

restauro della sommitá (Rimini 1989).P.J. Casey, Carausius and Allectus. The British Usurpers (London

1994).D. Castriota, The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of

Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art(Princeton 1995) .

P. Cavuoto, Macrino (Naples 1983).L. Cesano, “Sesterzio unico ed inedito dell’imperatore

Ottone,” Atti e memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Numismatica6 (1930) 117ff.

J. Chamay and J.L. Maier, Le monde des Césars (Hellas et Rome1, Geneva 1982).

E. Champlin, “Notes on the Heirs of Commodus,” AJP 100(1979) 288-306.

H. Chantraine, Novaesium 3: Die antike Fundmunzen desAusgraben in Neuss (Limesforschungen 8, Berlin 1968).

M. Charlesworth, “The Banishment of the Elder Agrip-pina,” CP 17 (1922) 260-61.

——, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Claudius and Nero(Cambridge 1939).

C. Chirasi-Colombo, “Funzioni politiche ed implicazioniculturali nell’ideologia religiosa di Ceres nell’imperoromano,” ANRW 2.17.1 (Berlin 1981) 403-28.

M. Cima and E. La Rocca, eds., Le tranquille dimore degli dei.La residenza imperiale degli horti Lamiani (Venice 1986).

A. Claridge, “Ancient Techniques of Making Joins inMarble Statuary,” Marble. Art Historical and ScientificPerspectives on Ancient Sculpture (Malibu 1990) 135-64.

——, The Oxford Archaeological Guide to Ancient Rome (Oxford1998).

—— and J.B. Ward-Perkins, Pompeii A.D. 79. Exhibition atthe Royal Academy (Bristol 1976).

J.R. Clarke, “Deconstructing Roman Texts, Viewers, andArt,” rev. J. Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (Cam-bridge 1995) JRA 9 (1996a) 375-80.

——, “ Just Like Us : Cultural Constructions of Sexualityand Race in Roman Art,” ArtB 88 (1996b) 599-603.

——, Looking at Lovemaking. Constructions of Sexuality in RomanArt. 100 B.C. - A.D. 250 (Berkeley 1998).

——, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans. Visual Representationand Non-Elite Viewers in Italy, 100 B.C. - A.D. 315(Berkeley 2003).

C.L. Clay, The Types and Chronology of the Severan Coinage ofRome AD 193-98 (Thesis, Christ Church Oxford 1972).

——, “The Roman Coinage of Macrinus and Diadume-nian,” NZ 93 (1979) 21-40.

F. Coarelli, “Il complesso pompeiano del Campo Marzioe la sua decorazione scultorea,” RendPontAcc 44 (1971-72) 99-122.

——, Guida Archeologica di Roma (Verona 1974).——, Guide Archeologiche Laterza 6. Nova Ed. Roma2 (Rome

and Bari 1997).——, Roma6 (Guide archeologiche Laterza 6, Rome and Bari

1980).R. Cohon, Discovery and Deceit. Archaeology and the Forger’s Craft

(Kansas City 1996).K. Coleman, Statius Silvae IV (Oxford 1988).M. Comstock and C.C. Vermeule, Sculpture in Stone (Boston

1976).D. Atnally Conlin, “The Reconstruction of Antonia Minor

on the Ara Pacis,” JRA 5 (1992) 209-15.——, The Artists of the Ara Pacis. The Process of Hellenization

in Roman Relief Sculpture (Chapel Hill 1997).W.R. Connor, “The Razing of the House in Greek So-

ciety,” TAPA 115 (1985) 79-102.B.F. Cook, The Townley Marbles (London 1985).L. Correra, “Graffiti di Roma,” BullCom 22 (1894) 89-100.J. Couisson, “Suéton physiognomiste dans les vies des XII

Césars,” REL 31 (1953) 234-56.J.M. Croisille, “Néron dans la statuaire: le problème des

identifications e des faux,” in J.M. Croisille, R. Martin,and Y. Perrin, eds. Neronia V. Néron: histoire et légende.Actes du Ve Colloque international de la SIEN (Clermont-Ferrand et Saint-Étienne, 2-6 novembre 1994) (Coll. Latomus247, Brussells 1999). 397-406.

M. Cullhed, Maxentius. Conservator Urbis Suae. Studies in thePolitics and Propaganda of the Empeor Maxentius (ActaInstituti Romani Regni Sueciae 8.20, Stockholm 1994).

L. Curtius, “Ikonographische Beiträge zum Porträt derrömischen Republik und der julisch-claudischenFamilie,” MdI 1 (1948) 69-94.

A.M. Dabrowski, Problems in the tradition about the principateof Gaius (diss. Toronto 1972).

K. Dahmen, “Ein Loblied auf den schönen Kaiser. Zurmöglichen Deutung der mit Nero-Münzen verzoertemrömischen Dosenspiegel,” AA (1988) 3-9-45.

G. Daltrop, “L. Settimio Severo e i cinque tipi del suoritratto,” Ritratto Ufficiale e Ritratto Privato. Atti della IIConferenza Internazionale sul Ritratto Romano, N. Bonacasaand G. Rizza, eds., (Rome 1988) 67-74.

E. D’Ambra, “Pudicitia in the Frieze of the ForumTransitorium,” RM 98 (1991) 243-48.

select bibliography 293

——, Private Lives, Imperial Virtues. The Frieze of the ForumTransitorium in Rome (Princeton 1993).

G. Dareggi, “Il ciclo statuario della “Basilica” di Otricoli:Le fase giulio-claudia,” BdA 14 (1982) 1-36.

A. Datsuli-Stavridis, “Damnatio Memoriae,” AAA 9 (1976)225-39.

P.J.E. Davies, “The Politics of Perpetuation: Trajan’sColumn and the Art of Commemoration,” AJA 101(1997) 41-65.

——, Death and the Emperor. Roman Imperial Funerary Monumentsfrom Augustus to Marcus Aurelius (Cambridge 2000).

L. De Blois, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus (Studies of theDutch Archaeological and Historical Society 7, Leiden 1976).

D. de Decker, “La politique religeuse de Maxence,”Byzantion 38 (1968) 472-562.

J.D. Deckers, “Die Wandmalerei des tetrarchischenLagerheiligtums im Ammon-Tempel von Luxor,”RömQSchr 68 (1973) 1-34.

——, “Die Wandmalerei im Kaiserkultraum von Luxor,”JdI 94 (1979) 600-652.

A. Degrassi, “Le iscrizioni dipinte del sepolcro di Irzio,”RendPontAcc 19 (1942-43) 389-96.

——, “L edificio dei Fasti Capitolini,” RendPontAcc 21 (1945-6) 57-104.

——, ed. Inscriptiones Italiae 13.1. Fasti consulares et triumphales(Rome 1947).

R. Delbrueck, Spätantike Kaiserporträts von Constantinus Magnusbis zum Ende des Westreichs (Berlin 1933).

——, Die Munzbildnisse von Maximinus bis Carinus (Das römischeHerrscherbild 3.2, Berlin 1940).

S. D’Elia, “Osservazioni su cultura e potere nell’età flavia,”QuadStor 6 (1980) 351.

G. De Luca, I monumenti antichi di Palazzo Corsini in Roma(Rome 1976).

S. de Maria, Gli archi onorari di Roma e dell Italia romana (Rome1988).

M. Denti, Ellenismo e Romanizzazione nella X Regio. La sculturadelle élites locali dall età repubblicana ai giulio-claudi(Archaeologica 97, Rome 1991).

D. de Rossi, Raccolta di statue antiche e moderne data in luce sottoi gloriosi auspici della Santità di N. S. Papa Clemente XI(Rome 1704).

K. M. Dickson, Agrippina Minor: Optima Mater or Semper Atrox(diss., Emory University, 2002).

M.R. Di Mino and M. Bertenetti, eds., Archeologia a Roma.La materia e la tecnica nell’arte antica (Rome 1990).

A. Di Vita, “La ricostruzione dell’Arco dei Severi a LeptisMagna in un disegno di C. Catanuso ed esistenza esignificato di un tetrapilo preseveriano,” QAL 7(1975)1-26.

——, “Ancora del tetrapilo precedente l’arco dei Severi aLeptis Magna: una mesa a punto,” QAL 9 (1977) 135-43.

——, “Gli ‘Emporia’ di Tripolitania dall’età di Massinissaa Diocleziano: un profilo storico-istituzionale,” ANRW2.10.2 (Berlin 1982) 515-95.

F. Dohna, “Marcus Aurelius auf dem Ravenna-Relief,” RM105 (1998) 295-304.

Domiziano/Nerva. La statua equestre. Una proposta di ricomposizione(Naples 1987).

M. Donderer, “Irreversible Deponierung von Grossplastikbei Griechen, Etruskern und Römern,” Öjh 61 (1991-92) 193-276.

H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanannäische und aramäischeInscschriften 3 (Wiesbaden 1968).

P.F. Dorman, The Monuments of Senenmut: Problems in HistoricalMethodology (London 1988).

E. Doxiadis, The Mysterious Fayum Portraits. Faces from AncientEgypt (New York 1995).

W. Eck, Agrippina, die Stadtgründerin Kölns. Eine Frau in derfrühkaiserzeitlichen Politik (Cologne 1993).

——, A. Caballos, and F. Fernandez, Das Senatus Consultumde Cn. Pisone Patre (Vestigia 48, Munich 1996).

C. Edwards, The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome(Cambridge 1993).

F. Eichler, AnzAW 23 (1970) 71.F. el Fakharani, “The Different Trends in the Official and

Private Portraits of Roman Egypt,” inN. Bonacasa and G. Rizza, eds., Ritratto Ufficiale e Ritratto

Privato. Atti dellla II Conferenza Internazionale sul RitrattoRomano, Roma 26-30 settembre 1984 (Rome 1988) 277-82.

J. Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (Cambridge 1995).——, ed. Art and Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge 1996).——, “From the Culture of Spolia to the Cult of Relics: The

Arch of Constantine and the Genesis of Late AntiqueForms,” PBSR 68 (2000) 149-184

—— and J. Masters eds., Reflections of Nero (Chapel Hill1994).

S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, es., Aurea Roma. Dalla città paganaalla città cristiana (Rome 2000).

K.P. Erhart, “A Portrait of Antonia Minor in the Fogg ArtMuseum and Its Iconographical Tradition,” AJA 82(1978) 193-212.

——, J. Frel, Sandra Knudsen Morgan, and S. Nodelman,Roman Portraits, Aspects of Self and Society (Malibu 1980).

K. Erim, “A Portrait Statue of Domitian from Aphrodisias,”OpRom 9 (1973) 135-42.

——, Aphrodisias, City of Venus Aphrodite (New York 1986).E.C. Evans, Physiognomics in the Ancient World (TAPhS 59,

Philadelphia 1969).C. Evers, “Betrachtungen zur Ikongraphie des Maxentius.

Zu einer neuen Porträt-Replik im Kestner-MuseumHannover,” Niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte 31(1992) 9-22.

——, “Remarques sur l’iconographie de Constantin,”MEFRA 103 (1991) 785-806.

L. Fabbricotti, Galba (Rome 1967).L. Fabbrini, “Caligola: il ritratto dell’adolescenza e il ritratto

dell’apoteosi,” RM 73-74 (1966-67) 138-46.D. Facenna, “Il Pompeo di Palazzo Spada,” ArchCl 8 (1956)

173-201.I. Faldi, Galleria Borghese. Le Sculture dal Secolo XVI al XIX

(Rome 1954).J.C. Faur, “Un nouveau visage de Caligula,” ActaArch 42

(1971) 35-42.A. Faustoferri, “Una testa di Domiziano nel Museo Civico

etrusco-romano di Todi,” AnnPerugia 21 (1983-4) 143-52.

I. Favoretto, Arte antica e cultura antiquaria nelle collezioni veneteal tempo della serenissima (StArch 55, Rome 1990).

—— and G.L. Ravagna, eds., Lo statuario pubblico dellaSerenissima. Due secoli di collezionismo di antichità (Venice1997).

C. Fayer, Il Culto della dea Roma (Pescara 1976).

select bibliography294

C. Fea, Osservazioni intorno alla celebre statua detto di Pompeolette il 10 settembre nella Accademia Romana d’Archeologia(Rome 1812).

——, Nuova descrizione de’ monumenti antichi ed oggetti d’artecontenuti nel Vaticano e nel Campidoglio (Rome 1819).

J.R. Fears, “The Solar Monarchy of Nero and the ImperialPanegyric of Q. Curtius Rufus,” Historia 25 (1976) 494-96.

J. Fejfer, The Ince Clundell Collection of Classical Sculpture 1.2.The Roman Male Portraits (Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani3.9, Liverpool 1997).

B.M. Felletti-Maj, Museo Nazionale Romano—I Ritratti (Rome1953).

——, Iconografia romana imperiale da Severo Alessandro al M.Aurelio Carino (222-285 d.C.) (Rome 1958).

——, “Nerone,” EAA 5 (Rome 1963) 424-7.——, “Vespasiano,” EAA 7 (Rome 1966) 1147-48C. Fernández-Chicarro y de Dios, “Hallazgo de un retrato

de Vespasiano en Écija (Seville),” MM 14 (1973) 174-80.

A. Ferril, “Augustus and His Daughter,” Studies in LatinLiterature and Roman History 2 (Coll.Latomus 168, Brussels1980) 332-46.

K. Fittschen, “Bemerkungen zu den Porträts des 3.Jahrhunderts nach Christus,” JdI 84 (1969) 197-236.

——, rev. H. Niemeyer (1968), Bjb 170 (1970) 541-52.——, “Die Bildnisse der Mauretanischen Könige und ihre

stadtrömischen Vorbilder,” MM 15 (1974) 156-73.——, Katalog der antiken Skulpturen in Schloss Erbach (AF 3,

Berlin 1977a).——, “Siebenmal Maximinus Thrax,” AA (1977b) 319-26.——, rev. of H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971), GGA

230 (1978)133-53.——, Die Bildnistypen der Faustina minor und die Fecunditas

Augustae (AbhGött 126, Göttingen 1982).——, Prinzenbildnisse antoninischer Zeit (Beiträge zur Erschliessung

hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher Skulptur und Architektur 18,Mainz 1999).

—— and P. Zanker, “Die Kolossalstatue in Neapel – einewiederverwendete Statue des Elagabal,” AA 85 (1970)248-53.

——, Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museenund den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom 3.Kaiserinnen- und Prinzessinnenbildnisse Frauenporträts (Mainz1983).

——, Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museenund den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom 1.Kaiser- und Prinzenbildnisse (Mainz 1985).

M.B. Flory, “Livia and the History of Public HonorificStatues for Women in Rome,” TAPA 123 (1993) 287-308.

H.I. Flower, Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in RomanCulture (Oxford 1996).

——, “Rethinking Damnatio Memoriae : The Case of Cn.Calpurnius Piso Pater in A.D. 20,” Classical Antiquity17 (1998) 155-86.

——, “A Tale of Two Monuments: Domitian, Trajan andsome Praetorians at Puteoli,” AJA 105 (2001) 625-48.

G. Förschner, “Das Porträt Vespasians auf römischenMünzen,” BerlNumZ 25 (1959) 3-10.

——, “Das Porträt Vespasians auf römischen Münzen,”BerlNumZ 26 (1960) 25-32.

L. Franchi, Ricerche sull’arte di età severiana in Roma (StudMisc4, Rome 1960-61).

A. de Franciscis, “Per l’iconografia di Vespasiano,” RendNap50 (1975) 211-24.

——, “Un gruppo equestre di bronzo da Miseno,” Studi diStoria dell’arte in Memoria di M. Rotili (Naples 1984) 35-39.

——, “Qualche ritratto romano dell’Antiquarium Flegreo,”BdA 48 (1963) 23.

C.M. Franzero, The Life and Times of Nero (London 1954).L. Franzoni, Nobilità e collezionismo nel’ 500 veronese (Verona

1978).D. Freedberg, The Power of Images. Studies in the History and

Theory of Response (Chicago 1989).J. Frel, Roman Portraits in the Getty Museum (Malibu 1981).F. Friedländer, Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire

(trans. of Darstellungen aus Sittengeschichte Roms in der ZeitAugust bis zum Ausgang der Antonine7 by L.A. Magnus,London 1907).

R. Friggeri, La Collezione Epigrafica del Museo Nazionale Romanoalle Terme di Diocleziano (Rome 2001).

A. Frova, L’arte di Roma e del mondo romano (Turin 1961).——, “Ritrattistica romana a Luni,” Ritratto Ufficiale e Ritratto

Privato. Atti della II Conferenza Internazionale sul RitrattoRomano (Rome 1988) 307-16.

M. Fuchs, Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung römischer Theater inItalien und den Westprovinzen des Imperium Romanum(Mainz 1987).

——, “Besser als sein Ruf,” Boreas 20 (1997) 83-96.——, P. Liverani, and P. Santoro eds. Caere 2. Il teatro e il

ciclo statuario Giulio-Claudio (Rome 1989).M.D. Fullerton, “Domus Augusti in Imperial Iconography of

13-12 B.C.,” AJA 89 (1985) 473-83.A. Furtwängler, Beschreibung der Glyptothek2 (Munich 1910).G. Fusconi, ed. I Giustiniani e l’Antico (Rome 2001).H. Gabelmann, rev. C. Saletti (1968) Gnomon 43 (1971) 732-

33.J. Gagé, “Le Colosse et le fortune de Rome,” MEFR 45

(1928) 106-22.——, “Les jeux séculaires de 204 ap. J.-C. et la dynastie

Sévères,” MEFR 51 (1934) 33-78.R. Gagé, “Vespasian et le mémoire de Galba,” REA 54

(1952) 290-315.E. Galli, “Ritratto di Domiziano,” Le arti 3 (1940-41) 136.A. Gallina, “Bauli, Bacoli (Campania, Napoli),” FA 23

(1978) 5049.B. Garlick, S. Dixon, and P. Allen eds., Stereotypes of Women

in Power. Historical Perspectives and Revisionist Views (NewYork 1992).

C. Gasparri, “Sculture provenienti dalle Terme di Caracallae di Diocleziano,” RIA 6-7 (1983-84) 133-50.

—— and I. Caruso, “Materiali per servire allo studio delMuseo Torlonia di scultura antica,” MemLinc 8.24(1980) 38-238.

W. Gauer, “Ein Dakerdenkmal Domitians. Die Trajansäuleund das sogenannte Grosse trajanische Relief,” JdI 88(1973) 318-50.

D.J. Geagan, “Roman Athens I,” ANRW 2.71 (Berlin 1979)371-437.

A. Geissen, Katalog Alexandrinischer Kaisermünzen der Sammlungdes Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln I.Augustus-Trajan (Papyrologica Coloniensia 5, Opladen1974).

select bibliography 295

R. Gergel, “An Allegory of Imperial Victory on a CuirassedStatue of Domitian,” Record of the Art Museum, PrincetonUniversity 45.1 (1986) 3-15.

——, “A Julio-Claudian Torso in the Walters Art Gallery,”JWalters 45 (1987) 19-31.

——, “The Tel Shalem Hadrian Reconsidered,” AJA 95(1991) 231-51.

T. Gestelyi, “Die porträts des Caracalla und Geta aufGemmen in en provinzen,” ArchErt 112 (1985) 180-86.

F. Ghedini, Giulia Domna tra Oriente e Occidente. Le fontiarcheologiche (Rome 1984).

——, “Il panello nord ovest dell’Arco dei Severi a LeptisMagna: una proposta di lettura,” RdA 8 (1984b) 68-87.

——, “Riflessi della politica domizianea nei rilievi flavi diPalazzo della Cancelleria,” BullCom 91 (1986) 292-309.

A. Giacchero, “Le reminiscenze erodotée in Seneca e lacondanna di Caligola,” Sandalion 3 (1980) 175-89.

A. Giardina, ed., Roma. Politica, economia, paesaggio urbano(Società romana e impero tardoantico 1, Rome and Bari1986).

J.F. Gilliam, “On Divi under the Severi,” Hommages à M.Renard 2, Coll. Latomus 102 (Brussels 1969) 284-89.

J.B. Girard, Catalogue des monnaies de l’Empire romain de laBibliothèque Nationale I: Auguste (Paris 1976).

L Girard, “Domitien et Minverve: une prédilectionimpériale,” ANRW 2.17.1 (Berlin 1981) 233-45.

C.F. Giuliani and P. Verducchi, Foro Romano, l’area centrale(Florence 1980).

A. Giuliano, Arco di Costantino (Milan 1956).——, Catalogo dei ritratti romani del Museo profano Lateranense

(Rome 1957).——, ed., Museo Nazionale Romano. Le Sculture 1.1-1.9.2

(Rome 1979-88).——, ed., I Cammei della Collezione Medicea del Museo Ar-

cheologico di Firenze (Rome 1989).F. Gnecchi, I medaglioni romani (Milan 1912).F.W. Goethert, “Ein Panzertorso in Beyrut,” Berytus 2 (1935)

133-8.——, Katalog der Antikensammlung des Prinzen Carl von Preussen

im Schloss zu Klein-Glienicke bei Potsdam (1972).K.P. Goethert, “Zur Einheitlichkeit der Statuengruppe aus

der Basilika von Velleia,” RM 79 (1972) 235-47.H.R. Goette, “Antiken Skulpturen im Herzog Anton

Ulrich-Museum, Braunsschweig,” AA (1986) 711-44.——, “Muellas-Embas-Calceus. Ikonografische Studien zu

römischen Schuwerke,” JdI 103 (1988) 449-64.——, Studien zu römischen Togadarstellung (Beiträge zur Er-

schliessung hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher Skulptur undArchitektur 10, Mainz 1989).

—— and K. Hitzl, “Zwei umgearbeitete Porträtkopfe inOlympia,” AM 102 (1987) 283-93.

A.E. Gordon and J.S. Gordon, Album of Dated Latin In-scriptions 2 (Los Angeles 1965).

E. Gordon (later Angelicoussis), The Panel Reliefs of MarcusAurelius (diss., Inst. of Fine Arts, New York 1979).

H. Götze, “Ein neues Bildnis des Nerva,” MdI 1 (1948).E. Gowers, “The Anatomy of Rome from Capitol to

Cloaca,” JRA 85 (1995) 23-32.J.D. Grainger, Nerva and the Roman Succession Crisis of A.D.

96-99 (London 2003).

M. Grant, Nero (New York 1970).P. Green, From Alexander to Actium (Berkeley 1990).P.A.L. Greenhalgh, The Year of the Four Emperors (New York

1975).A.P. Gregory, “‘Powerful Images’: Responses to Portraits

and the Political Uses of Images in Rome,” JRA 7(1994) 80-99.

M.T. Griffin, Nero, the End of a Dynasty (New Haven 1984).G. Grimm, “Zum Bildnis der Iulia Augusti,” RM 80 (1973)

279-82.——, “Die Porträts der Triumvirn C. Octavius, M.

Antonius, und M. Aemilius Lepidus. Uberlegungenzur Entstehung und Abfolge der Bildnistypen desKaiser Augustus,” RM 96 (1989) 347-64.

G. T. Grisanti, “Un rilievo romano dalle cave di Carrara:i ‘Fanti Scritti’,” Atti Modena 10 (1975) 295.

W.H. Gross, Bildnisse Traians (Das römische Herrscherbild 2.2,Berlin 1940).

——, Julia Augusta (AbhGött 3, no. 52, Göttingen 1962).——, “M. Ulpius Traianus,” RE supp. 10 (1965) 1109-10.——, “Caligula oder zulassige und unzulassige Interpreta-

tionen eines römisches Herrscherbildes,” RömischesPorträt (WissZBerl 31.2-3, 1982) 205-7.

——, Herakliskos Commodus (Nachrichten der Akademie derWissenschaften in Göttingen 4, Göttingen 1973).

F. Grosso, “Aspetti della politica orientale di DomizianoI,” Epigraphica 16 (1954) 117-119.

——, “Aspetti della politica orientale di Domiziano II,”Epigraphica 17 (1955) 33-78.

——, La lotta politica al tempo di Commodo (Turin 1964).——, “Ricerche su Plauziano e gli avvenimenti del suo

tempo,” RendLinc 23 (1968) 7-59.W. Grünhagen, “Ein Porträt des Domitian aus Munigua,”

MM 27 (1986) 309-323.L. Guerrini, ed. Palazzo Mattei di Giove. Le antichità (Rome

1982).——, and C. Gasparri eds., Il Palazzo Quirinale. Catalogo delle

Sculture (Rome 1993).H. Guiraud, Intailles et camées romains (Paris 1996).G. Gullini, Maestri e Botteghe in Roma da Gallieno alla Tetrarchia

(Turin 1960).R.A. Gurval, Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions

of Civil War (Ann Arbor 1995).B. Haarlov, New Identifications of Third Century Roman Portraits

(Odense 1975).M. L. Hadzi, The Portraiture of Gallienus (A.D. 253-260) (diss.,

Yale University 1956).H. Halfmann, Itinera Principum. Geschichte und Typologie der

Kaiserreisen im Römischen Reich (Stuttgart 1986).M. Hammond, The Antonine Monarchy (MAAR 24, 1956).——, “The Antonine Monarchy,” ANRW 2.2 (Berlin 1975)

329-53.G. Hanfmann, rev. B.M. Felletti Maj (1958), Gnomon 31

(1959) 748-9.——, From Croesus to Constantine. The Cities of Western Asia

Minor and Their Arts in Greek and Roman Times (AnnArbor 1975a).

——, Roman Art. A Modern Survey of the Art of Imperial Rome(New York 1975b).

—— and C.C. Vermuele, “A New Trajan,” AJA 61 (1957)223-53.

R. Hanke, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis: Neue Veröffentlichungen

select bibliography296

und Studien (Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 2, Hildes-heim 1978) 188-96.

R. Hannah, “The Emperor’s Stars: The ConservatoriPortrait of Commodus,” AJA 90 (1986) 337-42.

N. Hannestad, Roman Art and Imperial Policy (Aarhus 1986).——, “Nero, or the Potentialities of the Emperor,” Ritratto

ufficiale e ritratto privato. Atti della II Conferenza Inter-nazionale sul Ritratto Romano, Roma 26-30 settembre 1984,N. Bonacasa and G. Rizza, eds., (Rome 1989) 319-24.

——, Tradition in Late Antique Sculpture. Conservation, Moderni-zation, Production (Acta Jutlandica 69.2, Aarhus 1994).

A. Hansen, “Caligulan Month Names at Philadelphia andRelated Matters,” Atti del XVII congresso internazionaledi papirologia (Naples 1984) 1107-18.

C. Hanson and F.P. Johnson, “On Certain PortraitInscriptions,” AJA 50 (1946) 389-400.

K. W. Harl, Civic Coins and Civic Politics in the Roman East,A.D. 180-275 (Berkeley 1987).

——, Coinage in the Roman Economy. 300 B.C. to A.D. 700(Baltimore 1996).

D. Harris, “Bronze Statues on the Athenian Acropolis: TheEvidence of a Lycurgan Inventory,” AJA 96 (1992)637-52.

E. B. Harrison, “Repair, Reuse, and Reworking of AncientGreek Sculpture,” Marble. Art Historical and ScientificPerspectives on Ancient Sculpture (Malibu 1990) 163-84.

T. Hauschild, “Munigua. Voerbericht über die Grabungenin Haus 1 und Haus 6, Kampagne 1982,” MM 25(1984) 159-80.

U. Hausmann, Römerbildnisse (Stuttgart 1975).D.E.L. Haynes and P.D. Hirst, Porta Argentariorum (London

1939).C. W. Hedrick, jr., History and Silence. The Purge and

Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity (Austin 2000).H. Heinen, “Herrscherkult im römischen Ägypten und

Damnatio Memoriae Getas. Überlegungen zum BerlinerSeverertondo und zu Papyrus Oxryhynchus XII1449,” RM 98 (1991) 263-298.

H. von Heintze, “Der Feldherr des grossen ludovisischenSchlachtsarkophages,” RM 64 (1959a) 69-91.

——, “Studien zu den Porträts des 3. Jhr. n. Chr., 5. DerKnabe des Acilia Sarkophags,” RM 66 (1959b) 175-91.

——, “Aspekte römischer Porträtkunst,” Gymnasium Beih.4 (1964) 149-62.

——, “Studien zu den Porträts des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.:7. Caracalla, Geta, Elagabal, und Severus Alexander,”RM 73-74 (1966-67) 190-231.

——, “Caracalla und Geta,” RM 75 (1968) 174-79.——, “Zum Relief mit der Liberalitas des Marc Aurel,”

Hommages à Marcel Renard (CollLatomus 103, Brussels1969) 662-74.

——, “Ein unbekanntes Augustusbildnis. Gedanken zumpostumen Kaiserporträt,” Essays in Archaeology and theHumanities. In Memoriam Otto J. Brendel (Mainz 1976)143-54.

——, “Studien zu den Porträts des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.:8. Die Kaiser der Krisenjahre 193-197 N. Chr.,” RM84 (1977) 159-80.

W. Helck, “Kija,” in W. Helck and W. Westendorf eds.Lexikon der Ägyptologie 2 (Wiesbaden 1980) cols. 422-24.

——, “Kijê,” MDIK 40 (1984) 159-67.R.W. Henderson, The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero

(London 1903-5).M. Henig, The Content Cameos (Oxford 1990).——, and M. Vickers, eds., Cameos in Context. The Benjamin

Zucker Lectures, 1990 (Oxford 1993).D. Hennig, L. Aelius Sejanus. Untersuchungen zur Regierungedes

Tiberius (Vestigia 21, Munich 1975).J.J. Herrmann, jr., “Rearranged Hair: A Portrait of a

Roman Woman in Boston and Some RecarvedPortraits of Earlier Imperial Times,” JMFB 3 (1991)35-50.

D. Hertel, “Caligula-Bildnisse vom Typus Fasanerie inSpanien.,” MM 23 (1982) 258-95.

U. Hiesinger, “The Portraits of the Emperor Nero,” AJA79 (1975) 113-24.

D.K. Hill, “A Cache of Bronze Portraits of the Julio-Claudians,”AJA 43 (1939) 401-9.

P.V. Hill, The Coinage of Septimius Severus and His Family ofthe Mint of Rome, A.D. 193-217 (London 1964).

