Power and Propaganda in the Large Imperial Cameos of the Early Roman Empire 1032324880, 9781032324883

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
1 Large Imperial Cameos
2 Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish
3 Livia and the Tazza Farnese
4 Livia and the Gemma Augustea
5 Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France
6 Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment
7 Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia, and the End of Large Imperial Cameos
8 The Revival of Large Imperial Cameos in the Fourth Century
List of Illustrations
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Power and Propaganda in the Large Imperial Cameos of the Early Roman Empire

This study examines the five extant large Imperial cameos of the Early Roman Empire as a coherent whole, revealing that these gemstones were a referential group with complex interrelationships. Power and Propaganda in the Large Imperial Cameos of the Early Roman Empire offers a feminist theory that explains why large Imperial cameos were in dialogue and why the medium appears with Octavian and disappears by the Flavian dynasty: female Imperial family members commissioned them to advance their husbands and sons. This volume is an introduction to large Imperial cameos and reveals their importance for the understanding of Roman art and iconography and the implications of its theorized Impe‑ rial female patronage. The book will be of interest to scholars working in art history, classics, and archaeology. Julia C. Fischer is Associate Professor of Art History at Lamar University.

Routledge Research in Art History

Routledge Research in Art History is our home for the latest scholarship in the field of art history. The series publishes research monographs and edited collections, covering areas including art history, theory, and visual culture. These high‑level books focus on art and artists from around the world and from a multitude of time periods. By making these studies available to the worldwide academic community, the series aims to promote quality art history research. The Sublime in the Visual Culture of the Seventeenth‑Century Dutch Republic Stijn Bussels and Bram Van Oostveldt The Book of Hours and the Body Somaesthetics, Posthumanism, and the Uncanny Sherry C.M. Lindquist Art Patronage and Conflicting Memories in Early Modern Iberia The Marquises of Villena Maria Teresa Chicote Pompanin The Victorian Idyll in Art and Literature Subject, Ecology, Form Emma Thomas Hughes and Emma Merkling The Primitivist Imaginary in Iberian and Transatlantic Modernisms Edited by Joana Cunha Leal and Mariana Pinto dos Santos Beauty and Monstrosity in Art and Culture Chara Kokkiou and Angeliki Malakasioti Historic Avant‑Garde Work on Paper Edited by Sascha Bru Power and Propaganda in the Large Imperial Cameos of the Early Roman Empire Julia C. Fischer For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/Routledge‑Research‑ in‑Art‑History/book‑series/RRAH

Power and Propaganda in the Large Imperial Cameos of the Early Roman Empire Julia C. Fischer

Designed cover image: Grand Camée de France, sardonyx, 31 cm x 26.5 cm, 23 CE, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, Paris, France (264). Copyright: Carole Raddato, 2015 First published 2024 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Julia C. Fischer The right of Julia C. Fischer to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. ISBN: 9781032324883 (hbk) ISBN: 9781032324890 (pbk) ISBN: 9781003315308 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003315308 Typeset in Sabon by codeMantra

For my late father, Dr. Edwin P. Menes. AMDG, pater. For my husband, Charles. And for my son, Gabe.

Contents

Acknowledgments

ix

1 Large Imperial Cameos

1

2 Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish

20

3 Livia and the Tazza Farnese

43

4 Livia and the Gemma Augustea

71

5 Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France

95

6 Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment

122

7 Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia, and the End of Large Imperial Cameos

142

8 The Revival of Large Imperial Cameos in the Fourth Century

167

List of Illustrations 179 Bibliography181 Index193

Acknowledgments

First, I want to thank Lamar University and the Office of Academic Affairs for provid‑ ing me with Faculty Development Leave in Fall 2022. As a faculty member and even as an ABD graduate student, I never had uninterrupted time for research and writing, as I was always teaching. To have the time and space to focus on researching and writ‑ ing was invaluable. My Faculty Development Leave also allowed me to finally travel to Vienna, Austria, to see many of these large Imperial cameos in person for the first time. For over twenty years, I have been researching these cameos and have never seen them in person before. And all I can say is: Wow! I cannot begin to describe how much more rich, three‑dimensional, textured, magnificent, and amazing these cameos were in person. Photographs, which I have been relying on for twenty years, do not begin to do these works justice. This was a pilgrimage, and I am grateful to Lamar University for provid‑ ing me with the resources to make this happen. Thanks also to the Department of Art & Design at Lamar University, especially Dr. Stephanie Chadwick. I had wonderful and inspiring professors as an undergraduate and graduate student, to whom I am eternally indebted. At Loyola University Chicago, my art history profes‑ sors, Dr. Marilyn Dunn and Dr. Paula Wisotzki, guided me through my first major re‑ search project. Dr. Kathleen Warner Slane at the University of Missouri–Columbia first got me hooked on large Imperial cameos. And at the Ohio State University, I am forever grateful to Dr. Timothy J. McNiven for his mentorship and friendship. On a personal note, I must thank my late father, husband, and son for always sup‑ porting and championing me – and making me laugh daily. Dr. Edwin P. Menes – I miss you every day. Gabe – you say so much without ever saying a word. And Charles, you are my everything.

1 Large Imperial Cameos

Introduction Large Imperial cameos from the Early Roman Empire, including the Tazza Farnese, Gemma Augustea, and Grand Camée de France, have been studied and published ex‑ tensively over the past 200 years. One might wonder why another publication about these gemstones is necessary and if there is anything new left to uncover. The answer is yes, there is more to say, and secrets still need to be uncovered. This is where Power and Propaganda in the Large Imperial Cameos of the Early Roman Empire comes in. Up to this point, large Imperial cameos have not been treated as a cohesive group that must be studied together to understand each fully. Power and Propaganda examines the five extant large Imperial cameos – along with the figured silver dish that inspired these large Imperial cameos and ignited the Julio‑Claudian craze for these luxurious gemstones – as a referential group with complex interrelationships. These luxurious objects were deep in conversation with one another, and the referentiality of the large Imperial cameos is evident in their propagandistic iconography. Therefore, the iconography of the five Imperial cameos and one silver picture dish is a focus of this book, specifically tracing its development from Greek, Hellenistic, and Egyptian sources to a uniquely Roman visual language. After all, Augustus’ new Roman Empire needed a new Imperial language. These large Imperial cameos and the silver pic‑ ture dish are also a case study of the life cycle of iconography. One witnesses the begin‑ ning, evolution, and eventual dying out of iconography in this medium. The life cycle of iconography is a beneficial dating tool, much like Sir John Beazley’s study of Greek vase painting, though, of course, this study is on a small, restricted scale.1 Nevertheless, de‑ spite the small sample size, if and when a previously unknown large Imperial cameo was to be discovered, studying its iconography would allow scholars to date the gemstone precisely. But Power and Propaganda goes beyond examining the iconography and referential‑ ity of these large Imperial cameos. Why did large Imperial cameos appear when they did, right around when the Roman Empire began? What was the impetus for the first large Imperial cameo, and why were at least four more created during the Julio‑Claudian period of the Early Roman Empire? Moreover, why did they disappear at the end of the Julio‑Claudian period? Why exactly were large Imperial cameos such a popular art form during the Julio-Claudian period? All these questions can be answered by investigating the patrons of these large Imperial cameos and why these patrons had these gemstones carved. Female Imperial family mem‑ bers commissioned the large Imperial cameos, as will be argued, and the implications of DOI: 10.4324/9781003315308-1

2  Large Imperial Cameos this female patronage for understanding these gemstones add additional layers of mean‑ ing. While Imperial women had much more power than the average women in the an‑ cient world, they were still restricted by the social mores of the time, and women could not commission the same art as the emperors and had to be more subtle with their com‑ missions. Cameos were small and not displayed publicly. These gemstones had a private, small, and elite audience – but that was okay and, in fact, better served their purpose. The gemstones were the perfect, subtle way for Imperial wives and other female Imperial family members to persuade the emperor to choose her son as heir, thus utilizing cameos as weapons of propaganda. So large Imperial cameos first appeared right before the start of the Roman Empire. They flourished during the Julio‑Claudian dynasty because Impe‑ rial women pushed for dynastic succession. These cameos advertised their sons in entic‑ ing, beautiful packages given to the emperors. Livia, Agrippina the Elder, and Agrippina the Younger tried their hands at creating large Imperial cameos meant to persuade the emperor to elevate their son. But what about the question of the inspiration behind these gemstones? Did Livia come up with the idea of commissioning the Tazza Farnese to promote her husband? Or was there something, or someone else, who inspired her? Cleopatra, as seen in Chapter 2, was the woman to start this craze for large Imperial cameos shortly before the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE. In the Aquileia Dish, a stunning silver picture dish, the Ptolemaic Egyptian queen aggrandizes Mark Antony, her partner and the father of three of her children, attempting to communicate through allegory and mythology that the Roman statesman is the best candidate for sole ruler of Rome. Like Octavian and Mark Antony, Cleopatra and Livia engaged in their own propaganda wars, utilizing art as political propaganda. The Aquileia Dish inspired Livia’s Tazza Farnese, a direct artistic response to the silver picture dish. Livia used an even more expensive medium on the largest scale ever. Because Livia was so successful with the first large Imperial cameo, she created an‑ other one, the Gemma Augustea, with other Imperial women using these large Imperial cameos as models for their own dynastic plans. After all, dynastic succession was always an issue in the Julio‑Claudian dynasties, as there were never enough males. Imperial women, therefore, took up this cameo art form and passed it down to subsequent genera‑ tions so that they, too, could manipulate the emperor. Furthermore, why did large Imperial cameos disappear when they did right after the end of the Julio‑Claudian period? Large Imperial cameos are a uniquely Augustan and Julio‑Claudian art form because Imperial women used them as tools of persuasion for dynastic succession. By the Flavian dynasty, though, there was no more need for such a tool of enticement. Vespasian, the dynasty’s patriarch, already had two adult sons, Titus and Domitian, and thus a clear dynastic succession was already in place when the family came to power. Flavian women did not need to create large Imperial cameos to promote their husbands or sons and played a small role in Imperial succession politics.2 Written for a general art historical audience and as a complement to emperor‑ commissioned Roman art in the public sphere, Power and Propaganda is an introduc‑ tion to large Imperial cameos and reveals their importance for the overall understanding of Roman art and iconography and the implications of its theorized Imperial female patronage. These five large Imperial cameos are the sole focus of this book, and their iconography, interrelationships, and referentiality are fully addressed, as are the crucial implications of Imperial female patronage. Often relegated to the sidelines, large Impe‑ rial cameos take center stage in this book, much as they did in antiquity. Cameos were more popular in antiquity than sculpture, and “it is certain that in antiquity, they would

Large Imperial Cameos  3 have been regarded as more central to the history of art than they have appeared to most modern commentators.”3 Cameos had persuasive power, perhaps more than sculptures. Therefore, in the end, Power and Propaganda emphasizes the importance of large Impe‑ rial cameos for understanding the development of Roman art and iconography. Perhaps the most significant contribution of this book is the insight that these large Imperial cam‑ eos, which are small, private works of art, actually address a broad cultural sphere and deeply impact Roman art. Chapter 2 explores one of the most famous Roman silver‑figured dishes, the Aquileia Dish (Figure 2.1). While this is a book on cameos, the Aquileia Dish is crucial to include in this study because large Imperial cameos likely would only have existed because of the Aquileia Dish, which was the impetus for creating the Tazza Farnese and subsequent large Imperial cameos. In the 30s BCE, Mark Antony and Octavian waged propaganda wars, not only in words but also in images. The Aquileia Dish was utilized in these wars, but it was Mark Antony’s female counterpart, Cleopatra, who commissioned the silver dish as a strategic tactic to promote her partner and the father of her three children, to be the sole ruler of Rome. Dating to the Late Republic, right on the cusp of the new Ro‑ man Empire, the Aquileia Dish demonstrates stage one of the life cycle of iconography.4 The Tazza Farnese is the focus of Chapter 3 (Figure 3.1). This was the first large Impe‑ rial cameo, and its production was an artistic response to Cleopatra’s Aquileia Dish. In the propaganda wars in art waged by Cleopatra and Livia, Livia fought back, praising her husband, who had recently defeated Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Ac‑ tium. Octavian’s new role as the sole ruler of Rome was now more likely, and Livia used the cameo to emphasize the defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra. Chapter 3 explores the propagandistic and referential iconography in the Tazza Farnese, which is based on the Aquileia Dish. Like the silver dish, the Tazza Farnese belongs to the first stage of the life cycle of iconography, and its symbols are still being worked out. But it is clear that the impetus for large Imperial cameos came from the silver picture dish and that the Aquileia Dish and Tazza Farnese conversed. Chapter 4 examines the Gemma Augustea (Figure 4.1), the most famous large Impe‑ rial cameo. Having been successful with the Tazza Farnese, with Octavian/Augustus be‑ coming the first emperor of Rome, Livia tries her hand again, this time using the Gemma Augustea to push for her son, Tiberius, to be her husband’s successor. Dating to the mature Augustan age, the Gemma Augustea represents the second stage in the life cycle of iconography: the time when the symbolism has fully emerged and is easily understood. The Gemma Augustea abandons allegory and most of the borrowed Hellenistic Greek and Egyptian symbols seen in the Aquileia Dish and Tazza Farnese for more unique and explicit Roman iconography. In a little over a generation, the iconography of the Gemma Augustea has become more Roman, complex, and well‑established. While some symbols were still based on Greek and Hellenistic precedents, they were adapted to communicate Augustan ideology. In addition, others were distinctly Roman without any foreign prec‑ edents. Furthermore, in the mature Augustan age, the iconography in the large Imperial cameos became increasingly complex and multivalent. Symbols can be combined with other symbols to imbue iconography with a more complex and esoteric meaning. In Chapter 5, Agrippina the Elder follows Livia’s successful examples and commis‑ sions her own large Imperial cameo, the Grand Camée de France (Figure  5.1), repre‑ senting an updated version of the Gemma Augustea. Agrippina the Elder would have undoubtedly known the Gemma Augustea and spent ample time studying the earlier gemstone, becoming fluent in its Imperial language and propaganda. Agrippina the Elder

4  Large Imperial Cameos subsequently decided to commission a new, updated (and bigger) version that responds to and is in constant dialogue with the Gemma Augustea. Agrippina the Elder’s gemstone represents the third stage of the life cycle when iconography is fully understood and becomes even more complex. The Grand Camée de France illustrates an increasingly complex iconography, adopting what the artists of the Gemma Augustea had already done and enhancing it. The Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée relate through shared Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman styles. However, the Grand Camée moves away from including many deities and personifications. Instead, the gemstone focuses on the dynastic ideas of the Domus Augusta, with Imperial women celebrated for their unique role in the dynasty. While the Gemma Augustea has dynastic ideas and proposes a dynasty to Augustus because it is a new concept and the emperor has yet to form one, these dynastic messages are hid‑ den by various personifications and deities. In the Grand Camée, however, the Imperial dynasty is now the entire focus of the gemstone. With the Grand Camée, the dynasty already exists, and the cameo makes a more straightforward case for a particular dy‑ nastic argument: Agrippina the Elder commissioned the large Imperial cameo to compel Tiberius to choose one of her three sons, members of the Julio‑Claudian family, as his successor. Chapter 6 investigates another example of the third stage of the life cycle of ico‑ nography with the cameo fragment of Caligula and Roma (Figure 6.1). Agrippina the Younger, the daughter of Agrippina the Elder and the great‑granddaughter of Livia, is the next Imperial woman to utilize large Imperial cameos as a weapon of persuasion. She commissions the first of two cameos during her brother’s reign, the emperor Caligula. Agrippina the Younger studied Livia’s Gemma Augustea and Agrippina the Elder’s Grand Camée de France, and she was influenced by both in her creation of the cameo fragment, which honored her brother and their recently deceased and apotheosized sister, Drusilla. But more importantly, Agrippina the Younger utilized the large cameo to convince her brother to name her son, Nero, as his heir – and both mother and son must have been in the original design of the cameo.5 Chapter 6 reconstructs the cameo fragment of Caligula and Roma, keeping in mind that these large Imperial cameos were in conversation with one another and Agrippina the Younger certainly would have wanted to up the ante on her mother’s Grand Camée de France. The Tazza Farnese, Gemma Augustea, Grand Camée de France, and the Caligulan fragment represent the first three stages of the quadripartite life cycle of iconography. In the final fourth phase, symbols wane, lose popularity, and eventually die out. Chapter 7 examines the closest thing to a large Imperial cameo from the reign of Claudius, the Gemma Claudia (Figure 7.1). However, this gemstone is neither as large nor as complex as the other cameos. The medium of the large Imperial cameo itself was on its way out. By the end of the Julio‑Claudian dynasty, large Imperial cameos disappeared. With the Flavians, it was less important to advertise dynastic issues than to legitimize the new dy‑ nasty’s right to rule. The new emperor, Vespasian, already had two grown sons to succeed him, Titus and Domitian. Because dynastic succession was not an issue for the Flavian dynasty, there was no need for an Imperial Flavian woman to commission a large Impe‑ rial cameo to give to the emperor to promote her son as the heir. Some of the pioneering iconography of large Imperial cameos, though, continued to live on in the public sphere in relief sculpture, triumphal arches, and other monuments. Chapter 8 explores the revival of large Imperial cameos in the fourth century. While large Imperial cameos were a Julio‑Claudian phenomenon, the gemstones returned with

Large Imperial Cameos  5 Constantine and his successors, exhibiting familiar Imperial iconography and motifs. There are four possible large Imperial cameos from the fourth century: the Belgrade Cameo, the Rothschild Cameo, the Ada Cameo, and the Cameo of the Hague. Some have argued that these fourth‑century cameos were reworked first‑century originals. Constan‑ tine sometimes reused sculpture, not because he was unable to afford the expense of a new commission but because the old sculpture served a specific propagandistic pur‑ pose. In the case of the large Imperial cameos, an original or a revised gemstone con‑ nected Constantine and his heirs back to Augustus and the Golden Age of Rome. These fourth‑century cameos served similar purposes as those from the first century, promoting dynasty, family, and victory. Several topics pertaining to large Imperial cameos will be explored in this introductory chapter. First, silver dishes and cameos are examples of the so‑called minor arts, and thus this classification must be explained, revealing that while they were part of the minor arts, their impact was anything but. Next, the technique, artists, and patrons of large Imperial cameos are examined. Finally, various facets of propaganda and iconography are defined and discussed. The Minor Arts Cameos are classified as one of the minor arts.6 In 1568, Giorgio Vasari was the first art historian to assert the supremacy of the arts of architecture, painting, and sculpture in his second edition of Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects.7 Accord‑ ing to Vasari, because architecture, painting, and sculpture required enormous skill and intelligence, these art forms were inherently greater than all other artistic media. Vasari’s classification stuck, and from the sixteenth century onward, the major arts (architecture, painting, and sculpture) have been separated from the minor arts (ceramics, metalwork, gemstones, jewelry, glass, ceramics, figurines, cameos, etc.).8 By the eighteenth and nine‑ teenth centuries, the division between the arts became even greater, with the minor arts now viewed as inferior to the major arts. Even in the twenty‑first century, the minor arts remain marginalized in art historical scholarship. Today, scholars struggle to find the correct words to describe all those artworks that are not architecture, painting, or sculpture. Minor arts is the most common designation, though this is pejorative and implies that these objects are less important than their coun‑ terparts. Some scholars call the minor arts the decorative or sumptuous arts. Still, these terms do not consider the plethora of different media in the minor arts and that not all minor arts were made of luxurious materials. Perhaps there will no longer be any separa‑ tion of the various media in the future, rendering the categorizations of major and minor arts obsolete. For lack of better terminology, which hopefully will come in the future, in this book, the arts that are not architecture, painting, and sculpture will continue to be referred to as the minor arts. Recent studies, including this one, have attempted to bring the minor arts to the fore‑ front.9 There was no such division between the major and the minor arts in antiquity, and minor arts were usually highly praised and valued at the time of their creation. Minor arts, especially those made of luxurious materials, were highly regarded, and some were even held in greater esteem than paintings, architecture, and sculptures.10 Therefore, we must cease viewing these works as inferior – because they were not labeled minor and less important until the sixteenth century. These so‑called minor arts were anything but minor at the time of their creation.

6  Large Imperial Cameos The minor arts are also worthy of study because of their intimate reception. Typically small, a work like a Roman cameo could be held comfortably in the viewer’s hand, ex‑ amined closely, and admired. This differs greatly from the reception of a public artwork, which was probably viewed from afar as a viewer walked by it. Certainly, one would have had little opportunity to view public art closely, let alone privately and at length. Cameos A cameo is a “gemstone, or sometimes glass, ceramic, or shell, which has layers of differ‑ ent colors, carved or molded so that the design stands out in relief in one color against the background of another color.”11 There are several reasons why cameos are unique and worthy of extensive study, among them are their exquisite craftsmanship, their expensive and magical material, and their private patrons and audiences at the Imperial court. But perhaps the major reason Roman Imperial cameos are so extraordinary is their sheer beauty. As Marina Belozerskaya evocatively states after seeing the Tazza Farnese for the first time in the Naples Archaeological Museum, cameos are greatly admired for their beauty and high quality of artistry: I had seen photos of the Tazza in various books, and though it certainly looked beau‑ tiful, I did not quite understand why it prompted so much passion. But the first time I saw it in person, I could not tear myself away. It was infinitely more gorgeous, ma‑ jestic, and mesmerizing than the best photographs conveyed. Entranced, I scrutinized over and over its minutest details, the confluences of carved lines and colored veins, the radiance of sardonyx, the tangible presence of the opalescent figures against the honeyed background. Coming face to face with the Tazza – the way its owners did over the centuries  –  I understood viscerally why they became besotted with it and spent enormous sums to make it theirs.12 With its distinctive layers of brown and white, sardonyx was the ideal banded agate for the production of cameos in the Roman Empire, particularly between the reigns of Augustus and Nero.13 While the Romans did not invent the cameo technique, they were certainly the ones to bring them into fashion in the late first century BCE and early first century CE under Augustus and the Julio‑Claudian dynasty.14 The Romans popularized a particular type of cameo: the large Imperial or state cameo, which was not used as jew‑ elry but was much larger, often included numerous members of the Imperial family and was made by Imperial artists.15 Most Roman cameos are small, about the size of a large pendant, or roughly five to six centimeters in diameter. Usually, they are decorated with a bust or a simple, clear image. In contrast, large Imperial cameos like the Tazza Farnese, Gemma Augustea, and Grand Camée de France are significantly larger and possess a complex and dense multi‑figured composition, which makes them unique among all surviving Roman Imperial cameos.16 Because of their large size and rarity, these gemstones were special commissions.17 The material of Roman cameos, sardonyx, is also rare. Sardonyx is a chalcedony, a type of crypto‑crystalline quartz, with layered bands of white, brown, or black. Because of these distinctive layers, sardonyx is the perfect stone for producing cameos.18 There are many types of quartz, many of which, like sardonyx, are used as gemstones. Ranking number seven on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, quartz is a hard and durable gem‑ stone that results in a higher monetary value since harder gemstones are stronger and,

Large Imperial Cameos  7 therefore, not as easily blemished or scratched. Because of its hardness, sardonyx is much more difficult to carve, so only the most skilled gemmarii, or gem‑cutters, could success‑ fully work with this material. Consequently, a highly talented (and more well‑paid) gem‑ marius was necessary.19 The hardness of sardonyx also added to the beauty of cameos because the durability allows for higher polish and the smallest details. Also, sardonyx was believed to have magical qualities that amplified the gemstone’s importance and prestige in the Roman Empire.20 According to Pliny the Elder, only a little sardonyx was found in the Mediterranean basin.21 The only major source anywhere near Rome was the Bohemian agate deposit, which provided Rome with gemstones of adequate size and quality for small cameos.22 But the Bohemian agate deposit did not produce stones large enough to make the signifi‑ cantly larger Tazza Farnese, Gemma Augustea, and Grand Camée de France. In addition, the Bohemian stones were not the highest quality pieces of sardonyx available. Pliny the Elder states that India provided the greatest quality of the sardonyx and the largest stones: India’s great glory is “being the great producer of the most costly gems.”23 There‑ fore, sardonyx utilized for the large Imperial gemstones was imported from India to Italy at an exorbitant expense.24 Only the wealthiest patrons could afford the magical sardonyx from India, along with paying an expert gemmarius to carve a large cameo, which would have taken at least a year to complete. The exorbitant price of a cameo was an attractive feature for the wealthy elite, lending the gemstone an additional layer of prestige. Likewise, the exper‑ tise of the gemmarius raised the status of that object. Consequently, large cameos were expensive, and luxurious objects were created for the emperor himself or a member of the Imperial family or circle.25 These beloved objects were then passed down as family heirlooms.26 Because of its size, portability, and high value, a cameo like the Gemma Augustea would not have been displayed publicly in Rome for all citizens. Instead, large Imperial cameos had a special and restricted audience: the elite members of the Imperial court. While there are only five surviving large Imperial cameos, a strikingly low number, the gemstones’ importance far outweighs their paltry numbers. The audience was very small and exclusive, but they were the most important and influential people in the Roman Empire.27 Therefore, the impact of these large Imperial cameos was significant, especially the gemstone’s propagandistic messages in glorifying the Julio‑Claudian dynasty and the candidate(s) for succession. These large Imperial cameos allowed the emperor and his circle to celebrate his victories, successes, and private events to the full as well as to immortalize their own images very much as it was in the Hellenistic royal courts due to the private character.28 Imperial homes were decorated with paintings, were filled with sculptures, and housed cabinets full of luxurious gems and cameos. Large Imperial cameos were gifts or presen‑ tation pieces given to the emperor. Displayed in a gem cabinet, a cameo like the Tazza Farnese or Gemma Augustea was brought out during a dinner party as a reminder of the wealth and prestige of those honored in the gemstone. Often, as guests ate and drank, artworks provided topics of conversation. Ekphrasis was a popular activity of such gath‑ erings and allowed guests to contemplate the artwork at hand and espouse its decora‑ tion and moral content.29 However, large Imperial cameos, like the Boscoreale Cups, were designed to do more than inspire some casual conversation at a dinner party and

8  Large Imperial Cameos demanded more careful study and discussion because of their complicated and complex figures, iconography, and message. Like the Boscoreale Cups, the political messages of these large Imperial cameos were “meant to stimulate…a discussion of the historical glo‑ ries and campaigns of the Augustan house.”30 Kuttner makes a convincing argument that the Boscoreale Cups were directly influenced by the subjects of now‑lost monuments in the public sphere in Rome, thus revealing the transmission of iconography from Roman relief sculpture to the minor arts. Because members of the emperor’s Imperial circle were educated, Roman Imperial cameos contained more complicated and complex compositions and iconography.31 At one of these ancient gatherings, the erudite members of the court were surely delighted in the esoteric and multivalent messages found in Roman Imperial cameos.32 In addition, because of the limited audience, the “closed, private circumstances of their viewing may have permitted greater latitude in how the subject was treated.”33 A large Imperial cameo was a unique, one‑of‑a‑kind work that could exhibit more complexity and detail than artworks in the public sphere.34 Gemmarii

We may never know who exactly Roman artists were because ancient writers only say a little about them. Pliny the Elder was a notable exception and was one of the few to write about art and artists in the ancient world, though he was not overly preoccupied with the lives and careers of artists.35 From the evidence, most Roman artists were male and Greek (ethnically Greek, not necessarily Greek‑speaking). Some artists worked in‑ dependently, like panel painters, while others operated large workshops. Little is known about where they did their work: workshops and studios. Most likely, there were more permanent workshops that produced popular artworks that were always in demand. However, there were also itinerant craftsmen. Because of the uncertainty of continuous work, many artists had to travel to where the work was, bringing their tools with them and either joining a workshop or creating a new one. From the material remains, many artworks were made outside Rome and then transported to the city after completion, complicating matters further.36 In the Augustan period, gems were all the rage in Rome. There are several gem‑cutters, or gemmarii, whose names we know; the best were Greek, who often signed their work.37 From these signatures, we know the names of at least seventy Greek and Roman gem‑­ cutters – though ancient writers only name eight of these.38 In addition, many gem‑cutters taught their sons the craft, thus keeping the high skill level within the family.39 Unfortunately, the names of the gemmarii of the large Imperial cameos do not survive. The Imperial family most likely had a group of court artists and workshops at their beck and call.40 Only the most skilled gemmarius could have created the smallest details found in large Imperial cameos.41 Most likely, each large cameo was carved by a single gem‑ marius. Such a highly skilled gem‑cutter would have been expensive to procure, and he probably worked on a single large cameo for about a year.42 Technique

While Pliny the Elder and Theophrastus do not expound on the technique of gem carv‑ ing, most likely, this has not changed significantly over the centuries except for the use of electric tools and more accessible diamond powder.43 In antiquity, gem carving was

Large Imperial Cameos  9 done with simple tools: a drill, various drill heads, and a bow. The drill heads were of different shapes and levels of hardness and could be changed depending on the material the gem‑cutter wanted to engrave. The bow’s string was wrapped around the shaft of the drill, and the bow was then turned back and forth to drive the drill. Abrasives were often utilized to facilitate the carving of the gemstone. Most likely, gem‑cutters did not use lenses.44 Sometimes the color of the stone was changed by various means, such as heating or submerging in honey, which “can penetrate the microstructure of the mineral and, when heated, it carmelizes or carbonizes, turning the stone or parts of it, orange, brown, or black.”45 Patrons

Because of the lack of information on ancient gem‑cutters, especially for the large Im‑ perial cameos, many modern art historians instead focus on the issue of patronage, as‑ serting that the patron had the most influence on the final product, not the artist.46 The patrons for the large Imperial cameos were Imperial women who had no real power and instead had to make the best of their privileged positions in subtle ways, including the commissioning of artworks.47 For example, as discussed in Chapter 4, in the Gemma Au‑ gustea, Livia created an Imperial familial portrait suitable for Augustus and his potential heirs, and the messages were entirely germane to the emperor’s political regime. However, with the Gemma Augustea, Livia was also cleverly and subtly manipulating Augustus into choosing her son, Tiberius, as the next in line to the throne. Livia was “an active agent, working with sculptors and artisans to create portraits suitable for her station and appropriate to the reigning political program.”48 Like the rest of the Imperial family, the empress undoubtedly would have known many artists, craftsmen, and artisans working within the court. There is also evidence that she commis‑ sioned works, most notably buildings, consulted with architects, and scoured the plans. Material evidence also suggests that Livia commissioned cameos.49 Agrippina the Elder and Agrippina the Younger, having access to the Imperial gem collection, studied Livia’s Tazza Farnese and Gemma Augustea and followed in their predecessor’s footsteps with their own cameo commissions (Figure 1.1).50 Propaganda Roman Imperial art was all about power, propaganda, and persuasion. Freestanding sculptures, triumphal arches, and other monuments were placed in public locations in Rome. They used iconography to advertise to the Roman citizenry the emperor’s strength, connection to the gods, and most significant accomplishments. Emperors were aware of the persuasive power of images and exploited iconography to create art that commu‑ nicated their political and ideological messages. Roman emperors and members of the Imperial circle also commissioned works of private art, which were smaller in scale, like large Imperial cameos. Even though these gemstones had a restricted and elite Imperial audience, the precious works were still used for propagandistic purposes, just like their public counterparts. According to Webster’s Dictionary, propaganda is defined as “ideas, facts, or allega‑ tions spread deliberately to further one’s cause or damage an opposing cause” or “spread‑ ing of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or insuring an institution, a cause, or a person.”51 However, this modern definition of propaganda has a pejorative

10  Large Imperial Cameos

Gaius Julius Caesar

Gaius Marius Calpurnia Pompeia Sulla Cornelia Cinna Gnaeus Pompeus 2 (pompey) Scribonia

Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa Agrippa Postumus

3

2

Julia Caesaris

1

Gaius JULIUS CAESAR Dict 49-44BC

Julia Caesaris 3

Gaius Octavius

2

2

TIBERIUS Claudius Nero 1

Drusus Caesar

Julia Livilla

Nero Caesar

Agrippina

1

2

Drusus

Marcus Antonius (Mark Anthony)

Antonia

Julia Livilla

Tiberius Gemellus 2

Octavia

Tiberius Claudius Nero

Drusus

Germanicus

1

Vipsania

Emp 14-37AD

Agrippina

Gaius Caesar Caesonia (CALIGULA) Emp 37-41AD Julia Drusilla

Atia

Livia Drusilla Augusta 1

Lucius Caesar Gaius Caesar

Drusilla

number of marriage

Marcus Atius Balbus

C. Claudius Marcellus

Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus AUGUSTUS 1 2 (Gaius Octavius)

Julia Caesaris

Lucius Cassius Longinus

1.2...

2

Emp 27BC-14AD

1

marriage

Sextus Julius Caesar

Gaius Julius Caesar

Julia Caesaris

Claudius Marcellus

adopted son

Marcia, from the Regii

Julia Caesaris

Emp. emperor Dict. dictator

son/daughter

Julio-Claudian Family Tree

Livia Julia

2 Tiberius CLAUDIUS Nero Emp 41-54AD Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus

Tiberius Claudius NERO Emp 54-68AD

Octavia

3

Messalina

Britanicus

Figure 1.1  Julio‑Claudian family tree. Copyright: User: Muriel Gottrop.

meaning. In this book, propaganda is defined through the eyes of the ancient people, who viewed its meaning differently. Cicero, the famous orator, stated that the etymology of the word propaganda is derived from the Latin word propagare, to propagate, and that it is a “thing, doctrine, or practice that should be promoted.”52 According to this defini‑ tion, in antiquity, propaganda was not regarded negatively or as words or images meant to persuade – it was more about promoting yourself. For Imperial art, propaganda also is closely tied to self‑representation or how one chooses to represent themselves and their family, especially, in this book, an emperor or a member of the Imperial family.53 This ancient practice of self‑representation can be equated with the modern phenomenon of social media, where individuals carefully curate their images to present themselves in the best light. For propaganda to be successful and for the message to be received, the person behind it (for large Imperial cameos, this was the Imperial woman) must know her audience. The empress must know her situation and audience and then use an appropriate method of communication, like a large Imperial cameo, to transmit her message to her audience. However, the audience also must be able to read and interpret this message. For example, public art’s iconography must be simple and effective to reach the widest number of peo‑ ple possible. In private and elite art with a more educated audience, these propagandistic messages can contain more complicated iconography. Above all, iconography and propa‑ ganda must be endlessly repeated in public and private art and in various media to reach

Large Imperial Cameos  11 the most people. Propaganda, like iconography, constantly changes to reach people and respond to trends and updates. 54

Iconography Power and Propaganda utilizes an iconographic framework to interpret cameos’ mean‑ ing, intertextuality, and influence. The study of iconography has its own history, most notably in the work of Erwin Panofsky.55 In Studies in Iconology of 1939, Panofsky outlines the three main levels of understanding a work of art. The first stage is the pri‑ mary or natural subject matter. In this level, the most basic of the three, the viewer un‑ derstands only the immediate subject of the artwork. Panofsky labels the next level of understanding as the secondary or conventional subject matter or iconography. At this time, the viewer incorporates cultural, religious, and iconographic knowledge into their interpretation. According to Panofsky, the final level is the tertiary or intrinsic mean‑ ing, also known as iconology. In this stage, the work of art is placed into its particular context. Using Panofsky’s terminology, the task of the art historian is to understand a work of art not only on the primary and secondary levels but also to place it within its iconological context. Therefore, in my discussion of the Tazza Farnese, Gemma Augu‑ stea, and Grand Camée de France, I will incorporate cultural, religious, historical, and iconographic knowledge of the content. Undeniably, any art historical iconographic study, including this one, is indebted to Panofsky and his three levels of understanding, for an artwork is a product of its par‑ ticular time and place. However, adhering to Panofsky’s definition of iconography and iconology is restrictive and does not specifically express how I use the term, for I will examine not merely content but also particular attributes and conventions utilized in Roman Imperial cameos.56 While my book is indebted to the methodology of Panofsky, it subscribes to and refines Göran Hermerén’s method, which is concerned with indi‑ vidual iconographic attributes, along with various motifs and conventions, and how this iconography evolves, changes, and eventually wanes and finally dies out – basically, the “life cycle” of iconography.57 Hermerén’s method includes four stages. As mentioned earlier, in the first stage, or the period of creation, an iconographic symbol is first used, and its underlying meaning is beginning to be understood. Next is the period when ico‑ nography is fully emerging and has matured. In the third level, the iconographic tradition is well‑known and established and becomes more varied and complex. Finally, the last stage is when symbols begin to wane, lose popularity and potency, and eventually die out. The development from the first stage to the last is gradual, with no strict boundaries. Power and Propaganda will reveal that large Imperial cameos demonstrate Her‑ merén’s four stages of the development of iconography: this is the life cycle of iconog‑ raphy ­(Table  1.1). In these four stages, Imperial cameos experiment with transmitting new Imperial messages that become common in subsequent dynasties, moving from the iconography that borrows from Egyptian and Greek sources to the creation of a mature Roman iconography, to added complexity, to the waning and declining complexity of the symbols (and the medium of the large Imperial cameo). The Aquileia Dish and Tazza Farnese represent the first stage of the development of symbols, when iconography was first created and understood. As a product of the early Augustan age, the Tazza Farnese borrows much of its iconography from established Egyptian and Greek sources. Specifically, the seven figures in the Tazza are still based on Classical and Hellenistic Greek prototypes, such as Triptolemos as a Gaul, Nilus, and

12  Large Imperial Cameos Table 1.1  Life Cycle of Iconography Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Creation and Experimental Phase Iconography is used, and its meaning is beginning to be understood Aquileia Dish Before 31 BCE (Patron: Cleopatra) Tazza Farnese 30 BCE (Patron: Livia)

Mature Phase

Complex Phase

Waning Phase

Iconography has fully emerged and is now understood

Iconography is well‑known and has become more complex and multivalent Grand Camée de France 23 CE (Patron: Agrippina the Elder) Caligula and Roma Fragment 38–41 CE (Patron: Agrippina the Younger)

Symbols begin to wane and lose popularity and eventually die out Gemma Claudia 49 CE (Patron: Agrippina the Younger)

Gemma Augustea 9–12 CE (Patron: Livia)

two nymphs. Likewise, the iconography is not yet Roman and depends much more on other cultures. For example, the olive tree upon which Nilus sits is a traditional symbol of Egypt that is found in visual imagery throughout that early ancient civilization. In the Tazza Farnese, the tree thus becomes a symbol of Egypt and Octavian’s victory at the Battle of Actium. As demonstrated in the following chapters, the symbolism included in Imperial cameos first derived from the beginnings based almost exclusively on other cultures. The Gemma Augustea, which dates to the mature Augustan age, belongs to the sec‑ ond stage of iconographic development when symbols have fully emerged and matured. At this point, the designer of the Gemma Augustea abandoned much of the borrowed Greek and Egyptian symbols for a uniquely Roman iconography that communicates the emperor’s ideology in multivalent and syncretic ways. For example, instead of the olive tree used to express victory (over Egypt), figures are now crowned with laurel wreaths or a corona civica. From the Julio‑Claudian period, the Grand Camée de France and Caligula and Roma cameo fragment are examples of the third level, when the iconographic tradition is fully established and understood. This can be seen in the way the iconography of the Grand Camée plays off that of the Gemma Augustea. The Grand Camée represents a more complex iconography, taking what artists of the Gemma Augustea had already done and elaborating on it.58 Imperial cameos waned in popularity after the reign of Nero, though the beginning of Hermerén’s fourth stage is visible in the Gemma Claudia. In these four stages of development, Imperial cameos experimented with new Impe‑ rial iconography and messages, some of which would become common in the public art of subsequent dynasties. In other words, large Imperial cameos like the Tazza Farnese, Gemma Augustea, and Grand Camée de France serve as an iconographic testing ground for the Julio‑Claudians, with symbols subsequently moved to mainstream public art by the Flavian dynasty, such as the Cancelleria Reliefs and the Arch of Titus. Therefore, this study will illuminate the importance of these Roman Imperial cameos in the development of Roman Imperial art.

Large Imperial Cameos  13 But what is iconography? At the most basic level, iconography first means identifying the figures in an artwork based on their attributes, or in the case of real historical figures, their physiognomy.59 For example, one can easily identify the figure of the goddess Roma because of her attributes: she is commonly depicted wearing a helmet and carrying a spear and shield, yet she can be distinguished from Minerva by her bare breast.60 As for a historical figure like the emperor Augustus, a study of his portraiture reveals an ideal‑ ized yet individualized man with distinctive and readily recognizable facial features and hairstyle. However, in Power and Propaganda, iconography refers to more than just identifying the figures on large Imperial cameos.61 While it is important to identify individual figures on these gemstones, their groupings also have symbolism.62 Each figure has a distinct symbolism on its own, but when that same figure is paired or grouped with one or more figures, these figures, taken as a whole, have a new, modified meaning. The upper register of the Gemma Augustea exhibits this in its grouping of Augustus, Roma, Tellus Italiae, and Oikoumene (among others). Augustus and each deity or personification have their distinct meaning, but when depicted together in the same compositional zone, the mean‑ ing of these figures is enhanced. Here, Augustus’ role as the bringer of the Pax Romana is praised in the Gemma Augustea, and Roma, Tellus Italiae, and Oikoumene allude to the peace and prosperity spreading not only throughout all of Rome and Italy but also throughout the entire civilized world. In addition to figures and groups of figures, my iconographic approach will also take into account objects, attributes, and gestures and their symbolic meanings. The Romans had numerous canonical iconographic attributes that could be combined to form vary‑ ing, formulaic messages. Roman art was polysemous and eclectic, with many artistic in‑ fluences and iconography that often had multiple meanings.63 As Tonio Hölscher proves, the Romans utilized a semantic system, a visual language with specific syntax and gram‑ mar, and it can combine many different symbols into one. This visual language, like any language, developed gradually and fluidly over the years, and it is sometimes inconsistent and difficult to comprehend because of its variety and organic nature. The semantic sys‑ tem of Roman images can be traced back directly to Greek sources, which were the pri‑ mary building blocks of Roman images’ new grammar and syntax. The Romans adapted these Greek sources, reformulating and sometimes even changing the meaning of these symbols by combining them with others. Signs and symbols were used and combined to create new Roman messages. While the style of Roman art changed as the centuries progressed, the predominance of subject and content was most important throughout the Roman Empire.64 While iconography can be complex, especially in large Imperial cameos, these gem‑ stones have symbols that repeatedly appear in Roman art. Thus, this repetition of iconographic elements in various artistic media allows for even the most complex and multivalent artwork to be partially understood, at least by the educated elite. The wider public understood simpler works’ messages with fewer iconographic references.65 Iconography also refers to compositional conventions and schemes. For example, the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France show subjugated barbarians. In the Grand Camée, a hunched‑over barbarian cowers at the throne of the Imperial woman in the central level. Likewise, in the lower register of the Gemma Augustea, barbarian men and women are dragged by their hair and forced to watch as Roman soldiers raise one of their trophies. As for a compositional scheme, one can again look at the upper register of the Gemma Augustea to see a grouping of mortals and divinities.66 As has

14  Large Imperial Cameos already been discussed, the grouping of figures has a particular meaning when taken as a whole and represents Augustus’ Pax Romana and the prosperity and abundance that will spread throughout the civilized world. However, the fact that mortals are mingling with divinities is important and a compositional scheme that is symbolic and iconographic, suggesting that Augustus and the other members of the Julio‑Claudian family included in the upper register are on the level of the gods. A particular style or change in style can also have iconographical value. For example, a Roman artwork might have a classicizing style, which connects the sculpture or painting back to the Golden Age of ancient Greece, and therefore, that particular style can func‑ tion iconographically. The five large Imperial cameos and silver dish exhibit a naturalis‑ tic, classicizing style indebted to classical Greece. Finally, in some instances, the material of an art object can also have iconographic meaning.67 In the case of Roman Imperial cameos, most were made of sardonyx, and the highest quality and largest pieces were imported from India. Because of the large amount of money required to procure sardonyx, the finished product became a symbol of the patron’s wealth and status. Furthermore, because sardonyx was viewed as possessing magical apotropaic qualities, the material of a cameo was believed to protect the Impe‑ rial family and the prosperity of the Roman Empire. Thus, an image made of sardonyx has a different significance than a work of art made of terracotta, marble, or even silver. The “Iconography Machine” in the Early Roman Empire As the Roman Republic ended, the new regime needed to set itself apart from the past; this included the creation of a new Imperial iconography. With the start of the Ro‑ man Empire, Octavian (who would become Augustus) needed new iconography to com‑ municate his political ideology and legitimize his right to rule. Augustus created a new standard of representation that his heirs would follow, but that does not mean that what Augustus created was entirely new. The Romans were notorious for their eclectic tastes, combining various influences.68 The Romans drew upon the iconography of many cul‑ tures they admired, including the Hellenistic Empires, the Egyptians, and even native Italian cultures like the Etruscans, to create a new visual language of Empire because:69 Rome needed a unique vocabulary and a systematized collection of images that were readily understandable by an ethnically and culturally diverse population…the new Roman terminology could not appear Egyptian but had to combine Italic, Etruscan, and Greek elements with a new Roman vision to create a singular but identifiable lexicon.70 Following his victory at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, Augustus immediately created this Imperial visual language.71 However, this new language of Roman Imperial imagery of Octavian/Augustus did not emerge suddenly or fully formed, but it developed gradu‑ ally and organically.72 The experimentations and adaptations that led to a fully realized Roman Imperial iconography took a couple of decades to solidify.73 Some have viewed this new imagery of Augustus and the empire as a propaganda or iconography machine, but that is not the case. Everyone who had a hand in this new imagery worked together.74 The emperor “of course determined the themes and general tenor of this imagery.”75 Any changes to existing iconography or the implementation of new symbols had to come from the emperor.76

Large Imperial Cameos  15 Augustus and his entourage grappled with how to communicate certain messages in art, including his new dynasty and his heirs, what the new national identity of the Roman Empire was, how the new system of government was different from the Republic, and even the role and status of women and foreigners within this new government system. In true Roman fashion, artworks could be direct or oblique, sometimes explicitly addressing the issues, while other times, mythology was utilized to create a more ambiguous visual allegory.77 In this milieu, Augustan art was created, combining mythology, Roman his‑ tory, and his new family history: “Augustus was determined to intertwine his vision of Rome and the empire with his family narrative.”78 Notes 1 See, for example, Beazley (1951). 2 Vespasian’s wife was dead, and Titus only had daughters. Titus was divorced, and Domitian was still unmarried in 70 CE. 3 Henig (1983, 139). Gemstones should “form an integral part of classical studies and contribute greatly to our understanding of Greek and Roman culture” (Plantzos 1999, 1). 4 Göran Hermerén is the inspiration for the life cycle of iconography, which will be discussed more in‑depth later in this chapter. 5 Nero was only three or four years old when Caligula was murdered. Agrippina the Younger started her dynastic campaign early, ensuring that her brother always had Nero at the forefront of his dynastic plans. 6 Because cameos are made of expensive, imported materials, they are often categorized as lux‑ ury arts. 7 Vasari (1550). Even the title of Vasari’s text points to the supremacy of painting, sculpture, and architecture. However, please note that in Vasari’s first edition of Lives of the Most Eminent Architects, Painters, and Sculptors (1550), the art historian does not make the division between the major and the minor arts, and he praises metalwork, especially that of Benvenuto Cellini, and gemstones. In the second edition of 1568, Vasari promoted a formal separation between the arts, relegating the minor arts to a lesser position. See Vasari (2007). 8 Vasari’s negative opinion of the minor arts was only gradually accepted. Throughout the Re‑ naissance and Baroque periods, scholars and connoisseurs still praised and collected minor arts alongside paintings and sculptures. In the eighteenth century, Vasari’s division of the arts into major and minor took hold, resulting in the hierarchy we still see today. For a brief historiogra‑ phy of the scholarship of the minor arts, see Lapatin (2003) and the introduction of Hourihane (2012). 9 This is not to say that no books are devoted to the minor arts, just that they do not receive as much attention. In addition, many of these so‑called minor arts are not part of the official canon of art history, which many scholars are striving to change. There are too many journal articles to list here, but for recent book publications that deal with the minor arts, consult Belozerskaya (2005, 2012), Feldman (2006), Feldman (2014), Hourihane (2012), Lapatin (2015), and Fischer (2016a). 10 Writers in antiquity praised objects that were what we now call the minor arts, making it clear that these artworks not only belonged beside the “major” arts but were also sometimes even more highly regarded. For example, see Pliny the Elder, Natural History Books 33 and 34 (Gold and Silver), and Book 37 (Precious Stones). See Pliny the Elder (1991), Isager (1998), and Pollitt (1983) for ancient sources that mention the minor arts in Greece and Rome. 11 Lucie‑Smith (1984, 39). 12 Belozerskaya (2012, 5–6). I felt the same when I (finally) saw large Imperial cameos, including the Gemma Augustea, at the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, Austria, in December 2022. Photographs and reproductions do not do these extraordinary gemstones justice. Thank you to Lamar University’s Office of Academic Affairs for my faculty development leave in the fall of 2022, which provided funding for me to visit Vienna. 13 Ball (1950, 40–41) and Thompson (1978, 114). The technique of cameo carving did not exist until the Hellenistic period (for more on Hellenistic gems, see Plantzos 1999; Plantzos 1996a).

16  Large Imperial Cameos There are many examples of Ptolemaic cameos (see Plantzos 1996b), but cameos reached their height under Augustus and continued in popularity through the reign of Nero, at which time their popularity began to wane. Megow (1987) provides a comprehensive compendium of cameos from the reign of Augustus through Alexander Severus, listing 311 cameos from these periods. One hundred ninety‑eight cameos are listed from Augustus to Nero, or 64% of all cameos. The cameos created from Domitian through the Severans account for 36%. This sup‑ ports the claim that during the Roman Empire, cameos were most popular between the reigns of Augustus and Nero. (Please note that these statistics are for all cameos, most of which were the normal, smaller size. Large Imperial cameos are a unique Augustan and Julio‑Claudian phenomenon.) 14 In searching for a new Imperial identity and iconography, Octavian drew upon Hellenistic in‑ fluences, including the cameo technique. Hellenistic art and its visual language were especially influential in developing this new Imperial iconography. Augustus and his heirs quickly fol‑ lowed the Hellenistic rulers’ lead, using the model of Hellenistic art to advertise themselves as powerful leaders with important military victories under their belts. However, in true Roman fashion, Augustus did not slavishly copy Hellenistic sources. 15 Gołyźniak (2020, 326). 16 The Grand Camée de France is the largest and measures approximately thirty‑one by twenty‑six and a half centimeters, while the Tazza Farnese and Gemma Augustea measure twenty centim‑ eters in diameter and nineteen by twenty‑five centimeters, respectively. 17 There were probably additional large Imperial cameos from the Roman Empire, but unfor‑ tunately, they do not survive today. However, we do have hints about the existence of some of these other larger cameos. For example, a fragment of a large cameo in Vienna depicting Caligula and Roma will be discussed in Chapter 6. Another possible large gemstone from a later period is the Constantinian Belgrade Cameo, now in the National Museum of Serbia (for a reproduction of this cameo, see Weitzmann 1979, plate II). Measuring fifteen by nineteen centimeters, the fourth‑century CE fragment depicts a triumphant emperor on horseback tram‑ pling enemies. 18 O’Donoghue and Joyner (2003, 120–121). 19 Or a gemmarius was more expensive to buy, in the case of a slave worker. In this case, the patron would have to buy the slave to hire him to work as a gem‑cutter. 20 See Pliny Natural History 37, Henig (1994, xi), Isager (1998), and Plantzos (1999, 9 and 110). Pliny the Elder only rarely mentions the magical qualities of stones. In Theophrastus’ De Lapi‑ dibus of 315 BCE, the author is concerned with the natural properties of stones and only com‑ ments on their possible magical qualities once, which was with great skepticism on his part. See Eichholz (1965). 21 In the first century CE, Pliny the Elder wrote Natural History, which includes an important analysis of stones. Of great interest to Pliny was the observation of the world around him, and in Natural History, he records these aspects, producing a collection of ancient culture and knowledge. In Book 37, Pliny looks exclusively at stones, classifying them according to their beauty, rarity, value, color, weight, smell, and perfection. He ranks the stones according to their value and beauty, with the diamond first on the list, followed by emerald, opal, and sardonyx. In addition to classifying these gemstones, Pliny also provides information regard‑ ing their provenance, the names of famous gem‑cutters like Dioscurides, prices, and common beliefs. While scientific, Pliny also tells many stories of how and why gem‑cutting and collecting became popular in Rome. As for sardonyx, Pliny mentions this particular gemstone in Chapter 23 of Book 37. Pliny describes the qualities of sardonyx, stating that since the time of Scipio Africanus during the Roman Republic, sardonyx had been popular in Rome. 22 Pliny Natural History 37.23 and Giuliani and Schmidt (2010). 23 Pliny Natural History 37.21. 24 While Pliny the Elder claims that there are Indian and Arabian types of sardonyx, he does not know exactly where the stones for cameos came from (Giuliani and Schmidt 2010, 91–96). Currently, neither location yields any large agates, and the ancient sources cannot be identified. However, in the 1970s, agate sources were discovered in Kostino, Bulgaria. These Bulgarian sources produced large pieces of agate, some more than a meter in diameter. Coloring experi‑ ments on the Bulgarian agates resulted in a piece of stone that remarkably resembled the Grand Camée de France and the Belgrade Cameo; all of these are agates made of layers with thin

Large Imperial Cameos  17 surfaces of crystals between them. Schmidt concludes that the material for ancient cameos, therefore, comes from Thrace and not India or Arabia. See Giuliani and Schmidt (2010). 25 Elsner (1995, 96). As Jas’ Elsner states, “[A]t the highest social level, and among the most expensive of all luxury arts, were sardonyx cameos created for the Imperial court.” According to Elsner, the high cost of sardonyx necessitates an Imperial patron for large cameos. While an Imperial patron is most likely, other extremely wealthy people in the Roman Empire could have afforded a cameo. Nevertheless, the elite was a small circle, and even if a non‑Imperial member commissioned a large Imperial cameo, they would have known the emperor. For more on cameos used as a luxury art for the Imperial family, see Henig (1983, 1994), Möbius (1985), Veyne (1987), Gazda (1991), Plantzos (1999), and Giuliani and Schmidt (2010). 26 Henig (1983, 139). 27 Gołyźniak (2020, 39). 28 Gołyźniak (2020, 238). 29 Kuttner (1995, 9–10). See Kuttner for more on the Boscoreale Cups, including photographs of the two cups (one of which was destroyed during World War II). In particular, Kuttner makes a convincing case that the Boscoreale Cups influenced the subjects of the now‑lost Arch of Tiberius. 30 Kuttner (1995, 11). 31 As Jörg Lang states, large Imperial cameos were made for the emperors and were viewed within the context of the court. State cameos were “highly differentiated, panegyric pictorial programs would have scarcely been accessible, nor each of their details comprehensible, to everyone” (Lang, 2022, 371). 32 Pollitt (1986, 259). 33 Bartman (1999, 12). 34 But what about the multivalent iconography of these large state Imperial cameos? What if this small, elite audience did not understand everything within these cameos? Gołyźniak states that that would not have mattered much because even if only a limited amount of the target audi‑ ence understood the message, these state cameos were deemed successful. See Gołyźniak (2020, 41). 35 Squire (2015, 173). The issue of identifying Roman artists stretches back to Johann Joachim Winckelmann (“History of the Art of Antiquity” from 1764). 36 Ling (2000, 91–101). For more on the artists and gem‑cutters in antiquity, see Ball (1950), Vollenweider (1966), Henig (1983), Plantzos (1999), Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008), Giuliani and Schmidt (2010), and Lapatin (2015). 37 Only a few Roman carvers are known by name; Pliny the Elder only mentions Apollonides, Cronius, and Dioskourides (Natural History 37.4). 38 Lapatin (2015, 121). These signatures can be found in inscriptions and signatures. See Pliny the Elder and Suetonius. 39 Pliny Natural History 37 and Theophrastus On Stones 127. Also see Henig (1983, 153–154) and Eichholz (1965). 40 Bartman (1999, 23). 41 For more on the technique of gem carving in antiquity, see Ball (1950), Henig (1983), Plantzos (1999), Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008), Giuliani and Schmidt (2010), and Lapatin (2015). 42 Giuliani and Schmidt (2010, 68). Schmidt, a modern gem‑cutter, made a copy of the Grand Camée de France in several months using modern equipment. He estimates that using ancient techniques, carving a cameo as large as the Grand Camée would have taken about a year. 43 Lapatin (2015, 111). 44 Henig (1983, 152–153). Corundum from Naxos was a popular type of abrasive. 45 Lapatin (2015, 109). 46 Patronage runs the gamut from elaborate state commissions to the popular market. Both Kleiner and Stewart claim that the patron had the most influence in creating an artwork, not the artist. See Kleiner (1992a, 4) and Stewart (2008, 32–38). 47 Livia is the most likely patron of the Gemma Augustea. Still, there is no smoking gun evidence for the direct role of Imperial women in creating these cameos. I am not the first to suggest the Imperial female patronage of these large cameos. The Aquileia Dish was most likely com‑ missioned by an Imperial or elite to be a gift bestowed upon a lucky elite on a special occa‑ sion (Strong 1995, 93). LaRocca believes that Cleopatra VII herself commissioned the Tazza

18  Large Imperial Cameos Farnese to commemorate the victory of Mark Antony in Alexandria in 34 BCE (LaRocca 1984, 91–92). Kleiner says the Gemma Augustea was commissioned by Tiberius or his mother, Livia (Kleiner 1992a, 71). In his 1978 dissertation, Pollini claims that Livia does not appear on the Gemma Augustea because she was the patron, and “her absence would have been a manifesta‑ tion of her modesty” (Pollini 1978, 219). Some believe a supporter of Agrippina the Elder and her sons must have been the patron of the Grand Camée de France (Scheiderich 2017, 17). 48 Bartman (1999, 23). 49 Specifically, the material evidence shows the lack of Livia’s portrait on gemstones from the Claudian time: “thus it would seem her death curtailed this particular facet of her portraiture” (Bartman 1999, 23). 50 An Augustan and Julio‑Claudian family tree is a helpful reference throughout this book since names are similar, and divorce and remarriage are common. Consult Figure 1.1. 51 See Merriam‑Webster.com Dictionary. 52 Gołyźniak (2020, 22). See Cicero Pro Marcello 8 and Cicero De Divinatione 2.149. 53 Self‑presentation is a “social practice or behavior that refers to various activities performed by people in an attempt to present themselves in a much‑improved way or with emphasis on their positive qualities or features” (Gołyźniak 2020, 220). 54 Gołyźniak (2020, 22–26 and 31). 55 Any iconographic study requires an interdisciplinary approach to fully comprehend the com‑ plexity of Roman symbolism and how Romans would have understood these images. In recent years, many classical scholars have been influenced by an anthropological work, The Social Life of Things, which takes an iconological approach to the study of objects, examining these objects’ worth, meaning, and how this meaning may have changed over time and with a change of ownership (Appadural 2014). When this anthropological method is applied to classical art and archaeology, the object’s value, meaning, and function are examined closely. Iconology is a particular methodology of the study of iconography and was endorsed by Erwin Panofsky and Aby Warburg. 56 Some art historians use the word iconography to delineate a particular style or change in style. For example, a Roman work of art might have a classicizing style, which connects the sculpture or painting back to the Golden Age of ancient Greece, and therefore, that particular style can function iconographically. 57 Hermerén’s iconographic development is certainly indebted to Panofsky since both have levels. In Panofksy’s version, as you move sequentially through the levels of iconography, the goal is to achieve the greatest understanding of a particular work of art. A particularly astute and educated person will be able to understand all three of Panofsky’s levels of iconography. In con‑ trast, Hermerén deals with developing all three levels of Panofsky’s iconography. In particular, Hermerén is concerned with individual iconographic attributes and how iconography evolves, changes, and eventually dies out. See Hermerén (1969) and Panofsky (1939). 58 Most likely, whoever the gem‑cutter of the Grand Camée de France was, he had seen, and pos‑ sibly even held, the Gemma Augustea. Perhaps the two gemstones even ended up in the same collection. 59 I am referring to an attribute as a symbolic object associated with a figure. This mortal, divin‑ ity, or personification may be holding the attribute, or it is at least near them, such as a shield. Furthermore, an attribute can also refer to the particular costume (or lack thereof) and hair‑ style worn by the figure. In Hermerén (1969), the author distinguished attributes in this manner (Hermerén 1969, 99–100). 60 In De Naturum Deorum, Cicero stated that even children could recognize gods by the symbols included in their depictions (Cicero De Naturum Deorum 1.29.81–83). 61 I will devote a little time to identifying the figures on large Imperial cameos. Countless scholars before me have concentrated on identifying figures and laid the groundwork for me in this respect. 62 In Knight (2012), the author states that iconography is not about a single object or figure but their relationship (Knight 2012, 3). 63 Kleiner (2005, 225). 64 Hölscher (2004, 2, 20–21). 65 Ginsburg (2006, 97).