——, The Monuments of Ancient Rome as Coin Types (London1989).

N. Himmelman, “Ein verkannter Nerva,” AA (1972) 275-6.

F. Hinard, Les Proscriptions de la Rome république (CEFR 83,Rome 1985).

H. Hinz, W. Hagen, and D. Haupt, BJB 166 (1966) 580.K. Hitzl, Die kaiserzeitliche Statuenausstattung des Metroon

(Olympische Forschungen 19, Berlin 1991).E. Hohl, Kaiser Commodus und Herodian (Berlin 1954).G. Hojer, ed. Das Antiquarium der Munchner Residenz. Katalog

der Skulpturen (Munich 1987).T. Hölscher, Monumenti Statali e Pubblico (Rome 1994).K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves (Cambridge 1978).C. Houser, Greek Monumental Bronze Sculpture of the Fifth and

Fourth Centuries B.C. (New York 1987).R. Howard, “The Portrait of Roman Statesman,” Bulletin

of the Cleveland Museum of Art 16 (Cleveland 1958) 139-41.

P. Howell, “The Colossus of Nero,” Athenaeum 46 (1968)292-99.

C.J. Howgego, Greek Imperial Countermarks, Studies in theProvincial Coinage of the Roman Empire (Royal NumismaticSociety Special Publication 17, London 1985).

J. Humphrey, Roman Circuses. Arenas for Chariot Racing(Berkeley and Los Angeles 1985).

D. Hurley, An Historical and Historigraphical Commenary ofSuetonius Life of Caligula (American Classical Studies 32,Atlanta 1993).

H. Hurst, “Nuovi scavi nell’area di Santa Maria Antiqua,”Quaderni del Centro di Studio per l’Archeologia Etrusco-Italica.Atti degli inconrti di studio del Comitato per l’archeologia laziale9 (1988) 13-17.

——, G. Morganti, and F. Scoppola, “Area di S. MariaAntiqua,” BullComm 91 (1986) 470-78.

J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum, Roman and Early Byzantine PortraitSculpture in Asia Minor (London 1966).

J. Inan and E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum, Römische und frühbyzanti-nische Porträtplastik aus der Türkei. Neue Funde (Mainz1979).

J. Inan and C. Jones, “Der Bronzetorso im Burdur-Museumaus Bubon, und die Bronzekopf im J.P. GettyMuseum,” IstMitt 27-28 (1977-78) 268-95.

select bibliography 297

H.U. Instinsky, “Kaiser Nero und die Mainzer Jupiter-säule,” JRGZ 6 (1959) 128-29.

E. Iverson, “The date of the so-called inscription of Caligulaon the Vatican Obelisk,” JEA 51 (1965) 149-54.

G. Jacopi, “Littoria: Testa dell’imperatore Domiziano,” NSc(1934) 106-108.

A. Jakobson and H.M. Cotton, “Caligula’s Recusatio Im-perii,”Historia 34 (1985) 497-503.

W. Jakob-Sonnabend, Untersuchungen zum Nero-Bild der Spät-antike (Hildesheim-Zurich-New York 1990).

A. Jaworksi, The Power of Silence. Social and PragmaticPerspectives (Newbury Park 1993)

K. Jeppesen, Neues zum Rätsel des Grand Camée de France (ActaJutlandica 44.1, Aarhus 1974).

——, “The Grand Camée de France: Sejanus Reconsideredand Confirmed,” RM 100 (1993) 141-75.

F. Johansen, “Antike Porträts von Caligula in der NyCarlsberg Glyptothek,” Römisches Porträt (WissZberl31.2-3, Berlin 1982) 223-4.

——, “Portraetter af C. Iulius Caesar Germanicus kaldetCaligula,” MedKøb 37 (1981) 70-99.

——, “The Sculpted Portraits of Caligula,” Ancient Portraitsin the J. Paul Getty Museum 1 (Malibu 1987) 87-106.

——, Roman Portraits I: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Copenhagen1994).

——, Roman Portraits II: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Copenhagen1995a).

——, Roman Portraits III: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Copenhagen1995b).

F. Johnson, “The Imperial Portraits at Corinth,” AJA 30(1926) 158-76.

E. Jonas, “A Damnatio Memoriae alkalmazasa egyik duo-pondiusan Caligula,” Numizm. Kozlony 36-37 (1936-38)89-91.

B.W. Jones, Domitian and the Senatorial Order. A ProsopographicalStudy of Domitian’s Relationship with the Senate, A.D. 81-96 (Philadelphia 1979).

——, “C. Vettulenus Civica Cerialis and the False Neroof A.D. 88,” Athenaeum 61 (1983) 516-21.

——, The Emperor Domitian (London 1992).M. Jones, ed., Fake? The Art of Deception (Berkeley 1990) .H. Jucker, Das Bildnis in Blätterkelch (Olten 1961).——, “Porträtsminiaturen von Augustus, Nero, und

Trajan,” SchwMbll 13-14 (1964) 87,——, “Caligula,” Arts in Virginia 13.2 (1973) 17-25.——, “Die Glasphalerae mit dem Porträt des Nero Iulius

Caesar,” SchwMbll 25 (1975) 50-60.——, “Der grosse Pariser Kameo,” JdI 91 (1976) 211-250.——, “Die Prinzen des Statuenzyklus von Veleia,” JdI 92

(1977) 204-40.——, “Iulisch-claudische Kaiser- und Prinzenporträts als

‘Palimpseste’,” JdI 96 (1981a) 236-316.——, “Römische Herrscherbildnisse aus Ägypten,” ANRW

2.12.2 (Berlin 1981b) 667-725.——, “Die Bildnisstrafen gegen den toten Caligula,”

Praestant Interna. Festschrift fur Ulrich Hausmann (Tübingen1982) 110-118.

——, “Marmorporträts aus dem römischen Ägypten —Beobachtungen, Vorschläge und Fragen,” Das römisch-byzantinische Ägypten. Akten des Internazionales Symposions.Trier 1978 (Trier 1983) 139-50.

——, “Von der Angemessenheit des Stils und einigenBildnissen Konstantins des Grossen,” in F. Deuchler,M. Flory-Lemberg, and K. Otavsky, eds. Von Angesichtzu Angesicht. Porträtstudien. Festschrift für M. Stettler (Bern1983b) 40-70.

—— and D. Willers, eds., Gesichter. Griechische und römischeBildnisse aus schweizer Besitz (Bern 1982).

I. Jucker, Skulpturen der Antiken-Sammlung Ennetwies (MonumentaArtis Romae 25, Mainz 1995).

H.M. von Kaenel, “Augustus, Caligula, oder Claudius,”GNS 28 (1978) 39-44.

——, “Britannicus, Agrippina Minor und Nero in Thra-kien,” ScwNr 63 (1984) 127-50.

——, Münzpragnung und Münzbildnis des Claudius (Berlin1986).

Kaiser Augustus und die Verlorene Republik (Berlin (1988).M. Kajava, “Some Remarks on the Erasure of Inscriptions

in the Roman World (with Special Reference to thecase of Gn. Piso, cos. 7 BC),” in H. Solin, O. Salomies,and U.M. Liertz, eds. Acta Colloquii Epigraphici Latini(Helsinki 1995) 201-10.

I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, “The Imperial Chamber atLuxor,” DOP 29 (1975) 225-51.

N.B. Kampen, “Between Public and Private: Women asHistorical Subjects in Roman Art,” Women’s History andAncient History S.B. Pomeroy, ed. (Chapel Hill 1991)218-48.

——, ed. Sexuality in Ancient Art (Cambridge 1996).G. von Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Le Sculture del magazzino del

Museo Vaticano (Rome 1936-37).——, Marcus Antonius, Domitian und Christus (Halle 1938).C. Kerrigan, “Vespasian’s Templum Pacis: The Symbolic

Intention of Its Gardens and Architecture,” AJA 100(1996) 359.

K. de Kersauson, Musée du Louvre. Catalogue des portraitsromains 1 (Paris 1986).

——, Musée du Louvre. Catalogue des portraits romains 2 (Paris1996).

E. Kettenhofen, Die syrischen Augustae in der historischenÜberlieferung (Antiquitas 3, Bonn 1979).

D. Kiang, “The Metropolitan Antiochus and the VaticanPhilip,” ActaAArtHist 8 (1978) 75-84.

——, “The Iconography of Philip the Arab,” AJA 85 (1981)201.

A. Kindler, “The ‘Damnatio Memoriae’ of Elagabal onCity-coins of the Near-East,” SchwMbll 30.117 (1980)3-7.

D. Kinney, “Spolia: Damnatio and Renovatio Memoriae,”MAAR 42 (1997) 117-48.

Z. Kiss, MDIK 31 (1975) 293.——, L’iconographie des Princes Julio-Claudièns au temps d Auguste

et de Tibère (Warsaw 1975).——, Etudes sur le portrait impérial romain en Egypte (Warsaw

1984).D.E.E. Kleiner, Roman Imperial Funerary Altars with Portraits

(Rome 1987).——, Roman Sculpture (New Haven 1992).—— and S.B. Matheson, eds, I, Claudia. Women in Ancient

Rome (New Haven 1996).F.S. Kleiner, The Arch of Nero (Rome 1985).——, “The Arch of Galba at Tarragona & Dynastic

select bibliography298

Portraiture on Roman Arches,” MM 30 (1989) 329-52.

——, “The Arches of Vespasian in Rome,” RM 97 (1990)127-136.

K. Kluge and K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Die antiken Gross-bronzen 2 (Berlin-Leipzig 1927).

E. Knauer, “Multa egi cum regibus et pacem confirmavit. TheDate of the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius,”RM 97 (1990) 277-306.

S. E. Knudsen, C. Craine, and R. H. Tykof, “Analysis ofClassical Marble sculptures in the Toledo Museum ofArt,” in J.J. Herrmann, jr., N. Herz, and R. Newman,eds, Asmosia 5. Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone(London 2002) 231-39.

G. Koch, “Ein römischer Kaiser in Dyrrachium,” RM 102(1995) 321-26.

G. Koeppel, “Profectio und Adventus,” BJb 169 (1969) 130-94.

——, “Official State Reliefs of the City of Rome in theImperial Age. A Bibliography,” ANRW 2.12.1 (Berlin1981) 477-506.

——, “Die historischen Reliefs der römischen KaiserzeitI. Stadtrömische Denkmäler unbekannter Bausuge-hörigkeit aus augusteischer und julisch-claudischerZeit,” BJb 183 (1983) 62-144.

——, “Die historischen Reliefs der römischen KaiserzeitII,” BJb 184 (1984) 13-15, 51-61.

——, “Die historischen reliefs der römischen KaiserzeitIV,” BJb 186 (1986) 47-76.

——, “The Third Man: Restoration Problems on the NorthFrieze of the Ara Pacis Augustae,” JRA 5 (1992) 216-8.

E. Köhne, C. Ewigleben, and R. Jackson, eds. Gladiatorsand Caesars. The Power of Spectacle in Ancient Rome(London 2000).

V. Kondic, “Two Recent Acquisitions in BelgradeMuseums,” JRS 63 (1973) 47-9.

C.F. Konrad, “Proconsuls of Africa, the Future EmperorGalba, and the Togatus in the Villa Massimo,” JRA 7(1994) 151-62.

D. Kreikenbom, Griechische und römische Kolossal porträts biszum späten ersten Jahrhunderts nach Christus (JdI-EH, Berlin1992).

H. Kruse, Studien zur offiziellen Geltung des Kaiserbildes imrömischen Reiche (Paderborn 1934).

A. Kuhrt, “Usurpation, Conquest, and Ceremonial: fromBabylonia to Persia,” Rituals of Royalty. Power andCeremonial in Traditional Societies, D. Cannadine andS.R.F. Price, eds., (Cambridge 1987) 20-55.

H. Kunckel, Die römischen Genius (RMErg 20, 1974).C. Kunst and V. Riemer, eds. Grenzen der Macht: Zur Rolle

der römischen Kaiserfrauen (Potsdamer AltertumwissenschaftlicheBeiträge 3, Stuttgart 2000).

A. Kuttner, Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus. The Caseof the Boscoreale Cups (Berkeley 1995).

D.G. Kyle, “Disposal of Victims from Roman Arenas,” AJA97 (1993) 306.

——, Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome (London 1998).H. Kyrieleis, “Zu einem Kameo in Wien,” AA 85 (1970)

492-98.——, Bildnisse der Ptolemäer (AF 2, Berlin 1975).G. Lahusen, Schriftquellen zum römischen Bildnis 1 (Bremen

1984).

R. Lanciani, Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome (London1897).

——, New Tales of Ancient Rome (New York 1901).A. La Regina, ed. Museo Nazionale Romano. Palazzo Massimo

alle Terme (Rome 1998).——, ed. Sangue ed Arena (Rome 2001).E. La Rocca, ed., Rilievi storici capitolini. Il restauro dei panelli

di Adriano e di Marco Aurelio nel Palazzo dei Conservatori(Rome 1986).

S. Laser, “Zur Ikonographie des Caligula,” AA 69 (1954)241-51.

L. Laurenzi, “Sculture inedite del Museo di Coo,” ASAtene17-18 (1955-56) 59-157.

C. Lega, “Il Colosso di Nerone,” BullCom 93 (1989-90) 339-78.

——, “Colossus: Nero,” in M. Steinby, ed., LTUR 1 (Rome1993) 295-8.

M. Le Glay, Saturne africain I. Monuments (Paris 1961).G. Legrottaglie, Ritratti e statue iconiche de età romana nel Museo

Civico G. Fiorelli di Lucera (Bari 1999).C. Letta, “Il ritratto di Severo Alessandro da Carnuntum

e la legazione pannonica di Cassio Dione,” Prospettiva25 (1981) 43-45.

A. Levi, Sculture greche e romane del Palazzo Ducale a Mantova(Rome 1931).

M. Levi, “I Flavi,” ANRW II.2 (Berlin 1975) 177-207.B. Levick, “The Fall of Julia the Younger,” Latomus 35

(1976) 301-39.——, “Domitian and the Provinces,” Latomus 41 (1982a)

50-51.——, “Propaganda and the Imperial Coinage, “Antichthon

16 (1982b) 104-16.——, Claudius (New Haven 1990).S. Levin, “Plutarch and the Damnatio Memoriae of Domitian,”

in La Béothie Antique. Lyon-Saint Étienne 16-20 mai 1983(Paris 1985) 283-90.

J. Linderski, “Julia in Regium,” ZPE 72 (1988) 181-200.——, “A Missing Ponticus,” AJAH 12.2 (1987[1995]) 148-

66.A. Linfert, “Propaganda und Programm. Eine Deutung der

Cancelleria-Reliefs,” KölnJb 10 (1969) 56ff.G. Lippold, rev. A. Levi (1931) Gnomon 10 (1934) 358-71.P. Liverani, L’Antiquarium di Villa Barberini a Castel Gandalfo

(Rome 1989a).——, Museo Chiaramonti (Guide Cataloghi Musei Vaticani 1,

Rome 1989b).——, “Rilavorazioni antiche e moderne su sculture dei

Musei Vaticani,” RendPontAcc 63 (1990-91) 163-92.H.P. L’Orange, “Zur Ikonographie des Kaisers Elagabals,”

SymbOslo 20 (1940) 152-59.——, “Le Nerón constitutionnel et le Nerón apothéosé,”

From the Collections of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 3 (1942)247-67.

——, Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture (Oslo 1947).——, Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den

Konstantin-Söhnen (284-361 n. Chr.) (Das römischeHerrscherbild 3.4, Berlin 1984).

G. Lugli and P. Mingazzini, “L’Arco di Marco Aurelio sulCampidoglio,” ArchCl 17 (1965) 147-53.

T.O. Mabbot, “Epictetus and Nero’s Coinage,” CP 36(1941) 398-99.

S. G. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity(Berkeley 1981).

select bibliography 299

G. MacDonald, “A Note on Some Fragments of ImperialStatues and a Statuette of Victory,” JRS 16 (1926) 3-10.

D.W. MacDowell, “CAC, a Claudian countermark fromlower Germany,” GNS 20 (1970) 37-41.

——, The Western Coinages of Nero (Numismatic Notes andMonographs 161, New York 1979).

P. MacKendrick, The North African Stones Speak (Chapel Hill1980).

D.C. MacKenzie, The Reign of Caracalla (diss., Princeton1949).

J. Madaule, “Le Monument de Septime Sévère au ForumBoarium,” MEFRA 1 (1924) 111-50.

C. Maderna, Iuppiter Diomedes und Merkur als Vorbilder fürrömische Bildnisstatuen (Archäologie und Geschichte 1,Heidelberg 1988).

S. Maggi, “Il ritratto giovanile di Nerone. Un esempio aMantova,” RdA 10 (1986) 47-51.

F. Magi, I rilievi flavi del Palazzo della Cancelleria (Rome 1945).——, “Un rilievo di Anacapri,” RendPontAcc 28 (1954-55)

45-54.——, “Un nuovo ritratto di Domiziano,” RendPontAcc 41

(1968-69) 137-44.——, “Brevi osservazioni su di una nuova datazione dei

rilievi della Cancelleria,” RM 80 (1973) 289-91.G. Mancini, “Le statue loricate imperiali,” BullComm 50

(1922) 151-204.C. Mango, “Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder,”

DOP 17 (1963) 55-75.G.A. Mansuelli, Galleria degli Uffizi: le sculture 2 (Rome 1961).L. Mariani, “Some Roman Busts in the Museum of the

Syllogos of Candia,” AJA 1 (1897) 266-78.——, “Sculture Provenienti dalla Galleria sotto il

Quirinale,” BullComm 29 (1901) 158-179.R. Martini, “Osservazioni su contromarche ed erosioni su

assi di Caligola,” RIN 82 (1980) 53-83.M. Marvin, “Freestanding Sculpture from the Baths of

Caracalla,” AJA 87 (1983) 347-84.A.K. Massner, Bildnisangleichung. Untersuchungen zur Ent-

stehungs- Wirkungeschichte der Augustusporträts (43 v. Chr.-68 n. Chr.) (Das römische Herrscherbild 4, Berlin 1982).

A. Mastino, “L’erasione del nome di Geta dalle iscrizioninel quadro della propaganda politica di Caracalla,”AnnCagliari n.s. 2, 39 (1978-79) 67.

——, Le titotlature di Caracalla e Geta attraverso le iscrizioni (indici)(Bologna 1981).

K.D. Matthews, “Domitian, the Lost Divinity,” Expedition8.2 (1966) 30-36.

H. Mattingly, “The Events of the Last Months of Nero fromthe Revolt of Vindex to the Accession of Galba,” NC13 (1953).

F. Matz, “Ein Kameo mit dem Bildnis Domitians,” RM 54(1939) 145-60.

J.A. Maurer, A Commentary on C. Suetoni Tranquilli, Vita C.Caligulae Caesaris, Chapters I-XXI (Philadelphia 1949).

A.M. McCann, The Portraits of Septimius Severus (MAAR 30,Rome 1968).

——, “A Re-dating of the Reliefs from the Palazzo dellaCancelleria,” RM 79 (1972) 249-79.

——, “Beyond the Classical in Third Century Portraiture,”ANRW 2.12.2 (Berlin 1981) 623-45.

M. McCrum and A.G. Woodhead, Select Documents of thePrincipates of the Flavian Emperors (Cambridge 1961).

W.C. McDermott and A.E. Orentzel, “Silius Italicus andDomitian,” AJP 98 (1977) 24-34.

W.R. Megow, Antiken in rheinischen Privatbesitz (Bonn 1973).——, Kameen von Augustus bis Alexander Severus (AMUGS 11,

Berlin 1987).——, “Zwei Gemmen in Bonner Privatbesitz,” AA (1989)

443-457.J. Meischner, Das Frauenporträt der Severerzeit (Berlin 1964).——, “Die Porträtkunst der ersten und zweiten Tetrarchie

bis zur allenscherrschaft Konstantins: 293 bis 324n.Chr,” AA (1986) 223-50.

——, “Zum Porträt der ‘Poppäa’ Albani,” Latomus 52(1993).

E. Meise, Untersuchungen zur iulisch-claudischen Dynastie (Vestigia10, Munich 1969).

R. Mellor, Thea Roma: The Worship of the Goddess Roma in theGreek World (Göttingen 1975).

G. Mendel, Musées Imperiaux Ottomans. Catalogue des sculpturesgrecques, romains, et byzantines 2 (1914).

R. Meric, “Rekonstruktionsversuch der Kolossalstatue desDomitian in Ephesos,” Pro arte antiqua 2. Festschrift fürH. Kenner (Vienna 1985).

P. Mertens, “La damnatio memoriae de Géta dans les papyrus,”Hommages à L. Hermann (Coll. Latomus 44, Brussels 1960)541-42.

D. Metzler, “Bilderstürme und Bilderfeindlichkeit in derAntike,” in Bildersturm. Die Zerstörung des Kunstwerks , M.Warnke, ed. (Munich 1973) 14-29.

H. Meyer, “Zu römischen Umbestattungen (Noch eineBehauptung des Balbinus),” BullCom 91 (1986) 279-290.

——, Antinoos: die archäologischen Denkmäler unter Einbeziehungdes numismatischen und epigraphischen Materials sowie derliterarischen Nachrichten: ein Beitrag zur Kunst – und Kul-turgeschichte der hadrianisch- frühantonisch Zeit (Munich1991).

——, H. Meyer, Prunkkameen und Staatsdenkmäler römischerKaiser. Neue Perspektiven zur Kunst der frühen Prinzipatzeit(Munich 2000).

M.E. Micheli in L. Guerrini and C. Gasparri, Il PalazzoQuirinale. Catalogo delle Sculture (Rome 1993).

M. Michelucci, “Un nuovo ritratto di Tiberio da Roselle,”Prospettiva 2 (July 1975) 40-43.

T. Mickoki, Sub specie deae. Les Impératrices et princesses romainesassimilées à des déeses: Étude iconologique (RdA suppl. 14,Rome 1995).

P. Miniero, ed. Il sacello degli augustali di Miseno (Naples 2000).P. Mingazzini, “E’ mai esistito l’arco di trionfo di Mar-

caurelio sul Clivo Argentino?” RM 70 (1963) 147-55.E. de Miro, “Nuove acquisizioni dei Musei e Gallerie dello

Stato,” BdA 57 (1972) 242.A. Mlasowsky, Herrscher und Mensch. Römische Marmorbildnisse

in Hannover (Hannover 1992).U. Monneret de Villard, “The Temple of the Imperial Cult

at Luxor,” Archaeologia 95 (1953) 85-105.P. Moreno and C. Stefani, eds. Galleria Borghese (Milan

2000).P. Moreno and A. Viacava, Galleria Borghese. Le Sculture

Antiche (Rome 2003).A. Moretti and G. Bordenache Battaglia, “Materiale ar-

cheologici scoperti a Lucus Feroniae,” in A. Morretti,ed. Nuove scoperte e acquisizioni nell’Etruria meridionale(Rome 1975) 109.

select bibliography300

E. Moorman, “A Ruin for Nero on the Oppian Hill,” JRA8 (1995) 403-5.

R. Mowat, “Martelage et abrasion des monnaies sousl’empire romaine,” RN (1901) 443-71.

S. Adamo Muscettola, “Miseno: culto imperiale e politicanel compesso degli Augustai,” RM 107 (2000) 79-108.

C. L. Murison, Rebellion and Reconstruction. Galba to Domitian:An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman HistoryBooks 64-67 (A.D. 68-96) (Atlanta 1999).

K. Mustakallio, Death and Disgrace. Capital Penalties with postmortem Sanctions in Early Roman Historiography (Helsinki1994).

D. Mustili, “”Di alcune sculture, trovate tra il Foro dellaPace e L’Anfiteatro,” BullComm 61 (1933) 89-109.

H. Muthman, Statuestuzen und dekoratives Beiwork an greichischenund römischen Bildwerken . Ein Beitrag zu Geschichte derrömischen Kopistentätigkeit (AbhHeid 3 [1950], Heidelberg1951).

R. Nardi, “L’arco di Settimio Severo: indagini storiche econservative,” RendPontAcc 55-56 (1983-84) 299-312.

K. Neugebauer, “Die Familie des Septimius Severus,” DieAntike 12 (1936) 155-72.

O. Neverov, “Nero-Helios,” Pagan Gods and Shrines of theRoman Empire, M. Henig and A. King, eds., (Oxford1986) 189-94.

——, “Nero-Jupiter and Nero-Helios,” Chadozentennye Isdelijaanticnuch masterov. Sbornik stlej (Leningrad 1982) 101-401.

J. N. Newland, ed., Catalogue of the Miho Museum (Shiga1997).

H. Niemeyer, Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischenKaiser (Monumenta Artis Romae, Berlin 1968).

C.F. Nims, “The Date of the Dishonouring of Hatchepsut,”ZAS (1966) 97-100.

W. Nippel, Public Order in Ancient Rome (Cambridge 1995).S. Nodelman, Severan Imperial Portraits. A.D. 193-217 (diss.,

Yale University 1965).——, “A Portrait of the Empress Plautilla,” GettyMusJ 10

(1982) 105-20.——, “The Portrait of Brutus the Tyrannicide,” Ancient

Portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum 1 (Malibu 1987) 41-86.

D. Nony, Caligula (Paris 1986).——, “Quelques as d’imitation de Caligula trouves a

Bordeaux,” Tresors monetaires 3.H. Nuber, “Waage mit Kaiserporträts aus Heidelberg-

Neuenheim,” FuBerBadWürt 6 (1981) 501-28.C. Nylander, “Earless in Nineveh: Who Mutilated

‘Sargon’s’ Head?,” AJA 84 (1980) 329-33.A. Oliver, “Honors to Romans: Bronze Portraits,” in C.

Mattusch, ed. The Fire of Hephaistos: Large ClassicalBronzes from North American Collections (Cambridge, Mass.1996) 138-60.

M. Oppermann, Römische Kaiserreliefs (Leipzig 1985).R. Osborne, “Erection and Mutilation of the Hermai,”

PCPS 211, N.S. 31 (1985) 47-73.W. Otto and H. Bengston, Zur Geschichte des Niederganges des

Ptolemäerreichs. Ein Beitrag zur Regierungszeit des 8. Und9. Ptolemäers (Munich 1938).

P.G. de Pachtère, Le Musée de Guelma. Musées de l’Algèrie etde la Tunisie 16 (Paris 1909).

V. Pacifici, “Notes on Some Recent Discoveries at Tivoli,”JRS 10 (1920) 91-3.

P.B. Pacini, “Ritratto di Vespasiano da Roselle,” Prospettiva12 (1978) 41-3.

J.E. Packer, The Forum of Trajan (Berkeley 1997).J.M. Padgett, “A Chalcedony Statuette of Herakles,” The

Record of the Art Museum Princeton University 54 (1995)3-22.

J.M. Paillier and R. Sablayrolles, “Damnatio memoriae: unevraie perpétuité,” Pallas 40 (1994) 11-55.

G. Paladini, “Tradizione e intenzione nel ritratto diVespasiano,” ANRW II.12.2 (Berlin 1981) 612-22.

M. Pallotino, L’arco degli Argentari (Rome 1946).C. Panella, ed., Meta Sudans I. Un area sacra in Palatio e la

valle del Colosseo prima e dopo Nerone (Rome 1996).D. Pandermalis, “Capita Transformata,” 5+C;?E (Thessa-

lonika 1972).A.E. Pappano, “The False Neros,” CJ 32 (1937) 385.E. Paribeni, Museo Nazionale Romano. Sculture greche del V secolo,

originali e repliche (Rome 1953).R. Paris, “Propaganda e iconografia. Una lettura del fron-

tone del Tempio di Quirino sul frammento del RilievoHartwig, nel Museo Nazionale Romano,” BdA 52(1988) 27-38.

——, ed., Via Appia. La Villa dei Quintili (Rome 2000).K. Parlasca, Ritratti di mummie, Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto greco-

romano serie B, II (Rome 1977).M.C. Parra, “A proposito di un rilievo con statua di Silvano

(Leptis Magna),” MEFRA 90 (1978) 807-28.A. B. Paterakis, “Two Gilded Bronze Sculptures from the

Athenian Agora,” in T. Drayman-Weisser, ed. GildedMetals. History, Technology and Conservation (London 2000)97-107.

C. Pavolini, Guida Archeologica Laterza 8. Ostia (Rome-Bari1983).

P. Peirce, “The Arch of Constantine: Propaganda andIdeology in Late Roman Art,” Art History 12 (1989)387-418.

T. Pekáry, Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult undGesellschaft (Das römische Herrscherbild 3.5, Berlin 1985).

P. Pensabene and C. Panella, eds., Arco di Costantino. Traarcheologia e archemetria (StudArch 100, Rome 1999).

P. Pensabene, “New Archeometric Investigations on theFragments of the Colossal Statue of Constantine inthe Palazzo dei Conservatori,” in J.J. Herrmann, jr.,N. Herz, and R. Newman, eds, Asmosia 5. Interdis-ciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone (London 2002) 250-55.

P. Parisi Persicce, La Lupa Capitolina (Rome 2000).M. Pfanner, “Technische Beobachtungen an den Cancel-

leria- Reliefs,” AA (1981) 514-18.——, “Über das Herstellen von Porträts,” JdI 104 (1989)

157-257.G.C. Picard, Les trophées romains (Paris 1957).C.A. Picon, Bartolomeo Cavaceppi (London 1983).C. Pietrangeli, “Su un ritratto bronzeo dei Musei Capi-

tolini,” BullCom 72 (1946-48) 57-65.L. Polacco, Il volto di Tiberio (Rome 1955).L. Poinssot, Inscriptions de Thugga (Paris 1913).C. Poinssot, Les ruins de Dougga (Tunis 1983).J. Pollini, “A Flavian Relief Portrait in the J. Paul Getty

Museum,” GettyMusJ 5 (1977) 63.——, “Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and the Ravenna

Relief,”RM 88 (1981) 117-40.——, “A Pre-principate Portrait of Gaius (Caligula),” JWalt

40 (1982) 1-12.

select bibliography 301

——, “Damnatio Memoriae in Stone: Two Portraits of NeroRecut to Vespasian in American Museums,” AJA 88(1984) 547-55.

——, The Portraiture of Gaius and Lucius (New York 1987).——, “Man or God: Divine Assimilation and Imitation in

the Late Republic and Early Principate,”in K.A.Raaflaub and M. Toher, eds. (1990) 334-63.

——, “The Acanthus of the Ara Pacis as an Apolline andDionysiac Symbol of Anamorphosis, Anakyklosis andNumen Mixtum,” in Von der Bauforschung zur Denkmal-pflege. Festschrift für Alois Machatschek, M Kubelik andM. Schwarz, eds. (Vienna 1993a) 181-217.

——, “The Cartoceto Bronzes: Portraits of a RomanAristocratic Family of the Late First Century B.C.,”AJA 97 (1993b) 423-46.

——, “Caligula and the Madness of the Jews,” Second AnnualSocietas Conference: Roman Political Ideology, JRA Supplement(forthcoming).

J.J. Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age (New Haven 1986).P. Postel, Katalog der antiken Münzen in der Hamburger Kunsthalle

(Hamburg 1976).V. Poulsen, “Studies in Julio-Claudian Iconography,”

ActaArch 17 (1946) 1-48.——, “Nero, Britannicus and Others,” ActaArch 25 (1954a)

119-35.——, “Once More the Young Nero,” ActaA 25 (1954b) 294-

301.——, “Caligulas billede,” MedKøb 14 (1957) 29-47.——, “The Portraits of Caligula,” ActaArch 29 (1958) 175-

90.——, Les portraits romains 1 (Copenhagen 1962).——, Les portraits romains 2 (Copenhagen 1974).C. Preáux, Le Monde hellenistique. La Grèce et l’Orient de la mort

d Alexandre à la conquête romaine de la Grèce (323-146 av.J.-C.) (Paris 1978).

S.R.F. Price, Rituals of Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in AsiaMinor (Cambridge 1984).

——, “From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult; TheConsecration of the Roman Emperor,” in D.Cannadine and S.R.F. Price, eds., Rituals of Royalty.Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (Cambridge1987) 56-105.

K.A. Raaflaub and M. Toher, eds., Between Republic andEmpire. Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate(Berkeley 1990).

J. Raeder, Die statuarische Ausstattung der Villa Hadriana beiTivoli (European University Studies 37.4, Frankfurt andBern 1983).

M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier, Prosopographie des femmes de l’ordresénatorial (Ier-IIe siècles) (Louvain 1987).

E.S. Ramage, “Denigration of a Predecessor under Clau-dius, Galba, and Vespasian,” Historia 32 (1983) 202-6.

——, “Juvenal and the Establishment. Denigration ofPredecessor in the Satires ,” ANRW 2.33.1 (Berlin1989) 640-707.

N.H. and A. Ramage, Roman Art. Romulus to Constantine(Englewood Cliffs 1991)

R. Rea, “Calendar of Gaius,” Oxyrhynchus Papyri 55 (1988)10-14.

K. Regling, “Zur greichischen Münzkunde III,” ZfN 24(1904) 129-44.

J. Reynolds, “New Evidence for the Imperial Cult at Julio-Claudian Aphrodisias,” ZPE 43 (1981) 317-27.

—— and J.B. Ward Perkins, The Inscriptions of RomanTripolitania (Rome 1952).

L.A. Riccardi, “The Mutilation of the Bronze Portrait ofa Severan Empress from Sparta: Damnatio Memoriaeor Christian Iconoclasm?” AM 113 (1997) 259-69.

A. Ricci, La villa dei Quintilli. Fonti scritte e fonti figurate (Rome1998).

L. Richardson, jr. A New Topographical Dictionary of AncientRome (Baltimore 1992).

A. Richlin, “Julia’s Jokes, Galla Placidia, and the RomanUse of Women as Political Icons,” in B.S. Garlick, S.Dixon, and P. Allend, eds., Stereotypes of Women in Power.Historical Perspectives and Revisionist Views (New York1992).

G.M.A. Richter, Catalogue of Greek and Roman Antiquities inthe Dumbarton Oaks Collection (Cambridge, Mass. 1956).

——, Engraved Gems of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans II.Engraved Gems of the Romans (London 1971).

I. Rilliet-Maillard, Les portraits romains du Musée d’Art etd’Histoire (Geneva 1978).

H.W. Ritter, “Ein neuer Deutungvorschlag zum Fries B derCancelleriareliefs,” MarbWPr (1982) 25-36.

G. Robins, Women in Ancient Egypt (London 1993).S.V. Rocca, ed. Guide Rionale di Roma. Rione 15. Esquilino

(Rome 1982).R.S. Rogers, “Heirs and Rivals to Nero,” TAPA 86 (1954)

190-212.J. Rohman, “Die spätantike Kaiserporträts am Konstantins-

bogen in Rom,” RM 105 (1998) 259-82, pls. 43-55.J.P. Rollin, Untersuchungen zu Rechtsfragen römischer Bildnisse

(Bonn 1979).Römer am Rhein (Köln 1967).C.B. Rose, “ Princes and Barbarians on the Ara Pacis,”

AJA 94 (1990) 453-67.——, Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the

Julio-Claudian Period (Cambridge 1997).——, “The 1997 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia,”

Studia Troica 8 (1998) 71-113.M. Rostovtzeff, “Commodus-Hercules in Britain,” JRS 13

(1923) 91-109.C. Roueché and K. T. Erim, eds, Aphrodisias Papers 1. Recent

Work in Architecture and Sculpture (JRA Suppl 1, Ann Arbor1990).

Z. Rubin, Civil-War Propaganda and Historiography (CollectionLatomus 173, Brussels 1980).

V.A. Rudich, Political Dissidence under Nero (London 1993).Dissidence and Literatue under Nero: The Price of Rhetorization(London 1997).

A. Rüsch, “Kaiserzeitliche Porträt in Makedonien,” JdI 84(1969) 59-196.

J. Ruysschaert, “Essai d’interpretation synthetique de l’arcde Constantin,” RendPontAcc 35 (1962-63) 79-100.

——, “Les onze panneaux de l’arc de Marc-Aurèle érigéà Rome en 176,” RendPontAcc 35 (1962-63) 101-21.

L. Ruzicka, “Doppelte Erasion auf einer Münze des Nerovon Thessalonike,” ZfNum 25 (1924) 354-55.

I. S. Ryberg, The Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art (MAAR20 1955).

——, The Panel Reliefs of Marcus Aurelius (Monographs onArchaeology and Fine Arts 14, New York 1967).

G. Säflund, “Zur Ikonographie des Kaisers Septimius

select bibliography302

Severus,” Stockholm Studies in Classical Archäologie (Opu-scula F. Kerényi) 5 (1968) 121ff

V. Saladino, “Geta Caesar,” Tainia. Festschrift fur R. Hampe(Mainz 1980) 433-38.

C. Saletti, Ritratti severiani (StArch 10, Rome 1967).——, Il ciclo statuario della basilica di Velleia (Milan 1968).——, “Gruppo e serie del ciclo statuario Veleiate,”

Athenaeum 50 (1972) 182-90.——, “Tre Ritratti Imperiali da Luni: Tiberio, Livia,

Caligola,” Athenaeum Pavia 51 (1973) 42-45.——, “La scultura di età romana in Sardegna: ritratti e

statue iconiche,” RdA 13 (1989) 76-100.F. Salviat and D. Terner, “Les portraits d’Agrippa

Postumus et les monnaies de Corinth,” RANarb 15(1982) 237-41.

D. Salzmann, “Beobachtungen zu Münzprägnung undIkonographie des Claudius,” AA (1976) 252-64.

——, “Die Bildnisse des Macrinus,” JdI 98 (1983) 351-81.——, “Vespasian statt Nero — Ein numismatische Pa-

limpsest,” AA (1984) 295-99.——, “Macrinus mit Caracalla und Julia Domna. Zu einer

Gemme im Kestner-Museum Hannover,”AA (1989)559-68.

S. Sande, Greek and Roman Portraits in Norwegian Collections(ActaAArtHist 10, Rome 1991).

A. Savio, “La coerenza di Caligola nella gesione della mo-neta, Publicazioni dell’Istituto di Papirologia dell’Universitàdi Milano 1 (Milan 1988) 1-51.

T. Schäfer, Imperii insignia: Sella curulis und fasces (RM EH29, Rome 1989).

——, “Ein Prokonsul von Africa in der Villa Massimo?”JRA 3 (1990) 187-94.

K. Schefold, “Neue Deutung der Reliefs von derCancelleria in Vatican,” Atlantis 12 (1949) 546.

J. Scheid, “La mort du tyran. Chronique de quelques mortsprogrammées,” Du châtiment dans la cité. Supplices corporelset peine de mort dans le monde antique (Collection de L’ÉcoleFrançaise de Rome 79, Rome 1984) 177-193.

——, Romulus et ses Frères. Le Collège des Frères Arvales, Modèledu Culte Public dans la Rome des Empereurs (BEFAR 275,Rome 1990).

J. von Schlosser, “Geschichte der Porträtbildnerei inWachs,” Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen desAllerhöchsten Kaiserhaus 29 (1910-11) 171-258.

T.M. Schmidt, “Damnatio memoriae—unbeliebte Köpferömischer Kaiser,” Altertum 37.1 (1991) 50-56.

B. Schneider, Studien zu kleinformatigen Kaiserporträts von denAnfängen der Kaiserzeit bis ins 3. Jh. (diss. Munich 1979).

T. Schreiber, Die antiken Bildwerke der Villa Ludovisi (Leipzig1880).

S. F. Schröder, Katalog der antiken Skulpturen des Museo del Pradoin Madrid 1. Die Porträts (Mainz 1993).

A.R. Schulman, “Some Remarks on the Alleged ‘Fall’ ofSenemut,” JARCE 8 (1968-70) 29-48.

K. Schulten, Die Typologie der römischen Konsekrationsprägungen(Frankfurt 1979).

W. Schürmann, Typologie und Bedeutung der stadtrömischenMinerva-Kultbilder (Rome 1985).

K. Scott, The Imperial Cult under the Flavians (Stuttgart- Berlin1936).

V. Santa Maria Scrinari, “Le donne dei Severi nellamonetazione dell’epoca,”BullCom 75 (1953-55) 119-35.

——, Museo Archeologico di Aquileia. Catalogo delle sculture romane(Rome 1972).

——, “Dalla residenza dei Laterani all domus di Fausta,”Foruma Urbis 2.6 (1997) 4-9.

D.R. Sear, Roman Coins and Their Values (London 1988).J.L. Sebesta and L. Bonfante, eds., The World of Roman

Costume (Madison, WI and London, 1994).B. Sester, “Arco di Domiziano all’Iseo Campense in

Roma,” RIN 57 (1957) 99-93.S. Settis, ed., La Colonna Traiana (Turin 1988).N. Sevinç, R. Körpe, M. Tombul, C.B. Rose, D. Strahan,

H. Kieswetter, and J. Wallrodt, “A New PaintedGraeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Çan,” Studia Troica11 (2001) 383-20.

Lo sguardo di Roma. Ritratti delle provincie occidentali dell ImperoRomano dai Musei di Mèrida, Toulouse e Tarragona (Rome1996).

T.L. Shear, jr. “The Athenian Agora Excavations of 1971,”Hesperia 42 (1973) 183-210.

H. Sichtermann, “Archäologische Funde und Forschungenin Libyen. Kyrenaika 1959-61, Tipolitanien 1942-61,”AA (1962) 420-35.

P.J. Sijpesteijn, “Macrinus’ damnatio memoriae und di Papyri,”ZPE 13 (1974) 219-27.

E. Simon, “Zu den flavischen Reliefs von der Cancelleria,”JdI 75 (1960) 134-56.

——, Ara Pacis Augustae (Tübingen 1967).——, “Virtus und Pietas. Zu den Friesen A und B von der

Cancelleria,” JdI 100 (1985) 543-56.C.J. Simpson, “The Cult of the Emperor Gaius,” Latomus

90 (1981) 489-511.Die Skulpturen der Sammlung Wallmoden (Göttingen 1979).N. W. Slater, “Nero’s Masks,” CW 90 (1996) 33-40.A.M. Small, “A New Head of Antonia Minor and its

Significance,” RM 97 (1990) 217-34.——, ed., Subject and Ruler: The Cult of Ruling Power in Classical

Antiquity (JRA Supp. 17, Ann Arbor 1996).J.P. Small, Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory

and Literacy in Classical Antiquity (London 1997).E.M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius,

Claudius, and Nero (Cambridge 1967).——, Roman History and Coinage 44 B.C. – A.D. 69 (Oxford

1987).R.R.R. Smith, “Roman Portraits: Honours, Empresses, and

Late Emperors,” JRS 75 (1985) 209-28.——, “Three Hellenistic Rulers at the Getty,” GettyMusJ

14 (1986) 59-78.——,”The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at

Aphrodisias,” JRS 77 (1987) 88-138.——, Hellenistic Royal Portraits (Oxford 1988a).——, “Simulacra Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion

at Aphrodisias,” JRS 78 (1988b) 50-77.——, “Myth and Allegory at the Sebasteion,” Aphrodisias

Papers 1. (JRA Suppl. 1, Ann Arbor 1990) 89-100.——, “Typology and Diversity in the Portraits of Augus-

tus,” JRA 9 (1996) 30-47.——, “Nero and the Sun-god: Divine Accessories and

Political Symbolsin Roman Imperial Images,” JRA 13(2000) 532-42.

—— and K.T. Erim, eds, Aphrodisias Papers 2. The Theater,a Sculptor’sWorkshop, Philosophers and Coin Types (JRASuppl. 2 , Ann Arbor 1991).

select bibliography 303

D. Soechting, Die Porträts des Septimius Severus (Bonn 1972).H. Solin, “Obbligo o libertà? Sull onomastica dell aristo-

crazia romana,” ORom 3 (1986)70-73.——, “Namenwechsel un besondere Vornamen römischer

Senatoren. Betrachtungen zur kaiserlichen Namen-politik,” Philologus 133 (1989) 252-59.

A. M. Sommella, ed., Il Marco Aurelio in Campidoglio (Rome1990).

P. Southern, Domitian. The Tragic Tyrant (Bloomington 1997).G. Souville, “Un portrait de Géta au Musée de Guelma,”

Libyca 1 (1953) 115-19.B.S. Spaeth, “The Goddess Ceres in the Ara Pacis Augustae

and the Carthage Relief,” AJA 98 (1994) 65-100.——, The Roman Goddess Ceres (Austin 1996).L. Sperti, Nerone e la “submissio” di Tiridate in un bronzetto da

Opitergium (RdA Suppl. 8, Rome 1990).G. Spinola, Guide Cataloghi Musei Vaticani 3. Il Museo Pio

Clementino 1 (Rome 1996).——, Guide Cataloghi Musei Vaticani 4. Il Museo Pio Clementino

2 (Rome 1999).M. Floriani Squarciapino, Leptis Magna (Basel 1966).——, “Fortuna o Astarte-Genius coloniae,” QAL 5 (1967).——, Sculture del foro severiano di Leptis Magna (Rome 1974).C.R. Stanton, “Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, and Com-

modus, 1969-72,” ANRW 2.2 (Berlin 1975) 478-549.E.M. Steinby, ed., Lexicon Topigraphicum Urbis Romae 1 (Rome

1993).——, Lexicon Topigraphicum Urbis Romae 2 (Rome 1995).——, Lexicon Topigraphicum Urbis Romae 3 (Rome 1996).K. Stemmer, “Fragment einen Kolossalen Panzerstatue

Domitians ?,” AA (1971) 563-80..——, Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Chronologie und Ikonographie

der Panzerstatuen (AF 4, Berlin 1978).A. Stewart, Faces of Power. Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic

Politics (Berkeley 1993).P. Stewart, “The Destruction of Statues in Late Antiquity,”

in R. Miles, ed. Constructing Identity in Late Antiquity (Lon-don 1999) 159-89.

R. Stillwell, ed., Antioch on the Orontes II. The Excavations of1933-36 (Princeton 1938).

V.M. Strocka, “Beobachtungen an den Attikareiliefs desseverischen Quadrifons von Lepcis Magna,” AntiquitésAfricaines 6 (1972) 147-72.

D.E. Strong, Roman Imperial Sculpture (Harmondsworth1961).

——, Roman Art (London 1976).E. Strong, “A Bronze Bust of a Julio-Claudian Prince,” JRS

6 (1916) 27-46.M. Stuart, “How Were Imperial Portraits Distributed,” AJA

43 (1939) 601-17.H. Stuart Jones, A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures Preserved

in the Municipal Collections of Rome: The Sculptures of thePalazzo dei Conservatori (Oxford 1912).

——, A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the Munici-pal Collections of Rome: The Sculptures of the Museo Capitolino(Oxford 1926).

S. Stucchi, “Cantiere esterno dell’Arco Severiano a LeptisMagna,” QAL 8 (1976) 123-25.

C.H.V. Sutherland, “A Coin of Nero Overstruck forGalba,” NC 20 (1940) 265-66.

——, Roman History and Roman Coinage (Oxford 1987).R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939).

——, Tacitus (Oxford 1958).——, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford 1968).——, Emperors and Biography. Studies in the Historia Augusta

(Oxford 1971).——, “The Son of the Emperor Macrinus,” Phoenix 26

(1972) 275-91.M. Taddei, East and West 17 (1967) 41ffW. Technau, “Archäologischen Funde in Italien, Tripli-

tanien, und der Kyrenaika von Oktober 1931 bisOktober 1932,” AA (1932) 447-539.

R. Terdiman, Present and Past. Modernity and the Memory Crisis(Ithaca 1993).

J. Ternbach, “Further Comments on ‘Caligula’,” Art in Vir-ginia 14.2 (1974) 29-31.

A.P. Thomas, “The Other Woman at Akhetaten: RoyalWife Kiya,” Amarna Letters 3 (San Francisco1994) 72-81.

D. L. Thompson, Mummy Portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum(Malibu 1982).

H.A. Thompson, “Athens Faces Diversity,” Hesperia (1981)343-55.

M.A. Tomei, “Gli scavi di Pietro Rosa per Napoleone III,”Orti Farnesiani sul Palatino. Atti del Convegno Internazionale,École Française de Rome, 28-30 novembre 1980 (Rome1990) 61-107.

——, Museo Palatino (Rome 1997).——, Scavi Francesi sul Palatino. Le Indagini di Pietro Rosa per

Napoleone III (1861-1870) (Rome 1999).M. Torelli, “Culto imperiale e spazi urbani in età flavia.

Dai rilievi Hartwig all’Arco di Tito,” L’Urbs. Spaceurbain et histoire, I siècle av. J.C. - III siècle ap. J.C. Actesdu colloque international (Rome 1985-87) 563-82.

A.M Leander Touati, The Great Trajanic Frieze (Acta InstitutiRomani Regni Sueciae 4.45 Stockholm 1987).

P.W. Townsend, “The Significance of the Arch of theSeveri at Lepcis,” AJA 42 (1938) 512-24.

J.M.C. Toynbee, “Ruler-Apotheosis in Ancient Rome,” NC7 (1947) 126-49.

——, The Flavian Reliefs from the Palazzo della Cancelleria inRome (London 1957).

J.M.C. Toynbee, “A Note on the Sculptured Torso of aBird,” in P.T. Bidwell et al., eds., The Legendary Bath-House and Baslica and Forum at Exeter with a SummaryAccount of the Legionary Fortress (Exeter 1979) 130-2.

J.C. Traupman, The Life and Reign of Commodus (Princeton1956).

G. Traversari, Museo Archeologico di Venezia. I ritratti (Rome1968).

W. Trillmich, Familienpropaganda der Kaisar Caligula undClaudius (AMUGS 8, 1978).

——, et. al. Denkmäler der Römerzeit (Mainz 1993).R. Turcan, “Le culte impérial au IIIe siècle,” ANRW 2.16.2

(Berlin 1978) 996-1084.——, “Les premières effigies monétaires d’Elagabal:

Problèmes politiques et dynastiques,” Ritrtatto Ufficalee Ritratto Privato. Atti della II Conferenza Internazionale sulRitratto Romano, N. Bonacasa and G. Rizzo, eds.,(Rome 1988) 535-40.

J. Tyldesley, Hatchepsut. The Female Pharaoh (Harmondsworth1996).

L. Ungaro and M. Milella, eds., I luoghi del consenso imperiale.Il Foro di Augusto, Il Foro di Traiano (Rome 1995).

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits304

A. M. Vaccaro and A.M. Sommella, eds. Marco Aurelio. Storiadi un monumento e del suo restauro (Milan 1989).

P. Valesio, Ascoltare il silenzio: la retorica come teoria (Bologna1986).

C. Van Siclen, “New Data on the Date of the Defacementof Hatchepsut’s Name and Image on the ChapelleRouge,” Göttinger Miszellen 107 (1989).

E. de Grazia Vanderpool, “Fathers and Daughters: Juliaf. Augusti,” AJA 99 (1994) 285.

E. Van ’t Dack, “La papyrologie et l’histoire du Haut-Empire: Les formulae” des empereurs,” ANRW 2.1(Berlin 1974) 857-88.

E.R. Varner, “Condemnation in Crisis: Three Portraits ofSeverus Alexander and Damnatio Memoriae in the LateSeveran Period,” AJA 96 (1992) 350.

——, “Domitia Longina and the Politics of Portraiture,”AJA 99 (1995) 187-206.

——, ed. Tyranny and Transformation in Roman Portraiture(Atlanta 2000).

——, “Portraits, Plots and Politics: Damnatio Memoriae andthe Images of Imperial Women,” MAAR 46 (2001a)41-93.

——,”Punishment after Death: Mutilation of Images andCorpse Abuse in Ancient Rome,” Mortality 6 (2001b)45-64.

V.P. Vasilev, “Untersuchungen zu Bronzekopf Gordian IIIaus Nicopolis ad Istrum,” Ritratto Ufficiale e RitrattoPrivato. Atti della II Conferenza Internazionale sul RitrattoRomano (Rome 1988) 541-6.

C.C. Vermeule, rev. C. Caprino, A.M. Collini, G. Gatti,M. Pallottino, and P. Romanelli (1955), AJA 60(1956) 315-8.

——, “Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues,” Berytus13 (1959) 3-82.

——, “Roman Cuirassed Statues. A Supplement,” Berytus15 (1964) 95-109.

——, Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor (Cambridge,Mass 1967).

——, “Commodus, Caracalla, and the Tetrarchs: RomanEmperors as Hercules,” Festschrift für F. Brommer (Mainz1977) 289-94.

——, Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues (Boston 1980a).——, Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues. Concordance of

Greek and Roman Cuirass Statues in Marble and Bronze(Boston 1980b).

——, Greek and Roman Sculpture in America (Berkeley 1981).——, Rev. C. Maderna (1988), AJA 93 (1989) 619.H. Vetters, “Domitianterasse und Domitiangerasse,” JÖAI

50 (1972-75) 59-60.K. Vierneisal and P. Zanker, Die Bildnisse des Augustus

(Munich 1979).M. Vilimkova, Roman Art in Africa (London 1963) .M.P. Vinson, “Domitia Longina, Julia Titi, and the Literary

Tradition,” Historia 38 (1989) 431-51.C. Visconti, Catalogo del Museo Torlonia (Rome 1883).—, I monumenti del Museo Torlonia (Rome).P.E. Visconti “Commodo rappresentato come Ercole

Romano, busto sino al torace,” BullCom 3 (1875) 3-15.

F. Vittinghoff, Der Staatsfeind in der römischen Kaiserzeit:Untersuchungen zur damnatio memoriae (Berlin 1936).

J. L. Voisin, “Les Romains, chasseurs des tetes,” Du châtiment

dans la cité. Supplices corporels et peine de mort dans le mondeantique (Collection de L’École Française de Rome 79, Rome1984) 241-93.

W.F. Volbach, Frühchristliche Kunst (Munich 1958).M.L. Vollenweider, “Portrait glyptique à l’époque des

Antonins et des Sévères,” Ritratto Ufficiale e RitrattoPrivato. Atti della II Conferenza Internazionale sul RitrattoRomano, N. Bonacasa and G. Rizzo, eds., (Rome 1988)87-104.

J. Wagner, “Provincia Osrhoenae: new archaeological findsillustrating the military organization under the Severandynasty,” Armies and Frontiers in Roman and ByzantineTripolitania S. Mitchell, ed., (BAR S156 Oxford 1983)103-30.

S. Walker, “The Imperial Family as Seen in Cyrene,” LibyanStudies 25 (1994) 167-84.

—— and P. Higgs, eds., Cleopatra. Regina d’Egitto (Milan2000).

C. Walters, “The ‘dextrarum iunctio’ of Leptis Magna inRelationship to the Iconography of Marriage,” AntAfr14 (1979) 271-83.

D. Wardle, Suetonius Life of Caligula. A Commentary (CollLatomus225, Brussels 1994).

A.E. Wardman, “Description of Personal Appearance inPlutarch and Suetonius: the Use of the Statues asEvidence,” CQ n.s. 17 (1967) 414-20.

——, “Usurpers and Internal Conflicts in the FourthCentury A.D.,” Historia 33 (1984) 220-37.

J.B. Ward-Perkins, “Severan Art and Architecture at LepcisMagna,” JRS 38 (1948) 59-80.

——, “The Art of the Severan Age in the Light of theTripolitanian Discoveries,” ProcBritAc 37 (1951) 269-304.

K.H. Waters, “The Character of Domitian,” Phoenix 18(1964) 49- 77.

——, “Traianus Domitiani Continuator,” AJP 90 (1969)385-405.

M. Wegner, “Bemerkungen zu den Ehrendenkmälern desMarcus Aurelius,” AA 53 (1938) 155-91.

——, Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit (Das römischeHerrscherbild 2.4, Berlin 1939).

——, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann, Die Flavier (Dasrömische Herrscherbild 2.1, Berlin 1966).

——, J. Bracker, and W. Real, Gordianus III bis Carinus, (Dasrömische Herrscherbild 3.3, Berlin 1979).

—— and R. Unger, “Verzeichnis der Kaiserbildnisse vonAntoninus Pius bis Commodus II,” Boreas 3 (1980) 12-116.

T. Weiss, ed. Von der Schönheit weissen Marmors. Zum 200.Todestag Bartolomeo Cavaceppis (Mainz 1999).

K. Weitzmann, ed., The Age of Spirituality (New York 1979).C. Wells, The Roman Empire (London 1992).D.A. Wend, “A Bronze Head of Domitian in the Museum

of Lyon,” Antipolis 1 (1976) 111-14.H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner, Caracalla bis Balbinus, Das

römische Herrscherbild, 3.1 (Berlin 1971).L.M. Wilson, The Clothing of the Ancient Romans (Baltimore

1938).R. Winkes, Livia Octavia Julia. Porträts und Darstellung (Louvain

1995).H.E. Winlock, “The Egyptian Expedition 1925-27,” BMMA

23 (1928) 1-75.

select bibliography 305

——, “The Egyptian Expedition 1927-28,” BMMA 23(1928) 1-28.

I. J. Winter, “Art in Empire: The Royal Image and theVisual Dimensions of Assyrian Ideology,” Assyria 1995S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting, eds. (Helsinki 1997)359-81.

T.P. Wiseman, “Conspicui postes tectaque digna deo: The PublicImage of Aristocratic and Imperial Houses in the LateRepublic and Early Empire,” L’Urbs: Espace urbain ethistoire (Iersiècle av. J.C.-III siècle ap. J.C. (Collection del’Ecole Française de Rome 98, 1987) 393-413.

——, “Killing Caligula,” Pegasus 31 (1988) 2-9.S. Wood, “Subject and Artist. Studies in Roman Portraiture

of the Third Century,” AJA 85 (1981) 59-68.——, “A Too Successful Damnatio Memoriae: Problems in

Third Century Roman Portraiture,” AJA 87 (1983)489-96.

——, Roman Portrait Sculpture 217-260 A.D. (Leiden 1986).——, “Child Emperors and Heirs to Power in Third-

Century Portraiture,” Ancient Portraits in the J. Paul GettyMuseum 1 (Malibu 1987) 115-36.

——, “Memoriae Agrippinae: Agrippina the Elder in Julio-Claudian Art and Propaganda,” AJA 92 (1988) 409-26.

——, “Messalina, Wife of Claudius: Propaganda Successesand Failures of the Reign,” JRA 5 (1992) 219-34.

——, “Diva Drusilla Panthea and the Sisters of Caligula,”AJA 99 (1995) 457-82.

——, “Forgotten Women in the Imperial Portrait Groupfrom Béziers,” ArchNews 21-22 (1996-97) 1-19.

——, Imperial Women. A Study in Public Images, 40 B.C. - A.D.68 (Leiden 1999).

S. Woodford, “The Iconography of the Infant HeraklesStrangling Snakes,” Image et céramique gréque, Actes duColloque de Rouen 25-26 nov. 1982 (Rouen 1983).

D. Wright, “The True Face of Constantine the Great,” DOP41 (1987) 43-94.

R. Wünsche, “Bildnisbüste des Kaiser Alexander Severus,”MüJb 40 (1989) 238-39.

F. Yegul, “A Roman Lady from a Southern CaliforniaCollection,” GettyMusJ 9 (1981) 63-68.

J. E. Young, “The Biography of a Memorial Icon: NathanRapoport’s Warsaw Ghetto Monument,” Representations26 (1989) 69-106.

R. Zahn, “Otho, Nero und Poppaea auf einer Karneol-gemme,” FuB 14 (1972) 173-81.

P. Zanker, “Herrscherbild und Zeitgesicht,” WissenschlaftlicheZeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Ges.-Sprachw.R. 31 (1982).

——, Provinzielle Kaiserporträts. Zur Rezeption de Selbstdarstellungdes Princeps (AbhMünchen N.F. 90, Munich 1983).

——, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor1988).

V. Zedelius, “Nero Calvus? Antike Veränderungen anBronzemünzen des Kaisers Nero,” Das Rhein.Landesmuseum Bonn 2 (1979) 20-21.