Large Imperial Cameos  19 66 See Kuttner (1995) and Pollini (2012) (in particular, “The Leader and the Divine: Official and Nonofficial Modes of Representation”). 67 See Pliny the Elder Natural History 37, Rose (2010, 69–70), and Lichty (2016, 20 and 31). Rose lists materials as having iconographic significance. 68 Hölscher hones in on how Greek artistic influences are adopted and adapted by the ­Romans – and this can then be applied to other influences like Egypt. In Hölscher’s study of the semantic system, the “typical forms of different period styles in Greek art were adopted as types with specific meanings and manipulated in new ways” (Hölscher 2004, xxiv). 69 This Roman eclecticism, though, started long before Augustus. In the second century BCE, during the Roman Republic, Rome and Italy conquered parts of the Mediterranean, and con‑ sequently, art production increased. 70 Kleiner (2005, 218). 71 Zanker (1988, 2). I am using “Augustus” after this instead of Octavian. 72 To Hölscher, by focusing on form and style in his study, images and iconography “work as semantic vehicles for communication” (Hölscher 2004, xv). Form is important to any un‑ derstanding of an artwork because it reveals the particular meaning of that artwork. Form and meaning are intertwined. Form consists of style, while meaning is related to iconography, iconology, and context. Also consult LaRocca 2010, who, like Hölscher, says that art is “a language of signs” with its own syntax (LaRocca 2010, 315). LaRocca also says that iconog‑ raphy develops organically, in a non‑linear way (LaRocca 2010, 345), and that how exactly iconography developed and how it became ingrained in Roman art is something that will be debated over for years to come (LaRocca 2010, 327). 73 Zanker (1988, 3). 74 “What appears in retrospect as a subtle program resulted in fact from the interplay of images that the emperor himself projected and the honors bestowed upon him more or less spontane‑ ously, a process that evolved naturally over long periods of time.” See Zanker (1988, 3). 75 Zanker (1988, 100). 76 Zanker (1988, 338). In her 2020 book on the coins of Julia Augusta, Harvey says that we do not know whether images on coins were chosen by the emperor or the mint, though most agree that the emperor himself probably did not make these decisions (Harvey 2020, 10). 77 Kleiner (2005, 198). 78 Kleiner (2005, 202).

2 Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish

Cleopatra and Mark Antony Power and Propaganda is about the five surviving large Imperial cameos of the Early Roman Empire. Yet this chapter investigates the Aquileia Dish, an Alexandrian/Greek silver dish from the 30s BCE, created for a Roman market and audience (Figure 2.1). At first glance, this might seem like a disconcerting place to start, but it is necessary to closely examine the Aquileia Dish because it is why there were large Imperial cameos to begin with. The chain of referentiality between the large Imperial cameos starts with the silver dish, with the Tazza Farnese a direct artistic response to the Aquileia Dish – they are both part of Cleopatra and Livia’s propaganda wars, and each promotes their partner as the best candidate to rule Rome. There are no previous large Imperial cameos before Livia’s Tazza Farnese, and this new medium came about in about 31 BCE as a reaction to Cleopatra’s earlier Aquileia Dish.1 Cleopatra VII, the Ptolemaic Egyptian queen, was born in 69 BCE. She was not ethni‑ cally Egyptian but Macedonian since Alexander the Great appointed the Ptolemaic fam‑ ily rulers of his Hellenistic kingdom in the fourth century BCE. (Cleopatra’s connection to the Hellenistic ruler attracted Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, as neither could trace their lineage to Alexander the Great. For Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, connecting themselves to Cleopatra was the next best thing to being descended from Alexander the Great.) Because of her wealth and status, Cleopatra achieved much more than most women in antiquity. She was educated by the leading scholars in Alexandria and roamed the halls of the city’s famed library. She traveled the ancient world with her father, who was her mentor and prepared her for her future role in the Ptolemaic dynasty. Growing up in the Ptolemaic dynasty, she knew she had an essential duty as the family’s representative. However, she was also aware of her limitations as a woman and that there was only so far she could climb up the ladder, which was not very far for an ambitious woman in the first century BCE. The queen quickly realized she had to tie her yoke to a man to achieve greatness. First, it was to her brothers, both of whom were inept at their royal duties, but that allowed Cleopatra to take charge.2 Cleopatra, not her brothers, ensured that the legacy of Ptole‑ maic Egypt continued. Knowing that her brothers were not extraordinary, Cleopatra was ambitious and knew that she had to find stronger alliances, and thus, she turned to Rome and Julius Caesar.3 Cleopatra’s political importance increased when she became the mother of Julius Caesar’s only son, Ptolemy Caesar, known as Caesarion, in 47 BCE. Like the Romans, the Ptolemies used art as storytelling to communicate the history and politics of their rulers.4 In Ptolemaic art, Egyptians had no issue highlighting their DOI: 10.4324/9781003315308-2

Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish  21

Figure 2.1 Aquileia Dish, silver, 29.5  cm in diameter, before 31 BCE, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria (VII A 47). Copyright: KHM‑Museumsverband.

queens; thus, there are varied and rich remaining portraits of Cleopatra.5 Cleopatra was mindful of the power of imagery and that she could use art to communicate propa‑ ganda and political messages, which was one of the main reasons she commissioned the ­Aquileia Dish.6 Cleopatra placed many of her portraits in public to advertise her accom‑ plishments and power, not just in Alexandria and the rest of Egypt but also throughout the Hellenistic world. Some of these portraits depicted only Cleopatra; others included the queen with her brothers and still others with her children or Mark Antony. However, most of Cleopatra’s portraiture does not survive, so we will never know the full extent of her artistic propaganda during her reign.7 Images of Cleopatra emphasized her role as queen, mother, and goddess, complex imagery that influenced Octavian and that will be discussed more in the next chapter.8 Cleopatra’s images impacted Rome, beginning a lively exchange between the Ptolemaic

22  Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish Empire and the new Roman Empire in the age of Augustus  –  and the Aquileia Dish played an important role in this. Following the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44  BCE, Cleopatra tied her fate to another important Roman, Mark Antony. This relationship was even more politically significant than the one with Julius Caesar. Cleopatra had three more children with Mark Antony: twins Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene in 41 BCE and Ptolemy Philadel‑ phus in 36 BCE. In this union, Cleopatra vowed to support Mark Antony in any military endeavors and to give him any money and supplies he might require. In return, Mark Antony gave Cleopatra a section of the Ptolemaic Empire under Roman control, thus raising the question of his allegiance to Rome.9 Born in 83 BCE, Mark Antony made a name for himself in the Roman army in Pales‑ tine and Egypt before joining Julius Caesar in his campaigns in Gaul. Mark Antony then parlayed his military success into a political career, and upon his return to Rome, he be‑ came quaestor in 51 BCE, quickly followed by tribune. Mark Antony’s close relationship with Julius Caesar was crucial to his success, especially when Caesar trusted Antony to manage Italy while Caesar went on a military campaign in Spain. Following the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44  BCE, Mark Antony took advan‑ tage of the political opportunity and tried to gain the sole political power that Caesar had craved. However, Mark Antony was not alone in this quest to become the sole ruler of Rome; his fight for dominance was primarily with Octavian, Julius Caesar’s great‑­ grandnephew and adopted son. At first, Mark Antony and Octavian had to work together in a triumvirate with Lepidus.10 Then, at the Battle of Philippi in 41 BCE, Mark Antony and Octavian avenged Julius Caesar’s assassins, defeating Brutus and Cassius. However, this victory only reinforced their competition because it led to the division of the governing of the Roman world, with Octavian in charge of the west and Mark Antony in the east.11 The closeness between Mark Antony and Julius Caesar also had to do with an Egyp‑ tian queen (a relationship that eventually enraged and frustrated Octavian). Before his as‑ sassination, Cleopatra was Julius Caesar’s mistress and the mother of his son, Caesarion. After Julius Caesar’s murder, Mark Antony began his relationship with Cleopatra, and soon after, in 41 BCE, their twins were born, Cleopatra Selene II and Alexander Helios. At first, Mark Antony’s unconventional relationship with the Egyptian queen did not interfere with his role in the Roman military and politics – it also did not stop Antony from marrying Octavia, Octavian’s sister. While married to Octavia, Mark Antony’s af‑ fair with Cleopatra stopped for a couple of years, but then it resumed with vigor. Mark Antony and Cleopatra’s third child, Ptolemy Philadelphus, was born in 36  BCE, even though, at the time, he was still married to Octavia. That Mark Antony was having an affair with Cleopatra (while married to Octavian’s sister, no less), a romance that also resulted in a child, was a huge risk for Mark Antony and affected his political career and his relationship with Octavian.12 By the mid‑30s BCE, Octavian began to engage in propaganda wars against Mark Antony and Cleopatra – and Mark Antony certainly provided Octavian with plenty of ammunition. After getting attacked by Octavian, Mark Antony quickly divorced Octa‑ via, though this allowed Octavian to make a huge outcry for this slight against his sister. Octavian added more fuel to the fire by revealing that Mark Antony planned to be buried in Alexandria, not in Rome, and that he would be buried with Cleopatra. Octavian also announced that Mark Antony’s will gave Roman lands to his children with Cleopatra. The citizens of Rome became incensed with Mark Antony.13 Octavian stripped him of his power and branded him a traitor to Rome. Mark Antony initially had Cleopatra’s money

Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish  23 to help him, but his downfall was still swift. Octavian won the propaganda wars and the Battle of Actium, and Mark Antony (and Cleopatra) subsequently committed suicide.14 An Alexandrian/Greek Product Made for the Roman Market Cleopatra, the Egyptian Ptolemaic queen, commissioned the Aquileia Dish (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The silver plate was most likely an Alexandrian product but made for a specific market and audience: the Roman elite. For millennia, gold and silver objects were the ultimate symbols of authority, and Cleopatra would have wanted to use this prestigious material to symbolize her power.15 Though rare, Egypt produced silver objects as early as the Predynastic period. Only a few silver objects survive from any period. Gold was more common in ancient Egypt, and because of its rarity, silver was valued more than gold.16 Silver became more prevalent when Egypt became part of Alexander the Great’s Hellenistic Empire.17 Silver plate was especially popular in the Late Republic and Early Roman Empire. Despite Rome’s luxury laws, the appetite for silver plate was unabated throughout the Early Roman Empire.18 Wealthy households often had gold and silver objects, and col‑ lecting silver became all the rage in Rome – so much so that Cicero mentioned the envy such a fine collection could incite.19 Most silver objects created during the late Republic and Early Roman Empire were various shapes of plates, cups, bowls, and pouring vessels used for eating and drinking.20 The show plate, though, was the most valued and admired type of silver vessel during the Late Republic and Early Roman Empire. Unlike other pragmatic shapes, the show plate was exclusively designed to be an object of display that was “exhibited on side tables (abaci) in the triclinium of the house and would have never served a useful purpose.”21 A show plate was intended to inspire awe, admiration, and intelligent conversation during a dinner party.22 Silver show plates functioned as propaganda and symbols of prestige and politics, providing plenty of topics for the lively discourse of a dinner party.23 Within this category of show plate, there is a further classification for the most elabo‑ rate type: the picture dish. The Aquileia Dish is a stunning example of this category. In these intricate plates, decoration fills the entire interior surface of a dish, and they are dense in figures and iconography. Many silver picture dishes were shaped like a patera, a shallow, round dish used in rituals like pouring libations. Many of these silver dishes were decorated with decorative motifs but sometimes with figural scenes derived from myth, daily life, or politics.24 When commissioning the propagandistic Aquileia Dish, Cleopatra chose silver as her medium, one of the most valued media in ancient Egypt. The metal immediately com‑ municated exclusivity, wealth, and authority. Cleopatra also must have been aware of the popularity of silver objects in Late Republican Rome and that this would be a per‑ fect vehicle for her powerful message. Not only that, the Ptolemaic queen immediately homed in on the most elaborate type of silver vessel for the Aquileia Dish, the picture dish, which often had allegorical political messages. The picture dish was, therefore, the perfect material and medium to convey Cleopatra’s subtle, coded message to the Roman elite. It would be displayed and talked about among the most important people in Rome. The Aquileia Dish’s figures and iconography were also, as will be seen, easy for an educated Roman audience to understand and relied on familiar Egyptian, Greek, and Hellenistic symbols and conventions. With the allegorical inclusion of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, the Aquileia Dish ultimately communicated the powerful alliance between

24  Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish the Roman politician and the Egyptian queen and its continued success with their chil‑ dren. Furthermore, Mark Antony was the ideal choice for the sole ruler of Rome, with Cleopatra and their children by his side. The Aquileia Dish was a small, portable object that an elite Alexandrian audience could have seen in Egypt. What would these Egyptian viewers have understood when looking at the dish? The iconography was still familiar and general enough that an Egyp‑ tian audience would have come away with a similar message of fertility and maybe even that the unity of Cleopatra and Mark Antony was the source of this abundance.25 The alliance guaranteed fertility and abundance, and the future dynasty represented on the Aquileia Dish would continue this prosperity. As Aristotle said, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Together, Mark Antony and Cleopatra would take over the world. So whether it was an Egyptian or Roman elite who viewed the Aquileia Dish, they would have understood that Mark Antony and Cleopatra were stronger together  –  and that Rome and Egypt were even more powerful together. The Provenance and Date of the Aquileia Dish The Aquileia Dish, sometimes called the Triptolemos Dish, is a masterpiece of Roman silver plate from the late first century BCE. The tondo is filled with eleven figures and abundant iconography. The dish, measuring approximately 29.5 centimeters in diameter, is made of silver and was originally gilded. The silver plate is thin and created using the repoussé technique; various sections are not preserved, including the lower right third of the tondo. The plate was originally soldered to a solid base, the original of which is poorly preserved.26 Count Ignaz Franz de Cassis discovered the Aquileia Dish in a monastery near Aq‑ uileia, Italy, in the first half of the nineteenth century. Other details surrounding the dis‑ covery of this silver plate are unknown, and the provenance of the Aquileia Dish before its discovery in the nineteenth century remains a mystery.27 Count Cassis subsequently gave it to Emperor Franz I, who donated the silver dish to the Kunsthistorisches Museum in 1825. At that point, scholars began their attempts to identify the figures and the mean‑ ing of this enigmatic silver picture dish.28 Archaeological evidence points to a late Republican or Augustan date for the Aquileia Dish since this period was the “age of the collector.”29 During the late Republic and Early Empire, collecting metalwork and engraved gems, cameos, and other minor arts was the fashion. Furthermore, the impetus for covering the whole surface of a silver or gold dish with decoration was distinctly Roman, with the earliest cases of this occurring in the first century CE. The Aquileia Dish is one of these early examples: it is Alexandrian/Greek created for a Roman audience and dates to the late first century CE, right before the fate‑ ful Battle of Actium in 31 BCE.30 Figures Eleven figures and various objects fill the tondo of the Aquileia Dish (Figure 2.2). In the center of the Aquileia Dish is Figure A, a muscular, beardless man clothed from the waist down; he is the focal point. Depicted in heroic semi‑nudity, the young man is heavily muscled, with his head turned to the right, looking toward Figure B. He stands in a con‑ trapposto pose, and one hand holds his drapery while the other takes a sacrificial cake from a patera a young boy holds.

Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish  25

Figure 2.2  Diagram of the Aquileia Dish. Copyright: Author Drawing.

Figure A stands next to a cylindrical altar decorated with a garland and a scene of Pluto’s abduction of Persephone, Demeter’s daughter. On the altar, the god of the Un‑ derworld and his chariot are depicted, with Persephone draped over Pluto’s lap as he absconds to Hades in his chariot. A pinecone and other fruits are on top of the altar, and surrounding it are three children of roughly the same height: Figures F, G, and H. Both boys hold paterae with sacrificial cakes, and the girl stands slightly behind them. One boy has an animal skin around his shoulders; he is nude underneath it. The girl is dressed in a chiton and wears a small modius with fruits and ears of wheat on her head. The third child’s head, a boy, is only visible in the background. Figure A’s raised eyes meet those of Figure B: she is the veiled woman in the upper‑right portion of the tondo. She is enthroned and covered with drapery. The veil over her head signifies her married status, modesty, and maturity. She holds a burning torch in her right hand, and behind her is a twisting, sacred olive tree.31 With this iconography of the torch, identification is easy. She is Demeter, the goddess of agriculture and harvest. Below Figure B are two more women, Figures C and D, who stand next to a two‑wheeled cart powered by winged snakes. Figure C stands, and she is completely clothed. Her head, in profile to the left, is crowned with sheaths of radiating wheat, while her left hand reaches out to a serpent, offering a patera, presumably of food, to him. The other woman, Figure D, kneels in front of Figure C and also seems to provide some food to the snake in the chariot.32

26  Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish At the bottom of the tondo is Figure E. Recumbent, her curving body mimics the shape of the dish itself. She is a beautiful young woman, nude from the waist up. With a cow beside her, representing fertility and abundance, she is likely Gaia, the Greek mother earth goddess commonly depicted with animals, crops, and babies. Figures I and J are two additional young women in the upper right. Figure I is semi‑nude, holds wheat in her right hand, and has a mantle covering her legs, leaving her torso bare. She reclines, propping herself up with her left hand as she looks toward Figure B. She wears a wheat crown; a calathus, or basket, overflowing with grain is to the chil‑ dren’s left. There is an intriguing detail beneath Figure I’s feet: the beginnings of a brick wall, reflecting an attempt to include an architectural element in the silver dish.33 Stand‑ ing behind Figure I is another woman, Figure J. She is clothed, and her hair is plaited in coils. She leans on the shoulder of Figure I in a gesture of intimacy and looks to the right, while her right hand rests on her right hip, her palm facing upward. Figure K is at the top of the tondo, presiding over the entire scene; only his head and bust are visible, as drapery and a small amount of a cloud cut off the figure just below the pectoral muscles. Figure K is an older, heavily bearded man who looks slightly to the right toward Figure B. In his right hand, he holds a scepter, while the left has a thunder‑ bolt. A veil is drawn over his head. Because of the iconography, this is undoubtedly Zeus (Table 2.1). Interpretations Dating the Aquileia Dish and identifying its figures and meaning are complicated be‑ cause there are few surviving examples of figured silver dishes and no comparable objects among the surviving silver works from the first century BCE or first century CE.34 Conse‑ quently, the dating and interpretations proposed for the Aquileia Dish have varied from the beginning of scholarly publications.35 The Kunsthistorisches Museum houses the Aquileia Dish and interprets the silver plate as an “allegory of fertility” and dates it to the early Imperial period or approximately the second half of the first century BCE. The dish is displayed in the Roman gallery, and the museum states, “[T]he bowl is in the tradition of Hellenistic silversmithing and is a unique masterpiece in technique and composition.”36 The museum identifies only two of the eleven figures: Triptolemos and Demeter. The central figure, Figure A, is Triptole‑ mos, who stands in the center of a sacred area, and his right hand touches a patera; he is performing a sacrifice on an altar. Immediately following this ritual, Triptolemos will embark on the serpent wagon and teach humanity the art of agriculture, as instructed by Demeter, Figure B. Julio‑Claudian Emperors

Many scholars identified Figure A as one of the Julio‑Claudian emperors, interpreting the dish as a visual testament to the continued development of agricultural wealth in Ro‑ man Italy following Augustus’ reign.37 The Julio‑Claudian emperor is also in the guise of Triptolemos, who, taught by Demeter, brings agriculture and abundance to the world. The emperor makes a sacrifice to Ceres/Demeter at the altar. According to this inter‑ pretation, the children are identified as a particular Julio‑Claudian emperor’s offspring. For example, Figure A has been identified as Claudius and three children as Britannicus (Claudius’ son), Octavia (Claudius’ daughter), and Nero (Claudius’ stepson). Usually,

Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish  27 Table 2.1  Figures: Aquileia Dish Aquileia Dish

Identification

Meaning

A

Triptolemos as Mark Antony

B

Demeter as Cleopatra

C and I

Seasons: Spring and Summer

E

Gaia with a cow

F, G, and H

Children at an altar: • Cleopatra Selene II • Ptolemy Philadelphus • Alexander Helios

D and J

Seasons: Autumn and Winter

K

Zeus

Bringer of agriculture Mark Antony as a source of abundance and fertility Rome • Cleopatra as the goddess of agriculture and harvest • Cleopatra and Egypt as a source of abundance and fertility • Egypt • These two represent the fruitful six months of the year that Persephone spends with her mother, Demeter • Fertility and abundance • Both wear radiating crowns of wheat, representing the fruits of the successful harvest • Figure I also holds sheaves of wheat in her right hand • C holds paterae and offers food to the serpents; perhaps she is performing a rite to ensure future abundance • Greek mother earth goddess, depicted as bare‑breasted • Fertility and abundance • The cow beside her represents fecundity in the animal world • Close association with Tellus Italiae and Isis, the Roman, and Egyptian equivalents • They are in the act of sacrificing during the Eleusinian Mysteries • Three children of Mark Antony and Cleopatra • Future of their dynasty and alliance • Fertility and abundance • These two represent the barren six months of the year Persephone spends in the Underworld with Hades • Neither women have any fruits or grains of the harvest • Figure D offers a patera to one of the serpents • Head god • Holds a scepter and thunderbolt • He presides over the entire scene, sanctions this fertility and abundance • He is also the god of the sky – appropriate since he is placed in the sky above the scene

28  Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish the four female figures on the right and left are identified as the personifications of the four seasons. Finally, in the sky is Caelus or Jupiter, while Tellus is at the bottom.38 In 1951, Picard agreed with a Julio‑Claudian identification of the main figure and stated that he most closely resembles Nero.39 However, Picard took his interpretation differently and was the first to connect the Aquileia Dish with the Eleusinian Mysteries, its arrival in Rome, and its expansion in the early Imperial period – the Aquileia Dish as a depiction of these Eleusinian Mysteries.40 Figure E

Francesca Ghedini expanded upon Picard’s Eleusinian Mysteries interpretation of the Aquileia Dish, focusing on the symbolism of Figure E: the woman and cow at the bottom. Before Ghedini, the meaning of the woman and bovine was routinely identified as Tellus Italiae without further discussion or visual evidence.41 Tellus, the mother earth goddess, was most popular from the late first century BCE to the beginning of the first century CE and then again from the second century to the third century CE – the Aquileia Dish’s Figure E would fit well within this time frame. In the Augustan period, Tellus was first used as a symbol of human fecundity, and she was frequently depicted with children and often wore a crown.42 However, for Ghedini to identify Figure E on the Aquileia Dish as Tellus, a compelling comparison must be made for those works with Tellus within the timeframe of the late first century BCE to the beginning of the first century CE, such as with the Tellus panel on the Ara Pacis Augustae (Figure 2.3), the Gemma Augustea (Figure 4.1), or the cuirass of the Augustus of Primaporta statue. Of these three popular depictions of Tellus, only the Gemma Augustea depicts the goddess bare‑chested, similar to the figure in the Aquileia Dish; otherwise, this motif would become most popular during the reign of Hadrian.43 Unlike the Gemma Augustea, Augustus of Primaporta, and the Tellus panel, Figure E on the Aquileia Dish does not have any babies with her, which allude to human fertility. For Ghedini, though, there is an even more important element missing in two of these Augustan depictions of Tellus but is present in the Aquileia Dish, which raises questions about whether this is, in fact, Tellus: the cow (the cow is absent in the Gemma Augustea and the cuirass of the Augustus of Primaporta). The cow, a symbol of animal fecundity, is only included in the Tellus panel of the Ara Pacis.44 Ghedini believes the cow next to Figure E on the Aquileia Dish is an individualizing symbol rather than a generic reference to animal fecundity. This figure’s identification must be within the context of deities and personifications with a special connection to the crouching bovine. Therefore, the cow on the Aquileia Dish is different from the typical iconography of Tellus, as is the unusual gesture of the woman raising her drapery with her left hand, which is usually explained as suggestive of the earth uncovering the womb to receive the wheat.45 For Ghedini, Figure E is not Tellus. She is Io, the daughter of the river god Inachos and a priestess of Hera. As punishment for accepting Jupiter’s amorous advances, the young maiden was turned into a cow and placed in the custody of the Argo Panoptes.46 Ghedini also attempts to place the figure and story of Io into the larger context of the Aquileia Dish, which references the Eleusinian Mysteries, including Demeter, under a sa‑ cred olive tree. According to Ghedini, it is no coincidence that both the goddesses of the mysteries, Demeter and Io, were assimilated into Isis in Egypt.47

Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish  29

Figure 2.3 Tellus Panel, Ara Pacis Augustae, 13–9 BCE, Museum of the Ara Pacis, Rome, Italy (12015). Copyright: xlibber, 2012.