G. Zedler, De memoriae damnatione quae dicitur (diss. Leipzig1885).

F. Zevi, “The Equestrian Statue of Nerva from Miseno,”The Horses of San Marco (Venice 1979) 44-47.

catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits306

general index 307

INDEX OF MUSEUMS AND COLLECTIONS

Alexandria, Museuminv. 23862 (Crispina) 153inv. 24043 (Nero/Augustus) 61-62, n. 137, 64, 238inv. 26958 (Nero/Titus) 56, 246, 64

Alexandria, Société Archéologique d’Alexandrie(M. Antonius?) 18

Algiers, Museum(Caligula/deity) 34, 66, 236(Julia Livilla) 102, n. 167

Anacapri, Museo della Torre(Domitian) 113-14, 260

Antioch, Museum(Soldier Emperor/Valerian?) 209-210

Aphrodisias,66-27, 67-282-85, 71-477(2.11) (Domitian) 7, n. 43,

134-135Aeneas 73Nero 74Nero and Agrippina 5, n. 26, 72, n. 220, 73-74, 97,

164, 194Nero and Armenia 74

Aquileia, Museo Archeologico(Livilla) 94, n. 101inv. 12 (Nero/Augustus) 61, n. 137, 238inv. 108 (Caligula/Claudius) 29, 61, 229inv. 128 (Caligula) 24, 44, 114, 225

Arles, Musée Lapidaire(Constantinian female) 223, n. 73

Arles, Musée RéattuCellar Depot (Caligula/Titus) 34, 235-236

Athens, Akropolis MuseumGL 1037 (erased plaque of Megakles) 14, n. 89

Athens, National Museuminv. 345 (Domitian) 130inv. 348 (Caligula/Titus) 34, 236inv. 3590 (Caligula) 39-40inv. X23322 (Augustus) 120, n. 66

Atlanta, Emory University, Michael C. CarlosMuseum

inv. 2003.25.2 (Geta/Victoria, Caracalla,and Septimius Severus) 77, 172, 277-278

Baghdad, Museum(mutilated bronze Akkadian head) 12, n. 70

Baia, Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei nelCastello di Baia

(Claudia Octavia) 100inv. 155743 (Domitian/Nerva) 114, 120-122, 190,

261-262, 280

Baltimore, Walters Art Museuminv. 23.104 (Nero) 5, n. 28, 70inv. 23.105 (Augustus) 70, n. 208inv. 23.118 (Nero/Claudius) 63, 240inv. 23.119 (Nero/Vespasian) 53, 240-241inv. 23.190 (Julio Claudian prince) 70

Barcelona, Museo de la Historia de la Ciuidadinv. 7440 (Claudia Octavia?) 101

Belgrade, City Museuminv. 2636 (Macrinus) 187, 197, 208

Berlin, PergamonmuseumSK 887, no. 127 (Puteoli Relief) 133

Berlin, Schloss Klein-Glienickeinv. GI 324 (Domitian/Nerva) 115-116, 262

Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Antiken-Abteilung(Crispina) 153368 (Neronian cuirass) 7211096 (Livilla) 94, n. 102, 95inv. 423 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92inv. 1802 (Julia Livilla) 102, n. 167inv. 4132 (Tetrarchic male) 221inv. 4694 (Crispus?) 222inv. 31.329 (Septimius Severus,

Julia Domna, Caracalla, and Geta) 181-182, 199inv. 1965.10 (Caligula/Claudius) 27, 229-30inv. 1976.10 (Cleopatra VII) 20inv. 1983.11 (Nero/Trajan) 63, 64, 254inv. 30219.710 (Nero) 76inv. R 28 (351)(Domitian) 128inv. SK 157 (Genius of Caligula) 44

Bloomington, Indiana University Art Museuminv. 47401 (Clodius Albinus) 160

Bochum, Kunstsammlungen der Ruhr-Universität(Julia Mammaea) 9, n. 57, 198, 282(Severus Alexander) 9, n. 57, 197, 204, 208, 213,

281, 285

Bonn, Akademischen Kunstmuseum(Elagabalus) 194

Bonn, Private Collections(Nero) 76(Diva Poppaea) 84, 187

index of museums and collections308

Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum( Julia?, Gaius?, and Lucius?) (scabbard) 87inv. 32300 (Macrinus and Diadumenianus) 84, n. 352,

186-187, 278

Boston, Museum of Fine Artsinv. 59.51 (Ptolemy X/Ptolemy IX) 15-16inv. 88.639 (Nero/Domitian) 59, 126, 248inv. 89.6 (Domitian/Constantinian Emperor) 124, 269inv. 98.768 (Nero) 55, 241inv. 99.346 (Domitianic cuirass) 130-131inv. 1988.327 (private Flavian/Trajanic female) 4,

n. 23

Brooklyn, Museum21..479.12 (Caligula) 37

Brussels, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’HistoireA 3558 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92E 1839 (Ptolemy VII Euergetes II Physkon) 49, n. 29

Budapest, Szépmüvészeti Múzeuminv. 3942 (private portrait) 64, n. 162

Cagliari, Museo Nazionaleinv. 6122 (Nero) 49-50, 114, 237inv. 35533 (Nero) 48, 69

Cairo, Egyptian Museum13/3/15/3 (M. Antonius?) 18JE 42891 (M. Antonius?) 18

Caltanisetta, Museo Civico(Geta) 174

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum(Livilla) 94, n. 101GR 14.1850 (Domitian) 128

Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University, ArthurM. Sackler Museum

inv. 1949.47.138 (Macrinus) 150, 186, 202, 278

Castel Gandalfo, Villa Barberini, Antiquario(Domitian) 113, 260

Castel Howard(Crispina) 152, 273(Gallienus) 211, n. 92(Geta) 173(Nero/Titus) 56, 246

Catania, Museo Communale226 (Geta) 174

Chatsworth House(Domitian) 128

Cherchel, Museum(Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103inv. S 66 (Cleopatra VII) 20

Chieti, Museo Nazionaleinv. 4296 (Tetrarchic male) 221

Cleveland, Art Museuminv. 29.439a (Nero/Vespasian) 53, 241

Cologne, CathedralDreikönigenschrein I B a 17 (Nero and Agrippina)

73, n. 237, 76, 97

Cologne, Römisch-Germanisches Museum(Nero/Domitian) 59-60, 126, 248inv. 564 (Agrippina Minor) 99, n. 141, 100, n. 152

Columbia, University of Missouri, Museum ofArt and Archaeology

62.46 (Nero/Gallienus) 64, 255

Condeixa-a-Nova, Museo Monográfico deConimbriga

inv. 67.388 (Caligula/Augustus) 33, 225-26

Constantine, Musée Gustave Mercier(Domitian) 129

Content Collection(Nero) 76

Copenhagen, National Museuminv. 3425 (Nero/Vespasian) 53, 242

Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg GlyptotekAE.I.N 1776 (relief of Meretaten orAnkhesenpaaten) 13, ns. 82, 84AE.I.N. 1797 (relief of Meretaten orAnkhesenpaaten) 13, n. 82457, inv. 788 (Pupienus) 139, n. 36463, inv. 1979 (Nero/Vespasian) 53, 242542, inv. 1454 (Domitian/Nerva) 115-116, 262611, inv. 746 (Caligula/Augustus) 30, n. 74, 33, 226628, inv. 750 (Nero) 68-69634, inv. 753 (Agrippina Minor) 99655a, inv. 3167 (Vitellius) 109637a, inv. 2687 (Caligula) 23, n. 20, 36-37, 233664, inv. 768 (Domitian) 6, n. 32, 129-30664a, inv. 1843 (Nero/Titus) 56, 246668, inv. 772 (Nerva) 115, n. 36701, inv. 1471 (Marcus Aurelius) 142725, inv. 801 (Crispina) 153744, inv. 818 (Maximinus Thrax) 202, 283744a, inv. 3147 (Constantine) 287745, inv. 819 (Maximus) 202-203, 284746, inv. 823 (Maximus) 202-203, 285756a, inv. 2073 (Elagabalus) 192-193759, inv. 826 (Maximus) 203767b, inv. 3398 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92768, inv. 832 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92771b, inv. 2691 (fourth century male) 214, n. 7

Corinth(Domitian/Trajan?) 122, n. 84

Cos, Museum(Crispina) 153inv. 4510 (Nero) 49, 50, 114, 171, 186, 237

Cuenca, Museo Arquelógico Provincial el Almudi(Caligula/Augustus) 33, 226

Cyrene, Museuminv. C 170008 (Crispina) 153

index of museums and collections 309

Detroit, Institute of Arts69.218 (Nero) 67

Deva, Museuminv. 19.903 (Trajan Decius) 208

Dresden, Albertinum, Skulpturensammlung(Lucilla) 151352 (Drusilla) 96, n. 119358 (Messalina) 96, 258406 (Maxentius) 219, 220

Durres, Museuminv. 4415 (Neronian cuirass) 72

Ephesus, Museuminv. 670 (Domitian) 128-129

Fano, Museo Civico(Caligula/Claudius) 27, 32, 230

Florence, Galleria degli Uffiziinv. 1914.13 (Crispina) 152, 273inv. 1914.111 (modern Otho) 108, n. 32inv. 1914.112 (modern Nero) 68, n. 189, 82inv. 1914.123 (modern Nero) 82inv. 1914.126 (Nero/Titus) 56, 246-47inv. 1914.130 (Domitian) 127-128inv. 1914.132 (Nerva) 115, n. 36inv. 1914.171 (Lucilla/Helena) 5, n. 20, 97, 150-151,

154, 272inv. 1914.195 (Commodus) 148inv. 1914.271 (Otacilia Severa) 207

Florence, Loggia dei Lanzi(mother of Trajan?) 99, n. 141

Florence, Museo Archeologicoinv. 13791 (Geta) 174inv. 14013 (Trajan Decius) 208inv. 14519 (Diva Poppaea) 84inv. 14539 (Caligula) 40inv. 14540 (Caligula) 40inv. 14543 (Galba) 63, n. 155, 107inv. 14656 (Galba) 63, n. 155, 107

Florence, Palazzo Pitti, Museo degli Argentiinv. 1036 (Geta) 171, 183, 186, 276

Florence, Villa del Poggio Imperiale(Geta) 170-171, 186, 276

Fossombrone, Museo(Caligula) 23, n. 20, 38

Frankfurt, Liebieghaus(Caligula/Tiberius) 33, 229

Gannet, Eglise Ste. Croix(Elagabalus) 194

Geneva, Musée d’Art et Histoireinv. 224 (Nero) 76inv. C 186 (Nero) 69inv. MF 1347 (Geta) 174

Genoa-Pegli, Museoinv. 609 (Diva Drusilla?) 43inv. 614 (Caligula) 7, n. 43, 43, 225

Gortyna, Antiquarium(Caligula) 7, n. 43, 43

Gotha, Landesmuseum(Elagabalus) 193

Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte dellaMaremma

(Antonia Minor) 80(Britannicus) 80, 99(Claudia Octavia) 80, 99, 101(Diva Drusilla) 80, 99, 231(Diva Livia) 80, 231(Divus Augustus) 80(Drusus Caesar) 80, 91, n. 72, 99(Julia Livilla) 80, 99(Nero) 7, n. 43, 80(Nero Caesar) 80, 99, 91, n. 72(Nero/Vespasian) 53-54, 242, 244(Neronian cuirass) 72, 80inv. 97740 (Julia Livilla) 102, n. 167inv. 97765 (Caligula/Claudius) 28-29, 80, 230-231inv. 97766 (Divus Claudius) 80, 231inv. 1729148 (Agrippina Maior) 91, n. 66

Guelma, Musée Archéologique(Geta) 171, 186, 276-277M 396 (Lucilla) 149-150, 170, 171, 186, 271

Hamburg, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbeinv. 1971.3 (Geta) 174-175

Hannover, Kestnermuseum(Macrinus, Caracalla and Julia Domna) 187(Vitellius/Vespasian) 109, 259inv. 1979.1 (Maxentius) 219

Hannover, Sammlung des Herzogs vonBraunschweig

(Nero/private individual?) 65, 66, 256(Nero/Titus) 56, 247

Hannover, Private Collection(private portrait) 64, n. 162

Heraklion, Archaeological Museumno. 64 (Caligula) 7, n. 43, 42no. 65 (Tiberius) 42no. 66 (Livia) 42no. 67 (Gaius Caesar) 42

Holkham Hall(Domitian/Nerva) 116, 262-263

Hope Collection(formerly, Antoninus Pius) 206

Houston, Museum of Fine Artinv. 70-39 (Plautilla) 165-166, 188, 275

Huelva, Museo Provinical(Caligula) 6, n. 32, 38-9, 126, 159

index of museums and collections310

Iesi, Palazzo della Signoria(Caligula) 7, n. 43, 42

Ionides Collection(Caligula) 40

Irvine, Private Collection(Plautilla/Tetrarchic orConstantinian Empress) 166-167, 276-277

Istanbul, Museuminv. 87 (Caligula/Claudius) 30, 231inv. 584 (Nero) 71-72inv. 4038 (Lucilla) 151inv. 4648 (Caligula/Claudius) 30, 231-232

Izmir, Museuminv. 3694 (Lucilla) 150, 170, 186, 271-272

Kansas City, Nelson Atkins Museum45-66 (Elagabalus/Severus Alexander) 11, n. 64, 192,

279

Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum(Domitian) 132

Kephallenia, Museum(Gallienus) 211

Kotor, Lapidarium(Domitian) 129

Lagos, Museo Regionalinv. 1418 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92

Larissa, Archaeological Museuminv. 802 + 815 (Domitian/Trajan?) 122, n. 84

Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudhedeninv. I 1961.63 (Tetrarchic male) 221

Leipzig, Archäologisches Institut derUniversität

(Domitian/Nerva) (now destroyed) 116-117, 263

Lisbon, Museu Nacional de Arquelogia eEtnologia

inv. 21520 A (Caligula/Augustus) 33, 226

London, British Museum1890 (Nero/Vespasian) 53, 2431895 (Domitianic cuirass) 130-1311912 (Lucilla) 1511805.7-3.246 (modern Nero recut from Hadrian) 82-

8372.6-4.1420 (Livilla) 94, n. 1011923.4-1.946 (3434) (Livilla) 94, n. 1011972.1-26.1 (PS 284008) (Caligula) 413600, inv. 68.5-20.2 (Nero) 763618 (Nero) 763621, inv. RPK 21 (Nero) 76Blacas 497 (Nero) 76-77PRB 1870.2-24.2 (Germanicus) 40PRB 1965.12-1.1 (Nero) 72-3, 130

Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum71 11 436 (Domitianic cuirass) 130-13172 AA 118 (Plautilla) 166, n. 90, 167

72 AA 155 (Caligula) 36-37, 22574 AA 37 (Galba) 10675 AA 26 (Domitian) 13076 AA 72 (Domitian) 12978 AA 261 (Caligula/Augustus) 32, 33, 226-22779 AB 120 (Philip Minor) 206-207, 20883 AA 43 (Domitian/Nerva) 118, 26383 AA 205 (Ptolemy VIII) 49, n. 2983 AA 330 (Ptolemy X/Ptolemy IX) 16

Los Angeles, Private Collection(Didius Julianus) 159

Lucera, Museo Civicoinv. 25 (Nero/Domitian/Nerva?) 117

Lucus Feroniae, Magazzini(Nero/Vespasian) 10, n. 58, 50-51, 243

Luni, AntiquarioCM 1033 (Nero/Augustus) 61, n. 137, 62-63, 119, 239

Madrid, Museo Arqueológicoinv. 2770 (Nero/Domitian) 60, 126, 249

Madrid, Pradoinv. 125 E (Constantine) 124inv. 187 E (Clodius Albinus) 160inv. 197 E (Geta) 174inv. 321 E (Nero/Domitian) 59, 126, 249

Mainz, Romanisch-Germanisches ZentralMuseum

B 30431 (Caligula) 41

Málaga, Museo Arqueológico Provincialinv. 553 (Caligula) 39-40

Malta, La Valetta(Julia Livilla) 102, n. 167

Mantua, Palazzo Ducale(Caligula/Claudius) 30, 232(Commodus/Pupienus) 139-140, 270-271(Domitian) 129(Nero) 69inv. 6615 (Caligula/Augustus) 32, 227inv. 6916 (Clodius Albinus) 160

Marna di Ascea, Soprintendenza Archeologicainv. 3994 (17486) (Nero Caesar) 91, n. 72

Merida, Museo Arqueologicoinv. 1.138 (Domitianic cuirass) 130-31

Miho, Museum(Tiye/Arsinoe II) 14, n. 87

Minden, Domschatz(Nero/Domitian) 60, 132, 249

Modena, Palazzo Ducale(modern Nero) 68, n. 189, 82

Munich, Glyptothek316 (Drusilla) 69, n.119321 (Nero) 68-69, 247, 248352 (Geta) 173-174

index of museums and collections 311

354 (Severan female) 206360 (Philip Minor) 206-207394 (formerly 249) (Nero/Domitian) 58-59, 67, 125,

131, 249-250418 (Nero/Domitian) 59, 126, 250550 (Severus Alexander) 281

Munich, Residenzinv. 85 (Julia Livilla) 102inv. 86 (Lucilla) 151inv. 157 (Domitian) 129inv. 271 (Geta) 174

Munigua, Museo(Domitian) 6, n. 32, 126, 159

Nancy, Bibliothèque Publique(Nero) 76

Naples, Antiquario Flegreono. 68 (Caligula) 23, n. 20

Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologicoinv. 11021 (Galba) 107inv. 4996 (Alexander) 121, n. 68inv. 5593 (Claudius) 33, n. 89inv. 5609 (Agrippina) 99inv. 5612 (Agrippina) 99inv. 5907 (Nero/Domitian) 60, 126, 250inv. 5993 (Elagabalus/Severus Alexander) 121, n. 70,

190-191, 276, 279-280inv. 6058 (Domitian) 128inv. 6061 (Nero/Domitian) 60, 126, 250-251inv. 6189 (1057) (Plautilla) 167inv. 6242 (Messalina/Agrippina Minor) 97, 257-58inv. 110127 (Galba) 106inv. 150-215 (Caligula/Claudius) 30, 232inv. 150-216 (Domitian) 127-128inv. 150-226 (Caligula) 35

New Haven, Yale University Art Galleryinv. 1961.30 (Nero/private individual?) 65-66, 256inv. 1987.70.1 (Caligula) 23, n. 20, 36-37

New York, Hispanic Society(Drusilla) 43

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art05.50 (Trebonianus Gallus) 208-20911.195.7 (Caligula) 4014.37 (Caligula) 23, n. 20, 36-723.162.23 (Caligula) 3725.78.35 (Caligula) 3726.229 (Constantine) 28740.143 (Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, Caracalla and

Geta) 170, 18341.160.762 (Nero) 76-7767.107 (Constantinian Emperor) 124, n. 95, 1661985.328.8 (relief of Meretaten or Ankhesenpaaten)

13, n. 83

New York, White-Levy CollectionCaligula 39, 45, 130, 230Caligula/Claudius Gothicus 5, n. 30, 6, n. 32, 34

Newby Hall(Elagabalus/Antonine female) 193

Olympia, Archeological Museum126 (Nero/Titus) 56, 57, 247A 129 (Domitian/Trajan) 122, 267125 (Claudius) 33, n. 89, 56

Osimo, Commune(Domitianic cuirass) 114

Oslo, Nasjonalgallerietinv. 1154 (Domitian/Trajan) 123, 267inv. 1248 (Nero) 57, n. 110, , 248inv. 1433 (Geta) 5, n. 28, 173, 192inv. 1434 (Elagabalus) 5, n. 28, 173, 192

Oslo, Private Collection(Pupienus) 139, n. 36

Ostia, Museoinv. 14 (Domitian/Trajan) 123, 267inv. 19 (Domitian) 127, 130, n. 156inv. 24 (Domitian/Trajan) 122-123, 267-268inv. 26 (Julia Mammaea) 5, n. 26; 9, n. 57, 197, 282inv. 27 (Lucilla) 151inv. 45 (Crispus?) 221-222inv. 270 (Commodus) 147inv. 282 (Geta) 175inv. 446 (Otho) 6, n. 32, 107-108, 259inv. 452 (Crispina) 152, 273inv. 1123 (Annia Fundania Faustina) 153-154, 171,

274inv. 1128 (Commodus) 148inv. 1129 (Philip Minor) 206inv. 1844 (fourth century male) 214, n. 7inv. 1954 (Crispina) 153, 273-274

Oxford, Ashmolean1917.67 (Agrippina Minor) 205

Padua, Museo Civicoinv. 819 (Nero/Augustus) 61, 239

Palermo, Museo Nazionaleinv. 705(Julia Livilla) 94, 102, n. 167

Palestrina, Museo Archeologico Nazionaleinv. 23555 (Divus Augustus) 31, n.78

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet desMédailles

(Domitian/4th century emperor) 125, 269(Geta) 183(Geta) 18317 (Nero) 76-7721 (Claudia Octavia?) 101, n. 15526 (Domitian) 131128 (Domitian) 131131 (Livilla) 94, n. 101238 (Nero/Antinous) 63-64, 254-255242 (Livilla) 94, n. 101243 (Livilla) 94, n. 101, 95244 (Livilla) 94, n. 101251 (Nero/Galba) 63, 106-107, 240260 (Antonia Minor) 94, n. 101

index of museums and collections312

261 (Antonia Minor) 94, n.101264 (Grand Camée de France) 75-76, 92-93, n. 82,

94, n. 102276 (Agrippina and Nero) 76287 (Nero) 82300 (Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, Caracalla, and

Geta) 183301 (Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta) 183304 (Elagabalus) 194B 11318 (Domitian) 131-132

Paris, Musée du Louvre“Crown of Charlemagne”(Elagabalus) 194A 35 (N.36) (Domitian) 129MA 512 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92MA 849 (Ptolemy I Soter) 49, n. 29MA 1020 (Pupienus) 139, n. 36MA 1044 (Maximinus Thrax) 201-202, 206, 283MA 1076 (Geta) 170, n. 122, 173MA 1077 (Elagabalus) 192MA 1109 (Julia Domna) 173MA 1118 (Septimius Severus) 173MA 1138 (Crispina) 153MA 1150 (Domitianic cuirass) 130-131MA 1154 (Domitianic cuirass) 130-31MA 1169 (Lucius Verus) 62, n. 149MA 1171 (Lucilla) 151MA 1180 (Antoninus Pius) 62, n. 149MA 1210 (Nero) 67MA 1215 (Diomedes body) 59, n. 118MA 1219 (Caligula/Augustus) 30, 232MA 1222 (modern Nero) 82MA 1223 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92MA 1234 (Caligula) 36-7MA 1246 (Augustus) 31, n. 81MA 1251 (Diomedes body) 59, n. 118MA 1267 (Caligula) 36MA 1887 (Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103MA 1888 (Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103MA 2315 (Geta) 174MA 3183 (Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103MA 3449 (Ptolemy VIII) 49, n. 29MA 3528 (Nero) 73MA 3552 (Julia Mammaea) 9, n. 57, 197-198, 282MA 3562 (Nero/Titus) 56, 246, 2473384 (Neronian cuirass) 72

Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichitàinv. 146 (1870), 830 (1952) (Messalina/Agrippina Mi-

nor) 32, n. 84, 79-80, 96-7, 258inv. 146* (1870), 827 (1954)(Nero/Domitian/Nerva) 9,

58, 117, 251, 263-64,inv. 280 (1870), 834 (1952) (Caligula/Claudius) 32, n.

84, 38, 79-80, 232-233, 258, 276inv. 826 (Nero) 7, n. 43inv. 828 (Agrippina Maior) 91, n. 66

Pegli, Museo Civico(Geta) 170, 174

Pergamum(Domitian) (now lost) 129

Perugia, Museo(Caligula/Claudius) 30, 233

Petworth House(Crispina) 153(Otacilia Severa) 207no. 37 (Clodius Albinus) 160

Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Museuminv. MS4916 (Domitianic inscription) 133

Phillipi, Museuminv. 469 (Commodus) 138-139, 171, 186, 270

Piraeus, Museum(Balbinus) 204125 A (Pupienus) 204

Princeton, The Art Museum, Princeton Universityloan (Caligula) 41inv. 84-2 (Domitianic cuirass) 114

Richmond, Virginia Art Museumacc. no. 71-20 (Caligula) 35-6, 225

Rome, Antiquario sul Celio(Commodus) 138, 270

Rome, Art Market(Domitianic cuirass) 114

Rome, Domus Aurea, Magazzini(Crispina) 152, 274

Rome, Mercati Traianei, Magazzini(Mother of Trajan?) 99, n. 141inv. 98 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92

Rome, Museo Capitolino(“Annius Verus”) 141(equestrian Marcus Aurelius) 120, n. 66inv. 106 (Magazzini) (Valeria Maximilla) 220, 288inv. 230 (Scala 7) (Caligula/Augustus) 31, 33, 227inv. 250 (Galleria 56) (Faustina Minor) 141inv. 276 (Stanza degli Imperatori 22) (Trajan) 130,

n. 156inv. 360 (Stanza degli Imperatori 57) (Gallienus) 211,

n. 92inv. 417 (Stanza degli Imperatori) (Domitian/Nerva)

116, 264inv. 418 (Stanza degli Imperatori 4) (Nero) 48, n. 24,

68-69inv. 421 (Stanza degli Imperatori 7) (Agrippina Maior)

91, n. 66inv. 426 (Stanza degli Imperatori) (modern Nero) 82inv. 427 (Stanza degli Imperatori 14) (Nero/Domitian)

59, 114, 251inv. 430 (Stanza degli Imperatori 19) (“Otho”) 107,

n. 27inv. 434 (Stanza degli Imperatori 15) (Busto Fonseca)

59, n. 125inv. 445 (Stanza degli Imperatori 30) (Commodus)

138, 270inv. 446 (Stanza degli Imperatori 26) (Antoninus Pius)

141

index of museums and collections 313

inv. 447 (Stanza degli Imperatori 27) (Faustina Maior)141

inv. 450 (Stanza degli Imperatori 29) (Marcus Aurelius)141

inv. 452 (Stanza degli Imperatori 31) (Lucius Verus)141

inv. 454 (Stanza degli Imperatori 60) (Commodus) 141inv. 460 (Stanza degli Imperatori 36) (Macrinus) 160,

n. 38, 186, 278inv. 463 (Stanza degli Imperatori 37) (Clodius Albinus)

160inv. 468 (Stanza degli Imperatori 41) (Geta) 173inv. 470 (Stanza degli Imperatori 55) (Elagabalus) 191,

192-193inv. 473 (Stanza degli Imperatori 46) (Maximinus Thrax)

201, 283inv. 477 (Stanza degli Imperatori 50) (Pupienus) 139,

n. 34inv. 481 (Stanza degli Imperatori) (Nigrinianus?) 212,

n. 100inv. 482 (Stanza degli Imperatori 52) (Trajan Decius)

208inv. 490 (Stanza degli Imperatori 53) (Gordian III)

172, n. 141inv. 496 (Stanza degli Imperatori 59) (Lucilla/Helena)

5, n. 20, 97, 150-151, 154, 273inv. 660 (Salone 40) (Geta) 173inv. 675 (Salone 51)(Geta/Mid Third Century Portrait)

172, 278inv. 1431 (Magazzini) (Severus Alexander) 9, n. 57,

196 281inv. 1769 (Stanza terrena a destra I.25) (Maxentius/

Constantine) 218, 286inv. 2106/S (Magazzini) (Crispina) 153, 274inv. 2519 (Magazzini) (Geta) 171, 277inv. 2572 (Magazzini) (Gallienus) 211, n. 92 without

inventory number (Magazzino di Via Portico d’Ot-tavia) (Elagabalus) 193

Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano(Julia) (lead tessera) 87inv. 88 (Geta) 173inv. 226 (Nero/Domitian) 59, 126, 141, n. 48, 212,

n. 99, 250, 251-252, 264inv. 1224 (Crispina) 153inv. 38795 (Nero/Vespasian) 10, n. 59, 54, 243inv. 56128 (Commodus) 147inv. 61160 (Domitian/Trajan) 123, 268inv. 72147 (Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, Caracalla,

and Geta) 170inv. 124492 (Severus Alexander) 196, 281inv. 126279 (Nero/Constantinian Emperor) 64-65,

255Palazzo Massimo alle Termeinv. 53 (Nero/Vespasian) 54, 243-244inv. 318 (Domitian/Nerva) 116, 264-265inv. 326 (Gordian III) 191inv. 329 (Elagabalus/Severus Alexander) 191, 280inv. 620 (Julia Livilla) 102, n. 167inv. 644 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92inv. 4256 (Caligula) 6, n. 32, 39, 45, 130inv. 108601 (Crispina) 153

inv. 115191 (Domitian) 129-30inv. 121316 (Agrippina Minor) 101, n. 158inv. 124129 (Claudia Octavia?) 101

Rome, Museo Palatinoinv. 616 (ex Terme) (Nero) 48, ns. 24, 25, 61, n. 144,

67-68inv. 618 (ex Terme) (Nero) 57, 64, n. 162, 67-68, 249,

256inv. 52681 (Maximinus Thrax) 201, 284inv. 115176 (Julio-Claudian female portrait) 67

Rome, Museo Torlonia(Plautilla) 166, n. 90, 167(Pompey) 59, n. 118(Pupienus) 139, n. 36570 (Crispina) 153575 (Geta) 174600 (Maxentius) 219603 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92

Rome, Musei VaticaniBiblioteca(porphyry Tetrarchs) 215(Nero) 82inv. 5286 (Caligula) 40Braccio Nuovo26, inv. 2282 (Domitian/Titus) 123-124, 26147, inv. 2265 (Pupienus) 139, n. 3465, inv. 2253 (Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103108, inv. 2225 (Julia Titi) 124124 (formerly 121), inv. 2216(Philip the Arab) 205-206126 (formerly 129) (Nero/Domitian) 57-58, 70, n. 206,

72, 125, 252Cortile Ottagono101a, inv. 975 (Nerva) 115, n. 36, 262Gabinetto delle Maschere429, inv. 816 (Drusilla) 28Galleria Chiaramonti3.13, inv. 1235 (Commodus) 138, 2703.16, inv. 1238 (Geta) 1737.9, inv. 1291 (Nero/Vespasian) 53-54, 242, 2448.1, inv. 1306 (Severan woman as

Venus Anadyomene) 195, n. 33915.8 inv. 1415 (Crispina) 15323.9, inv. 1551 (Geta) 17327.8, inv. 1613 (Commodus/Pupienus?) 139-140, 27131.20, inv. 1687 (Domitian/Titus) 124, 26139.9, inv. 1814 (Messalina) 96, 25847.19, inv. 1981 (fourth century male) 214, n. 7Galleria dei Candelabri4.93, inv. 2622 (Nero Caesar ?) 28Galleria delle Statue248 (Domitianic cuirass) 130-131Galleria Lapidaria29.163, inv. 9330 (funerary altar) 148Ingresso (old)5, inv. 103 102, n. 167Magazziniinv. 151 (Caligula/Claudius) 29, 233inv. 731 (Plautilla) 165-166, 275

index of museums and collections314

Museo Gregoriano ProfanoCancelleria Reliefs 5, 36, n. 115, 60, 114, 119-120,

265inv. 3851 (Cleopatra VII) 20inv. 5065 (no. 644) (Nero/Domitian) 60, 62-3, 119,

126, 252-253inv. 9950 (Claudius) 31, n. 81inv. 9948 (Nero) 71-72inv. 9952 (Drusilla) 97, n. 125inv. 9953 (Caligula/Augustus) 31, 32,228, 45inv. 9961 (Tiberius) 31, n. 81, 32, n. 84inv. 9963 (Nero Caesar) 91, n. 72inv. 10198 (no. 595) (Nero) 68-69inv. 10135 (10075) (no. 651) 188, 279inv. 10217 (fourth century male) 214, n. 7Sala a Croce Greca565, inv. 181 (Augustus) 28, 59, n. 118597, inv. 199 (Gaius Caesar) 28Sala dei Busti274, inv. 715 (Nero/Augustus) 11, n. 63, 61-62, n.