Mark Antony, Cleopatra, and Alexandria

Most scholars have attempted to recognize historical figures within these mythological ones, particularly Figures A, B, and the three children. Triptolemos has been identified as a Ptolemaic prince, Marcus Agrippa, Germanicus, Claudius, Caligula, Nero, and Titus. However, since Hans Möbius, most scholars have identified the central figure as Mark Antony.48 The numerous Alexandrian elements even posit that the dish was made in Alexandria.49 According to Möbius, Alexandria greatly impacted Roman art, especially cameos and silver objects. Mark Antony was responsible for this Alexandrian influence since he was in Egypt with his consort, Cleopatra, and Möbius cites the Aquileia Dish as visual evi‑ dence of Mark Antony’s Alexandrian influence. He identifies Figure A as Triptolemos as Mark Antony through comparative analyses of the portrait on the dish of the general/ politician with numismatic portraits.50 The three children are Mark Antony’s offspring with Cleopatra: Alexander Helios, Ptolemy Philadelphus, and Cleopatra Selene II.51 Like Möbius, Ann Kuttner identifies Figure E as Mark Antony as Triptolemos, stat‑ ing that the silver plate “shows that the politicization of Amor imagery is rooted in the propaganda war between Caesar’s heirs.”52 For Kuttner, the Aquileia Dish reveals the po‑ litical wars between Octavian and Mark Antony, the two primary heirs to Julius Caesar’s

30  Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish Imperial plans. Mark Antony performs a sacrifice to Demeter. To the left of Mark An‑ tony, Kuttner identifies the three children as two Amores and Psyche, who assist him in the sacrificial ritual to the goddess. Furthermore, these three children symbolize Antony’s own three children.53 The Aquileia Dish was created for Mark Antony, who was still living at the time, and it functioned as a “triumphal panegyric,” praising the Roman politician and general for his accomplishments.54 As is typical in Roman art, the Aquileia Dish is eclectic, combining these Greek elements with the distinctly Roman iconography of sacrifice: incense, sacrificial cakes, and festooned altar. Kuttner dates the Aquileia Dish to the time of Mark Antony in the late first century BCE.55 There have been myriad other identifications of the figures, including Demeter as Livia, Triptolemos as Germanicus, and the three children as Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder’s offspring. Some have identified the central male as a Ptolemaic prince.56 Hafner identified the central figure as Ploutos, the son of Demeter and Jason, distributing money into the dishes the three children offer him – the silver dish is an allegory of wealth.57 Iconography Figure A: Triptolemos as Mark Antony

Figure A is Triptolemos, the bringer of agriculture. His pairing with Demeter (Figure B) is appropriate since the goddess encouraged him to spread this knowledge to humans, a fa‑ miliar scene in Athenian Greek vase painting.58 The close association of Triptolemos with Demeter and the serpents pulling the winged chariot is all definitive iconographic proof that these are the correct identifications of the figures, as will be further discussed shortly. However, as previous scholars have attested, Figure A is more than just Triptolemos: he is also Mark Antony.59 This identification is correct, not based on the physiognomy of Mark Antony but on the hairstyle of Figure A in the Aquileia Dish. Hairstyles are often a more effective and reliable identification tool. In coins, Mark Antony has a distinctive coiffure – he is blessed with a full head of curly hair, unique for the period of the 30s BCE. Octavian has his signature comma‑shaped locks of hair that are less deeply drilled than Mark Antony’s. It was not until later in the Roman Empire, precisely the Antonine pe‑ riod, that the drill was utilized extensively for deep curls. However, Mark Antony, ahead of his time, has this distinctive hairstyle in coins and the Aquileia Dish, which helps to differentiate him from Octavian. In addition, Mark Antony’s deep, slightly hooded eyes in the Aquileia Dish align with other sculptural portraits of the politician. A silver tetradrachm of 37–33  BCE, minted in the eastern Mediterranean, depicts Cleopatra on the obverse and Mark Antony on the reverse (Figure 2.4).60 On this coin, Mark Antony has his rugged, individualized physiognomy. Still, more importantly, he has a full head of curly hair similar to Figure A’s hairstyle in the Aquileia Dish. In coin portraiture, Mark Antony is characterized by his rough features, some of which are evi‑ dent in the strong facial features of Figure A. However, compared to coin portraits of Mark Antony, like the silver tetradrachm, the figure on the Aquileia Dish is more ideal‑ ized and younger. However, this must be because he is also tied to Triptolemos, which makes it difficult to identify him definitively as Mark Antony through solely physiogno‑ mic comparisons. This silver tetradrachm is contemporary with the Aquileia Dish and is important for other reasons. First, Cleopatra proclaims her importance as she is pictured on the obverse of the coin, while Mark Antony is relegated to the less important reverse. Nonetheless,

Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish  31

Figure 2.4 Silver Tetradrachm (Coin) Portraying Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony, 37–33 BCE, Art Institute of Chicago (2008.173). Copyright: Public Domain.

the two are depicted together on the same coin, conveying the same message of alli‑ ance between Mark Antony and Cleopatra emphasized in the Aquileia Dish. Further‑ more, the inscriptions proclaim Cleopatra’s divine status (“younger goddess”) and the power of Mark Antony (“imperator, third of the triumvirate”). In the Aquileia Dish, Cleopatra is depicted as a goddess, Demeter. She is the one with more power, including over Triptolemos. Consequently, Figure A is Mark Antony in the guise of Triptolemos. He is in the act of sacrificing, as many Roman leaders often depicted themselves. By participating in these religious rituals, Mark Antony is doing what is required to maintain the fertility and abundance in the ancient Mediterranean and what he hopes will become his empire. Figure B: Demeter as Cleopatra

Figure B is Demeter, a fertility goddess, based on some of Demeter’s standard icono‑ graphic attributes.61 In the Aquileia Dish, Demeter holds a flaming torch in her right hand, while an olive tree is in low relief behind her, a symbol of vegetation. In addition, Demeter is often depicted with drapery that covers her entire body and veils her head, indicating her maturity and modesty. That this figure is Demeter is further reinforced by the scene on the cylindrical altar on the right, which is decorated with Hades and Persephone, Demeter’s daughter. Finally, Demeter is associated closely with Isis in an‑ cient Egypt. Thus, the Greek goddess’ inclusion was satisfying to Cleopatra, who closely associated herself with the Egyptian goddess of fertility. Translating Isis into her Greek equivalent still communicated Cleopatra’s connection to the Egyptian goddess. Because Triptolemos and Demeter are closely linked in the Aquileia Dish, it is likely that Demeter, like her counterpart, also represents a historical figure. Demeter is Cleopatra, Mark Antony’s consort. Cleopatra was identified with Isis and was considered a deity

32  Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish

Figure 2.5 Marble Bust of Cleopatra, 40–30  BCE, Altes Museum, Berlin, Germany (1976.10). Copyright: Public Domain.

in Ptolemaic Egypt. However, her status as a goddess outside of Egypt was not neces‑ sarily recognized.62 She was disguising herself as Demeter, which was a subtle way for Cleopatra to show her divine status to a Roman audience. Admittedly, there is only a little visually to go on here. Only a small portion of the side of Figure B’s face is visible. But a snippet of her hairstyle is still visible, which matches the Greek‑styled coiffure of Cleopatra’s sculptures (Figure 2.5). In this hairstyle, the hair is loosely pulled back, with soft waves on the forehead. Often, a headband is worn with this type of hairstyle, though that is not visible under Figure B’s veil. While the Greek hairstyle of Figure B is not irrefutable evidence that she is Cleopatra, the fact that Figure B is so difficult to identify might have been deliberate and would have served a specific purpose. Cleopatra, who never shied away from representing herself in Ptolemaic art, commissioned the Aquileia Dish for a Roman audience. Cleopatra wanted to abide by Roman customs, and women were meant to be modest at the time (Demeter was also the perfect vehicle for this modesty). In the Tazza Farnese, Livia exhibits this modesty perfectly – because she is not even present in the dish and lets her husband get all the attention. Cleopatra, though, was accustomed to putting herself and her power fully on display. However, the Ptolemaic queen tamed this down on the Aquileia Dish because

Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish  33 the silver picture dish was meant for a Roman audience, and the focus was on Mark Antony and not herself. Therefore, a generic depiction of herself was appropriate for modesty and to keep the attention on her partner. Winged Chariot and Serpents

The winged chariot driven by serpents further proves that Figures A and B are correctly identified as Triptolemos and Demeter; ancient writers, including Pausanias and Ovid, mention this winged chariot.63 Demeter is often depicted with Triptolemos; she gifted him the winged chariot to travel the world. The serpent is also one of Demeter’s icono‑ graphic attributes since the reptile symbolizes rebirth. The chariot with winged serpents with Triptolemos, Demeter, and Persephone (depicted in the Aquileia Dish on the altar) is familiar in fifth‑century BCE Greek vase paintings. Sometimes the chariot only has wings. But this was a classic grouping of figures and iconography that is now showing up in the Aquileia Dish.64 Zeus

At the top of the dish and presiding over the entire scene is Figure K. He is Zeus, who watches the scene below. As the head of the Greek pantheon, he sanctions the fertility and abundance instigated by the alliance of Cleopatra and Mark Antony. As the god of destiny and fate, Zeus has the authority to make this happen. The god is easily identifi‑ able because of his beard, scepter, lightning bolt, hairstyle, bare chest, and older age.65 Furthermore, Zeus’ placement in the sky is important, as he is also the king of the sky. Gaia

Compositionally and iconographically, the reclining woman at the bottom of the dish, Figure E, must counterbalance Zeus. The Aquileia Dish relies on Greek and Hellenistic iconography, and Tellus Italiae is a Roman goddess. Because Zeus is a Greek deity, Figure E also must be Greek. Because Zeus is the god of the sky, the reclining female must be some earth deity. She is Gaia, the Greek mother earth goddess who symbolizes fertil‑ ity and abundance – specifically, the prosperity brought about through the alliance of Cleopatra and Mark Antony.66 Most scholars identify Figure E as Tellus Italiae because of the reclining posture, bare breasts, and cow beside her.67 However, she does not have cornucopiae or robust babies seen in most artistic depictions of Tellus Italiae. Instead, Gaia is accompanied by a cow lounging at her right, emphasizing her role as a fertility goddess in the natural world. Children are present but have been moved to the altar near their father. In addition, the cow alludes to Roman sacrifice, with the altar and sacrificial cakes above Gaia and the cow further reinforcing this theme of sacrifice. Because Mark Antony and Cleopatra are featured above Gaia, connecting the earth goddess with Egypt would be nice. Unfortunately, she has no other attributes that enable one to make that Egyptian connection, not even sheaves of wheat or corn. But using Gaia instead of Tellus Italie makes the message more universal and general, and her meaning also would have been understood by an elite Egyptian audience. Because of its universality, especially the reclining posture and the bare breast common for fertility goddesses, the Egyptians easily could have interpreted her as Isis.

34  Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish Eleusinian Mysteries

Picard was the first to connect the Aquileia Dish to the Eleusinian Mysteries – and the iconography in the silver picture dish is undeniable evidence.68 Because the silver plate prominently features Demeter, Hades, Persephone, and Triptolemos, the Aquileia Dish must depict the Eleusinian Mysteries, an agrarian ritual with a deep tradition in ancient Greece. These rituals lasted almost two millennia, from 1400 BCE to 392 CE. The exact rituals in the Eleusinian Mysteries are unknown, but they were held every year in Eleu‑ sis, near Athens. These rites celebrated Demeter and her daughter, Persephone, whom the god of the Underworld, Hades, kidnapped. Bereft, Demeter wandered in her grief, eventually alighting in Eleusis. There, she disguised herself as a nursemaid and secretly watched over the queen’s son, Triptolemos. The queen became enraged when she dis‑ covered a strange woman caring for her son. Demeter then removed her disguise and revealed herself as the goddess of fertility. The queen assuaged Demeter by building a temple dedicated to the goddess in Eleusis. For this, Demeter taught agriculture to Trip‑ tolemos; he then imparted his knowledge to all of humanity. The Aquileia Dish depicts this myth and the sacrifices that must have taken place during the Eleusinian Mysteries and refer to the coming era of fertility and prosperity that Triptolemos/Mark Antony and Demeter/Cleopatra will bring.69 Young Women

Figures C and D and Figures I and J are two pairs of beautiful young women, one in the lower right and the other in the upper left. In each team, one woman’s head is crowned with sheaves of wheat (Figures C and I). The two women on the right hold paterae, of‑ fering the contents to the serpents in the chariot, while the two women on the upper left observe the scene before them. Figure I also clasps additional stalks of wheat in her right hand draped over her lap, which is significant because the grain is symbolic not only of Demeter but also of Egypt’s fertility and abundance. Wheat and its allusion to Egypt are especially fitting in the Aquileia Dish because it subtly praises Mark Antony and Cleopatra. Because these four women accompany Demeter, Triptolemos, Zeus, Hades, and Perse‑ phone (on the altar), they must have a mythological identification and connection to those deities. The number four also holds profound significance. When the number of women is combined with the emphasis on fertility and Demeter, the four young women are the personifications of the four Seasons, or Horai, who often appear in Greek art as beautiful maidens. There need to be more iconographic attributes to identify each season in the Aquileia Dish (Eiar, Theros, Phthinoporon, and Kheimon). There are no flowers, grapes, or animals besides the serpents pulling the cart.70 Despite the lack of more specific iconography, the presence of Demeter, Persephone, and Hades strengthens the argument that these four women are the Seasons. After all, Demeter was so distraught after the kidnapping of her daughter, Persephone, that this caused the four seasons. Persephone spent autumn and winter with Hades, representing the barren six months. In the Aquileia Dish, Autumn and Winter are one figure in each pair, specifically the two that do not have crowns of wheat or wheat in their hands (Figures D and J). Spring and Summer are Figures C and I; these women wear radiating crowns of wheat representing the harvest. Figure I even holds sheaves of grain in her right hand. The number of women, with

Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish  35 two wearing wheat crowns, combined with Demeter, makes a strong case that these are Seasons.71 Children

Figures F, G, and H are two boys and a girl, respectively. The two boys hold paterae, and Triptolemos/Mark Antony grabs a wheat cake from one of them. The girl stands behind the two boys, and she holds a patera. Typically in Roman art, especially in scenes like this one, the inclusion of children alludes to the hope for continuing fertility and prosperity for the next generation. Indeed, this is undoubtedly part of the symbolic importance of these three youngsters. The three children also are in the act of sacrifice, and thus they, like Mark Antony, are doing what they can to maintain Rome’s abundance. They are performing a sacrifice during the Eleusinian Mysteries. Many of the figures in the Aquileia Dish have other historical identities, and these three children must represent Mark Antony and Cleopatra’s three children, Cleopatra Selene II, Ptolemy Philadelphus, and Alexander Helios. The children’s identification is not possible through iconography, which is scant: the modius on the girl’s head and the basket of fruits and grain on the ground behind her are the products of Egypt’s bread basket. Instead, the number of children, three, and their genders, two boys and one girl, is deliberate and represents the future of the soon‑to‑be Roman Empire: Mark Antony and Cleopatra’s offspring. Alliance of Rome and Egypt

While the Aquileia Dish depicts the Eleusinian Mysteries, the tondo is also allegorical and celebrates Mark Antony’s accomplishments and Imperial ambitions – and everything the alliance he shares with Cleopatra can bring to Rome. Everything on the silver plate contributes to this theme. Mark Antony is in the guise of Triptolemos, the bringer of agriculture to the people. Cleopatra is Demeter, the goddess of the harvest, who instructs Triptolemos. Gaia further represents this fertility, along with the cow at her side. The bil‑ lowing mantle behind her and over her lap references the winds that will blow across the Mediterranean world, bringing fertility far and wide. To maintain this fertility, endless sacrifices and offerings must be performed, which are emphasized repeatedly on the plate. The three children, the dynasty’s future, are the offspring of Mark Antony and Cleopatra and highlight orderly succession. These children will further maintain fertility through rituals and sacrifice, along with their roles as future rulers of Rome and Egypt. Finally, Zeus presides over the scene, watching these mortals and personifications approvingly. Mark Antony and Cleopatra have the god on their side (Table 2.2). The Patron of the Aquileia Dish The Aquileia Dish is a picture dish and a type of propaganda court silver, along the same lines as the famed Boscoreale Cups. Consequently, the Aquileia Dish is imperialistic, or at least aristocratic, in its patronage, and likewise, its audience was elite and exclusive.72 Because the Aquileia Dish was made of expensive materials, only the Imperial family and the cultured elite could have commissioned and bought these items. The Aquileia Dish was most likely a gift bestowed upon a lucky elite member on a special occasion.73

36  Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish Table 2.2  Iconography: Aquileia Dish Iconography

Meaning

Combination of Triptolemos, Demeter, and a winged chariot pulled by serpents

Agriculture, fertility and abundance Eleusinian Mysteries, which ensure fertility and abundance Winged chariot pulled by serpents • Another attribute of Demeter • Common in scenes with Triptolemos • Serpents are a symbol of rebirth Altar decorated with Zeus’ abduction of • Connection to Demeter Persephone • The inclusion of this scene explains the existence of the four Seasons Demeter’s flaming torch and sheaves of wheat • Attributes of Demeter • Fertility and abundance Olive tree • Egypt • Fertility • Sacred tree fitting for a sanctuary (as suggested by the altar and possible brick wall) Pinecones, fruits, overflowing vessel • Fertility and abundance • Offerings for the Eleusinian Mysteries Paterae and sacrificial cakes • Sacrifices for the Eleusinian Mysteries • Sacrifices that will ultimately ensure the fertility and abundance created by the alliance of Mark Antony and Cleopatra and that will benefit Rome and Egypt Children • Fertility and abundance • Cleopatra Selene II • They also perform sacrifices to ensure fertility • Ptolemy Philadelphus • Mark Antony and Cleopatra’s three • Alexander Helios children – the future of their dynasty Wheat stalks, wheat crowns, baskets of wheat, • Fertility and abundance sacrificial cakes (possibly made of wheat) • Egypt and Cleopatra • Egypt will provide Rome with abundance Four Seasons • Connection to Demeter, Persephone, and Hades • Fertility and abundance of spring and summer (the time that Persephone spends with her mother, Demeter) • Cold and barren in the autumn and winter (the time that Persephone spends with Hades in the Underworld)

Because it was an Imperial commission, and one that celebrates Mark Antony, Cleopatra commissioned the Aquileia Dish.74 However, no ancient written sources attest to the silver picture dish’s patronage. Thus, we must rely on the evidence that points to Cleopatra’s patronage. First, the Romans were avid producers of silver objects, especially by the late first century BCE, when it was immensely popular among the wealthy elite. Cleopatra would have known this and that a silver show plate would be ideal for com‑ municating to elite Romans her propagandistic message. Only the wealthiest individuals would have been able to afford such a fancy silver picture dish because these were the showstoppers in a silver collection. Not only that, but the level of craftsmanship in the Aquileia Dish and the number of figures in it would have meant that it was even more expensive. Thus, only the wealthiest elites could have

Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish  37 afforded this – someone like Cleopatra, who wanted to impress and praise her partner, which would, in turn, give her more power in the ancient world. The Aquileia Dish is a subtle family portrait that uses allegory to communicate its political message, a smart move on the queen’s part. Cleopatra’s relationship with Mark Antony was scandalous and scrutinized in Rome. He was a Roman military commander, and she was a foreign queen. They were not married, and, at least for some of their re‑ lationship, Mark Antony was married to Octavian. They shared three children, one of whom was born while Mark Antony was married to Octavia, Octavian’s sister. Their rela‑ tionship was complicated. Because of this complicated relationship, which many R ­ omans were opposed to, in the Aquileia Dish, Cleopatra disguised herself, Mark ­Antony, and her children in allegory. Despite its mythological subject, the dish was commissioned to praise Mark Antony, his alliance and relationship with Cleopatra, and their three children, the heirs to the whole Mediterranean. The Aquileia Dish represented, to Cleopatra, the dynastic hopes she had for Mark Antony and their three children. Through Cleopatra and Mark An‑ tony’s relationship, Rome and Egypt were intimately connected, and this was mutu‑ ally beneficial for both civilizations, making each stronger because of this bond. Their alliance would continue with their three children and heirs, who were Egyptian and Roman. The Aquileia Dish is an allegorical scene of the Eleusinian Mysteries, but it is also an advertisement of Mark Antony’s political aspirations, emphasizing his role in the fertility and continued prosperity of Rome through his connection to Cleopatra. The Egyptian queen does not leave herself out of the composition, but she makes Mark Antony the sole focus and legitimizes his accession to the Roman world. No matter where it was made, the Aquileia Dish was light and portable and, therefore, could have traveled to Rome easily, where the wealthy Imperial elite could have seen it. Silver picture dishes were the pride of their owners, and while the Aquileia Dish was stored in a cabinet during the day, it was displayed during dinner parties for guests to admire and discuss. Because Mark Antony was married to Octavia, and Octavian and Livia were his brother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law, it is possible they all saw the Aquileia Dish firsthand. Because it was a subtle allegory, only the more astute would have recognized that the subject of the dish was a panegyric of Mark Antony, Cleopatra, and their hopes for a new regime. Did Octavia, the jilted wife, know that was the message? Perhaps. But un‑ doubtedly, Livia, sophisticated and striving for power for herself and her son, Tiberius, recognized this dynastic message and was enraged by it. Her husband, Octavian, and not Mark Antony, should be the founder of a new dynasty and the first emperor of Rome, fulfilling what his adopted father, Julius Caesar, could not. If successful, this would make Livia, like Cleopatra, one of the most important women in the ancient world. As noted, Mark Antony and Octavian were engaged in propaganda wars before the Battle of Actium. The Aquileia Dish was one of Cleopatra’s weapons to celebrate Mark Antony and advertise to the aristocracy everything he would bring to Rome as sole ruler. Cleopatra was an astute image maker and knew images had the power to persuade, convince, and tell a story.75 This was Cleopatra’s contribution to the propaganda wars. It makes sense that Livia, as Octavian’s wife, would have also stood up and taken notice. She took a page from the Egyptian queen’s playbook, upping the ante with the Tazza Farnese, a response to the Aquileia Dish and essentially a “Take that!” after Oc‑ tavian’s victory at the Battle of Actium. Because of this, the Aquileia Dish, a silver dish (and other objects like it that have not been preserved), was why large Imperial cameos

38  Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish were made in the first place. The Tazza Farnese responded to the Aquileia Dish, but Livia did not just order the creation of another silver plate. Instead, she increased the stakes and prestige by making a huge sardonyx cameo, big enough that the material had to be imported from India at a great expense. In addition, sardonyx required even more skilled and specialized workers. Women had to take agency where they could. They could not make major political decisions in the ancient world, but they still could manipulate and persuade men. The minor arts were a way to do this. Though only a few people would have seen the Aquileia Dish, these were the most important people in the ancient world. Silver dishes and cam‑ eos might be small in scale, but they had a huge impact. Life Cycle of Iconography: Stage One The Aquileia Dish belongs to the first stage of the life cycle of iconography: the time of creation and development. At this early stage, right before the beginning of the Ro‑ man Empire, Mark Antony, Cleopatra, Octavian, and Livia experimented with images, testing their effectiveness. In this first stage, an iconographic symbol is first used, and its underlying meaning begins to be understood. However, at this earliest stage, during the Late Republic, iconography heavily depended on Egyptian, Greek, and Hellenistic sources – and this was the iconographic basis for Roman material. The Aquileia Dish has little explicitly Roman iconography, though its elite audience would have understood its allegorical Roman message. Greek and Hellenistic Gods and Goddesses

The gods and goddesses in the Aquileia Dish are easily identifiable, and they are Greek and Hellenistic deities with a long artistic and literary tradition (Triptolemos, Demeter, Zeus, Hades, Persephone, and Gaia). The combination of Triptolemos, Demeter, and the winged chariot identifies the scene as the Eleusinian Mysteries. Roman and Egyptian Historical Figures

The figures are Greek deities, but some are also Roman and Egyptian historical figures, most importantly Triptolemos as Mark Antony, Demeter as Cleopatra, and the three children are the couple’s offspring. As common in Greek and Hellenistic art, mythology was used as an allegory for contemporary historical figures and events.76 In the Aquileia Dish, the Eleusinian Mysteries are represented, but the figures and iconography, more importantly, allegorically refer to the power of Mark Antony, Cleopatra, and Egypt. So while the figures and iconography are Greek and Hellenistic, the message is for a Roman audience. Mark Antony and Cleopatra are united, creating a powerful alliance between Rome and Egypt, the breadbasket of Italy. The extensive iconography of fertility and abundance in the Aquileia Dish, thus, also refers to Egypt’s resources that are now under the control of Rome due to Mark Antony. Propaganda

Most importantly, Cleopatra utilized the Aquileia Dish in the propaganda wars be‑ tween Mark Antony and Octavian. The Egyptian queen puts Mark Antony and his

Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish  39 accomplishments front and center in the style and iconography of the time, which relies on Greek and Hellenistic sources. This was a language that a Roman elite audience un‑ derstood. Though the audience for a silver picture dish was small, it included the most important people in the 30s BCE, and thus, a small dish could have a deep impact on their struggle for more power. Cleopatra pushed for Mark Antony to become sole ruler through the Aquileia Dish, advertising what he could bring to the new empire, including Egypt, fertility, and abundance. He and Cleopatra also already had three children who would continue this new dynasty and ensure the prosperity of Rome. Thus, while the iconography is derived from Greek and Hellenistic sources, the al‑ legory refers to Roman and Egyptian people and Roman propaganda. While the Roman iconography of the Aquileia Dish is undeveloped at this early first stage, the message is Roman and Imperial. The Tazza Farnese is also from the first phase of the development of iconography and is remarkably similar to the silver dish. Because of its iconography and similarity to the Tazza Farnese, the Aquileia Dish must date to the Roman period in the 30s BCE. The relationship between the silver dish and the cameo will be discussed in the next chapter. Notes 1 Such artistic transfer was common throughout antiquity. For a specific case, see Dan (2018) and her examination of the Yenikend Plate from the Hermitage Museum. The silver plate is also another good example of an elaborate figured dish. Also, see Dan, Grenet, and Sims‑­ Williams (2018) about the artistic communication between the East and the West, specifically the “Aulis” Plate and the “Graces” Plate. 2 Kleiner (2005, 21). Cleopatra married two of her brothers, Ptolemy XIII, and Ptolemy XIV; sibling marriage was common among Ptolemaic leaders, though the queen’s marriages were likely in name only. 3 Kleiner (2005, 27). 4 Kleiner (2005, 180). 5 This is also why Cleopatra appears in the Aquileia Dish, while Livia is absent in the Tazza Farnese and the Gemma Augustea. Images of Egyptian royal women were usually idealized and decorated coins, sometimes as jugate portraits with their husbands, as well as in sculptural portraits. The portraits of royal women in Ptolemaic Egypt inspired Hellenistic portraits of similar women in power (Kleiner 2005, 135). 6 Kleiner (2005, 136). 7 As to why not much survives, some of it was lost to time, eroding over the millennia. Other works were likely the victims of iconoclasm and were intentionally destroyed after the deaths of Cleopatra and Mark Antony. Octavian had plenty of reasons to destroy this imagery to bolster his political ambitions and continue the propaganda wars even after the death of his enemies. The fact that so very little portraiture survives – and that there must have been an incredible amount of it, to begin with – must mean that much of it was intentionally destroyed. 8 Kleiner (2005, 154). 9 Kleiner (2005, 25). 10 The triumvirate of Octavian, Mark Antony, and Lepidus was formed in 43 BCE. 11 Kleiner (2005, 37). 12 Kleiner (2005, 38). Mark Antony risked the consequences, whether for love, desire, or political advantages (or to get under Octavian’s skin), and no one knows why. 13 Kleiner (2005, 39). 14 Kleiner (2005, 39). 15 Lapatin (2015, 34). In antiquity, silver was believed to come from the gods, and because of its light color, it was often associated with Selene, the moon goddess. Silver makes many appear‑ ances in classical mythology, from silver thrones and vessels to the famous bow of Apollo. In Natural History, Pliny the Elder wrote that, like gold, silver had an esteemed mythical history

40  Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish (though, of course, gold is better than silver), and silver was first found by the Athenian king Erichthonius or King Aikos of Aegina (Pliny Natural History 7.57). 16 Gale and Stos‑Gale (1981, 103) and Schorsch (2018). 17 Schorsch (2018). 18 While wealthy households bought silver vessels, gold was reserved for the Imperial family (Strong 1966, xxvii). 19 Cicero, Verres ii, 4, 46–47 and Strong (1966, xxvii). 20 These shapes mirror those found in ceramics. There was little silver jewelry because the Ro‑ mans preferred gold for these types of adornment. 21 Strong (1966, 130). 22 Lapatin (2015, 38) and Dan, Grenet, and Sims‑Williams (2018, 198). 23 Strong (1966, 124). 24 Pliny Natural History 33.147, 154–155. According to Pliny the Elder, the subjects of pic‑ ture dishes often derived from classical mythology; Dionysiac imagery was ubiquitous. Other popular mythological decorations of silver picture dishes include maenads, Silenus, cupids, and centaurs. 25 Charles Brian Rose says that there is a “fundamental ambiguity of Roman iconography” (Rose 2010, 50). This ambiguity works well in the Aquileia Dish, since various viewers in the an‑ cient Mediterranean could have viewed this portable object. Rose claims that “even at a fixed moment in time, no object had a single meaning, since the intellectual, social, and political background of the viewer would have prompted a multiplicity of responses, especially in the absence of inscriptions” (Rose 2010, 49). 26 Wölfel (1997, 149). 27 Wölfel (1997, 149). 28 Bastet (1968, 143). 29 Strong (1995, 89). 30 Strong (1995, 150). 31 Ghedini (1986, 33–35). 32 Wölfel (1997, 149). 33 This could be the back wall of a sanctuary, indicated by the altar, with Figure I reclining on top of it and Figure J standing behind it. 34 Bastet (1968, 143). 35 For more on the Aquileia Dish, see Picard (1951), Hafner (1967), Bastet (1968), Ghedini (1986), and Wölfel (1997). 36 Laubenberger, “Schale: Silberschale mit Allegorie der Fruchtbarkeit.” 37 Picard (1951, 355) and Strong (1966, 150). Rostovtzeff identifies Figure A as Caligula, Nero, or Claudius (Rostovtzeff 1926). According to Martin Henig, the silver picture dish depicts a Roman prince in the guise of Triptolemos. Henig also connects the Aquileia Dish to the Tazza Farnese (Henig 1983, 143). 38 Picard (1951, 355). 39 Picard (1951, 356–357). Picard focuses on dating the Aquileia Dish, not by identifying the main figure on the scene but by its style, which he states is Julio‑Claudian. He also contends that the women on the right are busy feeding the winged animals because they are about to race. 40 Picard (1951, 351). For more on the Eleusinian Mysteries, see Gondicas (1986), Clinton (1992), Metzger (1995), Mark (2012), and Mylonas (2015). 41 Ghedini (1986, 31). 42 Ghedini (1986, 31–32). 43 There is a visible connection between Figure E on the Aquileia Dish and Tellus Italiae on the Gemma Augustea (both are bare‑chested) – but I agree with Ghedini that this is not enough iconography to identify Figure E as Tellus Italiae. 44 Ghedini (1986, 32). Ghedini is quick to note that the absence of the cow could also be because there was limited space for it in the Augustus of Primaporta statue and the Gemma Augustea. 45 Ghedini (1986, 32). 46 Ghedini (1986, 32). In order to prove her identification, Ghedini cites similar representations of Io and the cow in Pompeian wall paintings. 47 Ghedini (1986, 33–35).

Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish  41 48 Möbius (1962) and Kuttner (1995). While many scholars agreed with Möbius’ identification of the central figure as Mark Antony (Möbius 1962), Bastet (Bastet 1968, 143), and Matz (Matz 1962, 167) disagreed. 49 Wölfel (1997, 149). Silver plates like the Aquileia Dish were light and highly portable. Con‑ sequently, where the objects are found, whether in Alexandria, Rome, or elsewhere, often has no bearing on the country in which it was made. Furthermore, the objects discovered in Egypt often have nothing specifically Egyptian, making it clear that it was made in that country. Therefore, to claim something as Alexandrian is difficult. 50 Möbius (1985). This is not overwhelming evidence, and Möbius often makes stylistic stretches like this, performing stylistic comparisons that suit his purposes. However, Figure A is young and idealized, unlike many of the portraits of Mark Antony on coins (Spire 1966, 283–284). Some scholars have backed up Möbius’ claims, stating that this discrepancy “may be due to the artist’s attempts to compromise between the more rugged features of Antony and the youthful beauty of Triptolemos...it makes the task of identification difficult and the evidence inconclu‑ sive” (Spire 1966, 283–284). 51 Picard (1951), Matz (1962), and Möbius (1985) assign political identifications to Demeter and the three children on the Aquileia Dish. 52 Kuttner (1995, 61). 53 Kuttner (1995, 28). If these figures are Amores and Psyche, they do not have wings, which is unusual. 54 Kuttner (1995, 61). Like other works of this period, the Aquileia Dish is still strongly influ‑ enced by Greek art, and Kuttner identifies many similarities with Classical Greek votive reliefs. 55 Wölfel (1997, 151). For scholars who identify the central figure as Mark Antony as Triptole‑ mos, there are two possibilities for the date of the Aquileia Dish: either before the Battle of Actium or during the reigns of Caligula, Claudius, or Nero, since these three emperors had a vested interest in promoting the memory of their ancestor, Mark Antony. 56 Ghedini (1986, 31), Hafner (1967, 213), and Laubenberger “Schale: Silberschale mit Allegorie der Fruchtbarkeit.” 57 Hafner (1967, 213) and Ghedini (1986, 31). 58 In the Tazza Farnese, Triptolemos is also youthful, but there is no chariot in the scene. Instead, Triptolemos holds agricultural implements. 59 For example, Möbius (1985), Kuttner (1995), and Wölfel (1997). 60 Greuel (2009). 61 See Beschi (1988). 62 Kleiner (2005, 27). 63 Pausanius Description of Greece, 7.18.2 and Ovid Metamorphoses 5:643. 64 For example, a fifth‑century BCE Athenian red‑figure hydria in the British Museum depicts Persephone, Triptolemos (who sits in the winged chariot), and Demeter (London E183). 65 For more on Zeus, see Kremydi‑Sicilianou (1994). 66 Gaia will transform into Tellus Italiae, a prominent iconographic figure in Augustan art. For more on Tellus Italiae, see Ghisellini (1994). For more on Gaia, consult Miate (2023). 67 Early scholars almost unanimously identified Figure E as Tellus/Terra Mater (e.g., Strong 1937; Hafner 1967; Bastet 1968). Interestingly, Strong identifies this figure as Terra Mater, claiming that Figure E is accompanied by a cornucopia and a basket of flowers, both absent from this silver dish. 68 Picard (1951). See London, British Museum 1868,0606.8 (E183) attributed to the Painter of London E183, BAPD 215772. 69 See Homeric Hymns, specifically the Hymn to Demeter. 70 See Ovid Metamorphoses 2.34 for attributes of the Seasons. 71 Wölfel (1997, 149). Wölfel identifies these women as the seasons, though she identifies Autumn and Winter as Figures I and J and Figures C and D as Spring and Summer. These four women, with their emphasis on grains, could be nymphs who attend and perform sacrifices. This is a very general identification, though. Nymphs are often shown reclining, and only one has such a position in the Aquileia Dish. The number of women, four, and their clear separation, with two wearing radiating wheat crowns and holding wheat while the other two do not, makes it more likely that these four women are the Seasons, as does the presence of Demeter, Hades, and Persephone.

42  Cleopatra and the Aquileia Dish 72 Donald Strong published the seminal Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate, an invaluable resource for metals in the classical world, especially the history of metalsmithing, resources and trade, technique, and artists. Strong also examines the different types of silver and gold plate. However, unfortunately, less than one page of Strong’s book directly discusses the Aquileia Dish, or the Aquileia Patera as he calls it (Strong 1966). 73 Strong (1995, 93). 74 Mark Antony did not pay much attention to the power of images and symbols, especially how they would be interpreted in Rome and Italy. Because of this, it is even more likely that Cleopatra stepped in and took the lead when Mark Antony faltered and made an error of judg‑ ment in underestimating the power of visual propaganda (Zanker 1988, 57). 75 Octavian took notice of Cleopatra’s use of images and modeled himself on them. 76 For example, the image of Mithradates VI as Herakles from Pergamon.

3 Livia and the Tazza Farnese

Livia There are no previous large Imperial cameos before the Tazza Farnese, and this new artistic medium came about around 31 BCE as a reaction to Cleopatra’s Aquileia Dish (Figure  3.1). The Tazza Farnese is Livia’s artistic response to Cleopatra’s Aquileia ­ Dish – they are part of Cleopatra and Livia’s propaganda wars, with each woman pro‑ moting her partner as the best candidate for Roman emperor. The Aquileia Dish was made before the Battle of Actium, while the Tazza Farnese was the artistic response, made after the Battle of Actium. The silver dish is strikingly similar to the later cameo, and these two works of minor art, while made of different media, are in conversation. The Tazza Farnese borrowed shape, theme, stage one iconography, Imperial patronage, and function but sought to be even more important than its predecessor. The cameo dish directly references the Aquileia Dish, while it also ups the ante after Octavian’s decisive marine victory at Actium. Only Cleopatra and Livia, two of the most influential women in antiquity, would have had the power and the wealth to engage in the artistic propaganda wars that produced the Aquileia Dish and the Tazza Farnese. Cleopatra was born into the Ptolemaic dynasty, inheriting her position as queen, and she then exponentially expanded her influence and power by connecting herself to Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. Livia, too, was born into an influential patrician family, the Claudians, in 58 BCE. Like Cleopatra, Livia enhanced her position and her power by creating alliances with men. Livia was well aware that within the constraints of Roman society, she would never rule or hold office and that an alliance with an important man was the only way a woman could use her political clout and enact some change.1 After the Battle of Actium, Livia “replaced Cleopatra on the stage of the ancient world…feminine power was openly transferred from one woman to another.”2 At fifteen or sixteen, Livia married Tiberius Claudius Nero, a quaestor or some kind of public official; most likely, this was a political arrangement that secured and enhanced her family’s prestigious reputation. But after the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE, Tiberius Claudius Nero sided with Mark Antony, not Octavian, a huge error. Luckily, Octavian forgave Tiberius Claudius Nero for his lack of allegiance, probably because that gave Octavian the leverage to force Tiberius Claudius Nero to divorce Livia so that he, Octavian, could marry her – while she was pregnant with her first husband’s second son, no less.3 It is unclear how much agency Livia had in this decision to divorce and remarry, nor do we know her thoughts or feelings on the matter. Livia lived in a patriarchal society DOI: 10.4324/9781003315308-3

44  Livia and the Tazza Farnese

Figure 3.1 Tazza Farnese, sardonyx, 20  cm in diameter, late 1930s–early 1920s BCE, Naples National Archaeological Museum, Naples, Italy (27611). Copyright: Courtesy of the Ministry of Culture, National Archaeological Museum of Naples (Photo by Giorgio Albano).

where options as a woman were limited. But Livia was a shrewd, ambitious, and intel‑ ligent woman who “was savvy enough to take advantage of her situation, and she ac‑ quired real influence at a time when women could not vote, hold public office, or appear in public without a guardian.”4 By marrying Octavian, Livia could meet her potential to be a woman of influence, or as some call her, the First Lady of Rome.5 By the late first century BCE, Livia and her sister‑in‑law, Octavia, were the most powerful women in Rome. Both women benefited from their marriage to important men ­(Octavia’s husband was Mark Antony). For Livia, marrying Octavian, the future

Livia and the Tazza Farnese  45 emperor, meant that she tied her success to one of the most powerful men in the world and hoped that he would indeed become sole ruler, thereby increasing her own power. Livia took advantage of her role as wife of the future emperor and was more instrumental in helping to create the ideology of Augustus’ principate than people give her credit for.6 Livia might not have had any official power, but she was married to the man who did. Therefore, some of Livia’s power came from having the emperor’s ear. While simplistic, it is nevertheless true: “people in an intimate relationship with one another can influence one another, whether intentionally or not, and that anyone, male or female, will listen more seriously to the opinions of a close family member over a stranger.”7 The power of persuasion and manipulation was one of the most successful ways for an Imperial woman to get what she wanted – and using a beautiful present of a large Imperial cameo was a sly way to manipulate the emperor, as will be demonstrated. Following Cleopatra’s lead, Livia was also a patron of the arts.8 As the Egyptian queen, Cleopatra was not as restricted as Livia or Octavia, who could not hold any of‑ fice. But Livia and Octavia were intimately connected to Cleopatra through Octavian and Mark Antony, thus opening the door for the Imperial Roman women to think about how Cleopatra used imagery for power and status – and Cleopatra influenced Roman women to start utilizing art as propaganda themselves. While we do not know how much of a say these female patrons had in the artwork, we do know that women commissioned art for “some of the same reasons men had: family status, political ambitions for the family and the men in it.”9 Livia especially focused on the creation of a Julio‑Claudian dynasty, encouraging the emperor to adopt her son, Tiberius.10 But the impact of Imperial female patrons, especially Livia, is something that has been swept under the rug. This seems to stem from Augustus, who was quick to take responsibility for everything, without acknowledging any accomplishments of his wife or other female family members. The Res Gestae is written evidence of this; Augustus does not mention any accomplishments of his wife, sister, and daughter, thus erasing from the record any contributions they made to bolster his political agenda and ideology. Despite her expulsion from the written record, Livia, like Augustus, used art as propa‑ ganda and helped her husband to not only become the first ruler of Rome but also for‑ mulate the ideology of his principate. Livia brought her own money into her marriage with Octavian, and she used it to fund various projects that would further her husband’s ideology. There is evidence for Livia’s patronage of several building projects, including temples, houses, and villas and the paintings within them. Unfortunately, no written re‑ cords for her patronage of gems survive. But with her wealth and status, she very easily had the means to commission cameos that she gifted to her husband.11 Along with being a patron of the arts, many portraits of Livia survive, especially in sculpture, coins, and cameos. Augustus was praised for his victories and the establishment of the Pax Romana. He was the primus inter pares, the most important man of Rome. In art, Livia was Augustus’ counterpart and therefore was the most important woman of Rome. Her gendered roles of wife and mother were emphasized: she was the wife of the emperor and, hopefully, the mother of the future emperor.12 In ancient Rome, mother‑ hood was awarded and lauded, and Livia was praised for her contribution. She was an example for other women to emulate. Overall, Livia’s depiction in art stressed that she “was an important part in ensuring the success of the newly established Julio‑Claudian dynasty.”13 All subsequent Julio‑Claudian women followed Livia’s example, emphasizing their roles as wives and mothers of the emperors.

46  Livia and the Tazza Farnese Provenance of the Tazza Farnese The Tazza Farnese has inspired debate and controversy among scholars since its reap‑ pearance in late fifteenth‑century Renaissance Italy when Lorenzo de’ Medici acquired it from Pope Paul II. From the Medici, it was passed on to the Farnese collection, from whence it derives its name, and finally to the Archaeological Museum in Naples, where it is on display today.14 Carved from sardonyx and roughly twenty centimeters in diameter, the Tazza Farnese is a deep brown with bands of white running throughout. Expertly designed and carved, the Tazza Farnese is one of the finest and largest examples of an ancient cameo and is unique among other surviving large Imperial cameos because of its shape and figural dec‑ oration. The Tazza Farnese is a shallow, circular bowl corresponding to the Greek phiale and the Roman patera.15 Unlike other Imperial cameos, the underside of the cameo dish is decorated with a Gorgon in relief (Figure 3.2).16 In addition, the interior decoration of the Tazza Farnese is different from the later Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France because it represents the experimental stage one of the life cycle of iconography. In the Tazza Farnese, the figures and iconography are derived mainly from Egyptian, Greek, and Hellenistic sources and have not yet been translated into something distinctly Roman (though the message was Roman). The gemstone also is heavily indebted to the Aquileia Dish due to the propaganda wars between Cleopatra and Livia, which resulted in the referentiality between the silver dish and the cameo. Figures The tondo of the Tazza Farnese depicts seven figures emerging dramatically from the dark background. Carved in the white layer of the sardonyx and low in relief, the figural deco‑ ration of the gemstone consists of four men, three women, and a sphinx (Figure 3.3).17 Figure D is almost directly in the center of the composition, a young man clothed only in an exomis; the garment is knotted at his left shoulder. The man’s body is positioned frontally with his head in profile to the right; his facial expression is intimidating with his furrowed brow and glaring eyes. His chest is bare, revealing strong pectoral, abdominal, and arm muscles. His right arm extends to the left, and in his fingers is a large staff en‑ twined with ropes, often identified as a plow or a yoke, an agricultural instrument used to join two animals such as oxen.18 His left arm rests at his side, and hanging from his forearm is a sack, most likely filled with a farmer’s seeds, and in his left hand is a knife. This figure is Triptolemos. In Greek mythology, following the instructions of Demeter, Triptolemos brought ag‑ riculture to the world; he then proceeded to teach others how to sow fields and cultivate crops. Thus, the agricultural tools that the figure holds, including a sack, a small plow, and a pruning knife, are appropriate for him. Finally, D’s hairstyle consists of a tuft of hair above the forehead and scruffy hair projecting outward at the base of his neck. This disheveled hairstyle is distinctively Gallic, and therefore, Triptolemos is shown in the guise of a barbarian.19 Furthermore, Triptolemos is also a symbol of “a new beginning.”20 After all, Tripto‑ lemos will bring new agricultural technology to the people, thus starting a new era of fertility and prosperity. Therefore, Triptolemos can also be connected to the beginning of a new era of Rome that started immediately after the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE. Octa‑ vian was the sole ruler now, and a new empire with a new emperor was to be established.

Livia and the Tazza Farnese  47

Figure 3.2 Gorgon (Underside of the Tazza Farnese). Copyright: Courtesy of the Ministry of Cul‑ ture, National Archaeological Museum of Naples (Photo by Giorgio Albano).

To the left of Figure D is Figure C, an older man with a long beard and curly hair seated on a gnarled olive tree. Figure D is Nilus, the Greek god of the Nile River and the son of Oceanus and Tethys. Nilus is typically depicted as a serious older man with curly hair and a long beard in ancient art, as seen in a second‑century CE sculpture in Naples, Italy (Figure 3.4).21 Draped only from the waist down on the Tazza Farnese, Nilus’ sag‑ ging torso remains bare, and in his left hand is a cornu, a horn‑shaped drinking vessel from which the blessed Nile River flows. In the lower center of the composition are Figures A and B, a male Egyptian sphinx and Isis‑Euthenia, respectively.22 In the Tazza Farnese, Isis‑Euthenia is shown reclining on a male sphinx. Her head in a three‑quarter profile to the right, Isiac corkscrew curls frame her face, and her head is capped with a diadem.23 The goddess’ torso is positioned

48  Livia and the Tazza Farnese

Figure 3.3  Diagram of the Tazza Farnese. Copyright: Author Drawing.

frontally, revealing bare breasts with a typical Isiac knot of drapery between them. Her right elbow is propped up on her slightly raised right leg, her hand reaching upward and clutching a couple of stalks of wheat. The hybrid creature on which she leans is unique among the other figures of the scene because of its bicolor composition; its body is carved in brown, and its head is white. The sphinx’s human head is crowned with a traditional Egyptian nemes headdress knotted in a club at the back of his head. The sphinx’s lion body is in profile to the right and is muscled, with the ribs visible and the forepaws lean and robust. Depictions of Nilus changed when Rome conquered Egypt. In artworks Greek in style, the river god acquired a female companion: Euthenia, the Greek personification of pros‑ perity and abundance. Her iconography includes a crown of wheat or wheat in her hand, sphinx, ships, and a reclining posture, three of which figure prominently in Figure B. Euthenia was also often connected to the Egyptian fertility deity, Isis, and oftentimes the Greek goddess wears a costume with an Isiac knot between her bare breasts, another fea‑ ture exhibited in Figure B. When Euthenia displays some of these Egyptian iconographic elements, she is Isis‑Euthenia, a syncretic Egyptian‑Greek goddess. In these instances, Nilus was identified with Osiris, which was fitting since the Egyptian god of fertility was the husband/brother of Isis.24 In an artistic depiction of Isis‑Euthenia and Osiris‑Nilus, the meaning is clear: the Egyptian land in the form of Euthenia receives the ever‑giving water of Nilus.25

Livia and the Tazza Farnese  49

Figure 3.4 Statue of Nilus, second century CE, Piazzetta Nilo, Naples, Italy. Copyright: Marco Ober, 2020.

By the last decade of the first century BCE, Euthenia was frequently depicted on coins and “as personified abundance and welfare, Euthenia seems to have been, at the outset of her career in Egypt, a manifestation of the political ideology of the principate.”26 Most scholars cite an early Augustan mural from the Villa Farnesina as the earliest example of Euthenia and state that she is a creation of Augustan period that corresponds to the early Roman goddess, Abundantia.27 Gertrud Platz‑Horster and Erika Zwierlein‑Diehl cite the earliest depiction of Euthenia lying on a sphinx comes from an Augustan cameo, which they claim is derived from the much earlier Figure B on the Tazza Farnese. For Platz‑­Horster and Zwierlein‑Diehl, though, Figure B is not Euthenia. For them, the Tazza Farnese is from the Hellenistic period and Figure B as Isis. A painting on linen from first‑century CE Egypt is a slightly later example of Euthenia, once she had become firmly established (Figure 3.5). She reclines on a sphinx, has the Isiac knot in her garment, with her breasts exposed, iconography she shares with Figure B. In the painting, Euthenia holds a patera in her right hand, and unfortunately, because of the fragmentary nature of the linen, her other hand is no longer visible, but it is tempting to posit that her left hand originally held stalks of wheat. But what if Figure B in the Tazza Farnese is actually one of the earliest depictions of the goddess Euthenia, specifically one in which she is the syncretized Isis‑Euthenia? Figure B holds sheaths of wheat in her hand, reclines on a sphinx, has the Isiac knot in her costume, and perhaps most importantly, is included in a composition with Nilus, her husband. As stated, the Augustan principate seized upon the symbolism of Euthenia as an abundance of the Roman Empire. However, this imagery was experimented on before the beginning of the Augustan period. In the Tazza Farnese, Imperial ideology was already

50  Livia and the Tazza Farnese

Figure 3.5 Hanging Showing Euthenia in a Garden, linen and tempera, from Egypt, first century CE, the Metropolitan Museum of Art (1984.178). Copyright: Public Domain.

being tested, playing with the image of Euthenia. Figure B is not entirely Euthenia yet but the syncretized Isis‑Euthenia, who represents a particular aspect of fertility: the product of the union with the river god, Nilus, and the resulting fertility along the Nile River. At the far right of the tondo are two semi‑nude women, Figures G and H. Both women are naked from the waist up, and their heads turn to the left. Shown from the front, Figure G holds a large cornu in her right hand, and behind her head, five stalks of wheat grow. Her left hand reaches up to the nape of her neck in a gesture of relaxation. Slightly below Figure G, Figure H is shown from behind, reclining with her weight on her right elbow. She is preparing to offer a libation from a patera that rests comfortably in her left hand. These two women are Greek nymphs, most likely two of the daughters of Nilus, who face him across the composition. Along with Euthenia, nymphs were another addi‑ tion to the iconography of Nilus following the Roman conquest; thus, their appearance is further evidence for the identifications of Nilus and Isis‑Euthenia.28 At the top of the scene is a pair of wingless hovering male figures, Figures E and F: they are personifications of the Winds.29 Both are nude, revealing muscled and toned bod‑ ies. On the left, Figure E’s long, lean body floats above the scene as he looks to the right toward his partner. His right hand grips a billowing mantle, which catches the air and keeps the two figures aloft. Figure F’s body is positioned similarly, but instead of holding a mantle in his upraised arm, he holds a shell trumpet to his lips. Unlike the cornu below,

Livia and the Tazza Farnese  51 Table 3.1  Figures: Tazza Farnese Tazza Farnese

Identification

Meaning

Figure A

Male Egyptian sphinx

Figure B

Isis‑Euthenia

Figure C

Nilus

Figure D

Triptolemos as a Gaul

Figures E and F

Personifications of the Winds

Figures G and H

Nymphs

• Egypt • Octavian’s conquest of Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31  BCE • Wife of Nilus • Fertility deity, specifically connected with the fertility of the Nile • Always shown with Nilus • Another reference to Egypt and Octavian’s victory • Greek God of the Nile River • Husband of Isis‑Euthenia • Symbol of Egypt and Octavian’s conquest • Bringer of agriculture • Pax Romana • Gaul is also a connection to Julius Caesar’s conquests Spreading of the Pax Romana throughout the Roman Empire • Daughters of Nilus • Perform rituals

the shell is striated, like a triton shell. The hairstyles of both figures are similar to that of Figure D, with a tuft of hair protruding above the forehead and additional wayward hair at the base of the neck. The only visible sign of damage on the entire Tazza Farnese occurs on F: parts of his right foot and left leg have broken off. On the underside of the Tazza Farnese, a Gorgon covers the entire exterior tondo ­(Figure 3.2). The female Gorgon’s face is bloated with rounded cheeks and a straight nose with flared nostrils. Her incised eyes are wide open and avert their gaze slightly to the left. Most extraordinary is the Gorgon’s curly hair, which radiates from her head to the outer edges of the dish. There are two small wings and two snakes at the top of her head and enmeshed within her massive hair. The bodies of these two snakes are entwined below her chin, and additional snakes are visible around the edges of the aegis. This is clearly not a live Gorgon, or even the detached head itself, because it is attached to Minerva’s shield (Table 3.1).30 The Tazza Farnese: Hellenistic or Augustan? Before proceeding to an investigation of the iconography of the Tazza Farnese, it is neces‑ sary to address the elephant in the room: the highly disputed date of the gemstone. Since its reappearance in the West in the seventeenth century, scholars have been divisive in dating the Tazza Farnese. However, most scholars have agreed that the Tazza Farnese was produced as a work of private art in Ptolemaic Alexandria.31 The majority of schol‑ ars assert that the Tazza Farnese is Hellenistic, with dates ranging from the third to the late first century BCE; the interior scene is usually read as an allegory of the Nile.32 In

52  Livia and the Tazza Farnese the minority are those scholars who date the gemstone to the early Augustan period im‑ mediately following the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE so that the Tazza Farnese references Pax Romana.33 As will be seen, the most convincing evidence points to the Tazza Farnese dating to the early Octavian/Augustan period of the late 30s or 20s BCE, following the Battle of Actium.34 The Tazza Farnese Is Hellenistic

Most scholars who assign a Hellenistic date to the Tazza Farnese do so based on one or more criteria: style, iconography, portraiture, and comparison to other Ptolemaic cameos and gems. However, there are many problems with these reasons for dating the Tazza Farnese to the Hellenistic period. First, many scholars cite the style of the figures as a reason that the Tazza Farnese is Hellenistic. Because the style is Greek, the cameo must date to the Hellenistic period. This argument needs to be stronger. Basing the date of the gemstone on style is too general, mainly because distinguishing between Roman and Hellenistic in the late first century BCE is only possible if there is something distinctly Roman, which is not the case. In addition, the Tazza Farnese could be Roman even with a Hellenistic style, for the art of the Empire was eclectic and combined various influences, including those from the Hel‑ lenistic period. As Dimitris Plantzos succinctly states, “[S]tyles were interchangeable and their influence far‑reaching.”35 Therefore, more than style must be examined since that does not concretely prove a Hellenistic date. Another reason why scholars often date the Tazza Farnese to the Hellenistic period is because of its Egyptian iconography, specifically Figures A and B, a sphinx, and an Isis‑like figure. Like style, scholars wrongly assume that because the Tazza Farnese con‑ tains these elements of Egyptian iconography, the gemstone must be Ptolemaic and, therefore, Hellenistic. But Egyptian does not have to be Hellenistic. In addition, other fig‑ ures and iconography are not Egyptian in origin, so this argument, like the one for style, does not hold any water. Furthermore, Roman art is eclectic not only in style but also in iconography and style, as previously stated, and while there is Egyptian iconography in the Tazza Farnese, there are also Greek and Hellenistic symbols.36 Therefore, the Tazza Farnese could be a visual testament to Roman eclecticism. A third reason for dating the Tazza Farnese to the Hellenistic period is a comparison of the figures to portraits of specific Ptolemies. Jean Charbonneaux, Frédéric Bastet, Eu‑ genio LaRocca, and Hugo Meyer attach historical personas to the main figures in the Tazza Farnese or the Gorgon on the underside and recognize individual members of the Ptolemaic dynasty in the gemstone.37 For example, through stylistic comparisons with sculptural portraits, intaglios, and rings of the Ptolemies, Charbonneaux identifies the three main figures of A, B, and D as portraits of Cleopatra I, Ptolemy V Epiphanes, and Ptolemy VI Philometer. Therefore, because the Ptolemies are historical figures, Char‑ bonneaux dates the Tazza Farnese to Ptolemy VI Philometer’s reign or approximately 180–171 BCE.38 Like style, basing the date on the possibility that any of these heads are also histori‑ cal portraits is too much to assume, especially considering that Ptolemaic portraiture is a notorious quagmire. As R.R.R. Smith says in the discussion of this family’s portraits, “[P]recise identification of royal heads is made difficult because many were reworked to represent the next king who seized power.”39 In addition, many of the dates provided by the cameo are based on physiognomic analyses that are highly subjective and general.

Livia and the Tazza Farnese  53 Scholars conveniently find comparable portraits that fit their theories. Once the histori‑ cal personages are identified, then the corresponding date of the Tazza Farnese follows. In addition, the lack of consensus regarding the identifications made by Charbonneaux, Bastet, LaRocca, or Meyer makes it unlikely that any of the four scholars are correct.40 While a Hellenistic date is the more popular one for the Tazza Farnese (the gemstone even decorates the cover of J.J. Pollitt’s Art in the Hellenistic Age), there are serious problems with the reasons for which scholars have arrived at this date.41 Style, iconogra‑ phy, and portraiture are general and varied. In order to definitively prove that the Tazza Farnese is Hellenistic, more tangible evidence is required. One needs to investigate the Tazza Farnese from a less subjective standpoint, and when this is done, it is clear that the gemstone must date to the Augustan period. The Tazza Farnese Is Augustan

In recent decades, the date of the Tazza Farnese has come closer and closer to the Au‑ gustan era.42 Thompson, Pollini, and the present author can more conclusively date the Tazza Farnese to the Augustan period through an examination of the economic history of the Hellenistic and early Augustan periods, the material used, the shape of the dish, com‑ parisons with other cameos, the Gorgon, the billowing mantle, and other iconography.43 Thompson provides the most ammunition for assigning the Tazza Farnese an Augus‑ tan date.44 First, she examines the economic history of the late Hellenistic and early Au‑ gustan periods. While she agrees with the consensus that the Tazza Farnese was a product of the Ptolemaic court and created in Alexandria, examining the historical climate of the early and middle Hellenistic periods provides evidence that the Tazza Farnese was not created during these earlier centuries. She states, “[F]rom the time of Ptolemy IX onward, the court was impoverished, unstable, and subject to dictation by Rome…it is hard to imagine any Ptolemy could have ordered a gem like the Tazza Farnese.”45 The Ptolemies would only have been able to afford such an expensive cameo in the middle of the first century BCE when the economic situation in Egypt had improved due to the stability and prosperity established by Cleopatra VII. Only then would the queen and her family have commissioned expensive luxury items such as the Tazza Farnese. An examination of the material of the Tazza Farnese reveals even more conclusively that the Tazza Farnese could not have been produced during the Hellenistic period. First, large pieces of sardonyx, big enough to create the Tazza Farnese, were only available in the Mediterranean in the first century BCE, when trade with India was established.46 While sardonyx was found in the Mediterranean area, it was typically used for the insets of small cups and not for large cameos.47 If sardonyx had been available, it would have been used similarly to onyx rather than the primary material for dishes or bowls like the Tazza Farnese. Furthermore, while there is evidence that the Ptolemies owned gem col‑ lections, as did Mithradates VI, these collections probably did not include any cameos.48 According to Thompson, because we know of no cameos, we can conclude that no sar‑ donyx was available before the late Hellenistic period. In addition, there was yet to be an established trade route to India during the Hel‑ lenistic period, from where Pliny the Elder says the large pieces of sardonyx came; only a few Greek ships each year would have made the long journey from Egypt. Supporting this claim is that no Ptolemaic coins of the period have been found in India.49 Only after the trade routes had been more firmly established could pieces of sardonyx large enough to produce vases and other vessels be imported to Egypt and the Mediterranean. While

54  Livia and the Tazza Farnese the later Ptolemies could secure and institute the trade routes, it was under the Romans that traffic and trade between the Mediterranean world and India were at their height, thus supporting Thompson’s late first century BCE. Furthermore, cameos became most prevalent from the late first century BCE until the reign of Nero in the middle of the first century CE.50 In order to distinguish whether the Tazza Farnese is Augustan or Julio‑Claudian, Thompson examined additional cameos of both periods. Imperial cameos have differ‑ ences depending on whether they were made in the Augustan or Julio‑Claudian periods. Earlier cameos of the Augustan period, including the Tazza Farnese, were carved from a brownish stone with honey‑colored veins. However, later Julio‑Claudian cameos were produced in an increased variety of colors of sardonyx, the most popular of which were white, gray, and black (for a gray example, see the Caligula and Roma cameo fragment; Figure 6.1).51 Thus, this also places the Tazza Farnese in the Augustan period. The shape of the Tazza Farnese further supports Thompson’s argument that it could not be a product of the Hellenistic period. She states: Technically, it is a strange shape even for the latest days of Greek art. Although a wide dish with a flaring rim was not uncommon in the second century BC, the profile of the Tazza was not found in any medium at that time.52 Because there are no sardonyx parallels for the Tazza Farnese, Thompson examines Hel‑ lenistic glass and metal bowls instead. However, these are predominantly flat‑bottomed or stand on a shallow ring foot, which does not match the shape of the Tazza with its concave curve resting on a convex base. Thompson finds the closest parallel for the shape of the Tazza Farnese in a flattened Persian metal phiale, though these are much earlier. In Persia, as to function, “the small bowls were to be held in the cupped hand until they were emptied…then the phialai were hung on the wall so that the decorative surface could be seen.”53 Finally, the Gorgon on the Tazza Farnese does not resemble Hellenistic Medusas, who were typically portrayed as beautiful young women, turning their heads politely away to avert their powerful gaze. Instead, the Gorgon on the Tazza Farnese is Roman and is depicted as more confrontational and imposing, with her fleshy face and frown.54 This type of Gorgon “reverts to the grim Gorgons whose apotropaic countenances recur on coins of the mid‑first century BCE.”55 Gems produced in the Imperial period depict Gor‑ gons positioned more frontally, like the Tazza. In addition, the Tazza Gorgon resembles the Gorgon found in some of the shields that decorated the attic story of the Forum of Augustus, strengthening the argument that the gemstone must date from the Roman period.56 Following Thompson’s lead, Pollini also assigns an Augustan date of the late first cen‑ tury BCE, adding that the billowing mantle held by Figures E and F proves this Augustan date. According to Pollini, such a narrow mantle did not occur in Greek art, but it was common in the Augustan period. Pollini cites several Roman parallels for this billowing mantle, including the Tellus relief of the Ara Pacis Augustae, Caelus on the cuirass of the statue of Augustus Primaporta, the Belvedere altar, and the Sebasteion reliefs with Claudius from Aphrodisias.57 Most recently, R.R.R Smith agreed with an Augustan date for the Tazza Farnese, in‑ terpreting it as a celebration of the fertility of Egypt, part of Augustus’ dominion. Smith dates the cameo to the late first century BCE through data analysis of Hellenistic and

Livia and the Tazza Farnese  55 Roman cameos. While cameos were first produced in the Hellenistic period, Smith notes that the only cameos that can be dated to that period look strikingly different from the Tazza Farnese. These earlier Hellenistic cameos date to the second and first centuries BCE and depict Ptolemaic kings. They are much smaller in scale and imagination and were most likely intended to be widely distributed. However, there are no comparable exam‑ ples of large Imperial cameos from the Hellenistic period – these all date to the Augustan and Julio‑Claudian periods. In contrast, the Tazza Farnese was much larger and more complex.58 Smith agreed that the Tazza Farnese is Hellenistic in style with Ptolemaic ideas. How‑ ever, in the Roman world, having a Hellenistic style and Ptolemaic influences is not evi‑ dence that this object is from the Hellenistic period. After all, in the early Imperial period, such an eclectic style was still commonplace and was “just as welcome then as under the Ptolemies.”59 Iconographically, the Tazza Farnese also fits better in the Augustan period than the Hellenistic period.60 The figures within the tondo are Nilus, Isis‑Euthenia reclining on a sphinx, Triptolemos as a Gaul, two Winds, and two nymphs. The closest artistic paral‑ lels for Nilus, Isis‑Euthenia, and Triptolemos on the Tazza Farnese come from the early Roman Empire.61 First, most images of Nilus show the deity reclining. In contrast, the river god on the Tazza Farnese is seated upright, which is not unique, but he is seated within a tree. The closest parallel for the seated Nilus on the Tazza Farnese comes from a wall painting from the Villa Farnesina in Rome, dating to approximately 29–19 BCE.62 In this fresco, Nilus is seated on the left and turns his head to the right to look at Euthenia/Abundantia, much like the god does on the Tazza Farnese. On the right is Nilometer. While there are many Egyptianizing elements in this wall painting, it is a Roman work and is evidence that the Romans utilized these figures and subjects in the early Augustan period.63 Nilus and Euthenia are often paired together. Like Nilus, Euthenia also finds her clos‑ est artistic parallels from the early Augustan period. There are no artistic representa‑ tions younger than Augustus’ period except for the Tazza Farnese, thus strengthening the likelihood that the Tazza Farnese is from the Augustan period. From the first century CE, the handle shield of a lamp depicts Nilus and Euthenia together.64 On the left, Nilus sits upright with his sagging pectorals, pudgy belly, and cornucopia. Recumbent beside Nilus, though not reclining on a sphinx, is the bare‑chested Euthenia looking up at her companion. Euthenia, like Nilus, is Roman and not Ptolemaic. Finally, Triptolemos, depicted as a Gaul, is also Roman. Most representations of Trip‑ tolemos come from red‑figure vases and are irrelevant to the Tazza Farnese depiction. However, there is a particular category of images of Triptolemos in which the farmer is de‑ picted with a plow. This is where one finds the best likeness, a relief from the Underground Basilica near the Porta Maggiore that dates to the first decades of the first century CE.65 No strong argument exists that the Tazza Farnese is Hellenistic. Basing the date on the grounds of style or the supposed similarity to portraits of Ptolemies is subjective at best and does not confirm a Hellenistic date. I think a more convincing argument can be made for an Augustan date for the Tazza Farnese. Examining the economic history, material, trade routes, and iconography of the Hellenistic and early Augustan periods  —  along with stylistic comparisons of artistic precedents – reveals that the cameo must date to the last third of the first century BCE. In addition, the Gorgon and the iconography support the historical conditions, which are also Augustan. The evidence points more definitively to an Augustan date for the Tazza Farnese.