137, 239291, inv. 710 (Didius Julianus) 159300, inv. 687 (Plautilla) 167317, inv. 674 (Domitian/Nerva) 116, 265-266322, inv. 159 (Clodius Albinus) 159352, inv. 637 (Livia) 28361, inv. 632 (Severus Alexander) 191385, inv. 59 (Gaius Caesar/Nero) 48, n. 24, 69-70Sala Rotondano. 548, inv. 246 (Domitian/Nerva) 118, 266no. 550, inv. 243 (Claudius) 33, n. 89, 101, n. 159no. 551, inv. 242 (Caligula/Claudius) 27-29, 32, 45,

167, 233-234

Rome, Palazzo Altieri(Septimius Severus) 160, n. 38

Rome, Palazzo Chigi(formerly, Aelius Caesar?) 206(Hadrian) 206

Rome, Palazzo Colonna(Neronian cuirass) 72Fid. no. 15 (pseudo Vitellius) 110Fid. no. 54 (Nero/Augustus) 61, n. 137, 239-240

Rome, Palazzo CorsiniScalone (modern Nero) 82Scalone (modern Nero) 82

Rome, Palazzo Dei Conservatoriinv. 184 (ex Museo Nuovo, Sala 10.12) (Valerian) 210inv. 235 (ex Palazzo Braschi, Salone; Sala Verde) (Didius

Julianus) 159inv. 404 (Sala dei Capitani) (“Poppaea Albani”) 150inv. 423 (Sala Verde) (Domitian/Nerva) 116, 266inv. 479 (ex Museo Nuovo, Sala 1) (Gordian III) 172,

n. 141inv. 487 (ex Palazzo Braschi; Sala Verde) (Gallienus)

211, n. 92inv. 778 (ex Sala dei Magistrati 6; Centrale Monte-

martini 2.85) (Trajan Decius) 208inv. 843 (ex Sala dei Magistrati; Centrale Montemartini

2.84) (son of Constantine) 124

inv. 850 (ex Sala dei Magistrati 9; Centrale Monte-martin 2.83) (Carinus) 127, n. 126, 212

inv. 995 (ex Sala degli Orti Mecenanziani) (GordianIII) 172, n. 141

inv. 1072 (ex Sala dei Bronzi; Sala degli Orazi e Curiazi)(Constantine) 66, n. 170

inv. 1120 (ex Sala degli Orti Lamiani 12, Sala degliArazzi) (Commodus) 5, n. 28, 127, n. 126, 140-141, 212, n. 99

inv. 1156 (ex Museo Nuovo 7.24;Centrale Montemartini2.76) (Domitian) 126-127, 141, n. 48, 212, n. 99

inv. 1622 (Cortile) (Maxentius/Constantine) 11, 217-218, 286, 287

inv. 1757 (ex Museo Nuovo, Sala 7.21; Centrale Monte-martini 3.82) (Macrinus) 5, n. 28, 149, 161, n. 46,186, 279

inv. 1781 (ex Museo Nuovo, Sala 1.19; Centrale Monte-martini 3.85)

(Lucilla) 5, n. 28, 149, 150, 161, n. 46, 186, 272,279

inv. 1790 (Centrale Montemartini 3.83) (fourth centurymale) 272

inv. 1794 (Centrale Montemartini 3.84) (fourth centurymale) 272

inv. 2171 (ex Sala dei Bronzi; Centrale Montemartini1.25a) (Gaius Caesar) 70

inv. 2302 (Centrale Montemartini 2.96) (private maleportrait) 151, n. 135

inv. 2305 (ex Museo Nuovo, 10; Centrale Montemartini2.89) (Antinous) 151, n. 135

inv. 2309 (ex Museo Nuovo, 10; Centrale Montemartini2.92) (Septimius Severus) 151, n. 135

inv. 2310 (ex Museo Nuovo, 10; Centrale Montemartini2.93) (Caracalla) 151, n. 135

inv. 2385 (ex Sala dei Bronzi; Centrale Montemartini1.25b) (Nero) 5, n. 28, 57, n. 110, 70

inv. 2394 (ex Sala degli Orti Mecenanziani 7; CentraleMontemartini 1.61) (Caligula/Augustus) 31, 227-8

inv. 2443 (ex Braccio Nuovo 3.10; Centrale Monte-martini, 2.74) (Caligula/Claudius) 10, n. 60, 26-7, 101, n. 159, 231, 234

inv. 2451 (ex Braccio Nuovo 3.12; Centrale Monte-martini 2.75) (Domitian) 127-128, 130 n. 156

inv. 2457 (ex Braccio Nuovo 3.24; Centrale Monte-martini 2.81) (Elagabalus/Severus Alexander) 191-192, 280-281

inv. 2750 (ex Braccio Nuovo) (Bocchus Monument) 18,114

inv. 2765 (ex Braccio Nuovo 3.23;Centrale Monte-martini 2.95) (Otacilia Severa) 5, n. 26, 151, 207

inv. 2766 (ex Braccio Nuovo 3.25; Centrale Monte-martini 2.91) (Lucilla) 5, n. 26, 151, 207

inv. 2882 (Cortile) (Constantinian Emperor) 65inv. 6259 (Magazzini) (Severan female) 151, n. 135inv. 6268 (Centrale Montemartini 2.90) (private An-

tonine/Severan female) 151, n. 135inv. 6270 (Centrale Montemartini 2.94) (private Severan

female) 151, n. 135inv. 1.882 (Centrale Montemartini 2.43) (Agrippina

Minor) 99

index of museums and collections 315

inv. MC 808 (Scalone) (Triumph Panel of Marcus Au-relius) 142-144

Rome, Palazzo Farnese(Domitianic cuirass) 130-131(Sala delle Guardie/del Ercole Farnese)

(modern Nero) 82

Rome, Palazzo Mattei(cortile) (modern Nero) 82

Rome, Palazzo QuirinaleDP 100 (Sala del Bronzino) (modern Nero) 82SM 5071 (Sala delle Quattro Stagioni) (Gallienus) 64,

n. 161

Rome, Palazzo Spada(“Pompey”) 131

Rome, Villa Borghese(facade) (currently Palazzo dei Conservatori) (Nero/

Vespasian) 53, 244(Sala del Ingresso) (modern Nero) 82(Sala IV) (modern Nero) 82inv. 31 (Portico 33) (Crispina) 153inv. 748 (Sala del Ermafrodito 171) (Nero Titus) 56,

247-248

Rome, Villa AlbaniPortico, no. 54 (Caligula) 36-7inv. 58 (Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103inv. 745 (Lucilla) 151

Rome, Villa Ludovisi, Casino Aurora(Maximinus Thrax) 202, 284(Maximinus Thrax) 202, 284

Rome, Villa Margherita (American Embassy)(Nero/Domitian) 60, 126, 253

Rome, Villa Massimo(Galba) 107

Saalburg, Museuminv. 869 (Clodius Albinus) 160

Sabratha, Museum(Domitian/Trajan) 122, 268inv. 650 (Caligula) 35

Sagunto, Museo Arqueológico(Caligula) 24, 44, 225

St. Germaine-en-laye, Musée des AntiquitésNationales

inv. 637434 (Nero/Augustus) 61, n. 137, 240

St. Petersburg, Ermitageinv. 1454 (Macrinus) 187inv A 31 (Philip the Arab) 201, n. 16, 205-206inv. J. 275 (Nero) 76

Sardis, DepotNOEX 60.12 (Julio-Claudian portrait) 34, n. 104

Sassari, Museo Sanna7890 (Neronian cuirass) 72

Schaffhausen, Museum zu Allerheiligen(Livilla) 94, n. 101, 95

Schloss Erbachno. 20 (Neronian cuirass) 72

Schloss Fasanerie bei FuldaFAS.ARP 21 (Caligula) 36-37FAS ARP 23 (Drusilla) 96, n. 119FAS ARP 54 (Constantine) 124, n. 95

Seville, Museo Archeológicoinv. 7.906 (Nero/Vespasian) 53, 60inv. 1060 (Nero/Vespasian) 53, 60inv. 1996/8 (Nero/Domitian) 59, 126, 159, 253

Side, Museuminv. 35 (formerly 315)

(Commodus/Licinius?) 140, 271

Sikyon, Museum(Neronian cuirass) 72

Sofia, Archaeological Museuminv. 1497 (Gordian III) 9, n. 57, 204, 208, 213, 285

Split, Archaeological Museuminv. C 222 ( C 271) 122, 268inv. H 5504 (Caracalla and Geta) 183

Spoleto, Collezione Antonelli(Julia Livilla) 102, n. 167

Spoleto, Seminario(Geta) 173

Stockholm, National Museuminv. 106 (Maxentius) 216-217, 220, 286

Stuttgart, Württembergisches Landesmuseuminv. 64/28 (Nero/Domitian) 59, 126, 253-254inv. 65/11 (Nero) 69inv. 68/1 (Geta) 174inv. 68/3 (Domitian/Nerva) 116-117, 267inv. SS.17 (Ptolemy X/Ptolemy IX) 16

Sweden, Private Collection(Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103

Switzerland, Antiken-Sammlung Ennetwies(Nero) 68-69

Switzerland, Private Collections(Agrippina Minor) 94, n. 96(Caligula) 6, n. 30, 23-4, 39, n. 148, 44, 45, 49, 130,

150, 197(Caligula) 40(Julia Mammaea) 9, n. 57, 196, 198, 282(Severus Alexander) 9, n. 57, 196, 281-282

Syracuse, Museo Nazionaleinv. 6383 (Nero) 48, n. 24, 50,114, 237

Thessalonika, Museuminv. 1055 (Vitellius/Vespasian) 109, 259inv. 2466 (Galeria/Valeria/deity) 97, 221, 288

Toledo, Museum of Art1990.3 (Domitian) 130

index of museums and collections316

Tomar, Convento de Cristo(Caligula/Augustus) 33, 228

Toronto, Royal Ontario Museuminv. 933.27.2 (Faustina Maior) 206

Toulouse, Musée St. Raymondinv. 30004 (Vipsania Agrippina) 88inv. 30109 (Geta) 174-175inv. 30128 (Philip Minor) 206-207

Trier, Rheinisches LandesmuseumST 5223 (Vitellius/Vespasian) 109, 259

Trier, Stadtbibliotek(Ada Cameo) (Constantine, Fausta, Helena,

Constantius II, ConstantineII) 222

Tripoli, Archaeological Museum(Arch of Septimius Severus) 178-181(Julia Livilla) 102, n. 167

Trieste, Museo Civicoinv. 2177 (Caligula) 36inv. 2228 (Caligula) 40inv. 3139 (Nero/Vespasian) 56, 248

Tunis, Institut National d’Archeologie et d’Art(Caligula) 35

Tunis, Musée du Bardo(Clodius Albinus) 6, n. 32, 159inv. 1050 (Clodius Albinus) 1603656(2) (Crispina) 153C 72 (Caligula/Augustus) 33, 228-229C 77 (Constantine) 287C 1025 (Nero/Vespasian) 54, 245C 1347 (Geta) 174C 1397 (Geta) 174

Turin, Museo d’Antichità(Neronian cuirass) 71inv. 244 (Nero/Vespasian) 54, 245

United States, Private Collections(Augustus) 70, n. 208(Nero) 64, n. 162, 70-71, 187, 197, 208

Vaison, Musée Municipalinv. 128 (Caligula/Claudius) 30, 32, 45, 234-235inv. 300.315 (Nero/Domitian) 58, 72, 125, 234-235,

254

Vasto, Museo Civico(Nero/Domitian) 59, 126, 254

Venice, Museo Archeologicoinv. 11 (Agrippa) 59, n. 118

inv. 20 (Grimani “Vitellius”) 110inv. 79 (Geta) 171, 277inv. 142 (Caligula) 36-37, 225inv. 182 (Commodus) 148inv. 249 (Domitian/Trjan) 123, 268-269inv. 276 (Nero) 71, 72, n. 220

Venice, S. Marco(porphyry Tetrarchs) 215

Verria, Museuminv. 373 (Nero/Vespasian) 54-55, 245-246

Vicenza, Museo Civicoinv. EI-19 (Nero?) 50, 238

Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museuminv. 1821.161, no. 45 (Livilla) 94, n. 101inv. I 237 (Geta) 174inv. I 669 (Vespasian) 268inv. IX A 23 (Caligula/Claudius) 27, 235inv. IX A 34 (Livilla) 94, n. 101inv. IX A 59 (Caligula) 40inv. IX A 63 (Gemma Claudia) 92, n. 82inv. IX A 76 (Geta) 183inv. XI B 8 (Germanicus) 40inv. XI 1160 (Livilla) 94, n. 101

Vienna, Palais Lanckoronski (formerly)(Geta) 174

Vienne, Musée Archéologique(Nero) 50, 69, 114, 238

Washington, D.C., Dumbarton Oaksacc. no. 46.10 (Caligula) 40

Whereabouts Unknown(Domitian and Domitia Longina or Julia Titi) 131

Woburn Abbey(Caligula/Claudius) 26-7, 235(Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103

Worcester, Art Museuminv. 1914.23 (Caligula) 23, n. 20, 36-37inv. 1915.23 (Nero) 68-69, 237, 248

Würzburg, Museum der Universität(Trajan Decius) 208

Zadar, Museum(Caligula/Augustus) 32-33, 45, 229

Zaragoza, Museo de Zaragoza in Tarazona80-5-1 (Domitian/Augustus) 125, 260-261

general index 317

GENERAL INDEX

abolitio memoriae 1, 142, 167-168, 177-178, 215Accera 229accusationes adulterii 86, n. 9Acte 46

Temple of Ceres on Sardinia 69, n. 200Actium 18, 19adlocutio 24, n. 28aegis 76, 84, 121Aelia Flacilla 150Aelia Paetina 101, 161, n. 43Aelius Caesar 206Aemilian 210

declaration as emperor 208, 209declaration as hostis 209erasure of inscriptions 209

L. Aemelius Paullus 89Q. Aemelius Laetus

plot to assassinate Commodus 137aenatores 98Aeneas 73, 75Aenona

Roman Forum 33, 229Aesis 42, 142Africa 107, 159, 216Agrippa 80, n. 298, 88Agrippa Postumus

adoption by Augustus 88, 89absence in group dedications 89exile 87, 88murder 88portraits and inscriptions 89rehabilitation under Caligula 89

Agrippina Maior 29, 38, 43, 56, 75, 79, 80, 100, 104birthday as dies nefastus 90burial 99exclusion from Mausoleum of Augustus 21, 46-47,

90, 99exile to Pandateria and death 90, 92Gemma Claudia 92, n. 82inscription from Mausoleum of Augustus 41marriage to Germanicus 90opposition to Tiberius 90production of portraits under Caligula and Claudius

91recinsion of dies nefastus 91rehabilitation under Caligula and Agrippina Minor

91retrieval and reinternment of ashes 91

Agrippina Minor 75, 79, 96, 100, 101, 102, 104, 205absence in group dedications 99birthday declared dies nefastus 98burial of Caligula, 21, n. 9coiffures 84, n. 350

corona spicea attribute 62depiction as Roma-Concordia 73destruction of images and portraits 98diminishing political prominence 73, 98exclusion from the Mausoleum of Augustus 46-47, 99exile 97Gemma Claudia 92Grand Camée 94, n. 102guarantrix of Nero’s imperium 73, 76, 97influence with Claudius 95murder 47persecution of Lollia Paulina 102portrait recut from Messalina 97posthumous portraits 99priestess of Divus Claudius 99receding lower lip 31, n. 75, 94, n. 102“regency” 97rehabilitation of Agrippina Maior 91rehabilitation of Julia Livilla 102reinternment in the Mauseoleum of Augustus 99removal and destruction of portraits 98-99supervision of Nero 46ties to Cologne 59-60

Akhenatendestruction of images 13-14

Akraiphia 78Albani Collection 141, n. 59, 159, n. 20, 173, n. 150, 192,

n. 314, 251, 264, 283Alexander 22-3, n. 15, 49, n. 27, 78, 121

anastole 138, n. 25statues set up by Caracalla 184, n. 258

Alexandria 19, 20, 160, n. 36Claudian group dedication 96coins of Octavia 100, n. 153erased inscription of Caligula 41

Alexandria (nurse of Nero) 46, 111Allectus

coin portraits 213defeat 211

Almendilla 126, 248Amenhotep III

images refashioned to Rameses IIAmisus 81, 83, n. 346Anatolia 15Anchises 73animism 12Ankhesenpaaten 13Annia Faustina

marriage to Elagabalus 194Annia Fundania Faustina

conspiracy against Commodus 153execution 153mutilation of portrait 153-154

general index318

“Annius Verus” 141Antinous

portrait recut from Nero 64Antioch 90, 157, 185

“Riot of the Statues” 224Antium 46Claudia Antonia 96

ivolvement in Pisonian conspiracy 101removal and destruction of portraits 101-102

Antonia Minor 29, 80, 94, 96corona spicea attribute 62

Antonius 106, n. 8Iullus Antonius 86M. Antonius 18, 20, 86, 103

birthday as dies nefastus 19declaration as hostis 19portraits 18-19rehabilitation 19

Antoninus Pius 67, 138, 141, 145, 189, 206deification of Hadrian 662, n. 149

Aphrodisias,Demos 73sculptor’s workshop 120, n. 63Sebasteion 5, 73-75, 134Theater 134, 135

Apicata 92aplustre 75, n. 251Apollo 79, 82, 96, 180, n. 216Apollo-Helios 62, 71, 236Apollo-Mithras 75Appius Claudius 86Apulia 126Aquileia 200-201

Roman Circus 61, 238Aquilia Severa

bronze portrait from Sparta 190countermarked coins 189marriage to Elagabalus 194

Aquitania 105Archibius 20Argentarii 162Ariccia 20Arimaspes 71Armenia 57Arneae 95Arsinoe II

image reworked from Queen Tiye 14Ascanius/Iulus 73Ashurbanipal

mutilated relief at Nineveh 12Asia Minor 33, 67, 81, 134, 206Asinius Gallus 90, n. 61Dr. Anthony Askew 83Athena Parthenos 96Athens 83

Acropolis 89Acropolis statue inventory 14Agora 15colossal portrait of Plautianus 161erased Neronian inscriptions 78Komodeia 147, n. 105Parthenon 78

Piraeus 204Athribis 238auctoritas 73, n. 237, 76, 80aurigae 49, n. 27Augusta Taurinorum 216Augustus 1, 9, 11, 18, 20, 27, 29, 42, 44, 62, 67, 77, 79,

80, 88, 90, 98, 120, n. 66, 157, 174, 231adoption of Agrippa Postumus and Tiberius 88, 89adoption of Gaius and Lucius 86banishment of Julia 86-87depiction as divus 56Forbes type 30, 226portrait as Diomedes 28portrait typology 30-31, n. 74portrait recut from Domitian 125, 260-261portraits recut from Caligula 30-33, 61, 225-229portraits recut from Nero 61-63, 85, 238-240posthumous portraits with signs of ageing 31, 32, 61,

125Prima Porta statue 57Prima Porta type 30, 61, 125, 226, 227, 228, 229, 238-

240, 260reditus 119rehabilitation of M. Antonius 19Sanctuary of Hercules Victor at Tivoli 118temples 21, n. 11

Aurelianinvolvement in plot to assassinate Gallienus 211numismatic portraits 236

Bacchus 97Badouin II 76Baebius Iuncius 168, 183Baiae

Julio-Claudian statuary group 97, 100Balbinus 139, 140, 209, n. 78

corpse abuse 4, 203, 213declaration as emperor 200destruction of portraits 204erased papyri 204murder 203sarcophagus 204

balteus 58Benevento

Arch of Trajan 113, n. 22Béziers-Kiel type 87, n. 25Bilbilis 93, 104Bocchus18Bologna

erased inscription of Caligula 41Lucien Bonaparte 69

Borghese Collection 67Boubon 43, n. 191, 79Britain 182Britannicus 75, n. 251, 80, 81, 95, 96, 97, 99, 102Brutus (tyrannicide)

corpse abuse 17images 17-18

Budalia 207bulla 28, 80, 99Bulla Regia

Temple of Apollo 54, 245Burrus 46

general index 319

Caecilia Paulinacoin portraits 203

Q. Caecilius Metellus 121, n. 68A. Caecina Alienus 108Caere

theater 31, 32, n. 84, 43, 71, 91, 97, 117, 228Caesareia in Samaria

countermarked Neronian coinage 51caesareum 145Caligula 11, 16, 64, n. 162, 84, 99, 102, 110, 126, 170,

172, 197, 205amphitheater near the Saepta Julia 41assassination 21birth 21building program 41-2burial on Esquiline 21cannibalism of corpse 21coins melted for portraits of Mnester 95, n. 109condemnation desired by Senate 9, 21continued display of portraits 7, 42-44, 142countermarking and destruction of coins 24-25, 93, 115depictions as Jupiter 27, 28, 30, 31, 45disposal of portraits in the Tiber 39, 45, 72, 108, n. 31,

130erasure of inscriptions 32, 41exclusion from Mausoleum of Augustus 21, 47exile of Agrippina Minor and Julia Livilla 97gem portraits 40Horti Lamiani 141innovations in group dedications 11militaristic images 29modern portraits 109mutilation of images 23-25, 44, 45, 113, 225name allowed to remain in inscriptions 41popularity with plebs and praetoriansportrait recut to Claudius Gothicus(?) 5, n. 30, 34, 236portrait recut to a deity 34, 236portrait recut to Tiberius 33, 229portrait typology 22-23portraits recut to Augustus 22, 30-33, 125, 225-229portraits recut to Claudius 10, 22, 25-30, 79, 80, 85,

229-235portraits recut to Titus 33-34, 235-236recall of bronze coinage 25rehabilitation of Agrippa Postumus 89rehabilitation of Agrippina Minor 91rehabilitation of M. Antonius 19removal of portraits 35-42retrieval of ashes of Agrippina Minor, Nero and Drusus

Caesar 91reuse of portraits 4, 10, 25-34, 44-45

L. Calpurnius Piso 38, n. 140L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus

corpse abuse 105G. Calpurnius Piso 101

destruction of house 17Gn. Calpurnius Piso 3, n. 11, 9, n. 56, 90, 16

destruction of houses 17senatorial sanctions 17

Campana Collection 193, n. 314Campus Serenus 220Candidianus

execution 221Capellianus 200Capri 149, 152Caracalla 162, 163, 164, 170, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178,

179, 180, 181, 183, 185, 186, 188, 189accession as Caesar 148assassination 156, 184assimilation with Geta to Dioscuri 176, n. 190condemnation of Geta 6, 198deification 184hatred of Plautilla 165, 166hostility to Plautianus 161murder of Geta 156persecution of Geta’s supporters 168, 171removal of portraits 184statue base recut from Geta 8statues set up to Alexander 184, n. 258type 1 portraits 169, n. 117

Carinus 127, n. 126assassination 212association with Nero, Vitellius and Domitian 211defeat by Diocletian 214erased inscriptions 212portrait typology 212removal of portrait 212

Carnuntum 156, 197, 216, 281carpentum 24, n. 28Carrhae 184Carsulae 233Cártama 40Carthage 53, 136, 243Carausius

defaced denarius 213murder 212

Carus 211Cassius (tyrannicide) 17-8Cassius Longinus 17Sp. Cassius Vecellinus 16Castel Gandalfo

Villa of Domitian 113, 260Castel Porziano 54, 243Bartolomeo Cavaceppi 125, 249, 266Celsus

corpse abuse 210, 213“crucifixion” of portrait 3, 210

Ceres 62, 75, 97, 149Cherchel 160Chiragan

Roman Villa 174-175Cibyra 115Cicero

corpse abuse 18destruction of houses 16

cingulum 41Claudia Augusta 81, 83Claudius 9, 24, 41, 43, 44, 45, 56, 67, 72-73, n. 232, 74,

95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 108, 123, n. 90, 161, 231adoption of Nero 46, 75, 92-93, n. 82choice of coin types 42classicizing portraits 25, 27-30, 44Gemma Claudia 92, n. 82image as Divus 29

general index320

inscription as Divus 72portrait typology 25-26portrait recut from Nero 63, 85, 240portraits on coins of Titus and Domitian 63, n. 153portraits recut from Caligula 25-30, 80, 85, 229-235possible involvement in Caligula’s assassination 21refusal to complete Caligulan building projects 41rehabilitation of M. Antonius 19repair of Aqua Virgo 41trial and execution of Caligula’s assassins 22veristic portraits, 25-27, 44

Claudius Gothicus 214, n. 6deification of Gallienus 211, n. 91involvement in plot against Gallienus 211portrait recut from Caligula 5, n. 30, 34, 236

Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus 162, n. 58marriage to Lucilla 148

Claudius Pompeianus Quintianus 149Clazomenae

effaced coins of Geta 171Clemens 89clementia 71, 120, n. 66, 143, 145, 162, n. 58Cleopatra VII 103

declaration as hostis 19, 100, n. 151portraits 20

Cleopatra Selene 103Clodius 16Clodius Albinus 160

corpse abuse 4, 100, 158, 199death of wife and sons 158declaration as hostis 158destruction of portraits 158, 159elevation to Caesar 157official sanctions 156portrait typology 158-159removal of portraits 159-160suicide 158

L. Clodius Macerrevolt against Nero 46

Cologne (Colonia Agrippinensis) 59Fabrizio Colonna 72Commodus 4, 11, 151, n. 133, 156, 172, 186, 196, 211,

n. 91association with Hercules 136,138, 146assumption of toga virilis 145burial in Mausoleum of Hadrian 137consecratio 6conspiracies 136-137declaration as hostis 137erasure of inscriptions 137, 146-147erasure of relief portraits 142-145, 154, 167-168, 177largitio of 177 142-143literary links to Nero and Elagabalus 189mutilated coin 139mutilation of portraits 4, 137, 138-139, 165, 270murder 136-137, 157official condemnation 6, 9, 137, 154portrait as Hercules 5, 127, n. 126, 139, 140-141portrait recut to Licinius? 140, 154, 271portrait typology 137-38portraits recut to Pupienus? 5, n. 30, 139-40, 154, 270-

271

posthumous portraits 147-148proposed abuse of corpse 39, n. 149, 137, 168, n. 114reconfiguration of Colossus 66, 145-146rehabilitation 138, 147-148, 154removal of portraits 2, 140-147restoration of inscriptions 147triumph of 176 142warehousing of portraits 140, 141

Comilodunum 73concordia 158, 164, n. 74, 169, 179, 207, n. 62, 213Concordia 73, 97, 179, 180, n. 216congiarium 142, 155Condeixa-a-Nova

Forum 33congiarium 55consecratio 6, 24, n. 28Constans 222Constantia 222Constantine 6, 124, 134, 211, n. 91, 221

battle of the Milvian Bridge 216condemnation of Maximian 214defeat of Maximian 214portraits recut from Maxentius 5, 11, 65, 217-219, 223vicennalia 150

Constantine II 218, 219, 222Constantius Chlorus 215, 222

death 216defeat of Allectus 212elevation to Caesar 214

Constantius II 222Thomas Cook 262Corinth 89

Basilica 88coin of Octavia 100

Gaia Cornelia Superaerased inscriptions 209

Faustus Cornelius Sullamarriage to Claudia Antonia 101

cornicines 98corona civica 24, n. 28, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 53, 60,

64, 127-128, n. 134, 129, n. 150, 130, 183, 219, 229,230, 231, 234, 237, 253

corona spicea 12, 62, 239corpse abuse 2, 3-4, 17, 21, 39, n. 149, 45, 72, 73, n. 233,

92, 100, 102, 105, 108, n. 31, 109, 110, 126, 137, 157,158, 161, 168, n. 114, 185, 188, 189, n. 290, 195, n.337, 199, 200, 203, 210, 211, 213, 216

Corsica 216Cos

Agora 237Crispus

coin portraits 221erased inscriptions 221execution 221unfinished portraits 221-222

Crispina 4, 12, 146, n. 91exile to Capri 151-152murder 151-152mutilation of portraits 152-153, 154, 165, 273-274plot to overthrow Commodus 136, 149, 151-152portrait typology 152removal of portraits 153

general index 321

Q. Crispinus 86Crispus 146Ctesiphon 156Cumae

“crypta romana” 35Forum 35

Q. Curtius Rufus 22-3, n. 15Cybele 96Cyme

erased Neronian coin 51Cyzicus

erased inscription of Caligula 41

Dacia 205Dalmatia 33, 122, 129

erased inscription of Caligula 41Danube 211Darius 12Domenico De Rossi 252Decebalus

corpse abuse 100Decrius Calpurnianus 95, n. 109Della Valle Collection 171Demeter/Kore 38Demetrius Poliorcetes

destruction of statue in the Athens Agora 15demolition of houses 16-17, 78Dendera

pharaonic image and cartouche of Caligula 40Deva 208dextrarum iunctio 179-181Diadumenianus 209

corpse abuse 4, 100, 185, 199declaration as Caesar 184declaration as hostis 185destruction of coinage 187erasure of inscriptions and papyri 185mutilation of portraits 185, 186, 188, 199, 279official sanctions 156, 185portrait typology