56  Livia and the Tazza Farnese Iconography The Tazza Farnese dates to the early Augustan period of the late first century BCE, imme‑ diately following Octavian’s victory over Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium.66 Because the Roman Empire was not yet formed, the Tazza Farnese represents a work of art that includes Imperial iconography that has yet to be fully translated into Roman form and is experimental. The Tazza Farnese represents the first stage of the life cycle of iconography: when symbols are first used and their underlying meanings are beginning to be understood.67 At this very early stage of the Empire, Octavian and his advisors were just beginning to realize the power of imagery in their campaign to inculcate the citizens of the Empire with the omnipotence of the new emperor and his accomplishments. Be‑ cause of this, in Stage One, Augustus and his entourage were effectively testing out the efficacy of certain symbols in the early Augustan period, drawing from Egyptian, Greek, and Hellenistic sources and usually not altering this borrowed iconography; this eclecti‑ cism is uniquely Roman. However, the iconography represents the genesis of Augustan symbolism that will become typical throughout the rest of Augustus’ reign. Tree

As stated previously, the old and mature man who sits on a gnarled tree at the left is the river god Nilus.68 The fact that Nilus is perched in a tree is significant because while trees of various kinds can be associated with most, if not all, of the major Greek divini‑ ties, a figure such as this resting in a tree is not common in the iconography of major deities, and would normally indicate a divinity of a specific place.69 This tree is olive, like the tree behind Demeter/Cleopatra in the Aquileia Dish. As dis‑ cussed in the previous chapter, olive trees are found throughout the Mediterranean re‑ gion.70 The olive tree symbolizes victory and represents an early iconographic element of conquest and dominance that will later be translated into the more Roman laurel wreaths found throughout the sculpture of the mature Augustan and Julio‑Claudian periods. Fur‑ thermore, because the olive tree and Nilus are closely associated with Egypt, this tree alludes to Octavian’s conquest over Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in Greece. As such, the tree allegorically refers to both Egypt and Greece. Indigenous to the Mediterranean basin, the olive was essential throughout antiquity as a commodity since olives and olive oil had many practical uses, from soap to foodstuffs. Olive trees are typically about twenty‑five to fifty feet tall. In addition, the trunk of the olive tree is unique. Olive trees are usually pruned, with their leaves thin and oblong with flowers and fruit sprout from them. The leaves of the tree on the Tazza Farnese closely resemble the olive’s as they are thin and oblong. Unfortunately, no flowers or fruit would help identify it further. The olive tree was significant to ancient cultures and is frequently mentioned in the literature.71 Also, the olive tree leaves were commonly used to make crowns for the vic‑ tors of games. In this way, the tree became a symbol of glory and victory established through these conquests. As for olive oil, it was used as a lamp fuel and was a prize for the victors of athletic contests in Greece.72 The designers of the Tazza Farnese drew upon the tradition of the olive tree, and its usage in the gemstone, therefore, symbolizes both fertility and victory.

Livia and the Tazza Farnese  57 As to the depiction of the olive tree and its branches and fruit in art, Roman art has many more occurrences.73 Most frequently, the olive branch is depicted in Roman nu‑ mismatics. Typically, on the obverse is a portrait of the emperor shown in profile. The reverse has an additional figure seated and holding an olive branch, a symbol associated with peace.74 Olive wreaths also frequently crown figures in freestanding sculptures. Because the Tazza Farnese dates from directly after the Battle of Actium and before the Empire’s Imperial iconography had been firmly established, the symbols utilized in early Augustan art were also not yet in their mature format. While the laurel crown and laurel tree frequently occur later in more mature Augustan art as a symbol of victory, at this point, it was not yet part of Imperial iconography. Furthermore, Augustus had only recently defeated Cleopatra and Mark Antony at the Greek site of Actium and using an olive tree in this large Imperial cameo that would immediately be associated with Egypt and the Mediterranean region. The olive tree most accurately and fittingly refers to Egypt and Greece at this early stage of the Augustan age, with its gnarled and knotted trunk and mass of leaves. The inclusion of the olive on the Tazza Farnese served as a perfect symbol of the two defeated countries. Cornua

Nilus sits on this olive tree, but he also holds another object important to this icono‑ graphic study: a cornu, or horn‑shaped drinking vessel.75 One of the nymphs on the right side of the gemstone also holds a similar vessel. These vessels on the Tazza Farnese are large and have an awkward curving shape that would make them difficult to drink from, further supporting the case that they are cornua. In both cases, the cornua are not over‑ flowing and are empty or nearly empty, perhaps alluding to the fertility and abundance still to come with the Pax Romana. In other words, what we see on the Tazza Farnese is immediately before Augustus’ greatest accomplishment comes to fruition and the cornu‑ copiae of the Roman world are filled. The fertility of Egypt is not the subject; the benefits of Roman rule are. Furthermore, Triptolemos as a Gaul brings seeds and introduces agriculture to the entire civilized world; he has just given grain to Isis‑Euthenia, who is about to give it to Egypt. Sphinx

To the right of Nilus is the bicolored Egyptian male sphinx, an iconographic element adopted by the Ptolemies. This hybrid creature with a lion’s body and a pharaoh’s head is an apparent reference to the civilization of ancient Egypt. The Great Sphinx at Khafre’s Pyramid in Giza is, without a doubt, the most famous depiction of this creature and the largest existing sculpture from antiquity. Beginning in the Orientalizing period, the Greeks frequently used a sphinx in vase painting and metalwork, but these are female and derived from Western Asiatic models. There are many sculptural examples of sphinxes in ancient Greece, from stelai to freestanding versions. In the case of the Tazza Farnese, the artists adopted the sphinx motif directly from Egypt and continued to use it as a symbol of Egypt. Paul Zanker suggests that there is an additional meaning to the symbol of a sphinx.76 The winged lion was also connected to Apollo. Octavian was linked with Apollo during the propaganda wars, while Mark Antony was connected to Hercules. Therefore, the sphinx was also a subtle allusion to Octavian, which is appropriate for the Tazza Farnese,

58  Livia and the Tazza Farnese celebrating his victory at the Battle of Actium and his upcoming reign. Furthermore, Oc‑ tavian, who connected himself to Apollo, always viewed the sphinx as a symbol of reg‑ num Apollonis. Even ten years after the Battle of Actium, the sphinx was still a popular iconographic attribute in Augustan art.77 Wheat

Reclining on the sphinx is the goddess Isis‑Euthenia, a specific fertility goddess associated by the Romans with the Nile River and Egypt.78 In her right hand, she holds two stalks of wheat, a common attribute of Isis‑Euthenia and a symbol of Egypt’s role as the bread‑ basket of the Roman world.79 Her connection to Egypt is further emphasized because she reclines on the male sphinx. In addition, Isis‑Euthenia’s reclining position is reminiscent of descriptions of the conquered portraits of a recumbent Cleopatra VII.80 Isis‑Euthenia also symbolizes Octavian’s conquest of the queen of Egypt and Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE. Paterae

At the far right of the scene of the Tazza Farnese are two nymphs, one of whom holds a cornu and the other a patera, the first of which has already been discussed in association with Nilus. Figure H holds her patera up, offering the bowl to Nilus, whom she is most closely connected to. The patera, or shallow libation bowl, echoes the shape of the Tazza Farnese itself and is a ritual vessel.81 The patera was utilized in ritual libations in Greek and Roman religion. Libations were a common practice in ancient religion; pouring a ritual offering allowed one to share a drink with the gods.82 Found extensively in archaeological excavations, the patera also makes several ap‑ pearances in Roman art, particularly in numismatic examples in which the bowl is de‑ picted under a lituus on the reverse, while the obverse is decorated with a portrait of the emperor. This combination of the patera and lituus celebrates the piety of the ruler, the head of the Roman religion.83 In public art, the patera and the act of offering a libation most commonly occur in scenes of religious rituals.84 Agricultural Implements

The last iconographic elements in the interior of the Tazza Farnese are the agricultural implements held by Triptolemos as a Gaul: a plow, a bag of seeds, and a small knife.85 These farming tools are rare in artistic representations from ancient Rome. While swords, arms, and armor are commonplace in Roman art, a knife is usually not depicted unless employed within the ritualistic context of sacrifice. These sacrificial implements are com‑ bined with arms and armor, underscoring the connection between victory and sacrifice. In a non‑sacrificial context, knives are sometimes shown in sculptural scenes of everyday life in ancient Rome, such as a knife seller’s store or a smithery creating these tools. Un‑ doubtedly, most Roman men would have owned at least one knife of some kind. How‑ ever, knives are not often found in sculptures from the Roman Empire outside of generic scenes. Triptolemos holds a plow in his left hand, and a small bag of seeds hangs from his right wrist, and like the knife, these objects are not commonly found in Roman sculpture.86 While the fruits of the farmer’s labors are celebrated in Augustan and Julio‑Claudian

Livia and the Tazza Farnese  59 sculptures, the actual farmer and his tools are not used to communicate the abundance. Once Imperial iconography was established in the later first century BCE, the farmer’s work would always be represented by bountiful vegetation and crops, such as in the Tel‑ lus panel of the Ara Pacis Augustae (Figure 2.3). In this sculptural relief of 13–9 BCE, farm animals, babies, and fruits and vegetables are prominently displayed in the compo‑ sition to symbolize the fertility of the Roman Empire. Gorgon

While the iconography and figures of the interior of the Tazza Farnese have been dis‑ cussed at length, there is one last element to consider: the aegis decorated with a Gorgon on the underside of the dish. Gorgons have a long history in ancient art and literature. According to Hesiod, the Gorgons were three sisters, Stheno, Euryale, and Medusa, who were monsters that had snakes sprouting from the tops of their heads.87 One glance at one of these sisters turned the viewer into stone. Although they started monstrously, later in the history of Greek art, the three Gorgons were depicted as young and beautiful maidens, with Medusa being the most attractive of the three. Pursued by many suitors because of her great beauty, Medusa accepted the advances of the god Poseidon, and they made love in the temple of Athena, which resulted in the goddess of wisdom becoming consumed with anger. Athena got revenge on Medusa by making snakes sprout from her hair, thus taking away her beauty. However, the goddess was not satisfied by this act of revenge, so she took it one step further and helped the hero Perseus to behead and kill Medusa. Successful in his task, Perseus presented the decapitated head of Medusa to Athena, which the goddess then affixed onto her aegis.88 Representations of Gorgons began as early as the sixth century BCE, with the rep‑ resentations of Medusa’s head on the shield of Athena and the aegis.89 As to its func‑ tion, the head served an apotropaic purpose, protecting the goddess and her patron city of Athens from danger. These early Greek representations of the Gorgons depicted the women as ugly. A more standard depiction of the Gorgon was established in the late fourth century BCE during the Hellenistic period when the Gorgon was transformed into a beautiful maiden in a classicizing and idealized style.90 While numerous examples of Gorgons exist in Greek and Hellenistic art, the Gorgon is less common in Roman art, at least in the public sphere. However, the aegis decorated with a Gorgon commonly appears in cameos, including the Blacas Cameo in the Brit‑ ish Museum of Art.91 Including the Gorgon on the underside of the Tazza Farnese is yet another example of the direct borrowing from Greek and Hellenistic iconographic sources. Like the Gorgon on the aegis of Athena, the Gorgon on the Tazza also served an apotropaic purpose, warding off any evil that might come to the new Roman Empire and protecting the Pax Romana established by Augustus. As the patron, Livia approved the inclusion of the Gorgon, which was appropriate for the Tazza Farnese since the Gorgon traditionally symbolized renewal, rejuvenation, and fertility. Livia wanted to emphasize Octavian’s victory at the Battle of Actium, which re‑ juvenated Julius Caesar’s Imperial plans for his adopted son and nephew. In addition, the Gorgon emphasized fertility and renewal and the hopes that Livia and Octavian would have sons who would continue their father’s legacy, bringing abundance to the Roman world. With the protective function of the stone and the Gorgon’s allusions to fertility and genitalia, Livia was subtly putting it out into the universe that she wanted to be fruit‑ ful and to give her husband plenty of heirs.92

60  Livia and the Tazza Farnese Geographical References: North, South, East, and West

The Tazza Farnese can be read geographically to the north, south, east, and west. These cardinal directions symbolize the Winds, Egypt, Greece, and Gaul, respectively, and the iconography utilized in the Tazza Farnese explicitly references these locations. First, the north is represented by the northern Etesian Winds, who hover in the top central zone of the tondo. The south, or Egypt, is prominently displayed throughout the bottom section of the cameo. First, Isis‑Euthenia is an Alexandrian deity who sits on a male sphinx, a symbol of exotic Egypt. In addition to representing Egypt, Isis‑Euthenia is a veiled reference to Cleopatra VII. Because of her connection to Cleopatra VII, Isis‑Euthenia symbolizes Octavian’s victory over the Egyptian queen and her country  –  and is Livia’s vengeful response to the Egyptian queen’s Imperial attempts with the Aquileia Dish. Her reclin‑ ing position on the ground further underscores the queen’s status as a conquered enemy. Egypt is also represented in the Tazza Farnese with Nilus, who perches on an olive tree at the far right, symbolizing Egypt and Greece. Heavy and tired, the river deity’s body lan‑ guage communicates that this land has been conquered, and the use of the well‑pruned olive tree is a clear symbol of defeated Egypt at the Battle of Actium in Greece. The east is represented in the Tazza Farnese with numerous references to Greece. In typical Greek fashion, Greece is referenced allegorically in the Tazza Farnese. First, Greece is present because many of the figures in the Tazza Farnese are Greek deities and personifications. For example, the tondo contains Nilus, two nymphs, and Triptolemos as a Gaul. Second, Greece is alluded to in the gemstone by referencing the Battle of Ac‑ tium that occurred in Greek waters. The future emperor’s first great victory is symbolized by the olive tree, Nilus, and Isis‑Euthenia, who reclines in the same posture as conquered Cleopatra VII. Finally, the west is represented by Triptolemos as a Gaul.93 As a farmer, the agricul‑ tural tools that the figure holds, including a sower’s sack, a small plow, and a pruning knife, are appropriate. Because of the figure’s Gallic hairstyle and intense facial expres‑ sion, Triptolemos is shown in the guise of the barbarian. Triptolemos as a Gaul remains firmly in the Hellenistic Greek tradition of depicting barbarians. Generalized with his ex‑ omis and messy hairstyle, Triptolemos is strong and admirable, unlike the subjugated and captive barbarians that will become commonplace in Roman cameos like the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France. As a Gaul, he is a farmer and more generally represents the fertile Roman West and the riches of Gaul, which Julius Caesar conquered (Table 3.2). Life Cycle of Iconography: Stage One Patron

The Tazza Farnese’s iconography and composition are undeniably similar to the Aquileia Dish, with its multi‑figured decoration, emphasis on fertility and abundance, Greek gods and goddesses, allegorical approach, and propagandistic message.94 Such a close, de‑ liberate visual relationship between a cameo and a silver picture dish would not have been unusual. Sometimes, there was an overlap between the metalworkers and the gem‑­ cutters. Their living quarters were nearby, in Rome and Pompeii specifically, and cameo and silver craftsmen would have known each other and known what the others were

Livia and the Tazza Farnese  61 Table 3.2  Iconography: Tazza Farnese Iconography

Meaning

Tree

• Olive tree • Victory • Reference to Greece, where the naval Battle of Actium occurred • Egypt • Octavian’s victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra Empty vessels that will later become full with the abundance of the Empire • Isis‑Euthenia’s attribute • Egypt’s fertility as the breadbasket of the Roman Empire • Pax Romana • Libation bowl • Offering a drink to the gods • Rituals to ensure the continued peace and fertility • Early symbol of agricultural abundance • (This will later be translated into the products of the harvest) • Apotropaic • Protecting the Pax Romana

Male Sphinx Cornua Wheat

Paterae

Agricultural tools (plow, bag of seeds, pruning knife) Gorgon

creating – and therefore, they easily could influence one another.95 As Henig states, “[I] n the late Republic and Early Empire, strong artistic cross‑currents meant that the shape and character of the decoration were similar.”96 As the Empire progressed, though, there was less influence among the various media – thus, the similarity between the two points to both dating to the late Republic or the beginning of the Roman Empire.97 One need only compare the Aquileia Dish to the Tazza Farnese to see Cleopatra’s indelible influence and impact. However, more importantly, the patron was the major reason for these visual similari‑ ties. Cleopatra’s Aquileia Dish profoundly impacted Livia, one of its important elite view‑ ers, and the silver picture dish became the inspiration and model for the Tazza Farnese.98 The Aquileia Dish and the Tazza Farnese are not only visual evidence of the propaganda wars between Octavian and Mark Antony but also reveal the astute machinations of Livia and Cleopatra to promote their men as the two primary heirs to Julius Caesar’s Imperial plans. While made of different media, these two works of minor art were in conversation with one another. They were created around the same time, the 30s BCE, a pivotal transition between the late Republic and the start of the Roman Empire. The Aquileia Dish praises Mark Antony, while the Tazza Farnese praises the accom‑ plishments of Octavian. Both tout their achievements in lavish and costly works of met‑ alwork and cameo, proclaiming each man’s power and importance. The Aquileia Dish was made before the Battle of Actium. On the contrary, the Tazza Farnese was Livia’s artistic response to Cleopatra’s plate celebrating Mark Antony, and the cameo was made after the silver dish. Borrowing shape, theme, iconography, Imperial patronage, and function, the message of the Tazza Farnese sought to be even more important than its

62  Livia and the Tazza Farnese predecessor – and advertised that Octavian, not Mark Antony, should be the best can‑ didate for sole ruler of Rome. The Tazza Farnese was Livia’s insulting response to Octa‑ vian’s defeated opponents on the Aquileia Dish. The Tazza Farnese upped the ante after Octavian’s decisive marine victory at Actium, symbolizing the benefits of her husband at the helm, as the only man standing in the struggle for power. Following Cleopatra’s Aquileia Dish and after the victory at Actium, Octavian’s future success was not yet a foregone conclusion. Livia’s first order of business was to make it clear that Octavian was the only suitable candidate for sole ruler of Rome and what would hopefully become the Roman Empire. Once Octavian became Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, Livia would then turn her attention to the creation of the Julio‑Claudian dynasty. Her next cameo, the Gemma Augustea, commissioned decades later once the Roman Empire was fully established, was her next propagandistic move and praised Augustus’ accomplish‑ ments as princeps but, more importantly, tackled the issue of the Julio‑Claudian dynasty and Tiberius, Livia’s son, as the best candidate for succession. The insulting message of the Tazza Farnese, that is, gloating over the victory of Oc‑ tavian over Mark Antony and Cleopatra, had to be subtle. This situation was delicate because Mark Antony had once been a revered Roman general. Not only that, but Mark Antony had children with his wife, Octavia, who was Octavian’s sister, thus making these children Octavian’s relatives. The defeated were Romans; thus, all images of this defeat had to be veiled and subtle to not incite anger.99 Because of Livia and Octavian’s precarious relationship with Cleopatra and Mark An‑ tony, allegory was employed. However, another reason more direct Roman iconography was not used was that the Tazza Farnese represented Octavianic/Augustan imagery in its infancy when Octavian and his team were playing with images, experimenting with their efficacy, and attempting to create something specifically Roman. The Tazza Farnese was a testing ground for Imperial iconography and represents Stage One of the life cycle of iconography. Like the Aquileia Dish, the figures of the Tazza Farnese are derived mainly from Egyptian, Greek, and Hellenistic sources and have yet to be translated into some‑ thing that is more distinctly Roman. The Aquileia Dish and the Tazza Farnese represent the first stage: when symbols are first used and tested, and their underlying meanings are understood.100 The Tazza Farnese was made before the establishment of the Roman Empire and before Roman Imperial iconography had fully taken shape. At this very early stage of the Empire, Octavian/ Augustus and his advisors were only beginning to realize the power of imagery in their campaign to inculcate Rome with the (almost) emperor’s omnipotence and his accom‑ plishments. Octavian/Augustus and Livia tested the efficacy of certain symbols in the late 30s and early 20s BCE, drawing from Egyptian, Greek, and Hellenistic sources and usu‑ ally not altering this borrowed iconography; this eclecticism is uniquely Roman. Shape and Size

Most Roman cameos were small, about the size of a large pendant, and were roughly five to six centimeters in diameter. Usually, they were decorated with a bust or a simple, clear image. In contrast, the Tazza Farnese is significantly larger, is twenty centimeters in diameter, and possesses a complex and dense multi‑figured composition derived from the Aquileia Dish. In addition, the Tazza Farnese is a patera, like the Aquileia Dish. Both are shallow, circular bowls that were traditionally used for sacrificial libations. The large

Livia and the Tazza Farnese  63 size and the distinctive patera shape were unheard of for cameos, and the Aquileia Dish inspired both these aspects in the Tazza Farnese. Historical Figures

Mark Antony, Cleopatra, and their three children are depicted in the Aquileia Dish, though they are veiled in allegory. In contrast, Octavian and Livia are both absent in the Tazza Farnese. While Octavian’s early accomplishments are celebrated, Octavian is not depicted in the Tazza Farnese. Livia likely wanted Octavian to avoid any associations with kingship or special status, so he was recused from the Tazza Farnese. Instead, alle‑ gory was the preferred method of referencing Augustus’ role in the abundance and mili‑ tary victories of the new Roman Empire. Octavian’s absence is not unusual – usually, he is not present within scenes full of iconography of victory; the inclusion of other gods and goddesses often references his presence.101 In addition, there are no dynastic references in the Tazza Farnese. There was no dynasty to advance at this early stage; Marcellus was not yet on the horizon, nor were Gaius, Lucius, or the Julio‑Claudians. Like Octavian, Livia is not pictured in the Tazza Farnese, though her absence is n ­ ormal. Octavian rarely showed women in official state art, and unlike Mark Antony, Octavian did not play up the role women had in his politics. Octavian was undoubtedly influenced by the Imperial women in his life, including Livia, and was cognizant of the great power a few women in the ancient world had, like Cleopatra. But Livia’s contributions were not acknowledged in artworks. Instead, from the very beginning, Octavian focused on himself and aggrandizing his principate and denigrating his opponents, which eventually included Mark Antony and Cleopatra.102 Because of her close relationship with Octavian and intimate knowledge of artwork, Livia would have known this. She would have en‑ sured she followed protocol, leaving herself out of the Tazza Farnese.103 In contrast, Cleopatra included herself as Demeter in the Aquileia Dish. The Ptole‑ mies and Cleopatra had no qualms about depicting women and their accomplishments in art  –  but in Roman art, Cleopatra had to be more modest and restrained in her depictions in art. Therefore, Figure B in the Aquileia Dish is generic. But because Dem‑ eter is so closely related to Triptolemos, who is Mark Antony, she is most likely also Cleopatra. Mythological Figures

Each object has Triptolemos as its central figure: both are fit, heavily muscled, and scant‑ ily clad young men. However, they are depicted differently and can be identified by dif‑ ferent iconography. Triptolemos is identified in the Aquileia Dish as he is linked with Demeter and the winged chariot pulled by serpents. However, in the Tazza Farnese, Trip‑ tolemos has a bag of seeds and a yoke in his hands; these agricultural implements com‑ monly accompany the figure, as he is connected with agriculture. Furthermore, in both the Aquileia Dish and the Tazza Farnese, both figures of Triptolemos assume another guise. In the Tazza Farnese, Triptolemos is in the guise of a Gaul, alluding to the fertility of the burgeoning Roman Empire. Perhaps this is even a veiled reference to Julius Cae‑ sar’s conquest of the territory (Octavian was the great‑grandnephew and adopted son of the politician and general). On the Aquileia Dish, Triptolemos is also a portrait of Mark Antony, as identified by his most distinctive hairstyle and rugged features.

64  Livia and the Tazza Farnese

Figure 3.6 Silver Denarius Portraying Octavian, 28  BCE, Art Institute of Chicago (1920.3046). Copyright: Public Domain.

Like the Aquileia Dish, the Tazza Farnese also includes a female fertility goddess. Demeter is in the Aquileia Dish, connected with Triptolemos, while Isis‑Euthenia is in the Tazza Farnese, connected to Nilus. As a reminder, Isis‑Euthenia was related to Demeter but represented a specific facet of fertility: the fertility along the Nile River. This inclusion of the Isis‑Euthenia on the Tazza Farnese, and her connection to Egypt, was intended as a slight directed at Mark Antony and Cleopatra. Livia at once references Octavian’s victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium, the conquest of Egypt, and the fertility and abundance brought by Egypt. The sphinx further emphasizes Egypt. The Aquileia Dish does not have overt Egyptian iconography. However, the Tazza Farnese reflects the deep Egyptianizing trend that began after the Battle of Actium, when Rome annexed Egypt. Rome had long had contact with Egypt and were fascinated by their history and art. In the late first century BCE, after the annexation, this obsession re‑ sulted in Roman audiences craving all things Egyptian in their art, including animals like sphinxes and crocodiles or images of pharaohs and their queens. From sculptures and frescoes to smaller works like gems and cameos, Roman art after Actium never got tired of Egyptian elements, combining Egyptian subjects with a Roman style.104 A denarius from 28 BCE is evidence of this Egyptianizing trend that began in earnest shortly after the Battle of Actium (Figure 3.6). While a bust of Octavian is on the obverse of the silver coin, the reverse is decorated with a crocodile and the inscription, “AEGYPTO CAPTA,” or “captured Egypt.” The cameo dish contains Nilus, Isis‑Euthenia, two nymphs, and an Egyptian sphinx. On the contrary, the Aquileia Dish does not have overt Egyptian iconography and only alludes to Egypt with its allegorical portrait of Cleopatra, her children, and the wheat. This Egyptianizing trend was due to the difficult situation that Octavian and Livia were in after their victory. Octavian beat Mark Antony, another Roman, with an army made

Livia and the Tazza Farnese  65 of even more Romans. Mark Antony and Octavia’s children were related to Octavian. Because of this, the “image of the enemy could not be represented…artists had to employ more nonspecific and abstract symbols of victory.”105 Even Octavian himself, the victor, was not represented at first. The Tazza Farnese must have been created very soon after the Battle of Actium, because it relies on more obvious symbols of Egypt, like the sphinx. Soon after, in the later decades of the first century BCE, iconography representing Egypt included marine animals like the dolphin, Victory on a globe, or a ship.106 Unlike the Aquileia Dish, the Tazza Farnese does not have Gaia, or the Roman ver‑ sion Tellus Italiae that will become standard Augustan iconography. The absence of Gaia is probably because she is not necessary. Instead of Gaia, the Tazza Farnese has Isis‑­Euthenia on a sphinx at the bottom, mirroring the pose and placement of Gaia on the Aquileia Dish. Isis‑Euthenia completely encompasses the fertility and abundance of the Roman Empire, which was greatly expanded by the military conquests of Octavian, while also referencing Egypt, killing two birds with one stone – Tellus Italiae was there‑ fore not necessary. As for the secondary figures, the Aquileia Dish and Tazza Farnese have women per‑ forming offerings, though the cameo has only one pair on the right. In both, women hold offering dishes and perform libations. Three children also perform sacrifices at an altar in the Aquileia Dish; these are also the offspring of Cleopatra and Mark Antony and rep‑ resent their dynasty. While there are no children on the Tazza Farnese, perhaps because Livia and Octavian did not yet have any biological children of their own (nor would they ever), two male youths fly in the sky above; these are the Winds that will spread abun‑ dance throughout the Roman Empire’s lands. Notes 1 Kleiner (2005, 29). 2 Kleiner (2005, 253). 3 Three months after Octavian and Livia married, Drusus was born, Livia’s second son with her first husband, Tiberius Claudius Nero. Livia’s first son was Tiberius. 4 Kleiner (2005, 250–251). 5 Anthony Barrett dubbed her the First Lady of Rome in his biography, Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome (Barrett 2004). 6 Kleiner (1996, 28). 7 Wood (1999, 9). Wood notes that Ovid thought that Livia could influence Augustus in this way. 8 Kleiner (1996, 37). For more on the influence of the Hellenistic and Greek East on Roman women, see Harvey (2020). 9 Kampen (1996, 22). 10 Kleiner (1996, 37). 11 Bartman (1999, 23). Bartman says there is “confirmation of Livia’s personal patronage in this medium [cameos] in the paucity of gem portraits that date to the Claudian years” (Bartman 1999, 23). 12 Harvey (2020, 8–9). 13 Harvey (2020, 11). 14 For more on the provenance of the Tazza Farnese, both real and conjectured, see Belozerskaya (2012). 15 The Tazza Farnese is the only known cameo bowl; the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France are plaques. See Bühler (1973) and Megow (1987). 16 Another unique aspect of the Tazza Farnese is the perforation. When the hole was created is unclear, but that it was added later in the Tazza’s history is certain since the hole disfigures the Gorgon’s face. In addition, the purpose of the perforation is not entirely clear. The hole

66  Livia and the Tazza Farnese could have served to suspend or bolt the Tazza Farnese to the wall. Most likely, though, the perforation was created to add a stem. Also, at the top edge of the tondo, just below the rim of the dish, are three rivets. Like the perforation, the function of these rivets is unknown, though they may have been utilized to attach a handle to the dish. 17 This labeled diagram of the Tazza Farnese repeats the lettered identifications of the figures from AJA 96, 249. This 1992 volume contains Dwyer and Pollini’s articles on the Tazza Farnese (see Dwyer 1992; Pollini 1992). 18 Most scholars identify this object as a yoke or some other agricultural implement, though it seems too small to be a yoke designed for multiple large animals. For more on Triptolemos, see Schwartz (1990). 19 Thompson and Koenen suggests that Triptolemos is shown in the guise of a Gaul because art‑ ists were fascinated with the barbarian’s exotic dress and hairstyles (Thompson and Koenen 1984, 118). Some might argue that an identification of Figure D as Triptolemos results from identifying Figure A as Isis‑Demeter or Demeter. However, Figure D is a farmer with his knife and sack of seeds, and it is this relationship to a cultivator that allows one to identify him as Triptolemos. 20 Alföldi and Campbell (1997, 584) and Ginsburg (2006, 94). 21 In the sculpture from Naples, Nilus holds a cornucopia overflowing with fruits. He leans against a small male, Egyptian sphinx. 22 For more on Euthenia, see Jentel (1990; “Euthenia,” LIMC IV: 120–124). Euthenia is the translation of Abundantia, and throughout this study, Furtwängler was the first to identify A as Euthenia/Abundantia (Furtwängler 1900). 23 This diadem is why LaRocca believes the Tazza Farnese references Cleopatra VII (LaRocca 1984). 24 Kákosy (1982, 291–292). 25 Zwierlein‑Diehl (1996, 471). 26 Kákosy (1982, 291). 27 Platz‑Horster (1992) and Zwierlein‑Diehl (1996, 471). 28 Kákosy (1982, 294). 29 For more on the Winds, see Oakley (1990) and Simon (1997). 30 For more on Gorgons in antiquity, consult Krauskopf (1990), Paoletti (1990), and Wilk (2000). Michael Anthony Fowler is also researching Gorgoneia, which will eventually be published (Fowler 2020). 31 For example, Pollitt (1986, 259). Even though most agree that the Tazza Farnese was made in Alexandria, this does not mean it was necessarily Alexandrian. Egypt was part of the Roman Empire, and thus, Alexandrian artists could have been working to produce luxurious works of art for the Roman imperial family. 32 See Charbonneaux (1958), Bastet (1962), Merkelbach (1973), LaRocca (1984), Pollitt (1986), Plantzos (1999), Meyer (2000), Lichty (2016), and Strano (2016). 33 The date of the Tazza Farnese might not be significant if it is ca. 30 BC, since it then could be Hellenistic or Roman. 34 See Thompson (1978), Thompson and Koenen (1984), Pollini (1992), Menes (2004), Fischer (2014), and Fischer (2017). 35 Plantzos (1996a, 115). 36 Pollitt (1986, 317). Pollitt states that the “possibility that it dates from the period of the Ro‑ man Empire cannot be entirely ruled out, but even if this could be proved to be the case, one would have to say that its style and subject matter were of Hellenistic inspiration.” 37 Charbonneaux (1958), Bastet (1962), LaRocca (1984), and Meyer (2000). 38 Charbonneaux (1958, 85–86). For his part, Bastet suggests that the three main figures are portraits of Cleopatra III and her two sons, Ptolemy X Alexander and Ptolemy IX Soter II. Thus, Bastet’s dating of the Tazza Farnese changes to approximately 107 BCE. LaRocca identifies A and B as Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy V Epiphanes, dating the gemstone to the late first century BCE. In particular, LaRocca believes that Cleopatra VII herself commissioned the Tazza Farnese to commemorate the victory of Mark Antony in Alexandria in 34 BCE. While LaRocca identifies A as Cleopatra VII, he admits she does not look like the queen (LaRocca 1984, 91–92). His unconvincing identification is based on the diadem rather than the figures’ facial features. Meyer also attaches a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty to one of the figures

Livia and the Tazza Farnese  67 of the Tazza Farnese. However, unlike the previous three scholars, Meyer identifies the Gor‑ gon on the reverse with a portrait of Ptolemy VIII. He concludes that the Tazza Farnese was made for this king who ruled 145–116 BCE. However, Meyer’s argument is not convincing for practical reasons: no ruler would have wanted to be depicted with the face of a Gorgon (Meyer 2000, 64–65. Meyer’s comparison is Brussels E 1839). 39 Smith (1991, 209). 40 See Plantzos (1999). Plantzos dates the Tazza Farnese to the Hellenistic period in Hellenistic Engraved Gems of 1999. However, he does include many cameos in his discussion, stating that because cameos were not made in the third or second century BCE, this limits the Tazza Farnese to the first century BCE, specifically from the late first century BCE before the Battle of Actium. Furthermore, the cameos that Plantzos cites do not have provenances, making it even more problematic for him to date the Tazza Farnese to this period or attribute it to Egypt. 41 Virginia Malcolm Lichty’s recent MA thesis offered a unique interpretation of the Tazza Farnese, which she says was produced for an adolescent Ptolemaic girl of the court who re‑ ceived this cameo as a gift when she began to menstruate and entered womanhood. The Tazza Farnese was exclusively for women, and its apotropaic function was meant to safeguard them during childbirth while informing them about their menstrual cycles and fertility. Lichty’s new reading of the Tazza Farnese centers on the Gorgoneion and its connection to the inner scene of the cameo dish. When added together, “the iconography served as a protective device and displayed metaphorical symbols of menstruation, fertility, family, and rejuvenation for a Parthenon of the Ptolemaic court” (Lichty 2016, v). 42 Dwyer (1992, 257). 43 Scholars who date the cameo to the Hellenistic period usually ignore these aspects of the Tazza Farnese. 44 Thompson dates the Tazza Farnese to the 20s BCE. 45 Thompson (1978, 114). However, Plantzos agrees with Thompson about the economic con‑ ditions before the late first century BCE (see Plantzos 1996a, 1996b). This is circumstantial evidence for the claim that the Tazza Farnese must have been created in the late first century BCE. The more impoverished Ptolemies could have used other resources than money for the commissioning of the Tazza Farnese. 46 Thompson and Koenen (1984, 111). It should be noted that the Indian origin has recently been questioned in Giuliani and Schmidt’s (2010) publication (Giuliani and Schmidt 2010, 90–96). In particular, Giuliani and Schmidt contend that no large agates have been found in India or Arabia. Instead, sources of substantial agate pieces were discovered in the 1970s in Bulgaria, some more than a meter in diameter. According to Giuliani and Schmidt, the ag‑ ate for ancient cameos must have come from Thrace, not India. At this point, Giuliani and Schmidt’s claims still need to be evaluated, perhaps through chemical analysis. 47 Thompson (1978, 112). 48 Plantzos mainly agrees with this (Plantzos 1996a, 127). 49 See also Bühler (1973) regarding sardonyx. 50 Bühler (1973, 4) and Thompson (1978, 114). 51 These agates were colored in antiquity. See Pliny Natural History 74.12, Bühler (1973, 5), and Giuliani and Schmidt (2010, 86–90). Bühler also sees the color of the cameo as a way to date the gemstone, but he differs from Thompson in his color designations, stating that brown is Hellenistic and black is Roman. According to him, the Tazza Farnese is brown and, therefore, Hellenistic. However, Bühler’s argument presents difficulties since the Tazza Farnese changes color depending on whether it is lit from behind or not (Bühler 1973, 4). 52 Thompson (1978, 114). 53 Thompson (1978, 115). Thompson concludes that the shape of the Tazza is Persian in influ‑ ence, exhibiting many similarities with the phialai of that culture. This is not an outlandish claim considering that Persian silver “was copied in Alexandria with a flaring rim and a richly decorated torus base” (Thompson and Koenen 1984, 112). The shape had been a part of the Egyptian repertoire since the Persian occupation of the country. However, it is more likely that a Persian gem‑cutter would have had to come with the raw stone to teach the Greek gem‑cutter the techniques of carving the shape. Bühler mentions Antioch as another place where vessels in precious stone were made.

68  Livia and the Tazza Farnese 54 For more on Gorgons and the different stylistic types, see Krauskopf (1990) and Paoletti (1990). 55 Thompson (1978, 115). 56 Though slightly later, a Gorgon from the Barge of Caligula resembles the one on the Tazza Farnese (Gorgon from the Barge of Caligula, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme Rome 72275). 57 Pollini (1992, 285–286). LIMC does not utilize the billowing mantle as a dating method. 58 Smith (2021, 6–7). 59 Smith (2021, 6). 60 See Menes (2004), Fischer (2014, 2017). 61 See Fischer (2014) and Menes (2004). 62 For Euthenia and Nilus, see Jentel (1990). Jentel discusses this particular fresco from the Villa Farnesina, but it is not included in the illustrations (page 121, example 15). 63 See LaRegina (1998, 156). 64 Triangular lamp with Nilus and Euthenia, Graeco‑Roman Museum, Alexandria 10161. 65 For more on Triptolemos and a brief discussion of the Underground Basilica, see Schwartz (1990). 66 The Roman Senate had not yet bestowed Octavian with the title of “Augustus.” 67 Hermerén (1969, 79). 68 Plantzos (1996b, 47). According to Plantzos, the fact that Nilus is seated proves that the Tazza Farnese is Hellenistic since the “representation of the seated Nile has been shown to pre‑date the reclining one, favored by the Romans” (Plantzos 1996b, 47). However, this does not answer Plantzos’ argument that the Tazza Farnese is Hellenistic since various artistic styles influenced the Romans. 69 Dwyer (1992, 265). 70 Bastet identifies this as an olive tree (Bastet 1962). Others have mistakenly identified this tree as a persea, most notably Dwyer (1992, 265). Native to Egypt and Ethiopia, the persea is a type of evergreen that can reach a height of up to sixty feet and has flowering blossoms at the end of its branches that can grow up to six inches long. A persea tree consists of innumer‑ able branches that extend in many directions, thus offering ample shade and protection. In addition to the flowers at the end of the branches, the tree is covered with small, narrow, and oblong oval‑shaped leaves. However, perseas were not pruned. While the persea tree has a narrow trunk that divides into many branches, the olive usually has a shorter trunk that is quite wide and resembles many trunks twisted together, matching the tree that appears on the Tazza Farnese. As to the trunk, the tree in the cameo is gnarled with many knots that are not typical of a persea. For more on the persea, also see Schroeder (1977). 71 Homer mentions olives and olive trees in the Odyssey (Book V) and the Iliad (Book XVII). Many other ancient authors write about the olive and its significance, including Pausanias, Horace, and Theophrastus (Pausanias, Description of Greece, 1.27.1; Horace, Odes 1.31.15; Theophrastus On the Causes of Plants 4.13.5). For a general source on olive trees and trees, see More (2013). 72 In Athens’ Panathenaia, the victor of an event would be awarded Panathenaic amphorae filled with expensive and sacred olive oil. The victor also received a crown of olive leaves at the ancient Olympic games, though this was made from a wild and not domesticated olive tree. 73 While olive branches and wreaths are ubiquitous in Roman art, the olive tree was less common. 74 While the olive branch was used in ancient Greece for victors, its use as a symbol of peace emerged under the Romans. In particular, Eirene/Pax was associated with an olive branch. For more, see Impelluso (2004). 75 For more on cornucopiae, see Bemman (1997). 76 Zanker (1988, 49). 77 Kleiner (2005, 184–184). 78 For artistic representations of Euthenia and Nilus, consult Jentel (1990) and Kákosy (1982). 79 Stalks of wheat will also appear on the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France. 80 LaRocca discusses depictions of Cleopatra VII (LaRocca 1984, 91–100). While the diadem might refer to Cleopatra VII, A is not a portrait and should not be connected directly with the queen. 81 For more on the shape of the Tazza Farnese, see Thompson and Koenen (1984, 112–113).

Livia and the Tazza Farnese  69 82 Scheid (2003, 96), Adkins and Adkins (2004, 312), and Gaifman (2018). The gods also per‑ formed libations (see Patton 2009). Most likely, the Tazza Farnese would not have been used to pour libations because such a practice would cause the cameo to become excessively sticky. 83 The lituus does not appear on the Tazza Farnese but will appear on the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France. 84 For example, on the Altar of the Lares, a female member of the imperial family, most likely Julia, stands next to Augustus, who is in the center. The imperial woman holds a patera in her outstretched right hand, reaching toward the emperor, and she performs a libation, a ritual offering of liquids poured to a deity. (Altar of the Lares, 2 BCE, Uffizi Gallery, Florence, Italy, Inv. 972.) 85 Triptolemos is recognizable as a Gaul because of his distinctive Gallic hairstyle. See Thomp‑ son and Koenen (1984). 86 One cannot see into this sower’s bag on the Tazza Farnese. However, because he is a symbol of agriculture, it makes sense that Triptolemos would store seeds in this bag. 87 Hesiod recounts the myth of the Gorgon in his Theogony, 270–283. 88 Gantz (1996, 303–310). 89 See Hartswick (1993) for a discussion of the Gorgoneion on the aegis of Athena. For more on Gorgons in antiquity, consult Krauskopf (1990), Paoletti (1990), and Wilk (2000). 90 See Frothingham (1911), Howe (1954), Belsen (1980), and Wilk (2000). 91 Blacas Cameo (Sardonyx Cameo of Augustus), sardonyx, 12.8 × 9.3 cm, 14–20 CE, The Brit‑ ish Museum, London, United Kingdom (1867,0507.484). 92 The Gorgon is also sometimes connected with the sun disc, thus further connecting this ico‑ nography with fertility and prosperity. After all, “the sun provides nourishment for growth and reproduction” (Lichty 2016, 85). 93 Gaul includes those in the West and the East in places like Thrace and Galatia. 94 For a long time, scholars have noted the similarities between the cameo and the silver picture dish, though the implications of this connection, until this point, have yet to be fully explored. For example, see Bastet (1962, 147–149). 95 Henig (1983, 139–140). 96 Henig (1983, 140). In addition, the luxury arts have a connection with other crafts, such as silver vessels to cameos, fine pottery to silver, and so on. 97 From the very start, Octavian and his court were influenced by the art Cleopatra commis‑ sioned while she was with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. However, that impact is often overlooked in studies of the art of the Early Roman Empire, even though “a plausible case can be made that Cleopatra and her monuments made a profound contribution to art in the age of Augustus” (Kleiner 2005, 8). In 2005, Diana E.E. Kleiner noted that, until that point, no scholar had adequately delved into the deep connection between Cleopatra’s imagery and Augustus’, but that this dialogue was deep and that studying it offers a whole new way to understand the art of the Augustan age. This influence continued even after the queen’s dra‑ matic suicide following her defeat at the Battle of Actium. Octavian learned from Cleopatra, using her image to serve his purposes and to transform it into a new imperial visual language. He also appropriated iconography and visual motifs from Cleopatra’s Ptolemaic Egypt. Oc‑ tavian was attracted to the visual arts of Cleopatra because she was a strong queen who commissioned art and understood the power of images. However, while Octavian admired Cleopatra’s use of images, he did not highly regard the woman herself. She was, after all, a woman and a foreign woman at that time. Thus, the Roman emperor’s feelings toward the Egyptian queen were conflicted, but he was willing to take what he found useful from her. Consequently, while Cleopatra’s life had ended, her legacy lived on in the Roman world (Kleiner 2005, 8–10). 98 Henig (1983, 140). This type of influence between different media of art was strong in the late Republic and Early Empire. 99 Zanker (1988, 82–83). 100 The Aquileia Dish and the Tazza Farnese also represent the final stage in the Greek and Hel‑ lenistic life cycle of iconography, which soon will be eclipsed by imperial Rome. 101 Zanker (1988, 84). Sometimes a laurel tree was used to symbolize Octavian since he identi‑ fied with Apollo, whose sacred tree was a laurel. Also, there is no emphasis on Apollo and Augustus’ connection with this deity.

70  Livia and the Tazza Farnese 102 Kleiner (1992b, 366–367). For an example of Augustus’ depiction of women in state relief sculpture, see the Ara Pacis Augustae. While women were praised and honored by Mark An‑ tony for their contributions, when Octavian included females in artworks, their role was to emphasize their roles as wives and mothers. 103 Kleiner (2005, 14). However, Augustus still used his sister Octavia and his wife Livia as propaganda and even gave them unheard‑of freedoms while limiting other women’s freedom. 104 Raff (2022). 105 Zanker (1988, 82). Some of the most famous Egyptianizing Roman works were Hadrian’s portraits of Antinous, the most famous of which depicts the emperor’s lover as an Egyptian pharaoh. 106 Zanker (1988, 82–83).

4 Livia and the Gemma Augustea

Livia Livia, as Chapter 3 theorizes, was the patron of the Tazza Farnese. Inspired by Cleopatra’s Aquileia Dish, Livia participated in her own version of the propaganda wars, pushing for her husband, Octavian, to be the sole ruler of Rome. The Tazza Farnese was displayed to a small, though very powerful, elite audience and emphasized Octavian’s important accomplishments, including his victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium and the ensuing Pax Romana. Livia wanted viewers to know that Octavian was the best candidate. Octavian became emperor and was renamed Augustus in 27  BCE, which was a very successful propagandistic campaign for Livia. A couple of decades later, Livia returned to the cameo medium to try again, this time with a dynastic message to impart, with the goal that her gift would inspire Augustus to name one of her sons or her grandson the next emperor, wrapping up this idea in an irresistible package so that the emperor could not help but be persuaded by its message. The Gemma Augustea was an explicit dynastic statement (Figure  4.1). In the gem‑ stone, Livia sought to show the suitability of her sons, Tiberius and Drusus Major, along with her grandson, Germanicus (who was also Tiberius’ nephew and adopted son), to succeed her husband, Augustus. Tiberius and Germanicus are depicted on the upper reg‑ ister, while Drusus Major is probably the figure cut off at the left and whose fingers and shoe are only visible. Because Tiberius’ accomplishments are praised, Livia’s first son was her first choice for Augustus to choose. Provenance of the Gemma Augustea The provenance of the Gemma Augustea, the largest surviving Roman Imperial cameo, can be traced back to 1246. In the following centuries, the gemstone changed owners frequently, for inordinate amounts of money, before finally coming into the possession of the Habsburgs; the Gemma Augustea is now on display in the Kunsthistorisches Mu‑ seum in Vienna. As with other large Imperial cameos, the Gemma Augustea was a private luxury item, and its exquisite and flawless craftsmanship is proof of the requisite wealth of the patron. Measuring approximately nineteen by twenty‑three centimeters, the sardonyx cameo is framed in gold, a seventeenth‑century addition.1 The Gemma Augustea is irregular and neither rectangular nor ovoid but more trapezoidal. The cameo appears to be two shapes joined together: the somewhat rectangular bottom section and the trapezoidal upper half. The widest part of the cameo occurs at the division between the two registers, while the DOI: 10.4324/9781003315308-4

72  Livia and the Gemma Augustea

Figure 4.1 Gemma Augustea, sardonyx, 23  cm × 19  cm, 9–12  CE, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria (IX A 79). Copyright: KHM‑Museumsverband.

narrowest section is at the top. All four sides contain irregular contours, as the gemstone flares slightly concave and convex at various points. At some point in its history, the Gemma Augustea was cut down. This excision is evident at the upper left, where there are visible traces of another figure; only traces of the fingers and toes remain.2 This makes the top portion narrower. Figures The large sardonyx cameo is divided into two registers delineated by the thin ground line of the upper scene; the upper scene is slightly taller than the lower. Both bands con‑ tain multiple human figures, deities, personifications, and various iconographic elements, such as arms and armor, a scepter, and an eagle (Figure 4.2). The upper register contains nine figures and three horses. In particular, this register has three human protagonists surrounded by deities and personifications. After the missing Figure A, Figure B is a togate man standing on a big with his head tilted slightly to the right; underneath the chariot is a helmet. This is Tiberius, the future successor of Augus‑ tus. He wears a long, flowing toga, and his body is positioned frontally as he alights from a chariot. His face is idealized, and above his large ears, his curly head of hair is crowned

Livia and the Gemma Augustea  73

Figure 4.2  Diagram of the Gemma Augustea. Copyright: Author Drawing.

with a laurel wreath. In his left hand, he holds a scepter, while his right hand is broken off but seems to be clasped to Figure A to the left. Directly behind Figure B is Figure C, a woman whose wavy hair is bound into a loose bun on the top of her head. Wings sprout from her back and extend to the very edge of the cameo, though the break and the gold frame cut them off. Rounded lines delicately delineate the individual feathers of these wings. While most of her body is hidden behind Tiberius, the woman’s left shoulder is partially visible, and her hands hold the reins of the horses of the biga as well as a whip; she is the chariot’s driver. She is Victory, who drives a chariot with two horses.3 To Tiberius and Victory’s right is Figure D, a male youth dressed in a cuirass with a mantle draped across his left shoulder. Standing frontally, the young man has his right hand jauntily on his hip, while his left hand touches the center of his chest. Behind him stands his horse. The male figure is usually recognized as Germanicus, a cavalry officer and the great‑grandnephew of Augustus who was “adopted by Tiberius in 4  CE and served under him in Pannonia and Germany.”4 At the center of the upper register is Figure E, the enthroned goddess Roma.5 Military paraphernalia surrounds Roma: she wears a plumed helmet, holds a spear in her right hand, and rests her left hand on the pommel of a sword while both of her feet rest on a pile of armor (shield, cuirass, and helmet). Roman is seated in a relaxed posture, with her right arm resting on the arm of her chair while her left arm is propped up on its back.

74  Livia and the Gemma Augustea Her shield is propped next to her, symbolizing conquest. She wears a thin, sleeveless gar‑ ment cinched and tied just below her bustline, while a baldric extends diagonally from her right shoulder to the sword at her left hip. The indentation of the goddess’ navel is visible through the diaphanous dress. Even though her lower half is draped with a thicker cloth, her body is still visible beneath the thick folds of drapery as her legs and knees are clearly outlined. Directly to the right of Roma is Figure F, the emperor Augustus, who is identified through an examination of his physiognomy: he has the typical Augustan strong brow and chin, an aquiline nose, and a small mouth. Augustus and Roma are the largest figures of the upper register, and the utilization of hieratic scale communicates their importance. Depicted in heroic semi‑nudity, a mantle covers the lower part of the emperor’s body, leaving his chest bare. Augustus’ sandaled feet rest on a shield that is shared with Roma. The large back of his throne props his left arm, and his forearm extends upward, clutch‑ ing a scepter. His other arm rests on his knee, and his right hand holds a curling lituus. An eagle is to the right of his feet, its body facing the right, while its head cranes back‑ ward toward Augustus. Between and slightly above the heads of Roma and Augustus is a roundel decorated with the zodiac sign of Capricorn. Figure G is Oikoumene.6 Wearing a veiled crenelated crown, the personification of the civilized world places a corona civica atop the emperor’s head. Behind Oikoumene is an older, bearded man with long, unkempt hair. Figure H is Oceanus, the personification of the world’s seas, and he is in three‑quarter view to the right as he turns his head to the left to gaze at the emperor.7 His frontal chest is bare, and although he is older, he is still muscular and strong, as his pectoral and abdominal muscles have been carefully defined. A mantle covers the lower half of his body, and his right hand is on the top of the em‑ peror’s throne. Finally, to the right of Augustus’ throne sits Figure I, whose elbow rests on the chair’s leg. She is Tellus Italiae, and she looks to the left toward the emperor, her soft, wavy hair capped with a crown of ivy leaves and clusters of berries.8 Clothed in a thin mantle from the waist down, she holds a cornucopia that will be filled with the com‑ ing abundance of the land. Two nude children accompany her: a smaller boy holds two stalks of wheat in his left hand, and another taller child peeks from behind her. The militaristic theme of the upper register is continued in the lower zone with its groupings of soldiers and barbarians. While smaller than the upper register, the lower register contains ten figures divided into two parts.9 On the left, four victors raise a tro‑ phy above two defeated enemies. Figure J and Figure N are Roman soldiers, and Figure M and Figure O are freed slaves; together, these four figures raise a trophy decorated with a cuirass, helmet, and shield with the zodiacal symbol of Scorpio, which was the birth sign of Tiberius.10 Seated below the trophy and the soldiers are a conquered woman and man, Figure K and Figure L. The barbarian woman sits with her elbows on her knees, her head resting in her hands. Her eyes are mere slits, and her head tilts as she ponders her fate. To her right is another barbarian, an older man seated on the ground with his arms tied behind his back. His head, covered with a mass of unruly curls, looks to the right; his countenance is one of defeat as his mouth is turned downward, and his eyes are heavy‑lidded and sad. At his side and lying on the ground is a military cuirass, perhaps what Figure L was wearing before he was defeated in battle. The theme of conquerors and the conquered continues with four figures on the right of the bottom register. Figures P and Q represent the conquerors, though they are dressed quite differently than the Roman soldiers on the left and are probably Thracians. Shown

Livia and the Gemma Augustea  75 from behind, Figure P wears a loose, long‑sleeved garment on the top and a flowing, knee‑length tunic on the bottom, with feet clad with boots reaching the middle of his calves.11 In his left hand, he holds two spears, while his other arm is outstretched, his hand gripping the hair of a seated male captive.12 Figure Q stands to the right of his cohort, his head covered with a wide‑brimmed hat. He grabs the hair of a female bar‑ barian, Figure S, so forcefully that she is lifted to standing. Figure R is a male barbarian in a pose of supplication as he kneels with his arms outstretched to his conqueror. He wears a torque around his neck, a distinctly Gallic attribute. The arrangement of the divinities and personifications surrounding Augustus was carefully orchestrated. In fact, “each of the divinities around Augustus would appear to have been positioned according to a hierarchical scheme related to the Princeps’ politi‑ cal program.”13 For example, Augustus was most concerned about Rome and the Ital‑ ian peninsula during his reign. Therefore, the importance of the city and the country is reflected in the placement of Roma and Tellus Italiae, as they are the two closest to the emperor. Roma holds the most importance to Augustus and is on the emperor’s right side, symbolizing her significance and their connection. The goddess shares the same throne as the emperor, and their feet rest on the same shield. This placement emphasizes that Roma is the most important deity in the gemstone. At the far left is a secondary group representing the earth, sea, and all the people. Tellus Italiae sits on a lower seat next to Augustus. Behind her are Oikoumene and Oceanus. The placement of the barbarians in the lower register was also deliberate. They are beneath the emperor, his successors, and the personifications and deities accompanying them, showing the barbarians’ lower status. The emperor is above the barbarians, show‑ ing his victories and the victories that will continue with his successors, Tiberius and Germanicus (Table 4.1). Furthermore, the division between the civilized world and that of barbarian chaos below can be seen in the carved white line that separates the upper and lower registers, which is a symbolic demarcation between the “rational and ordered world of the Augustan state from the chaotic world of barbarism.”14 Interpretations Several interpretations and dates have been proposed for the complex scene on the gem‑ stone.15 Because it includes Augustus, Tiberius, and Germanicus, the Gemma Augustea is often thought to refer to one of two specific events: the triumph of Tiberius in 7 BCE after his victories in Germany or the triumph of Tiberius in 12 CE after victories in Illyricum.16 In this case, the cameo scene is generalized and represents both victories. However, no matter whether that interpretation or date is correct, the Gemma Augustea celebrates a triumph of Tiberius, which also honors Augustus. Because of the focus on Tiberius’ victory, the lower register’s military scenes can be interpreted as referring to Tiberius’ Illyrian and German victories of 9 and 12 CE, respec‑ tively, and because of the raised trophy decorated with Scorpio, the birth sign of Tiberius, many scholars posit that the Gemma was commissioned by Tiberius, for [h]e favored commissions in which he was the hero of the story. Early in the principate, he commissioned monuments that closely allied himself with the Divus A ­ ugustus and his predecessor’s military and diplomatic successes, especially those in which T ­ iberius played a key role.17