Diana 180, n. 216Didia Clara

coiffures 152loss of title of Augusta 157

Didius Julianus 152, 160accession 157destruction of bronze statute 157destruction of portraits 158official sanctions 156, 157portrait typology 158-159rehabilitation of Commodus 138, 147removal of portraits 159

dies nefastus 1, 19, 91, 98Diocletian 212, 214, 215, 221

abdication 214Diomedes 28, 58, 125, 131, 190Dion

destruction of Macedonian votive images 15Dionysus II

destruction of monuments at Syracuse 15Dioscuri 176Domitia Lepida 95, 104

execution and condemnation 102-3maiestas charges 102

Domitia Longina 115, 127, n. 125, 131assassination of Domitiancoiffures 84, n. 350

Domitian 11, 44, 67, 81, n. 313, 107, n. 29, 139, 170,172, 211, n. 91, 239assassination 111building program 133-134continued display of portraits 7, 134cremation and burial 111cuirasses 114, 128, 130-31cults of Isis and Serapis 129defaced as 115depictions as Jupiter 115-116, 117, 118depictions as Minerva 131despotic behavior 111destruction of arches 132-133disposal of portrait in the Rio Martino 130, 134disposal of portrait in the Tiber 108, n. 31, 129-30, 134disposal of portrait in well 126effacement of relief portrait 15, 113-114, 260Egyptianizing depictions as Pharaoh 129, n. 151Ephesus temple 128-129erased inscriptions 132erased manuscript 132erasure from statue bases 128official condemnation 6, 9, 111erasure of inscriptions 111mutilation of images 113-114, 269Palatine Arch 133Pliny’s description of destruction of portraits 3, 112-113,

135, 137portrait recut to Constantinian emperor 5, n. 30portrait typology 57, 111-112portrait warehoused in tomb of Julia Procula 5-6, n. 31portraits recut from Nero 57-61, 80, 85, 125-126portrait recut to Augustus 125, 260-261portraits recut to fourth century emperors 124-125, 269portraits recut to Titus 123-124, 261portraits recut to Trajan 122-123, 135, 267-269portraits reworked to Nerva 80, 115-122, 135, 190, 261-

267premature baldness 57, n. 107proposed Parthian campaign 121reditus from Sarmatian campaign 119reuse of portraits 4, 9titles and offices 111trophies 133unfinished portraits 130Via Domitiana 121, 133victory over Chatti 114

Gn. Domitius Ahenobarbus 46arval vows on birthday 62, n. 149

Gn. Domitius Corbulo 57L. Domitius Alexander 215

revolt against Maxentius 216dona militaria 119Giovanni Antonio Dosio 145Dougga

Arch of Septimius Severus 182

general index322

Temple of Saturn 159Drusilla 79, 99

inscription as Diva 32representations as Diva 29, 38, 43-44, 80, 231statue as Venus Genetrix 28

Drusus Caesar 29, 38, 40, 80, 99birth 91corpse abuse 4exclusion from Mausoleum of Augustus 21, 47, 91portraits 91-2retrieval and reinternment of ashes 91

Drusus Maior 38, n. 140, 75, 93, n. 91, 231receding lower lip 31, n. 75

Drusus Minor 32, 38, n. 140, 75, 88, 89, 90, 102marriage to Livilla 93murder 93

Dura EuroposMithraeum 182

Écija 53, 244Egloge 46, 111effigies 3, 49Eirene and Ploutos 96Elaea

effaced coins of Maximinus Thrax and Maximus 202,203

Elagabal 188, 194Elagabalus 184, n. 262, 187

arrival in Rome 186, n. 279assassination 157chief priest of Elagabal 188claims to be Caracalla’s son 188, n. 288corpse abuse 4, 39, n. 149, 108, n. 31, 168, n. 114, 188,

199defacement and countermarking of coins 189defeat and execution of Macrinus 156-157, 185, 188erasure of inscriptions 193-194erasure of name Antoninus 189gem portraits 194literary links to Nero and Commodus 189nickname of Tiberinus 189official condemnation 6, 9, 156, 188-189painted portrait at the Curia 189, n. 294portrait typology 189portraits refashioned to Severus Alexander 5, 11 , 156,

190-192, 199, 223, 279-81portraits of Severus Alexander smeared with mud 182removal of portraits 192-193

El Djem 228Electus

plot to assassinate Commodus 137Eleusinian Mysteries 62el Kef 210Emessa 185, 188Epaphroditus 46Ephesus 89

Temple of Domitian/Vespasian 128-129Temple of Hadrian 215

equites singulares 146Eros 75Ethnoi 73Eucaerus

charges of adultery with Claudia Octavia 100, n. 142Eumolpus 71Euporos 132Euthymides

erased plaque 14Eutropia 215Eutropius 223execution in effigy 3, 210exilium 89

Fabius Valens 108Farnese Collection 250fasti 1Fausta 12, 220, n. 51

coiffures 166death 221, 222erased inscriptions 222marriage to Constantine 222portraits 222-223

Faustina Maior 92, n. 82, 141, 206Faustina Minor 136, 141, 153, 206Ferdinando II dei Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany 56Flavianus Nicomachus 223M. Flavius Aper 127, n. 130Flavius Eugenius 223Florian

numismatic portraits 236Forum Clodii 89Fortuna 114Forutuna Augusta 28fratres arvales 62Fulvia 86

Gabii 67Gaetulicus 103Gaius Caesar 42, 43, 75, n. 251, 86, 87, 89

bronze portrait 70marriage to Livilla 93portrait reworked to Nero 48, n. 24, 69-70taking toga virilis 88togate statue 28

Galba 47, 50, 77, 81, 157adoption of L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus 105corpse abuse 4, 105countermarks 51destruction of portraits 105, 110, 197portrait recut from Nero 63, 85, 106-107, 240portrait typology 106rehabilitation and re-erection of portraits 105-106reinternment of ashes of Nero’s victims in Mausoleum

of Augustus 99removal of portraits 106revolt against Nero 46, 105

Galeria Valeria 222coiffures 166, n. 90coin portraits 221execution 221portrait recut to deity 97, 221, 288support of Maximinus Daia 221

Galerius 215, 216, 219Galla Placidia 150Gallia Lugdunensis 46, 156“Galliena” 210

general index 323

Gallienusassassination 210association with Domitian and Commodus 211, n. 91corpse abuse 4, 211, 213declaration as tyrant 211deification 211, n. 91erased inscriptions 211portrait discarded in well 211portrait recut from Nero 64, 85, 255portrait typology 64, n. 161removal of portraits 2

Gaul 61, 69, 158Gemma Claudia 92, n. 82Genius Populi Romani 119, 120Genius Senatus 119, 120Gens Augusta 28Genzano 20Germania 40, 89, 105, 129Germanicus 21, 29, 32, 38, 41, 43, 57, 71, n. 215, 74,

75, 79, 231adoption by Tiberius 75, 89death 17, 90, 91Gemma Claudia 92, n. 82Grand Camée de France 92, n. 82marriage to Agrippina Maior 90portraits on glass phalerae 40receding lower lip 31, n. 75

Germanicus Julius Caesar 93, 95Geta 147, n. 106, 147, 162, 186, 188, 192

assimilation with Caracalla to Dioscuri 176, n. 190condemnation as hostis 6, 168, 183, 199cremation and burial 168defaced coins 115destruction and countermarking of coins 168, 189destruction of portraits 168, 198effaced painted portrait 181-182, 199effacement of relief portraits 15, 163, 175-81, 198, 199elevation to Caesar 168erasure of inscriptions and papyri 168, 175, 176-

177,182-83gem portraits 183murder 156, 168mutilation of portraits 170-172, 199, 276-277official sanctions 156portrait recut to 3rd century private individual 5, n. 30,

172, 199, 278portrait typology 169-170praenomen 168recut intaglio 172, 277removal of portraits 173-182sacrifice to manes 168statue base recut to Caracalla 8

Giustiniani Collection 251, 252Glaukon

erased kalos inscription 14Gonzaga Collection 69, n. 199, 129Gordian I

declaration as emperor 200suicide 200

Gordian IIdeath 200

declaration as emperor 200Gordian III 191, 196

assassination 204deification 9, 204elevation to Caesar 200revival of Neroniana 81spontaneously attacked portrait 9, 204, 213, 285

Gortyna 79, 142Agora 42-3

Gouraya 160Grand Camée de France 92, n. 82. 94, n. 102Grimani bequest 37Grimani “Vitellius” 110

Hadrian127, n. 131, 174, 205, 218, 223, 287death 64deification 6portrait recut to modern Nero 82-83relocation of Colossus 66

Hadrumentum 159Hathor 84, n. 351Hatchepsut

mutilated images and cartouches 13Helena 222

coiffures 166, n. 92portraits recut from Lucilla 5, n. 20, 97, 150-151, 154title of Augusta 150

Helena II 222Heraclea

follis of Fausta 223Heraclius 134Hercules 5, 108, n. 30, 136, 179, n. 206, 180, n. 216,

181Herculaneum

cuirassed statue of Titus 55Herrenia Etruscilla 165, n. 81, 207-208Herrenius Etruscus

death and deification 207erased inscriptions 208

Hippocrates 127Hispania Tarraconensis 105Francisco d’Hollanda 145Honorius 217, n. 26Hostilian 207

erased inscriptions 208hostis 1, 6, 18-19, 157 , 158, 168, 183, 188, 199, 200,

209, 216traditional punishment 47

Iberia 60Illyricum 89imagines 1, 9, 17, 143, 148, 177-178, 200imperium 73, 93, n. 90infamia 3infula 43iniuria 3Innocent VIII Cybo 217Iol Caesarea 20Isis 129Issa

Forum 122

general index324

Italica 53, 245

Juba II 103Judaea 132Julia Cornelia Paula 165, n. 81

marriage to Elagabalus 194Julia Domna 68, n. 190, 157, 163, 164, 169, n. 117, 173,

176-177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 186, 188burial in Mausoleum of Hadrian 168coiffures 152

Julia Drusilla (daughter of Caligula)murder 21, 44

Julia Drusilla (daughter of Drusus Minor)marriage to Nero Caesar 93, n. 91, 104marriage to Rubellius Blandus 102murder 102

Julia Livilla 29, 80, 94, 99, 104charges of adultery 102burial of Caligula 21, n. 9execution 102exile 97Lepcis-Malta type 68, n. 190, 102rehabilitation of memory 102

Julia Maesa 193accession of Elagabalus 157burial of Geta and Julia Domna in Mausoleum of Ha-

drian 168countermarked coins 189-190governance 188

Julia Maior 12, 100, 104absence on Ara Pacis 88, 119, 168, n. 100adultery charges 86-87banishment 86-87birth 86condemnation 86-88death by starvation 86exclusion from Mausoleum of Augustus 21, 46-47, 87identification as Aphrodite 87marriages 86plot against Augustus 86-87portraits 87

Julia Mammaeaassasination at Vicus Britannicus 157, 196, 200erased inscriptions 197political power 198spontaneously attacked portraits 5, n. 26, 9, 156, 196,

197-198, 199, 282Julia Minor 12, 102, 104

banishment and death 89-90conspiracy 90exclusion from Mausoleum of Augustus 21, 46-47, 90exposure of child 90portraits 90razing of villa 90

Julia Procula 5-6, n. 31, 127Julia Soemias

assassination 157, 188, 195attendance at Senate 194collateral condemnation 189-190corpse abuse 4, 108, n. 31, 168, n. 114, 195, 199countermarked coins 189, 195erased statue base 193, 195

governance 188, 194-195mulierum senatum 195official condemnation 6, 156

Julia Titi 124, 127, n. 125, 131Julian 223Julius Caesar 18, 20

proposed abuse of corpse 39, n. 149villa near Misenum 99

Julius Proculus 127Gaius Julius Vindex

revolt against Nero 46, 47, 51, 105Juncus Vergilianus 95, n. 109Junia Tertulla 17Juno-Isis 84Jupiter 27, 28, 30, 31, 45, 50, 75, 79, 115-116, 117, 118,

119, 217anastole 138, n. 25

Jupiter Dolichenus 180, n. 216

kataskafhv 15, 17Kephisodotos 96Kiya

altered images and inscriptions 13, ns. 84, 85Kniva 207Kresilas 58Kula 40

Labicum 59, 125, 249Lake Albano 37Lambeisis 182Lanuvium 141-142Laodicea 160, n. 36lararia 39, 147largitio 142-143, 155laurel crowns 40, 76, 170Legio II Parthica 200Legio III Gallica 185 , 188Lepcis Magna 156, 161, 179, n. 210, 182

Arch of Septimius Severus 2, 156, 163, n. 70, 169, 178-181, 182, 199

Forum Baths 146Severan Baths 182, n. 239Temple of Roma and Augustus 94, n. 95, 95Tyche 181, n. 221

Lepcis-Malta type 68, n. 190, 94, n. 101, 102liberalitas 142, 144Liber Pater 179, n. 206, 180, n. 216, 181, ns. 223, 224Libertas 145Licinius

defeat 218execution of Prisca, Galeria Valeria, and Candidianus

221portrait reworked from Commodus? 140, 154

Lindos 95Lipari 164liticines 98Livia 20, 28, 38, 42, 43, 44, 87, n. 22, 80, 88, 231

accession of Tiberius 157centrally parted hairstyle 94, n. 102, 100, n. 153corona spicea attribute 62receding lower lip 31, n. 75

Livilla 12, 16, 100, 104

general index 325

adultery charges 93conspiracy with Sejanus against Tiberius 92, 93death 93erasure of inscriptions 94glyptic portraits 94-95marriages to Gaius Caesar and Drusus Minor 93murder of Drusus Minor 93official condemnation and maiestas charges 6, 93-95portraits 94-95potential marriage with Sejanus 93

Lollia Paulina 104corpse abuse 4, 102, 195, n. 337exile and execution 102rehabilitation of memory 102

London 213Louis IX of France 76Lower Moesia 208, 209Lucera

Baths 117Lucilla 4, 12, 172, 186

exile and execution 149marriages 148mutilation of portraits 149-150, 154, 165, 271-72removal of portraits 151plot to overthrow Commodus 136, 148-149portrait typology 149-150portraits recut to Helena 5, n. 30, 97, 150-151, 154,

272-273warehoused portrait 5, n. 26

Lucius Caesar 75, n. 251, 80, n. 298, 86, 87, 88, 89Lucius Verus 62, n. 149, 138, 141, 145, 151, n. 133

marriage to Lucilla 148Lucus Feroniae

building associated with AugustalesForum 52-53, 243

Lugundum 158Ludi Palatini 21Ludi Saeculares 205Ludovisi Collection 56, 124, 127, n. 133, 246, 269, 283,

284, 285Luna (goddess) 71Luna (site) 43, 81, 83, n. 346Luna marble 29, 35, 69, 226, 275, 281, 282, 287Lusitania 107lustratio 143Q. Lutatius Catullus 16Luxor

Temple of Ammon 215luxuria 49, 112Lycurgus

Akropolis statue inventory 14Lydia 40Lyon

countermarked Neronian aes 51erased Neronian sestertius 51follis of Fausta 223, n. 73

LysippusGranikos Monument 121

Maecia Faustina 204Macrinus 197

assassination of Caracalla 156, 184

corpse abuse 4, 100, 185, 199declaration as hostis 185defeat and execution 156-157, 185, 188destruction of coinage 187, 202destruction of portraits 185dissatisfaction of plebs 185erasure of inscriptions and papyri 185mutilation of portraits 5, n. 28, 149, 185-187, 199, 201,

202, 213, 278-279official sanctions 156portrait typology 185removal of portraits 187

MadaurosForum 150

Sp. Maelius 16Magliana

arval sanctuary 62Magnia Urbica

collateral condemnation 212erased inscriptions 212

maiestas 6, 9, n. 56, 17, 86, n. 9, 89, 90, 102, n. 166Mainz

Jupiter Column 79Manlia Scantilla

coiffures 152loss of title of Augusta 157

mappa 82Marcia 146, n. 91

plot to assassinate Commodus 137Margus 211Marius Manlius Capitolinus 16Marcus Aurelius 2, 136, 120, n. 66, 141, 145, 148, 150,

151, n. 133, 156, 158, n. 13, 162, n. 58, 174, 185, 189,223anastole 138, n. 25campaigns against the Marcomanni and Quadi 136, 142equestrian statue 146largitio of 177, 142-143triumph of 176, 142

Marinianusdeath 211

Marino 37Marius 18Mars 119Mars Pater Invictus 219Marseilles 61Marxism 10, n. 58Mauretania 20, 103, 150Maxentius 11, 222

battle of the Milvian Bridge 216condemnation as tyrannus on Arch of Constantine 6, 216corpse abuse 4, 100, 216declaration as emperor 215declaration as hostis 216deification of Maximian 214erasure of inscriptions 219marriage to Valeria Maximilla 215, 219mutilated images 216-217, 286portrait typology 216portraits recut to Constantine 5, 11, 65, 217-219, 222,

286-288rededication of Colossus to Romulus 66, 219

general index326

removal of portraits 219Maximian 222

abdication 214condemnation of Carausius 212-213defeat and execution of Severus 216destruction of portraits 214-215erased fresco 215portrait typology 214-215removal of portraits 215resumption of title of Augustus 214suicide 214

Maximinus Daiadeath 220-221declaration as emperor 220destruction of portraits 220-221portraits smeared with dark colored paint 182

Maximinus Thrax 197, 205accession 196, 200corpse abuse 4, 100, 200, 213declaration as hostis 200-201destruction of portraits 200effaced coins 202, 213erasure of inscriptions and papyri 200murder 200mutilated portraits 68, n. 190, 201-202, 213, 283-84portrait typology 201

Maximuscorpse abuse 4, 100, 200, 213declaration as hostis 200effaced coins 202, 203, 213erasure of inscriptions and papyri 200murder 200mutilated portraits 202-3, 285-286portrait typology 202removal of portraits 203

Medusa 113Megakles

erased kalos inscription 14Meretaten 13Mértola 226Mesopotamia 200Statilia Messalina 62, 78, 81Valeria Messalina 12, 16, 79, 99, n. 136, 102, 104,153

adultery and maiestas 86, n. 9destruction and removal of portraits 95-97, 257erasure of inscriptions and coins 95-96“marriage” to Gaius Silius 95official condemnation and maiestas charges 6, 95, 223portraits reconfigured to Agrippina Minor 97, 257-258reuse of portraits 96-97

Milanerased inscription of Caligula 41

Miletuseffaced coins of Geta 171

Milonia Caesoniamurder 21, 44

Minerva 101,n. 155, 113, 114, 119, 120, 131, 132, 134,179, n. 206, 260

Minervina 221Minia Procula 54, n. 88Minturno 127-128, n. 134

Misenum 99Sanctuary of the Augustales 120-122, 261

Mithradates 18Mnester

portraits created from Caligulan coins 95, n. 109Moesia 205, 207Mummia Achaica 105Munigua 253

Forum 126Mustis

Temple of Fortuna Augusta 35mutilation in effigy 3, 12, 154Mutina 216

Napoleon III 67, n. 186Narcissus 136-137Neapolis

countermarked coins of Elagabalus 189Nefertiti 13-14, n. 85Nero 9, 11, 16, 17, 29, 44, 97, 98, 99, 105, 107, 110, 123,

n. 90, 134, 135, 155, 170, 172, 186, 187, 197, 199, 205,231adoption by Claudius 46, 47, 92-3, n. 82Aeneas panel Aphrodisias 73Armenia panel Aphrodisias 74birth 46building program 77-78, 133Capitoline Arch 77charges against Octavia 100Colossus 66-67, 71, n. 216, 219coma in gradus formata coiffures 49, 65-66, 81, 107, 112,

251, 252conflation of portrait types 57, 70, 72, n. 230continued display of portraits 7, 79-81, 142contorniate medallions 81countermarking of coins 51cuirassed statues 71-72, 80decennaliai 49denigration of Claudius 63, n. 153depictions as Jupiter 50, 76disposal of portrait in the Alde 108, n. 31disposal of portraits in the Tiber 72disposal of portraits of artistic rivals in latrines 185Domus Aurea 63, n. 153, 66, 71, 77-78erasure of inscriptions 78-79exclusion from the Mausoleum of Augustus 46-47fire of A.D. 64 46funeral and tomb 46, 111gem portraits 75-77Horti Maiani portrait 67involvement with fratres arvales 62liberation of Greece 78literary links to Commodus and Elagabalus 189military imagery 11, 57-58, 71-72, 74modern portrait recut from ancient Hadrian 82-3modern portraits 82-83, 109mutilation of coin portraits 50-51, 115mutilation of images 49-51, 84, 113, 237-238Nero and Agrippina panel Aphrodisias 5, n. 26, 73-74,

164, 194Neroniana 81official condemnation as hostis 6, 47, 84Palatine graffito 77

general index 327

Parthenon inscription 78patron of Circus Maximus 82popularity with plebs 81, 85portrait disposed in the Alde 72-73, 130portrait recut to Antinous 63-64, 85, 254-255portrait recut to Claudius 63, 85, 240portrait recut to fourth century emperor 5, n. 30, 64-

65, 255portrait recut to Galba 63, 85, 240portrait recut to Gallienus 5, n. 30, 64, 255portrait recut to Trajan 63, 85, 254portrait typology 48-49portraits recut to Augustus 61-62, 125, 238-240portraits recut to Domitian 57-61, 80, 85, 125-126, 248-

254portraits recut to private individuals 65-66, 256portraits recut to Titus 55-57, 85, 246-248portraits recut to Vespasian 10, 52-55, 61, 85, 240-246posthumous imposters 81, 85quinquennalia 49recall of coinage 51receding lower lip 31, n. 75, 48rehabilitation 81-82, 84removal of portraits 67-77reuse of portraits 4, 9, 52-67, 84-85solar iconography 68, 71suicide 46testimony against Domitia Lepida 102Tiridates’s visit to Rome 71trip to Greece 62, n. 149

Nero Caesar 29, 40, 80, 99birth 91corpse abuse 4exclusion from Mausoleum of Augustus 21, 47, 91exile and death 91marriage to Julia (daughter of Drusus Minor and Livilla)

93, n. 91official condemnation 6portraits 91-92retrieval and reinternment of ashes 91togate statue with bulla 28

Neroniana 81Nerva 38, n. 140, 44, 129, 131

commemoration as divus 117depictions as Jupiter 115-116, 117, 118portrait typology 115portraits reworked from Domitian 9, 80, 115-22, 135,

190, 261-267veristic portraits 117-119, 124Niceacountermarked Neronian coinage 51effaced coins of Geta 171effaced and countermarked coins of Elagabalus 189

Nicomedia 231coins of Crispus 221, ns. 63, 64countermarked Neronian coinage 51

Nicopolisrecall of Neronian coinage 51

Nicopolis ad Istrum 204, 213Nigrinianus

collateral condemnation 212Nineveh

mutilated bronze Akkadian head 12mutilated reliefs of Sennacerib, Ashurbanipal and Um-

manigash 12Nisibis 176Norbana 149, n. 121Norbanus 149, n. 121North Africa 33noxii 39, n. 149, 45, 137Numerian 211Numidia 200Nysa-Skythopolis

countermarked Neronian coinage 51Nymphidius 105

Oclantius Adventus 184Claudia Octavia 80, 95, 96, 99, 102, 104

accusations of adultery and infertility 100coin portrait 50, n. 41corpse abuse 4, 100, 195, n. 337condemnation 100exile and execution 100portraits 100-101resuscitation of memory 100spontaneous demonstrations involving images 9, n. 56,

100Octavia Minor 20, 88, 95Olbia 69, n. 198Olympia 132

Metroon 33, n. 89, 56chryselephantine statue of Zeus 33Temple of Zeus 122, 267

Opitegerium 71Ostia 138, 179, n. 210

Capitolium 153, 273Caserma dei Vigili 8, 145, 185, 188Cassegiato del Serapide 267decumanus maximus 5, 197Horrea of Hortensius 154, 274Isola Sacra 5-6, 127Tempio Rotondo 191, 280, 282Temple of Hercules 108, 259Thermopolium on the Via di Diana 148Via delle Corporazioni 267

Otacilia Severa 165, n. 81, 206declaration as Augusta 205portrait typology 207removal of portraits 207warehoused Villa Rivaldi portrait 5, n. 26

Otho 157birthday as dies nefastus 107completion of Domus Aurea 77, 81countermarks 51marriage to Poppaea 83, 107mutilation of portraits 6, 106-7, 110, 259overthrow of Galba 105, 107portrait typology 107presentation as the new Nero 107suicide 107, 108re-erection of Nero’s statues 67, 81, 85re-erection of Poppaea’s statues 81

OtricoliJulio-Claudian “Basilica” 28, 43, 79, 167

general index328

Ovid 90

paenula 148palladium 58, 132paludamentum 37, 39, 53, 55, 61, 65, 74, 75, n. 251, 82,

113, 117, 119, 120, 138, 143, 145, 162, 170, 183, 193,229, 260

Pandateria 90, 92Pannonia 205Paralius 149, n. 121Parian marble 31, 130, 218, 227, 287Paris

Sainte Chapelle 76parocinium 74, n. 242Pasquino Group 74, n. 242Paul III Farnese 218Pentelic marble 130, n. 157, 239, 247Étienne du Pérac 145perduellio 6Pergamum 53

effaced coins of Geta 171-172effaced coins of Maximinus Thrax and Maximus 202,

203Temple of Roma and Augustus 73

Perinthuscountermarked Neronian coins 51

Perpereneeffaced coins of Geta 171

F. Perrier 252Persepolis

mutilated royal reliefs 12Pertinax 139, 141

assassination 147, 156, 157consecratio 6, 158, n. 13corpse abuse 4, 157plot to assassinate Commodus 137

Perusia 208Pescennius Niger 7

corpse abuse 4, 157-158, 199declaration as hostis 157, 159destruction of portraits 158, 159execution of wife and children 158official sanctions 156portrait typology 158-159, 160

phalerae 40Phidias 33Philip V

Athenians’ resolution against monuments 14-15Philip Minor

death 205portrait typology 206removal of portraits 206-207

Philip the Arab 201, n. 16assassination of Gordian III 204association with Caligula, Nero, Vitellius and Maxi-

minus 205death 205erased inscriptions and papyri 205-206Ludi Saeculares 205portrait typology 205removal of portraits 205-206

Phillip V of Spain 249

Phyllis 111physiognomical theory 22, 47-8, 112Pieria

countermarked coins of Elagabalus 189pietas 119, 181, n. 224, 182Pietrabbondante 32, 226Pisonian conspiracy 17, 101Planasia 88Plautia Urgulanilla 161, n. 43Plautianus 179, n. 204

Caracalla’s hostility 161colossal portrait at Athens 161corpse abuse 2, 161declaration as hostis 161erasure of inscriptions 161, 163-4, 194Domus on Quirinal 149, 151, 161, 186, 271, 279execution 161, 164removal of portraits 2, 161-163, 167, n. 99, 175, n. 182,

176, 178, 198Plautilla 172, 179, n. 204, 188, n. 288

coiffures 152effacement of relief portrait 163, 176, 178, 198erasure of inscriptions 164, 167, 177, n. 194exile to Lipari 164, 165marriage to Caracalla 161, 164murder 164mutilation of portraits 165-66, 199, 275removal of portraits 2, 167-68portrait recut to 4th century empress 5, n. 30, 166-67,

199, 275-276portrait typology 164-165

Plautius 164poena post mortem 3, 6, 18, 39, 45, 49, 72, 90, 92, 100, 102,

108, 129, 137, 158, 161, 167, 168, 188, 200, 210, 213Pompeii

erased inscription of Caligula 41Gn. Pompeius Magnus

marriage to Claudia Antonia 101Pompeius Urbicus 95, n. 109Pompey 41, n. 165, 131pontifex maximus 33, 42, 61, 64, 68Poppaea 79, n. 292, 81

deification 83depictions as diva 84destruction of portraits 84marriage to Otho 81, 83, 107marriage to Rufius Crispinus 83portraits 83-4re-erection of statues 81, 83spontaneous demonstrations involving images 9, n. 56,

100viewing of Octavia’s head 100

“Poppaea Albani” 150portraits

conflation of types 57disposal in water 6, 39, 108, 129-130, 159mutilation 3reuse 4-5spontaneously mutilated 9warehousing 2,5

porphyry 46Portugal 33Prisca

general index 329

execution 221profectio 119Providentia 75Prusa

countermarked Neronian coinage 51Ptolemy I Soter 49, n. 29, 16Ptolemy IV Eurgetes 62Ptolemy VII Eurgetes II Physkon 49, n. 29Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyros

portraits reworked from Ptolemy X 15-16Ptolemy X Alexander I Physkon

portraits reworked to Ptolemy IXPtolemy XII Auletes 49, n. 29Ptolemy of Mauretania

destruction and removal of portraits 103portrait of Cleopatra VII 20

Pupienus 209, n. 78corpse abuse 4, 203, 213declaration as emperor 200destruction of portraits 204erased papyri 204murder 203portrait recut from Commodus 5, n. 30, 139-140, 154

Puteoli 121, 146Domitianic inscription 133

Quadratus 149quinquennium Neronis 98S. Quintilius Condianus 149, n. 121S. Quintilius Valerianus Maximus 149, n. 121

radiate crowns 62, 69, 82, 147Rameses II

images refashioned from Amenhotep III 14Raphaneae 185, 188Ravenna Relief 96reditus 119relegatio ad insulam 89Rendham 72Rhine 113Cardinal Ricci di Montepulciano 249ricinium 88Roma 73, 96, 97, 114, 119, 63, n. 70, 179, n. 206, 181Rome 7, 136, 179, n. 210

Actian Arch 19aenatores monument 98amphitheater near the Saepta Julia 41Aqua Virgo 42Ara Pacis Augustae 88, 168, n. 100, 217, n. 26Arch of the Argentarii 2, 156, 162-163, 168, 176-178,

179, n. 208, 182, 198Arch of Claudius 80Arch of Constantine 5, 6, 65, 134, 142-144, 150, 216,

219, 223Arch of Septimius Severus 2, 156, 161-162, 175-176,

179, 182, 198Arch of Titus 130, n. 157, 132Arch of Vespasian 132Basilica Nova (Maxentius and Constantine) 217, 218,

223, 287Baths of Caracalla 184, 190, 279Baths of Diocletian and Maximian 215Baths of Maxentius and Constantine 217, 218, 286, 288

Baths of Nero 78Baths of Titus 77Baths of Trajan 77, 78, 134Caelian 17, 138, 146Campus Martius 109, 120, 131Campidoglio 133, 218, 219Cancelleria Reliefs 5, 36, n. 115, 60, 114, 119-20Castrum of the Equites Singulares 188, 209Castrum Praetorium 182, 212, n. 98Circus Maximus 82, 188Circus of Maxentius 217Collis Hortulorum 46Colosseum 66, 77, 78, 151Colossus 66-67, 71, n. 216, 145-146, 219Column Base of Antoninus Pius and Faustina 92, n. 82Column of Marcus Aurelius 145, 178Column of Phocus 8Column of Trajan 122, 134, 143-144, n. 74, 145, 178Curia 145, 189, 192-193, , 200Domitianic trophies 133Domus Aurea 63, n. 153, 66, 68, 71Domus of Plautianus 149, 151, 186, 271, 279Domus Transitoria 68equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius 146Equus Domitiani 113Equus Severi 113, n. 18erased Neronian sestertius 51Esquiline 77, 127, 133, 141, 212fire of A.D. 64 46fire of A.D. 104 78Forum Augustum 95Forum Boarium 162Forum Iulium 133Forum Romanum 41-42, 47, 66, 105, 106, 108, 219,

224Forum Traianum 134Forum Transitorium 133-134Gemonian Steps 90, 108, 211Great Trajanic Frieze 65, 134, 178Horti Lamiani 141Horti Maiani 67Horti Sallustiani 124Lacus Curtius 105Lateran Palace 217, n. 26Markets of Trajan 134Mausoleum of Augustus 21, 41, 46-47, 90, 99, 100, 168-

169, n. 116Mausoleum of Hadrian 137, 168“Monument of Gaius and Lucius” 168-169, n. 116Museo Kircheriano 251, 264Palatine 16, 41-2, 77, 168, 201, 284Palazzo Barberini 37Palazzo Colonna 35, 72Palazzo della Cancelleria 120, 265Palazzo Orsini 262Palazzo Ruspoli 68, n. 194Palazzo Sachetti Relief 156, 178, 179Panel Reliefs of Marcus Aurelius 2, 65, 142-144, 150,

155, 167-168, 177, 178Pantheon 191Parthian Arch of Augustus 19, 175Piazza Colonna 109

general index330

Piazza Navona Obelisk 132, n. 184Pincio 46Pons Aemilius 188-189, n. 189Pons Sublicius 6Ponte Milvio 37, 216Ponte Sisto 196Porticus Deorum Consentium 144Praetorian Camp 161Quirinal 37, 111, 149, 150, 173, 186, 195, 217, 271,

279Rostra 18, 81, 86S. Crisogono 216, n. 21, 217, n. 26S. Maria Antiqua 41, n. 176S. Sebastiano fuori le mura, 216, n. 21, 217, n. 26Secretarium Senatus 217, n. 26Senaculum 195, n. 333Septizonium 168Sessorium 105Severan Baths on the Palatine 217, n. 26Statue of Marsyas 86Temple fo Apollo Palatinus 67-68Temple of Castor and Pollux 41-2Temple of the Curiae Veteres 99, n. 135Temple of Divus Claudius 63, n. 153, 99Temple of the Flavian gens 111, 130, n. 157Temple of Fortuna Redux 120, 142, n. 60Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus 42,

130, n.157“Temple of Minerva Medica” 217, n. 26“Temple of Romulus” 217, n. 26Temple of Tellus 16Temple of Venus and Roma 66, 217, n. 26Templum Pacis 77, 133Temple of Venus Genetrix 20Theater of Marcellus 31, 35, 227Theater of Pompey 41, 71, 131Tiber 6, 39, 45, 72, 73 , 92, 108, 110, 130, 137, 188,

194, 196, 211, 216, 243, 259, 281Tomb of Aulus Hirtius 120Tomb of the Domitii 46Vatican Circus of Caligula and Nero 78Velia 66Via Appia 217Via Principe Amadeo 127Via Sacra 217Villa beneath the Anglican Church on the Via Babuino

70Villa Ludovisi 124, 202, 203, 284Villa Mattei (Celimontana) 239Villa of the Quintilii 20, 149, n. 121, 201-202, 205-206,

283Villa Rivaldi 151, 207

Romulus and Remus 131Romulus (son of Maxentius)

death and deification 220rededication of Colossus 66

Pietro Rosa 67, n. 186Rubellius Blandus 102Rufius Crispinus

marriage to Poppaea 83G. Rufius Volusianus 216

Rufus Gallusdestruction of Nero’s statues 47

Rusellae 7“Basilica” of the Bassi 242Collegium of the Augustales 28-29, 80, 94, 99, 142, 230,

242Domus dei Moasici 91, n. 66

Rutupiae 213

SabbionetaVilla Gonzaga 69

Sabina 174Sabratha

Basilica 35Forum 122, 268Theater pulpitum 163, n. 70

Sacra Argeorum 6sacra privata 39, n. 147sacra publica 39, n. 147Sagalassos 182Saguntum

Forum 24, 225Salonina

erased inscriptions 211Saloninus

erased inscriptions 211Salvius Cocceianus 107Samos 89

erased inscription of Caligula 41Sardinia 69, 216Sardis 33, 226

Marble Court 182Temple of Artemis 151, n. 137

Sargon 12-13Sarmigetusa 208Saturn 147Saufeius Trogus 95, n. 109Scipio 86scaenae frons 41L. Scribonius Libo 89M. Scribonius Libo Drusus 17, 89Sebaste

countermarked coins of Elagabalus 189Segobriga

Theater 33, 226Segusio 216Seleucia 162sella curulis 107, 143, 178Sejanus 161, n. 43

conspiracy with Livilla against Tiberius 92corpse abuse 4, 92destruction of statues 3, 92-3, 110, 137erasure of inscriptions 92erasure of tria nomina in coins 93, 104joint consulship with Tiberius 93official condemnation and maiestas charges 6, 92persecution of Agrippina Maior 92

Sempronius Gracchus 86Seneca 46Senenmut 13, n. 79Sennacherib

mutilated relief at Nineveh 12

general index 331

P. Septimius Geta 163, n. 70accusations against Plautianus 161, n. 44erroneous erasure of inscriptions 183

Serapis 129Severus

defeat and execution 216Septimius Severus 145, 146, 156, 159, 160, 161, 163, 173,

174, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 196, 199campaigns against Parthians 156, 162, 175-176, 179,

n. 204Clodius Albinus as Caesar 157consecrationes of Pertinax and Commodus 6, 158, n. 13death at York 156dynastic propaganda 169protection of Plautilla 164rehabilitation of Commodus 138, 144, 147, 154salutation as emperor 157Serapis type 182, n. 230

Severus Alexander 184, n. 262, 188accession 157, 188, 195-196assasination at Vicus Britannicus 157, 196, 199, 200bust used as countermark 189deification 9, 196erased inscriptions 196Esquiline Nymphaeum 133Horti Lamiani 141portrait typology 191-192, n. 305portraits reworked from Elagabalus 5, 11, 156, 190-192,

199, 223, 279-281portraits smeared with mud 182spontaneously attacked portraits 9, 156, 196-197, 199,

213, 281Sibylline Oracle 81Sicca 210Sicily 156Side

building M 140, 271Sidon

countermarked coins of Elagabalus 189signa 148, 177-178Silandus 139Silchester 50Silvanus 181similitudo 158, 169Sinope 100, n. 153Sirmium 207, 214Smyrna 34, 236

effaced coins of Geta 171Forum 150, 272

Sol 147, 148Spain 33, 216Spiculus 47, n. 14Split

Mausoleum of Diocletian 221, n. 59Stilicho

erased statue base 224Stratonicea

effaced and countermarked coins of Geta 171-172, 198submissio 143, 162, n. 58Sulla 18G. Sulpicius Galba 105Sulpicius Rufus 95, n. 109

supplicationes 98Syracuse

destruction of monuments of Dionysus II 15Forum 50, 237

Tarrutenius Paternus 149, n. 121Tharsis

Roman well 38Thasian marble 46, 240Theodosius 215, 223

“Riot of the Statues” 224Theoi Sebastoi 73Thera

theater, erased inscription of Caligula 41Thessalonika

Arch of Galerius 221countermarked Neronian coinage 51

Thrace 220Thugga 41Thuburbo Maius

Forum 174Winter Baths 174

Thutmoses II 13, n. 78Thutmoses III

mutilation of images and cartouches of Hatchepsut 13thymeterium 58Tiberius 9, n. 56, 17, 21, 28, 35, n. 108, 38, 42, 43, 79,

88accession 157adoption by Augustus 88, 89adoption of Germanicus 75, 89conspiracy of Sejanus and Livilla, 92, 93exile of Agrippina Maior 90Grand Camée de France 92, n. 82joint consulship with Sejanus 93marriage to Vipsania Agrippina 88mutinies at outset of principate 89portrait recut from Caligula 33, 229proposed abuse of corpse 39, n. 149, 73, n. 233receding lower lip 31retirement on Rhodes 86starvation of Julia Maior 86

Tiberius Gemellus 38, 79, 93, 94, 95Ticinum

coins of Crispus 221, ns. 63, 64Timestheus 204Timolean

destruction of monuments of Dionysus II 15Tindari 94Tiridates

visit to Rome 71Titius Proculus 95, n. 109Titus 11, 44, 59, 61, 67, 76, 122, 126 , 127, n. 125, 131,

132commemoration as Divus 123cults of Isis and Serapis 129, n. 152portrait features on Colossus 66portrait typology 55portraits recut from Caligula 33-4, 235-236portraits recut from Domitian 123-124, 261portraits recut from Nero 55-57, 85, 246-248Sanctuary of the Augustales at Misenum 121

general index332

scarcity of cameo portraits 60Tivoli 116, 262

Sanctuary of Hercules Victor 118, 265Tiye

image reworked to Arsinoe IItoga contabulata 196-197toga virilis 88Tor Paterno

Roman Villa 205-206Trajan 11, 18, n. 122, 72-73, n. 232, 89, 99, n. 141, 125,

127, n. 131, 129, 131, 135, 174, 223centenary anniversary of accession 168completion of Via Antiniana 133Decennalia Type 122Burgerkronentypus 122-123Opferbildtypus 122-23, 134Optimus Princeps 135Pliny’s panegyricus 112portraits recut from Domitian 122-123, 267-269portrait recut from Nero 63, 85posthumous Parthian triumph 3

Trajan Decius 210death 207defeat of Philip the Arab 205, 207deification 207erased inscriptions 208portrait typology 2089

Tralles 71, 95-96Tranquillina 165Trebonianus Gallus 209, 210

accession 207declaration of Aemilian as hostis 209deification of Trajan Decius and Herrenius Etruscus 207destruction of portraits 208-209murder 208portrait typology 208

Triercoins of Crispus 221, n. 63

TriesteRoman Theater 56

Trimerus 89Tripolis

countermarked Neronian coins 51Tripolitania 156, 159,

Tychai 181, n. 221Triptolemus 62triumphator 40, 76Troy

Odeum 185, n. 267tubicines 98Tusculum 69, 126, 248Tyche 96tyrannus 80 , 211, 213Tyre

countermarked coins of Elabablus 189

Ulpia Traiana 208Ummanigash

mutilated relief at Nineveh 12Upper Moesia 187Upper Pannonia 156, 197

Vaison

theater 30, 58, 125, 234, 254Valeria Maximilla 222

collateral condemnation 219-220marriage to Maxentius 215, 219mutilated portrait 220, 288

Valerian 64, 210declaration as emperor 209portrait recut from soldier emperor? 209-210portrait typology 209-210

Valerian Minorerased inscriptions 211

M. Valerius Messala Barbatus 95S. Varius Marcellus 188Velia

collegium 88, 91Velleia 7, 9, 43

Basilica 38, 79-80, 96-97, 117, 142, 232-233, 251, 258,263

Venus 150, 272Venus Anadyomene 195, n. 339Venus-Aphrodite 73Venus Genetrix 28, 149, 186Verona 205, 207, 216

Palazzo Bevilacqua 173Vertumnus 180, n. 216Vespasian 9, 41, 44, 47, 67, 76, 77, 81, 83, 107, 110, 111,

122, 123, n. 90, 126, 127, n. 125, 131, 132, 157, 262Cancelleria Reliefs 119-20completion of Temple of Divus Claudius 63, n. 153countermarks 51cults of Isis and Serapis 129, n. 152depleted treasury 61Ephesus Temple 128-129idealizing portraits 52-54portrait typology 52portraits recut from Galba 109-110portraits recut from Nero 52-55, 61, 85, 240-246portraits recut from Vitellius 109, 259refusal of monument to Galba 106Sanctuary of the Augustales at Misenum 121scarcity of cameo portraits 60thrifty personality 61, n. 136veristic portraits 54-55, 124

Vettius Valens 95, n. 109G. Vettulenus Civica Cerialis 81, n. 313Enea Vico 145Victoria 142, 172, 180, ns. 211, 216, 217, 277Vicus Britannicus 157, 196Vicenza

Theater 50, 238Vienne

Odeum 50, 51, 238M. Vinicius 102Vipsania Agrippina 88Vistilia 44visual cannibalism 4, 10, 25, 223Vitellius 157, 205, 262

corpse abuse 4, 39, n. 149, 108-109, 110, 168, n. 114,189, n. 290

defeat of Otho 107destruction of portraits 108-109, 110, 197modern portraits 109-110

general index 333

portraits recut to Vespasian 109, 259rehabilitation of Nero and Poppaea’s memory 81, 83,

85removal of portraits 109son’s portraiture 65, 256

L. Vitellius 108Marius Vitruvius Flaccus 16Volusianus

murder 208

York 156

Zenodorus 66Zeus Eleutherios 78-79

table of contentsvi

list of illustrations 335

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND PHOTO CREDITS

Figure 1. Ptolemy X/Ptolemy IX, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 83.AA.330 (photo courtesy J. PaulGetty Museum).

Figure 2a-b. Caligula, Switzerland, private collection (after H. Jucker and D. Willers, eds. [1982] no. 117).Figure 3. Caligula, Aquileia, Museo Archeologico, inv. 128 (after H. Jucker [1982] pl. 15.1).Figure 4a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv. 2443, Centrale Montemartini, 2.74 (DAIR

41.2566-69).Figure 5. Caligula/Claudius, Woburn Abbey (photo after E. Angelicoussis [1992] fig. 12c).Figure 6a-c. Caligula/Claudius Fano, Museo Civico (DAIR 1084-6).Figure 7a-b. Caligula/Claudius, Hannover, Kestnermuseum, inv.1978.15 (photo after A. Mlasowsky [1992], fig.

14).Figure 8a-b. Caligula/Claudius, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 18, IX.A 23 (photo after W.R. Megow [1987]

pl. 21).Figure 9a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala Rotonda 551, inv. 242 (DAIR 81.2841-44).Figure 10. Caligula/Claudius, Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Maremma, inv. 97765 (DAIR 81.1758).Figure 11a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Rome Musei Vaticani, Magazzini, inv. 151 (photo courtesy Musei Vaticani).Figure 12. Caligula/Claudius, Aquileia, Aquileia, Museo Archeologico, inv. 108 (DAIR 82.240).Figure 13a-c. Caligula/Claudius, Mantua, Palazzo Ducale (DAIR 73.2337-38, 73.2341).Figure 14a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 150-215 (DAIR 85.828, 831-33).Figure 15a-c. Caligula/Claudius, Perugia, Museo (DAIR 82.1198-1200).Figure 16a-b. Caligula/Claudius, Istanbul Archaeological Museum, inv. 87 (after Inan-Rosenbaum 65, no. 22,

pl. 14.1-2).Figure 17a-b. Caligula/Augustus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, formerly Sala degli Orti Mecenaziani 7, inv.

2394 (Centrale Montemartini 1.61) (DAIR 2001.2065-66).Figure 18a-b. Caligula/Augustus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 9953 (after A. Giuliano

[1957] pl.9.13a-b).Figure 19a-d. Caligula/Augustus, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 78.AA.261 (photo courtesy J. Paul Getty

Museum).Figure 20a-d. Caligula/Augustus, Zadar, Museum (DAIR 82.3627, 82.3630-2).Figure 21a-d. Caligula/Augustus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 611, inv. 746 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg

Glyptotek).Figure 22a-c. Caligula/Augustus, Tunis, Musée du Bardo, C 72 (DAIR 79.1663-5).Figure 23. Caligula/Titus, Arles, Musée Réattu, Cellar Depot (after H. Jucker [1981] fig. 81).Figure 24. Caligula/Titus, Athens, National Museum, Roman Collection, inv. 348 (after H. Jucker [1981] fig. 82).Figure 25a-e. Caligula/Claudius Gothicus (?), New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection (photos courtesy

Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection).Figure 26a-b. Caligula, Tunis, Institut National d’Archeologie et d’Art (DAIR 64.4-5).Figure 27. Caligula, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 72.AA.155 (photo courtesy J. Paul Getty Museum).Figure 28. Caligula, Worcester, Worcester Art Museum, inv. 1914.23 (photo courtesy of the Worcester Art Museum).Figure 29. Caligula, New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery, inv. 1987.70.1 (funded by the Peggy and Richard

Danziger, L.L.B 1963, George Hooper Fitch B.A. 1932, Allen Grover B.A. 1932, Allen Grover B.A. 1922,Leonard C Hanna, Jr. BA 1913, Fund, H. John Heinz III Charitable Trust, and the H.J. Heinz Family Fund,photo courtesy of the Yale University Art Gallery).

Figure 30. Caligula, Fulda, Schloss Fasanarie, FAS.ARP 21 (DAIR 67.1180).Figure 31. Caligula, Brooklyn, Art Museum, inv. 21.479.12 (photo courtesy the Brooklyn Art Museum).Figure 32. Caligula, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1923.160.23 (photo courtesy of the

Metropolitan Museum of Art).Figure 33. Caligula, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Fletcher Fund, 1925.78.35 (photo courtesy of the

Metropolitan Museum of Art).Figure 34a-b. (Caligula)/Claudius, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, no. 1, inv. 280 (1870), inv. 834 (1942)

(DAIR 67.1583-4).Figure 35. Caligula, New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection (photo courtesy of Shelby White and Leon

Levy Collection).

list of illustrations336

Figure 36. Caligula, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 4256 (DAIR 80.969).Figure 37. Caligula, New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection (photo courtesy of Shelby White and Leon

Levy Collection).Figure 38. Caligula, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1911.195.7 (photo courtesy of the

Metropolitan Museum of Art).Figure 39. Caligula and Roma, Washington D.C., Dumbarton Oaks Collection, inv. 46.10 (photo courtesy of

Dumbarton Oaks Collection).Figure 40. Caligula, Iesi, Palazzo della Signoria (DAIR 75.1066).Figure 41. Caligula, Genoa-Pegli, Museo, inv. 614 (DAIR 68.1407).Figure 42. Nero, Cagliari, Museo Nazionale, inv. 6122 (after U. Heisinger [1975] pl. 24.41).Figure 43. Nero, Syracuse, Museo Nazionale, inv. 6383 (DAIR 88.349).Figure 44. Nero, Vienne, Vienne, Musée Archéologique (after H. Jucker [1981a] fig. 74).Figure 45. Nero, dupondius, New York, American Numismatic Society, inv. 1953.171.1308 (photo courtesy of the

American Numismatic Society).Figure 46a-d. Nero/Vespasian, Lucus Feroniae (DAIR 62.517, 519-20, 525).Figure 47a-d. Nero/Vespasian, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 463, inv. 1979 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg

Glyptotek).Figure 48. Nero/Vespasian (cast), Rome, Villa Borghese (photo author).Figure 49a-e. Nero/Vespasian, Cleveland, Museum of Art, inv. 1929.439.2 (photo courtesy Cleveland Museum of

Art).Figure 50a-b. Nero/Vespasian, London, British Museum, inv. 1890 (photos after M. Wegner, G. Daltrop and U.

Hausmann [1966] pl. 2).Figure 51a-e. Nero/Vespasian, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti 7.9, inv. 1291 (DAIR 80.1404, 87Vat44-

47).Figure 52a-d. Nero/Vespasian, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv. 38795 (photos after M. Anderson

and L. Nista, eds. [1989] no. 8).Figure 53a-e. Nero/Vespasian, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 53 (photos

author).Figure 54. Nero/Vespasian, Tunis, Musée du Bardo, inv. C 1025 (DAIR 61.627).Figure 55a-b. Nero/Vespasian, Turin, Museo di Antichità, inv. 244 (photo after M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.

Hausmann [1966] pl. 7c-d).Figure 56a-d. Nero/Titus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 664a, inv. 1843 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg

Glyptotek).Figure 57. Nero/Titus, Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, inv. 1914.126 (photo after G.A. Mansuelli [1961] fig. 70).Figure 58. Nero/Titus, Trieste Civico Museo di Storia e Arte, inv. 3139, cat. 2.40 (DAIR 81.4113-16).Figure 59. Nero/Domitian, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Braccio Nuovo 126, inv. 2213 (photo author).Figure 60a-b. Nero/Domitian, Vaison-la-Romaine, Musée Municipal, inv. 300.315 (photo after M. Bergmann and

P. Zanker [1981] fig. 43a-b).Figure 61a-e. Nero/Domitian/Nerva, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 146 (1870), 827 (1954) (DAIR

31.1225, 79.3386-89).Figure 62a-b. Nero/Domitian, Munich, Glyptothek, 394 (formerly 249) (photos after M. Bergmann and P. Zanker

[1981] fig. 41).Figure 63a-d. Nero/Domitian, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano. Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 226 (DAIR

79.3925-28).Figure 64a-c. Nero/Domitian, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 88.639 (Benjamin Pearce Cheney Fund 1888,

photo courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston).Figure 65. Nero/Domitian, Vasto, Museo Civico (photo after M. Bergmann and P. Zanker [1981] fig. 32a).Figure 66a-b. Nero/Domitian, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 6061 (DAIR 40.491, 65.697).Figure 67. Nero/Domitian, Rome Villa Margherita (American Embassy), wall along the Via Boncompagni (photo

after L. de Lachenal, MusNazRom no. 7.42).Figure 68. Nero/Domitian, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano no. 644, inv. 4065 (photo after H. Jucker

[1981a] fig. 68).Figure 69. Nero/Domitian, Minden, Domschatz (photo after W.R. Megow [1987] pl. 36.4).Figure 70. Nero/Augustus, Rome, Palazzo Colonna, fid. no. 54 (DAIR 82.2525).Figure 71. Nero/Augustus, Aquileia, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 12 (DAIR 82.247).Figure 72a-b. Nero/Augustus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei Busti 274, inv. 715 (photos author).Figure 73. Nero/Augustus, Luni, Antiquario, CM 1033 (photo after M. Bergmann [1998] pl. 24.4).Figure 74. Nero/Galba, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles 251 (photo after W.R. Megow [1987]

pl. 36.3).Figure 75. Nero/Trajan, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. no. 1983.11 (photo after W.R. Megow [1987] pl. 41.5).

list of illustrations 337

Figure 76. Nero/Antinous, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, 238 (photo after W.R. Megow[1987] pl. 42.10).

Figure 77a-d. Nero/Gallienus, Columbia, Missouri, University of Missouri, Museum of Art and Archaeology, acc.no. 62.46, cat. (photo courtesy of Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of Missouri-Columbia, gift ofMr. T.E. Bachman).

Figure 78. Nero/Constantinian Emperor, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, Magazzini, inv. 126279(photo after MusNazRom 1.9.2, no. R320).

Figure 79a-d. Nero(?)/Private Individual, New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery, inv. 1961.30 (photo courtesyof the Yale University Art Gallery, gift of Maitland F. Griggs BA. 1896).

Figure 80. Nero, Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 1210 (photo after K. de Kersauson [1986] no. 99).Figure 81a-c. Nero, Rome, Museo Palatino, inv. 616 (photos author).Figure 82a-c. Nero, Rome, Museo Palatino, inv. 618 (photos author).Figure 83. Nero, Munich, Glyptothek, inv. 321 (DAIR 71.2664).Figure 84a-b. Nero, Worcester, Art Gallery, inv. 1915.23 (photo courtesy Worcester Art Museum).Figure 85. Gaius/Nero, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei Busti 385, inv. 591 (photos after J. Pollini [1987] pl. 22).Figure 86. Nero, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv. 2835 (Centrale Montemartini 1.25b) and Baltimore, Walters

Art Museum, inv. 23.104 (photo after D. K. Hill [1939] fig. 1).Figure 87a-b. Nero, Private Collection (photos courtesy of the Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory University).Figure 88. Neronian cuirass, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano 9948 (photo after A. Guiliano

[1957] pl. 18).Figure 89. Neronian cuirass, Durres, Museum, inv. 4415 (photo courtesy Iris Pojani, Institute of Archaeology, Tirana).Figure 90. Nero, London, British Museum, inv. 1965.12-1.1 (photo after H. Jucker [1981a] fig. 75).Figure 91. Agrippina and Nero, Aphrodisias, Museum (photo courtesy Aphrodisias Photo Archives).Figure 92a-c. Nero and Armenia, Aphrodisias, Museum (photo courtesy Aphrodisias Photo Archives).Figure 93. Nero, Aphrodisias, Museum (photo courtesy Aphrodisias Photo Archives).Figure 94. Grand Camée de France, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, 264 (photo courtesy

Bibliothèque Nationale).Figure 95. Nero, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bequest of W. Gedney Beatty, 1941, inv. 1941.160.762

(photo courtesy the Metropolitan Museum of Art).Figure 96. Nero, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 826 (DAIR 67.1587).Figure 97. Poppaea, Florence, Museo Archeologico, inv. 14519 (photo after A. Giuliano, ed. [1989] no. 229).Figure 98. Poppaea, Bonn, Private Collection (after W.R. Megow [1987] pl. 34.16).Figure 99. Messalina, Rome, Musei Vaticani, 39.9, inv. 1814 (DAIR 87Vat301).Figure 100a-c. Messalina/Agrippina Minor, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 146 (1870), inv. 830 (1952)

(DAIR 67.1590-92).Figure 101a-d. Messalina/Agrippina Minor, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico. inv. 6242 (DAIR 36.907-10).Figure 102. Galba (?), Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 74.AA.37 (photo after J. Frel [1981] no. 32).Figure 103. Otho, Ostia, Magazzini, inv. 446 (DAIR 70.3258).Figure 104. Vitellius, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 655A, inv. 3167 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek).Figure 105a-b. Vitellius/Vespasian, Hannover, Kestnermuseum (photos after A. Mlasowsky (1992) no. 8)Figure 106a-c. Vitellius/Vespasian, Thessalonika, Archaeological Museum, inv. 1055 (photos after M. Bergmann

and P. Zanker [1981] fig. 22a-c).Figure 107a-b. Vitellius/Vespasian, Trier Rheinisches Landesmuseum, ST 5223 (photos after M. Bergmann and

P. Zanker [1981] fig. 23a-b).Figure 108a-b. Domitian, Castel Gandalfo, Antiquario (photo after P. Liverani [1989] fig. 1.2).Figure 109. Domitianic Cuirass, Princeton, The Art Museum, Princeton University, Museum Purchase, Caroline

G. Mather Fund inv.84-2 (photo courtesy Trustees of Princeton University, photo by Clem Fiori).Figure 110. (Domitian) and Domitia, as, Cibyra (photo after K. Harl [1987] 12.1).Figure 111a-e. Domitian/Nerva, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 542, inv. 1454 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg

Glyptotek).Figure 112a-b. Domitian/Nerva, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei Busti 317, inv. 674 (photos after M. Bergmann

and P. Zanker [1981] fig. 54).Figure 113a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Rome, Museo Capitolino Stanza degli Imperatori (formerly Stanza Terrena a

destra), inv. 417 (photo author).Figure 114. Domitian/Nerva, Holkham Hall (photo after M. Bergmann and P. Zanker [1981] fig. 58a).Figure 115a-e. Domitian/Nerva, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala Verde, inv. 423 (photos author).Figure 116a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Museo Nazionale Romano del Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 318 (DAIR

70.226-8, 231).Figure 117. Domitian/Nerva, formerly Leipzig, Archäologisches Institut der Universität (photo after M. Bergmann

and P. Zanker [1981] fig. 52).

list of illustrations338

Figure 118a-b. Domitian(?)/Nerva(?), Lucera, Museo Civico, inv. 25 (photos after G. Legrottaglie [1999] pl. 35).Figure 119a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 83.AA.43 (photos courtesy J. Paul Getty

Museum).Figure 120a-b. Domitian/Nerva, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala Rotonda, inv. 246 (photos after R.R.R. Smith [1988]

pl. 61.3-4).Figure 121a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 106538

(DAIR 70.233-35, 38).Figure 122a-b. Cancelleria Reliefs, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano (photos courtesy Musei Vaticani).Figure 123a-c. Domitian/Nerva, Baia, Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei nel Castello di Baia, inv. 155743

(photos after Domiziano/Nerva figs.).Figure 124. Domitian/Trajan, Sabratha, Museum (DAIR 61.2143).Figure 125a-b. Domitian/Trajan, Split, Archeological Museum, inv. C 222 (DAIR 82.2731-2).Figure 126a-c. Domitian/Trajan, Venice, Museo Archeologico, inv. 249 (DAIR 68.5038-39, 82.708).Figure 127a-d. Domitian/Trajan, Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv. 61160 (DAIR 80.594-97).Figure 128a-d. Domitian/Titus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti 31.20, inv. 1687 (DAIR 87 Vat 180-

83).Figure 129a-d. Domitian/Constantinian Emperor, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 89.6 (photos courtesy Museum

of Fine Arts, Boston).Figure 130a-b. Domitian/4th Century Emperor, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles (photos after

M. Bergman and P. Zanker [1981] fig. 65).Figure 131. Domitian, Ostia, Museo, inv. 19 (DAIR 63.2346).Figure 132. Domitian, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 76.AA.72 (photos after M. Bergmann [1998] pl.

44).Figure 133. Domitian, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 115191 (DAIR 81.4113).Figure 134. Domitian, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 664, inv. 768 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek).Figure 135. Domitian, Toledo, Museum of Art, inv. 1990.30 (photo courtesy the Toledo Museum of Art).Figure 136a-d. Domitian, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 75.AA.26 (photos courtesy J. Paul Getty Museum).Figure 137. Commodus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti, 3.13, inv. 1235 (DAIR 88 Vat 1062).Figure 138. Commodus, Phillipi, Museum, inv. 469 (photo after M. Wegner and R. Unger [1980] pl. 7.1).Figure 139a-c. Commodus/Pupienus(?), Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti 27.8, inv. 1613 (formerly

Magazzini, 690) (DAIR 87 Vat 193, 195, 197).Figure 140a-c. Commodus/Licinius(?), Side, Museum, inv. 35 (old no. 315) (photos after J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum

[1966] pls. 40.1-2, 41.3).Figure 141. Commodus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala degli Arazzi, inv. 1120 (photo author).Figure 142a-c. Marcus Aurelius, Triumph of A.D. 176, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori (photos after I.S. Ryberg

[1967] figs. 9a, 11b).Figure 143a-b. Marcus Aurelius, Congiarium of A.D. 177, Rome, Arch of Constantine (photos after I.S. Ryberg

[1967] fig. 49).Figure 144a-b. Marcus Aurelius, Lustratio, Rome, Arch of Constantine (photos after I.S. Ryberg [1967] figs. 27,

30a.).Figure 145a-b. Marcus Aurelius, Clemency, Rome, Arch of Constantine (photos after I.S. Ryberg [1967] figs. 44,

45b).Figure 146. Commodus, Ostia, Museo, inv. 270 (photo after R. Calza [1977] pl. 17).Figure 147. Lucilla, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Museo Nuovo, Sala 1.9, inv. 1781 (Centrale Montemartini

3.85) (DAIR 36.1237).Figure 148. Lucilla, Guelma, Museum, inv. M. 396 (photo after M. Wegner and R. Unger [1980] pl. 5.3).Figure 149. Lucilla, Izmir, Museum, inv. 3694 (photo after J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum [1966] pl. 33).Figure 150a-b. Lucilla/Helena, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 59, inv. 496 (DAIR 57.1378,

77.1718).Figure 151a-b. Lucilla, Helena, Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, inv. 1914.171 (DAIR 65.2145, 2147).Figure 152. Lucilla, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo 3.25 (Centrale Montemartini 2.91), inv. 2766

(DAIR 59.1454).Figure 153. Crispina, Ostia, Museo, Magazzini, Sala 7, inv. 1954 (photo after R. Calza [1977] pl. 19).Figure 154a-b. Annia Fundania Faustina(?), Ostia, Museo, Sala 6.2, inv. 1123 (DAIR 70.1958, 1964).Figure 155. Arch of Septimius Severus, Eastern Facade, Rome, Forum Romanum (photo author).Figure 156a-b. Arch of Septimius Severus, Northwestern Panel, Rome, Forum Romanum (photo author).Figure 157. Arch of the Argentarii, Rome (DAIR 59.746).Figure 158. Caracalla (Plautianus and Plautilla), Arch of the Argentarii, Western Interior Panel, Rome (DAIR

70.1000).Figure 159. Caracalla, Plautianus and Plautilla, Arch of the Argentarii, Western Interior Panel, Reconstruction

(courtesy S. de Maria).Figure 160. Arch of the Argentarii, Attic Inscription, Rome (photo author).

list of illustrations 339

Figure 161a-b. Plautilla, Rome, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Magazzini, 731, inv. 4278 (photo courtesy Musei Vaticani).Figure 162a-b. Plautilla, Houston, Museum of Fine Art, inv. 70-39 (photo courtesy the Museum of Fine Arts,

Houston).Figure 163a-b. Plautilla/Tetrarchic or Constantinian Empress, Irvine, California, Collection of Mr. Robert K. Martin

(photos after S. Nodelman [1982] figs. 11-12).Figure 164. Plautilla, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 72.AA.118 (photo courtesy J. Paul Getty Museum).Figure 165a-b. Geta, Florence, Villa del Poggio Imperiale (photos after V. Saladino [1978] pls. 80-81).Figure 166. Geta, Venice, Museo Archeologico, inv. 79 (photo after G. Traversari [1968] no. 24).Figure 167. Geta, Florence, Palazzo Pitti, Museo degli Argenti, Sala I, inv. 1036 (photo after C. Saletti [1967] pl.

15).Figure 168. Geta, Guelma, Musée Archéologique (photo after H. Wiggers and M. Wegner [1971] pl. 9a-b).Figure 169. Geta, erased coin, from Isaura (after R. Mowat [1901] pl. 10.2).Figure 170. Geta, defaced coin, from Smyrna (after R. Mowat [1901] pl. 10.4).Figure 171a-e. Geta, defaced coins, from Stratonicea (after R. Mowat [1901] pls. 10.6-10).Figures 172a-c. Geta, defaced coins, from Stratonicea, New York, American Numismatic Society, inv. 1953.171.830,

inv. 1944.100.48080, inv. 1967.152.461 (photos courtesy the American Numismatic Society).Figure 173. Geta/Mid-Third Century Portrait, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Salone 51, inv. 675 (photo after Fittschen-

Zanker I, pl. 109).Figure 174a-b. Geta/Victoria, Rock Crystal Intaglio, Atlanta, Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory University, inv.

2003.25.2 (photos courtesy Renée Stein, Michael C. Carlos Museum).Figure 175. Geta, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti 3.16, inv. 1238 (DAIR 87 Vat 159).Figure 176. Geta, formerly Vienna, Palais Lanckoronski (DAIR 75.762).Figure 177. Geta, Pegli, Museo Civico (DAIR 68.1409).Figure 178. Geta, Tunis, Musée du Bardo, inv. C 1347 (DAIR 61.630).Figure 179. Arch of Septimius Severus, Southwestern Panel, Rome, Forum Romanum (photo author).Figure 180. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna (and Geta), Arch of the Argentarii, Eastern Interior Panel, Rome

(DAIR 70.993).Figure 181. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, and Geta, Arch of the Argentarii, Eastern Panel, Reconstruction

(courtesy S. de Maria).Figure 182. Septimius Severus and Caracalla, Arch of the Argentarii, Southern Facade, Rome (photo author).Figure 183. Palazzo Sachetti Relief, Rome, Palazzo Sachetti (photo after L. Budde [1955]).Figure 184a-b. Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, Dextrarum Iunctio, Southwest Attic Panel, Arch of Septimius

Severus, Lepcis Magna (photos after R. Bartocini [1931]).Figure 185. Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, Triumphal Procession, Northwest Attic Panel, Arch of Septimius

Severus, Lepcis Magna (photo after R. Bartocini [1931]).Figure 186. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, Caracalla, and Geta, interior panel, Arch of Septimius Severus, Lepcis

Magna (photo after R. Bartocini [1931]).Figure 187. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, and Geta, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. 31.329 (DAIR 69.159).Figure 188a-c. Macrinus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Museo Nuovo, Sala 7, 21, inv. 1757 (Centrale Monte-

martini 3.82) (DAIR 69.2168-70).Figure 189a-b. Macrinus, Cambridge, Mass., Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University, inv. 1949.47.138

(photo courtesy Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Museums, Alpheus Hyatt Fund).Figure 190a-c. Macrinus, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 36, inv. 460 (DAIR 70.2, 76.2060,

2062).Figure 191. Macrinus and Diadumenianus, Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum, inv. 32300 (photo after W.R. Megow

[1987] pl. 50.3).Figure 192a-b. Diadumenianus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano, 651 (10135) inv. 10075 (photos

after A. Giuliano [1957] pl. 48).Figure 193a-c. Elagabalus/Severus Alexander, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, 5993 (photos author).Figure 194a-c. Elagabalus/Severus Alexander, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme,

inv. 329 (photos after MusNazRom 1.9.2, no. R273).Figure 195a-d. Elagabalus/Severus Alexander, Kansas City, Kansas City, Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, 45-66

(photo courtesy the Nelson Atkins Museum).Figure 196a-b. Severus Alexander, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv. 1431 (DAIR 70.12-13).Figure 197. Severus Alexander, Bochum, Kunstsammlungen der Ruhr-Universität (photo after B. Andreae [1978]).Figure 198. Julia Mammaea, Ostia, Museo, inv. 26 (photo after R. Calza [1977] pl. 61).Figure 199. Julia Mammaea, Paris, Musée du Louvre, no. 3552 (inv. MND 2137), (photo after H.B. Wiggers and

M. Wegner [1971] pl. 60).Figure 200a-c. Maximinus Thrax, Museo Palatino, inv. 52681 (photos author).Figure 201. Maximinus Thrax, Rome, Villa Ludovisi, Casino Aurora (photo after L. De Lachenal, MusNazRom

1.6, 246-47).

list of illustrations340

Figure 202. Maximinus Thrax, Rome, Villa Ludovisi, Casino Aurora (photo after L. De Lachenal, MusNazRom1.6, 2, 250-52).

Figure 203. Maximus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 745, inv. 819 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek).Figure 204. Maximus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 746, inv. 823 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek).Figure 205. Gordian III, Sofia, National Archaeological Museum, inv. 1497 (DAIR 37.968).Figure 206. Otacilia Severa, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv. 2765 (Centrale Montemartini 2.95) (DAIR

69.2161).Figure 207. Carinus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv. 850 (Centrale Montemartini 2.83) (photos after Fittschen-

Zanker I, pl. 146).Figure 208a-b. Maxentius, Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, inv. 106 (photo after H.P. L Orange and M. Wegner

[1984] pl. x.x).Figure 209a-d. Maxentius/Constantine, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Cortile (photos author).Figure 210a-c. Maxentius/Constantine, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza terrena a destra I.25, inv. 1769 (photos

after Fittschen-Zanker I, pl. 148).Figure 211. Maxentius/Constantine, Rome, Campidoglio (photo author).Figure 212. Maxentius, Dresden, Antikensammlung, inv. 406 (photo after H.P. L’Orange [1984] pl. 27a).Figure 213. Maxentius, Rome, Museo Torlonia (photo after H.P. L’Orange [1984] pl. 26a).Figure 214. Valeria Maximilla (?), Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv. 106 (photos after Fittschen-Zanker

III, pl. 206).Figure 215. Galeria Valeria/Deity, Thessalonika, Museum, inv. 2466 (photo after H.P. L’Orange [1984] pl. 21b).

ILLUSTRATIONS 1–215

Fig. 1. Ptolemy X/Ptolemy IX, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 83.AA.330.

Fig. 2a-b. Caligula, Switzerland, private collection.

Fig. 3. Caligula, Aquileia, Museo Archeologico, inv. 128.

Fig. 4a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv. 2443, Centrale Montemartini, 2.74.

Fig. 5. Caligula/Claudius, Woburn Abbey.

Fig. 6a-c. Caligula/Claudius Fano, Museo Civico.

Fig. 7a-b. Caligula/Claudius, Hannover, Kestnermuseum, inv.1978.15.

Fig. 8a-b. Caligula/Claudius, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 18, IX.A 23.

Fig. 9a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala Rotonda 551, inv. 242.

Fig. 10. Caligula/Claudius, Grosseto, Museo Archeo-logico e d’Arte della Maremma, inv. 97765.

Fig. 11a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Rome Musei Vaticani, Magazzini, inv. 151.

Fig. 12. Caligula/Claudius, Aquileia,Aquileia, Museo Archeologico, inv. 108.

Fig. 13a-c. Caligula/Claudius, Mantua, Palazzo Ducale.

Fig. 14a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 150-215.

Fig. 15a-c. Caligula/Claudius, Perugia, Museo.

Fig. 16a-b. Caligula/Claudius, Istanbul Archaeological Museum, inv. 87.

Fig. 17a-b. Caligula/Augustus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, formerly Sala degli Orti Mecenaziani 7, inv.2394 (Centrale Montemartini 1.61).

Fig. 18a-b. Caligula/Augustus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, MuseoGregoriano Profano, inv. 9953.

Fig. 19a-d. Caligula/Augustus, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 78.AA.261.

Fig. 20a-d. Caligula/Augustus, Zadar, Museum.

Fig. 21a-d. Caligula/Augustus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 611, inv. 746.

Fig. 22a-c. Caligula/Augustus, Tunis, Musée du Bardo, C 72.

Fig. 23. Caligula/Titus, Arles, Musée Réattu, Cellar Depot.

Fig. 24. Caligula/Titus, Athens, National Museum, Ro-man Collection, inv. 348.

Fig. 25a-e. Caligula/Claudius Gothicus (?), New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection.

Fig. 26a-b. Caligula, Tunis, Institut National d’Archeologie et d’Art.

Fig. 27. Caligula, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 72.AA.155.

Fig. 28. Caligula, Worcester, Worcester Art Museum,inv. 1914.23.

Fig. 29. Caligula, New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery, inv.1987.70.1.

Fig. 30. Caligula, Fulda, Schloss Fasanarie, FAS.ARP 21.

Fig. 31. Caligula, Brooklyn, Art Museum, inv. 21.479.12.

Fig. 32. Caligula, New York, MetropolitanMuseum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1923.

160.23.

Fig. 33. Caligula, New York, MetropolitanMuseum of Art, Fletcher Fund, 1925.78.35.

Fig. 34a-b. (Caligula)/Claudius, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, no. 1, inv. 280 (1870), inv. 834 (1942).

Fig. 35. Caligula, New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection.

Fig. 36. Caligula, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano,Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 4256.

Fig. 37. Caligula, New York, Shelby White and Leon LevyCollection.

Fig. 38. Caligula, New York, Metropolitan Museum ofArt, Rogers Fund, 1911.195.7.

Fig. 39. Caligula and Roma, Washington D.C., DumbartonOaks Collection, inv. 46.10.

Fig. 40. Caligula, Iesi, Palazzo della Signoria. Fig. 41. Caligula, Genoa-Pegli, Museo, inv. 614.

Fig. 42. Nero, Cagliari, Museo Nazionale, inv. 6122. Fig. 43. Nero, Syracuse, Museo Nazionale, inv. 6383.

Fig. 44. Nero, Vienne, Vienne, Musée Archéologique.

Fig. 45. Nero, dupondius, New York, American Numismatic Society, inv. 1953.171.1308.

Fig. 46a-d. Nero/Vespasian, Lucus Feroniae.

Fig. 47a-d. Nero/Vespasian, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 463, inv. 1979.

Fig. 48. Nero/Vespasian (cast), Rome, Villa Borghese.

Fig. 49a-e. Nero/Vespasian, Cleveland, Museum of Art, inv. 1929.439.2.

Fig. 50a-b. Nero/Vespasian, London, British Museum, inv. 1890.

Fig. 51a-e. Nero/Vespasian, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti 7.9, inv. 1291.

Fig. 52a-d. Nero/Vespasian, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv. 38795.

Fig. 53a-e. Nero/Vespasian, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 53.

Fig. 54. Nero/Vespasian, Tunis, Musée du Bardo, inv. C 1025.

Fig. 55a-b. Nero/Vespasian, Turin, Museo di Antichità, inv. 244.

Fig. 56a-d. Nero/Titus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 664a, inv. 1843.

Fig. 57. Nero/Titus, Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, inv.1914.126.

Fig. 58a-d. Nero/Titus, Trieste Civico Museo di Storia e Arte, inv. 3139, cat. 2.40.

Fig. 59. Nero/Domitian, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Braccio Nuo-vo 126, inv. 2213.

Fig. 60a-b. Nero/Domitian, Vaison-la-Romaine, Musée Municipal, inv. 300.315.

Fig. 61a-e. Nero/Domitian/Nerva, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 146 (1870), 827 (1954).

Fig. 62a-b. Nero/Domitian, Munich, Glyptothek, 394(formerly 249).

Fig. 63a-d. Nero/Domitian, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano. Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 226.

Fig. 64a-c. Nero/Domitian, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts,inv. 88.639. Fig. 65. Nero/Domitian, Vasto, Museo Civico.

Fig. 66a-b. Nero/Domitian, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 6061.

Fig. 67. Nero/Domitian, Rome Villa Margherita(American Embassy), wall along the Via Boncom-

pagni.

Fig. 68. Nero/Domitian, Musei Vaticani, MuseoGregoriano Profano no. 644, inv. 4065.

Fig. 69. Nero/Domitian, Minden, Domschatz.

Fig. 70. Nero/Augustus, Rome, Palazzo Colonna,fid. no. 54.

Fig. 71. Nero/Augustus, Aquileia, Museo ArcheologicoNazionale, inv. 12.

Fig. 72a-b. Nero/Augustus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei Busti 274, inv. 715.

Fig. 73. Nero/Augustus, Luni, Antiquario, CM 1033. Fig. 74. Nero/Galba, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale,Cabinet des Médailles 251.

Fig. 75. Nero/Trajan, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. no. 1983.11.

Fig. 76. Nero/Antinous, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet desMédailles, 238.

Fig. 77a-d. Nero/Gallienus, Columbia, Missouri, University of Missouri, Museum of Art and Archaeology, acc. no.62.46, cat.

Fig. 79a-d. Nero(?)/Private Individual, New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery, inv. 1961.30.

Fig. 78. Nero/Constantinian Emperor, Rome, MuseoNazionale Romano delle Terme, Magazzini, inv. 126279.

Fig. 80. Nero, Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 1210.

Fig. 81a-c. Nero, Rome, Museo Palatino, inv. 616.

Fig. 82a-c. Nero, Rome, Museo Palatino, inv. 618.

Fig. 83. Nero, Munich, Glyptothek, inv. 321.

Fig. 84a-b. Nero, Worcester, Art Gallery, inv. 1915.23.

Fig. 85a-b. Gaius/Nero, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei Busti 385, inv. 591.

Fig. 86. Nero, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv.2835 and Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, inv. 23.104.

Fig. 87a-b. Nero, Private Collection.

Fig. 88. Neronian cuirass, Rome, Musei Vaticani, MuseoGregoriano Profano 9948.

Fig. 89. Neronian cuirass, Durres, Museum, inv. 4415

Fig. 90. Nero, London, British Museum, inv. 1965.12-1.1.

Fig. 91. Agrippina and Nero, Aphrodisias, Museum.

Fig. 92a-c. Nero and Armenia, Aphrodisias, Museum.

Fig. 93. Nero, Aphrodisias, Museum.

Fig. 94. Grand Camée de France, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet desMédailles, 264.

Fig. 95. Nero, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art,Bequest of W. Gedney Beatty, 1941, inv. 1941.160.762.

Fig. 96. Nero, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv.826.

Fig. 97. Poppaea, Florence, Museo Archeologico, inv.14519.

Fig. 98. Poppaea, Bonn, Private Collection.

Fig. 99. Messalina, Rome, Musei Vaticani, 39.9, inv.1814.

Fig. 100a-c. Messalina/Agrippina Minor, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 146 (1870), inv. 830(1952).

Fig. 101a-d. Messalina/Agrippina Minor, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico. inv. 6242.

Fig. 102. Galba (?), Los Angeles, J. Paul GettyMuseum, inv. 74.AA.37.

Fig. 103. Otho, Ostia, Magazzini, inv. 446.

Fig. 104. Vitellius, Copenhagen, Ny CarlsbergGlyptotek 655A, inv. 3167.

Fig. 105a-b. Vitellius/Vespasian, Hannover, Kestnermuseum.

Fig. 106a-c. Vitellius/Vespasian, Thessalonika, Archaeological Museum, inv. 1055.

Fig. 107a-b. Vitellius/Vespasian, Trier Rheinisches Landesmuseum, ST 5223.

Fig. 108a-b. Domitian, Castel Gandalfo, Antiquario.

Fig. 109. Domitianic Cuirass, Princeton, The Art Museum, Princeton University, Museum Pur-chase, Caroline G. Mather Fund inv.84-2.

Fig. 110. (Domitian) and Domitia,as, Cibyra.

Fig. 111a-e. Domitian/Nerva, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 542, inv. 1454.

Fig. 112a-b. Domitian/Nerva, Rome, MuseiVaticani, Sala dei Busti 317, inv. 674.

Fig. 113a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Rome,Museo Capitolino Stanza degliImperatori (formerly Stanza Terrenaa destra), inv. 417.

Fig. 114. Domitian/Nerva, Holkham Hall.

Fig. 115a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Palazzo deiConservatori, Sala Verde, inv. 423.

Fig. 116a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Museo Nazionale Romano del Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 318.

Fig. 117. Domitian/Nerva, formerly Leipzig, ArchäologischesInstitut der Universität.

Fig. 118a-b. Domitian(?)/Nerva(?), Lucera, Museo Civico, inv. 25.

Fig. 119a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 83.AA.43.

Fig. 120a-b. Domitian/Nerva, Rome, Musei Vaticani,Sala Rotonda, inv. 246.

Fig. 121a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 106538.

Fig.

122

a-b.

Can

celle

ria

Rel

iefs

, Mus

ei V

atic

ani,

Mus

eo G

rego

rian

o Pr

ofan

o.

Fig. 123a-c. Domitian/Nerva, Baia, Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei nel Castello di Baia, inv. 155743.

Fig. 124. Domitian/Trajan, Sabratha, Museum.

Fig. 125a-b. Domitian/Trajan, Split, Archeological Museum, inv. C 222.

Fig. 126a-c. Domitian/Trajan, Venice, Museo Archeologico, inv. 249.

Fig. 127a-d. Domitian/Trajan, Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv. 61160.

Fig. 128a-d. Domitian/Titus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti 31.20, inv. 1687.

Fig. 129a-d. Domitian/Constantinian Emperor, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 89.6.

Fig. 130a-b. Domitian/4th Century Emperor, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles.

Fig. 131. Domitian, Ostia, Museo, inv. 19.

Fig. 132. Domitian, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 76.AA.72.

Fig. 133. Domitian, Museo Nazionale Romano, PalazzoMassimo alle Terme, inv. 115191.

Fig. 134. Domitian, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 664, inv. 768.

Fig. 135. Domitian, Toledo, Museum of Art, inv. 1990.30.

Fig. 136a-d. Domitian, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 75.AA.26.

Fig. 137. Commodus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti, 3.13, inv. 1235.

Fig. 138. Commodus, Phillipi, Museum, inv. 469.

Fig. 139a-c. Commodus/Pupienus(?), Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti 27.8, inv. 1613.

Fig. 140a-c. Commodus/Licinius(?), Side, Museum, inv. 35.

Fig. 141. Commodus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conser-vatori, Sala degli Arazzi, inv. 1120.

Fig. 142a-c. Marcus Aurelius, Triumph of A.D. 176, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori.

Fig. 143a-b. Marcus Aurelius, Congiarium of A.D. 177, Rome, Arch of Constantine.

Fig. 144a-b. Marcus Aurelius, Lustratio, Rome, Arch of Constantine.

Fig. 145a-b. Marcus Aurelius, Clemency, Rome, Arch of Constantine.

Fig. 146. Commodus, Ostia, Museo, inv. 270.

Fig. 149. Lucilla, Izmir, Museum, inv. 3694.

Fig. 147. Lucilla, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,Museo Nuovo, Sala 1.9, inv. 1781 (Centrale

Montemartini 3.85).

Fig. 148. Lucilla, Guelma, Museum, inv. M. 396.

Fig. 150a-b. Lucilla/Helena, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 59.

Fig. 151a-b. Lucilla, Helena, Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, inv. 1914.171.

Fig. 152. Lucilla, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,Braccio Nuovo 3.25 (Centrale Montemartini 2.91), inv.

2766.

Fig. 153. Crispina, Ostia, Museo, Magazzini, Sala 7, inv.1954.

Fig. 154a-b. Annia Fundania Faustina(?), Ostia, Museo, Sala 6.2, inv. 1123.

Fig. 155. Arch of Septimius Severus, Eastern Facade, Rome,Forum Romanum.

Fig. 156a-b. Arch of Septimius Severus, Northwestern Panel,Rome, Forum Romanum.

Fig. 157. Arch of the Argentarii, Rome. Fig. 158. Caracalla (Plautianus and Plautilla), Arch ofthe Argentarii, Western Interior Panel, Rome.

Fig. 159. Caracalla, Plautianus and Plau-tilla, Arch of the Argentarii, Western

Interior Panel, Reconstruction.

Fig. 160. Arch of the Argentarii, Attic Inscription, Rome.

Fig. 161a-b. Plautilla, Rome, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Magazzini, 731, inv. 4278.

Fig. 162a-b. Plautilla, Houston, Museum of Fine Art, inv. 70-39.

Fig. 163a-b. Plautilla/Tetrarchic or Constantinian Empress, Irvine, California, Collection of Mr. Robert K. Martin.

Fig. 164. Plautilla, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 72.AA.118.

Fig. 165a-b. Geta, Florence, Villa del Poggio Imperiale.

Fig. 166. Geta, Venice, Museo Archeologico, inv. 79.

Fig. 167. Geta, Florence, Palazzo Pitti, Museo degliArgenti, Sala I, inv. 1036.

Fig. 168. Geta, Guelma, Musée Archéologique.

Fig. 169. Geta, erased coin, from Isaura. Fig. 170. Geta, defaced coin, from Smyrna.

Fig. 171a-e. Geta, defaced coins, from Stratonicea.

Figures 172a-c. Geta, defaced coins, from Stratonicea, NewYork, American Numismatic Society, inv. 1953.171.830, inv.

1944.100.48080, inv. 1967.152.461.

Fig. 173. Geta/Mid-Third Century Portrait, Rome, MuseoCapitolino, Salone 51, inv. 675.

Fig. 174a-b. Geta/Victoria, Rock Crystal Intaglio, Atlanta, MichaelC. Carlos Museum, Emory University, inv. 2003.25.2.

Fig. 175. Geta, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiara-monti 3.16, inv. 1238.

Fig. 176. Geta, formerly Vienna, Palais Lanckoronski.

Fig. 177. Geta, Pegli, Museo Civico.

Fig. 178. Geta, Tunis, Musée du Bardo, inv. C 1347.

Fig. 179. Arch of Septimius Severus, Southwestern Panel, Rome, Fo-rum Romanum.

Fig. 180. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna (and Geta), Arch ofthe Argentarii, Eastern Interior Panel, Rome.

Fig. 181. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, and Geta,Arch of the Argentarii, Eastern Panel, Reconstruc-

tion.

Fig. 182. Septimius Severus and Caracalla, Arch of the Argentarii,Southern Facade, Rome.

Fig. 183. Palazzo Sachetti Relief, Rome, Palazzo Sachetti.

Fig. 184a-b. Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, Dextrarum Iunctio, Southwest Attic Panel, Arch of Septimius Severus,Lepcis Magna.

Fig. 185. Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, Triumphal Procession, Northwest Attic Panel, Arch of SeptimiusSeverus, Lepcis Magna.

Fig. 186. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, Caracalla, and Geta, interior panel, Arch of Septimius Severus, LepcisMagna.

Fig. 187. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, and Geta, Berlin,Staatliche Museen, inv. 31.329.

Fig. 188a-c. Macrinus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Museo Nuovo, Sala 7, 21, inv. 1757(Centrale Montemartini 3.82).

Fig. 189a-b. Macrinus, Cambridge, Mass., Arthur M. Sackler Museum,Harvard University, inv. 1949.47.138.

Fig. 190a-c. Macrinus, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 36, inv. 460.

Fig. 191. Macrinus and Diadumenianus, Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum, inv. 32300.

Fig. 192a-b. Diadumenianus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano, 651 (10135) inv. 10075.

Fig. 193a-c. Elagabalus/Severus Alexander, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, 5993.

Fig. 194a-c. Elagabalus/Severus Alexander, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme,inv. 329.

Fig. 195a-d. Elagabalus/Severus Alexander, Kansas City, Kansas City, Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, 45-66.

Fig. 196a-b. Severus Alexander, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv. 1431.

Fig. 197a-b. Severus Alexander, Bochum, Kunstsammlungen der Ruhr-Universität.

Fig. 198. Julia Mammaea, Ostia, Museo, inv. 26. Fig. 199. Julia Mammaea, Paris, Musée du Louvre, no.3552 (inv. MND 2137).

Fig. 200a-c. Maximinus Thrax, Museo Palatino, inv. 52681.

Fig. 201. Maximinus Thrax, Rome,Villa Ludovisi, Casino Aurora.

Fig. 202. Maximinus Thrax, Rome,Villa Ludovisi, Casino Aurora.

Fig. 203. Maximus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 745, inv. 819.

Fig. 204. Maximus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 746, inv. 823.

Fig. 208a-b. Maxentius, Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, inv. 106.

Fig. 205. Gordian III, Sofia, NationalArchaeological Museum, inv. 1497.

Fig. 206. Otacilia Severa, Rome, Palazzodei Conservatori, inv. 2765 (Centrale

Montemartini 2.95).

Fig. 207. Carinus, Rome, Palazzo deiConservatori, inv. 850 (Centrale

Montemartini 2.83).

Fig. 209a-d. Maxentius/Constantine, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Cortile.

Fig. 210a-c. Maxentius/Constantine, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza terrena a destra I.25, inv. 1769.

Fig. 211. Maxentius/Constantine, Rome, Campidoglio.

Fig. 212. Maxentius, Dresden, Antikensammlung, inv.406.

Fig. 213. Maxentius, Rome, Museo Torlonia.

Fig. 214. Valeria Maximilla (?), Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magaz-zini, inv. 106.

Fig. 215. Galeria Valeria/Deity, Thessalonika, Museum, inv. 2466.