76  Livia and the Gemma Augustea Table 4.1  Figures: Gemma Augustea

Gemma Augustea

Identification

Meaning

Figure A (now missing)

Drusus Major

Figure B

Tiberius

• • • • • • • •

Figure C

Victory

Figure D

Germanicus

Figure E Figure F

Roma Augustus

Figure G Figure H Figure I

Oikoumene Oceanus Tellus Italiae

Figures J and N

Roman soldiers

Figures M and O

Freed slaves

Figures P and Q

Thracian soldiers

Figures K and L, R and S

Barbarians

Livia’s son Tiberius’ brother Augustus’ stepson Potential heir Livia’s son Augustus’ stepson Potential heir Tiberius is on a chariot wearing a laurel crown; thus, he is celebrating a Roman triumph/victory • Personification of victory • She drives a chariot and crowns Tiberius, emphasizing his victory • Grandson of Livia • Great‑grandnephew of Augustus • Adopted by Tiberius • Another potential successor to Augustus Goddess of the city of Rome • First emperor of Rome • Husband of Livia • Stepfather of Tiberius • Depicted in the guise of Jupiter • Cavorts with deities • Bringer of the Pax Romana Personification of the civilized world Personification of the seas • Mother Earth • Fertility goddess • Depicted with healthy babies, wheat, and an empty cornucopia that will soon be filled • The soldiers raise a trophy • References military victory (possibly a specific victory) These freed slaves help the Roman soldiers raise the trophy • The soldiers wrangle captive barbarians • References military victory and extent of Roman influence with the Thracian soldiers • Conquest • Victory • Pax Romana

Livia and the Gemma Augustea  77 If Tiberius himself commissioned the Gemma, he understandably wanted the cameo to depict scenes that alluded to his military victories, specifically those that helped en‑ sure and strengthen the Pax Romana.18 Tiberius would have commissioned the Gemma Augustea while Augustus was still alive, perhaps to present an argument to the emperor that he was a worthy candidate for the throne. Germanicus is included to express Tibe‑ rius’ dynastic intentions, which would be further strengthened if the missing figure were Drusus Major, Tiberius’ brother, and Livia’s son.19 While Augustus is more centrally located in the upper register, with Tiberius relegated to the left side, the cameo celebrates the latter’s conquests. Augustus would not have commissioned the Gemma Augustea himself because of the inclusion of these military victories of Tiberius that are celebrated so prominently as being the basis for the Pax Romana. Therefore, Kleiner believes that either Tiberius or Livia, his mother, commissioned the piece: Most likely, the Gemma Augustea, with its combination of mortals, divinities, and personifications, is a direct reference to the Augustan peace and celebrates Augustus’ dominion over the civilized world and celebrates the Pax Romana, which ensured tran‑ quility and abundance and was built on military victories as well as on Augustus, Jupi‑ ter’s representative on earth, whose legacy continues with Tiberius and Germanicus.20 Following this interpretation, every element in the Gemma Augustea refers to the Pax Romana. For example, all the divinities and personifications allude to some aspect of Ro‑ man peace. Roma, Tellus Italiae, and Oikoumene comprise the united Roman world. The child tugging at Tellus Italiae’s garment also can be interpreted as an iconographic element of the Pax Romana, for it was during this time that Augustus imposed procreation laws that encouraged a higher birth rate. Tellus Italiae also holds a cornu, symbolic of fertility. Furthermore, the lower register refers to the Pax Romana, for only with the emperor, his successors, and future successful military campaigns and conquests will the peace of the Empire be ensured. Also, it is essential to note that in antiquity, as stated in Chapter 1, gemstones such as sardonyx were perceived to have magical and apotropaic powers. Thus, because the Gemma Augustea refers to the Pax Romana, sardonyx was meant to ward off any evil that might threaten the Empire.21 In particular, the Gemma Augustea can be interpreted as representing a specific aspect of the Pax Romana: the victory of civilization over barbarism and order over chaos. The Roman Empire, as led by Augustus in the upper register, is the epitome of civilization and order, while the barbarians are conquered and subjugated in the lower scenes. The Romans saved the world from the chaos of the barbarians, which was a specific aspect of the Pax Romana. Pollini states: With the Jovian imagery, as Jupiter, with the assistance of the gods, once saved the universe from the giants who threatened universal order, Augustus, with the assis‑ tance of Tiberius and other family members, now delivers the civilized world from the threat of the barbarians, who appear on the lower register.22

78  Livia and the Gemma Augustea Iconography Augustus with Gods and Personifications

Augustus is depicted in the company of gods and personifications, an unacceptable com‑ bination in public art at this time.23 During Augustus’ reign, the living emperor was not publicly worshipped in Rome.24 Consequently, Augustus is not depicted as a god or in the company of divinities in public art.25 When Augustus and the gods are depicted on a sin‑ gle public monument, such as the Ara Pacis Augustae, they appear in different sections.26 Therefore, the Gemma Augustea represents something different from the accepted norm and foreshadows what will eventually be acceptable in the public sphere – the emperor fraternizing with the gods. Heroic Semi‑Nudity

Not only is Augustus consorting with deities, but the emperor is also depicted as god‑like. Augustus is bare‑chested, a motif known as heroic semi‑nudity that is borrowed from depictions of gods like Jupiter, who was commonly shown in this fashion. In doing so, Augustus proclaims that he is god‑like. In addition, in the Hellenistic Empire, nudity symbolized “superhuman strength and power.”27 Thus, Augustus is god‑like with a per‑ fect, powerful physique. Scepter

Augustus has additional iconography that emphasizes his god‑like status. In his right hand, the emperor grips a scepter, a long staff sometimes crowned with an eagle or other attribute.28 The scepter has a long history that precedes its Roman adoption and is men‑ tioned in Esther 5.1–2 as being used by the King of Persia. The Romans subsequently adopted the scepter, utilized by victorious military generals and, most notably, by the emperor. For Augustus and the Romans, the scepter symbolizes the emperor’s terrestrial rule and monarchical authority. In Greek art, many gods held the scepter, and eventually, it became one of the primary attributes of Zeus and the Roman equivalent, Jupiter.29 On the Gemma Augustea, the scepter associates the emperor with Jupiter.30 However, while the scepter was a common attribute of Jupiter, many early emperors avoided using the staff in public art to avoid associating themselves directly with a deity. Only upon death and apotheosis were sculp‑ tors free to include the scepter with a portrait of the emperor. However, these rules were moot in the private sphere, and on cameos like the Gemma Augustea, Augustus could be depicted as god‑like. Thus, he not only mingles with gods, but the heroic semi‑nudity and scepter also mean he is god‑like and in the guise of Jupiter, the head of the Roman pantheon. While the scepter does not frequently appear in relief sculpture, the object is often used in freestanding statues, most notably in a portrait of Claudius from 43 CE with the attributes of Jupiter from Lanuvio, Italy. In this portrait, Claudius is replete with iconog‑ raphy: not only does he hold the Jovian scepter in his upraised left hand, but an eagle also sits by his right foot, he holds a patera in his right hand, and he is crowned with a corona civica; Augustus in the Gemma Augustea is depicted with these items, sans the patera. Furthermore, Claudius is presented in heroic semi‑nudity with drapery covering his lower

Livia and the Gemma Augustea  79 half while leaving his chest bare, exactly as Augustus is depicted on the Gemma. Because Claudius holds the scepter and is accompanied by an eagle, the emperor is in the guise of Jupiter, just as Augustus is in the Gemma Augustea. This freestanding statue of Claudius was meant for public viewing, but it was made in a town near Rome. Only two genera‑ tions after the Gemma Augustea, it had become increasingly acceptable for the emperor to be presented as god‑like in the public sphere. The Gemma Augustea set the stage for what would eventually happen in the art of the public sphere. In order to show this progression, one must again examine the Gemma Augustea. In this private cameo, it was permissible to show Augustus surrounded by deities and in a god‑like guise himself. However, in the public art of Rome, Augustus was never shown with gods or as a god himself. Outside Rome, the rules for depicting the emperor as a god during his own life were much laxer. Outside Italy, the cult of Augustus thrived, and there are examples of public portraits of the emperor as a god during his life.31 Eagle

An eagle rests at the feet of Augustus, and like the scepter, the bird of prey references Jupiter. The eagle’s position beside the emperor emphasizes that Augustus is associated with Jupiter, as the bird’s head turns directly toward the emperor. The eagle is common in Roman art, in both the public and the private spheres, and along with symbolizing the omnipotence of the leader of Jupiter, the eagle also became a more general symbol that represented the power of Rome. Because of its meaning, the eagle was represented continuously during the Roman Empire.32 Lituus

In the emperor’s left hand is the lituus, or augur’s staff, which is “symbolic of military auspices under which the members of his house have already won and will continue to win victories.”33 The lituus reveals that Augustus is an augur, the interpreter of Jupiter’s will, and the small staff symbolizes the emperor’s ultimate authority. In addition, the lituus was often utilized in Roman religious rites, and therefore, the curving object is also a reference to the fact that the emperor is the intercessor between man and god; he is Pontifex Maximus. However, the symbolism of the lituus does not end there, for the object was associated with Apollo, a deity with whom Augustus was endlessly trying to connect himself.34 Furthermore, the lituus had an intimate connection to the name Au‑ gustus, which was bestowed upon the emperor in 27 BCE, and this title was consciously chosen for its association with augury. The lituus is not frequently found in Roman relief sculpture, but it makes a rare ap‑ pearance in the Altar of the Lares.35 In public art, the lituus is most common on coins from the Roman Empire. For example, coins typically depict an emperor in profile on the obverse, while a lituus hovers above a patera on the reverse. In addition, on the reverse, litui often are combined with other implements such as ritual jugs and bowls. Therefore, while the lituus is frequently used on coins, the emperor rarely holds the staff. Instead, it is included with a portrait head when it is on the obverse of a coin or accompanied by other ritual equipment on the reverse. Because the lituus can be interpreted as referring to the emperor’s role as an intercessor between humans and the gods, leaders avoided being directly associated with this object. Early Roman emperors sought to portray themselves

80  Livia and the Gemma Augustea as the first among equals in the public sphere, and they tried to avoid being depicted as god‑like or even in the direct company of deities. Astrological Signs

The Romans did not invent zodiac signs, nor were they the first to use these astrological symbols in art. The use of Capricorn and Scorpio on the gemstone represents an appro‑ priated iconographic element in the Gemma Augustea. The zodiac was Near Eastern and first emerged under the Babylonians in the seventh century BCE. Astrologers utilized zo‑ diacs to cast horoscopes, which “determined the positions of the stars and planets in the sky at the time of one’s birth and predicted their influence on the events in that person’s life and fate.”36 Following the Babylonians’ footsteps, many ancient cultures adopted the zodiac, including the Romans, who always tried to predict the future. Roman emperors often relied on the zodiac and horoscopes to help decide their actions. For example, ac‑ cording to Suetonius, Tiberius’ horoscope proclaimed that he would be the emperor, and he surrounded himself with astrologers.37 In the upper zone, Capricorn hovers between the heads of Augustus and Roma, and the bottom register has a Scorpio on the shield at the left of the trophy.38 In its most gen‑ eral terms, the Capricorn was an easy way for Augustus to communicate that his role as emperor was fated in the stars.39 Furthermore, emperors often used their zodiac signs as their symbols. Therefore, using the symbols of Capricorn and Scorpio was deliberate and related directly to specific Roman rulers: Augustus and Tiberius.40 According to the ancient historian Suetonius, Capricorn was the birth sign of Augus‑ tus. However, Suetonius contradictorily states that Augustus’ birthday was September 23, 63 BCE, meaning that the emperor was born under the sign of Libra.41 Other ancient writers, such as Virgil, confirm that Augustus was a Libra. Because of this discrepancy, in the seventeenth century, the German astronomer Johannes Kepler tried to determine the exact date of Augustus’ birth. Through a complex investigation of the planets and their movements, Kepler attempted to deduce why Augustus used Capricorn instead of Libra on the Gemma Augustea.42 Most scholars, including Kepler, have agreed that Augustus preferred Capricorn because he was preoccupied with Fortune in the realm of the moon. Accordingly, Augustus wanted to use his moon rather than sun sign. Therefore, Capri‑ corn occurs frequently throughout his art, including in the Gemma Augustea, and has associations with good fortune.43 The Capricorn symbol was adopted by Octavian very early on in his reign and was one way to reference victory, and he used the astrological symbol as early as the late 40s BCE. Initially, Capricorn referenced Octavian’s role as the avenger of the assassi‑ nation of Julius Caesar.44 By the late 30s BCE, however, Capricorn’s meaning began to symbolize the Battle of Actium and Octavian’s defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra.45 Furthermore, because Capricorn is an animal of both land and sea, it began to symbolize Octavian’s power over both land and sea.46 After its initial appearance, Capricorn was used in conjunction with other iconog‑ raphy such as a cornucopia, globe, laurel wreath, and corona civica, attesting to the flexibility and ubiquity of this symbol.47 The meaning of Capricorn now depended upon the other symbolic objects included within the composition. Its presence could com‑ municate many things, including the defeat of Egypt, world domination, saving citizen lives, and the fertility and abundance of the Roman Empire.48 Augustus was drawn to Capricorn because of this flexibility in its meaning and interpretation. Capricorn could

Livia and the Gemma Augustea  81 be “combined familiar, very rich symbols in new ways so that a complex network of signs could be created.”49 Most people in ancient Rome would not have comprehended these complex layers of meaning for an astrological sign of Capricorn.50 The Capricorn on the Gemma Augustea is placed within a roundel with rays on it, perhaps the symbol of the sun or moon of the Julian dynasty.51 With other familiar ­iconography, such as the cornucopia, laurel wreaths, and corona civica, Capricorn sym‑ bolizes the good fortune, prosperity, and victories of Rome, Italy, and her provinces because of Augustus, which will continue under his successors. Acting as a counterpart to Capricorn, the sign of Scorpio was the birth sign of Tibe‑ rius, and the symbol is on the lower register. The pairing of these two astrological signs suggests “astral backing for the whole dynasty, from the Julian star to Germanicus.”52 While each astrological sign is a badge of an emperor, when interpreted with the rest of the iconography in the Gemma Augustea, it also functions as a “symbol of the em‑ peror’s power over land and sea of the civilized world and of the fertility that he brings to them.”53 Crowns

Crowns are another iconographic element found within the Gemma Augustea. Three different types are depicted on the cameo: the corona civica, the laurel crown, and the corona muralis. Beginning with the corona civica, at the far right of the top register, Oik‑ oumene is about to place the civic crown atop the head of Augustus. Made of oak leaves, the corona civica was awarded to people who had saved Roman citizens by killing an enemy, so the corona civica symbolizes heroic victory. Deeply rooted in Roman tradition, the corona civica had a long history, and Augustus and his advisors immediately took advantage of its symbolic heritage by using it as a reference to the fact that the emperor had saved all of Rome’s citizens from the chaos and destruction of civil war. In addition, because the corona civica was made of oak leaves, the crown was connected to Jupiter since the oak tree was particularly sacred to this god. In fact, in many of the previous ar‑ tistic representations of eagles in Roman art, the bird often clutches a corona civica, and this was meant to transform these images into potent symbols of monarchical authority and omnipotence. The civic crown appears throughout the public and private art in ancient Rome, from freestanding portraits of the emperors to altars and coins. Once the corona civica was emphasized by Augustus, it became common in art. After all, the civic crown was a rare honor that Augustus wanted to advertise and promote. Many freestanding and numis‑ matic portraits of Augustus show the emperor crowned with the corona civica.54 On the far left of the Gemma Augustea, Tiberius wears a laurel crown, an icono‑ graphic attribute integral to the Roman triumphal procession. Victory is further empha‑ sized in the Gemma Augustea because the goddess accompanies Tiberius. However, the laurel wreath was a symbol that existed long before Augustus adopted it to emphasize his victorious role in the creation of the Roman Empire and the Pax Romana. The laurel wreath was used throughout Roman society in art, literature, and govern‑ ment. Julius Caesar adopted the laurel wreath and proclaimed that it was the symbol of the ruler, and it subsequently replaced a more fancy crown. Under the Romans, the laurel wreath symbolized power, victory, and success. Above all else, the laurel wreath was uti‑ lized to express military victory. In the domestic sphere, laurel wreaths were commonly hung on the doorposts of a house to announce a special occasion such as a marriage or

82  Livia and the Gemma Augustea birth. Also, laurel wreaths were sometimes fastened to letters or fasces and meant to sig‑ nify the end of the war and the beginning of peace.55 Ovid stated that the laurel wreath symbolizes victory, peace, an attribute of Apollo, domestic tranquility, and the everlast‑ ing reign of Augustus’ family.56 Its presence is unavoidable throughout both public and private art. Because the laurel wreath had such a lengthy history and appeared through‑ out the Empire, everyone would have recognized the symbol and understood its symbol‑ ism: the enormous success and power that only the emperor, or an essential member of the Imperial family, could attain. During the time of Augustus and the Julio‑Claudians, the laurel crown, when worn by Augustus or a male member of his family, “suggested military accomplishment, its traditional association, and as time went on, the political supremacy of the Julio‑Claudian family.”57 The last type of crown depicted on the Gemma Augustea is found at the far right of the upper register. Oikoumene, the personification of the civilized world, wears a veiled crenelated crown, or corona muralis. This type of crown was first used in the ancient Near East from as early as the second millennium BCE in places like Assyria and Elam. The mural crown was subsequently introduced to the Greeks and was frequently associ‑ ated with the Greek goddess Tyche, who was in charge of the fortune and prosperity of a specific town.58 The Greek mural crown was a sign of cities or communities and was always utilized for geographical personifications who almost always were female. There‑ fore, the crown is appropriately used for Oikoumene, the personification of the civilized Roman world.59 Barbarians and Militaristic Imagery

The Gemma Augustea contains many arms and armor, trophies, soldiers, and barbarians, mostly confined to the lower register and the very bottom of the upper registers, forming a conceptual link. The depiction of barbarians, though, is confined to the lower register of the Gemma, where Roman and Thracian soldiers subjugate two barbarian men and two women. However, this was not the first instance of barbarians being included in the decoration of a cameo. After all, the Tazza Farnese included Triptolemos as a Gaul, but this representation was veiled in Greek allegory. In contrast, the Gemma Augustea rejects such a strong allegory and depicts Roman soldiers with their captive foreigners. Throughout the art of the Roman Empire, the depiction of barbarians was common. Not only did these foreigners appear on sculptures from the Early Roman Empire, such as the Temple of Apollo Sosianus and the Ara Pacis, but they also are present in other eras, most prominently in the second‑century CE Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius.60 The Romans drew upon a long history of barbarian representations in art and mainly looked to Greek and Hellenistic prototypes before adapting these influences to suit their purposes. In the Greek world, barbarians frequently occurred in public relief sculpture, most famously in the metopes of the Parthenon.61 In the Hellenistic period, the Per‑ gamene kingdom’s defeat of the Gauls and the commemoration of this victory is another example of the use of barbarians. Erected in the second century BCE, the Altar of Zeus symbolizes Eumenes II’s victory over the Gauls.62 Like the Athenians, whom Pergamenes admired, the Hellenistic kingdom decorated the altar with an allegorical battle, the gi‑ gantomachy, symbolizing their Gallic victory in its lower frieze. But the Pergamenes did not stop there. The Monument of Attalos I also commemorated the victory of Pergamon over the Gauls.63 Unlike the Altar of Zeus, which utilized allegory to convey the Gallic defeat, the sculptures from the Monument of Attalos I depict the defeated and dying

Livia and the Gemma Augustea  83 Gauls themselves. In contrast to the barbarians on the Gemma Augustea, “these works do not leave the viewer with a sense that the defeated Gauls and other barbarians were generally inferior and beneath contempt…they seem to be essays on victory and regret.”65 The Romans developed a third tradition of depicting barbarians: the captive, which emerged in the second half of the first century BCE and became increasingly popular under Augustus. This version most likely derived from the triumph and was a radical change from the Greek and Hellenistic versions.66 Captives typically had foreign hair‑ styles and unshaved idealized faces, and their lower status was communicated not by their appearance but through body language. Usually, captives kneel or are bound and “serve as support either in a kneeling or standing pose.”67 The captive depiction permeated Roman art, from the public sphere to the private sphere, and there are examples in triumphal arches, cameos, coins, and various other media. Countless from the late Republic and Augustan period depict captive barbarians kneeling on the reverse, sometimes their hands outstretched in supplication or holding an offering for the Roman leader depicted on the obverse. Another example is the surviving, now damaged, Boscoreale Cup. In this silver drinking vessel, a captive barbarian father and child kneel before enthroned Augustus.68 The captive barbarian is also the type used on the lower register of the Gemma Au‑ gustea. The barbarians on both sides are idealized and classicizing in their features, as is typical in the captive type. Their lower, subjugated status is demonstrated by their kneel‑ ing and seated positions, with the Roman and Thracian soldiers standing over them. Furthermore, the Julio‑Claudian dynasty stands above them in the upper register, visually marking the barbarians as lower than those above them. Regardless of which type of barbarian was utilized, the barbarian communicated that the Roman leader was successful in his military prowess, defeated barbarian nations, and added more victories to his accomplishments. Furthermore, including barbarians symbolizes the Pax Romana and the conquest of barbarian enemies to ensure peace throughout the Empire. Barbarians are a central iconographic element in Roman Imperial art. The foreigners appeared in public art, private art, and various artistic media. Above all, they “conveyed to those who saw the political and ideological messages about the continuing strength of Roman military power and imperial rule.”69 Whether educated or illiterate, any Roman would have understood what a captive barbarian meant on these monuments. The Ro‑ man Empire was built on its power and conquests and led by its omnipotent and fearless emperors. As such, a representation of a barbarian symbolized in itself the power and might of the Roman Empire. However, the barbarians could only function because there had been a military victory, and thus, they commemorated an actual historical event. In addition to depicting barbarians, the Gemma Augustea contains abundant mili‑ tary imagery in the upper and lower registers. From helmets and spears to shields and trophies, the message of military victory and conquest is abundantly clear. These objects appear in all artistic media in ancient Rome, from coins to cameos to relief sculptures, and emphasize the emperor’s military victories (Table 4.2). 64

Life Cycle of Iconography: Stage Two The Aquileia Dish and the Tazza Farnese represented stage one in the life cycle of iconog‑ raphy: the period of creation, when an iconographic system is first developed and used, and its underlying meaning is starting to be understood. In the 30s BCE, the patrons and

84  Livia and the Gemma Augustea Table 4.2  Iconography: Gemma Augustea Iconography

Meaning

Heroic semi‑nudity of Augustus Arrangement of Augustus and deities in the upper register

Augustus is god‑like • Augustus is in the company of gods • The emperor is a god (this is different from how Augustus was portrayed in the public sphere) • Emperor’s ultimate authority • Augustus’ role as interpreter of Jupiter’s will • Augustus’ terrestrial rule and his monarchical authority • Attribute of Jupiter • Attribute of Jupiter • Placed next to Augustus to connect him to Jupiter • Moon sign of Augustus • Associated with Fortune • It becomes a symbol of good fortune and, ultimately, victory • Tiberius’ birth sign • When paired with Augustus’ Capricorn, Tiberius’ succession seems aligned with the stars • Crown of oak leaves worn by Augustus • Awarded to people who saved Roman citizens by killing an enemy • Heroic victory • Oak is associated with Jupiter • Worn by Tiberius • Roman triumphal procession • Military victory and accomplishments • Worn by Oikoumene • Greek crown usually worn by geographical female personifications • Conquest • Victory • Pax Romana • Conquest • Victory • Pax Romana

Lituus Scepter Eagle Capricorn

Scorpio

Corona civica

Laurel crown Corona muralis Barbarians Military imagery (arms, armor, trophies)

designers of the Aquileia Dish and the Tazza Farnese borrowed iconography from foreign cultures such as ancient Egypt and classical and Hellenistic Greece. Even though this first stage of symbolism derived from outside sources, the messages within the Aquileia Dish and the Tazza Farnese were still ones that the elite Roman audience would have under‑ stood. Though the iconography was not distinctly Roman, the messages were. The Aquileia Dish and Tazza Farnese did not exhibit overt and distinct Roman ico‑ nography. Instead, the silver dish and cameo, both dating to the 30s BCE, mainly relied upon Greek and Hellenistic sources to allegorically communicate ideas of victory, abun‑ dance, and peace. This dependence on Greek and Hellenistic iconography shows that at the time of the creation of the Tazza Farnese, following Octavian’s victory at the Battle

Livia and the Gemma Augustea  85 of Actium, the emperor and his advisors were still in the process of developing the most effective iconography to utilize in the art of the Roman Empire. A distinct Imperial ico‑ nography was still being experimented with. While the Roman regime may have known what messages it wanted to communicate (e.g., victory and the resulting Pax Romana), the method of transmission was predominantly Greek and Hellenistic, relying on subtle allegorical allusions to Octavian/Augustus’ most remarkable accomplishments. This was stage one of the life cycle of iconography. In 27 BCE, when Octavian became Augustus and the Roman Empire began, Imperial iconography started to solidify and became more Roman – transitioning to stage two of the life cycle. The Gemma Augustea, in striking contrast to the Aquileia Dish and the Tazza Farnese, represents stage two: a mature Roman iconography. At least a generation later than the Tazza Farnese, a clear Augustan ideological, standardized iconography had been firmly established. By the Gemma Augustea, the Roman Empire was becoming more firmly established, as was Imperial iconography. As a result, various iconographic features used in the Tazza Farnese are discarded in the Gemma Augustea. This Imperial symbolism no longer relied solely upon its Greek and Hellenistic predecessors but became explicitly Roman. In addition, the iconography was no longer subtle. For example, in the Tazza Farnese, the emperor Augustus was depicted only through the many allusions to his ac‑ complishments, including such figures and iconography as Isis‑Euthenia, the sphinx, the olive tree, cornu, patera, and Triptolemos as a Gaul with his agricultural tools. Almost half a century later, the Gemma Augustea places the emperor Augustus in the cameo as the most important figures and explicitly celebrates his role as the leader of the Roman Empire. Additional historical figures accompanied Augustus, so now there is a mixture of mortal and divine, whereas the Tazza Farnese only had deities and personifications in its interior tondo. The Roman preference and taste for specificity have come into play and have replaced much of the Greek and Hellenistic allegory.70 But there are still some remnants of outside influences, with the use of Hellenistic iconography imbued with an unmistakable Imperial message.71 In addition, in stage two, iconographic attributes continued to be combined in various and endless combinations to express victory and praise Augustus. Such endless combina‑ tions were one of the main features of this new visual language of the Early Roman Em‑ pire. There was no propaganda machine at work; rather, this new Imperial iconography developed naturally and organically. After the Battle of Actium and over the next twenty years, Augustus made the first steps in this new Imperial visual language, but then “much happened as if of its own accord” – it was a fluid, ever‑changing system.72 From the pub‑ lic sphere to the private world, this new visual language was omnipresent, and no Roman could escape its propagandistic and political messages. Historical Figures

Overt historical figures are absent in the Aquileia Dish and the Tazza Farnese. In stage one, Octavian was absent in his panegyric artworks, and Mark Antony was disguised as Triptolemos. At this earliest stage of iconographic development, there was a dependence on allegory, with gods, goddesses, and personifications to communicate subtle messages about historical figures. But there were also other reasons to rely on deities and personi‑ fications instead of including historical people directly. In Octavian’s imagery, he only obliquely referred to his victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra. This was a delicate

86  Livia and the Gemma Augustea situation as Mark Antony had once been a greatly revered Roman general. Not only that, but Mark Antony had children with his wife, Octavia, who was Octavian’s sister, thus making these children Octavian’s relatives. The defeated were Romans, and thus, all images of this defeat must be veiled and subtle so as not to raise questions that were best avoided. Consequently, subtle and more abstract iconography conveyed victory in Egypt over Mark Antony. This early iconography of stage one used symbols and objects that were vague yet still effective enough to reference Octavian’s important victory; some‑ times, these symbols were combined with other symbols to emphasize victory further. However, Octavian himself is not depicted in stage one of iconographic development; his presence is often referenced by the inclusion of other gods and goddesses. Other times, a laurel tree was used to symbolize Octavian since he identified with Apollo, whose sacred tree was a laurel.73 In striking contrast, the Gemma Augustea has at least three historical figures in the upper register: Tiberius, Germanicus, and Augustus. At this mature stage of the life cycle of iconography, Roman specificity has taken center stage. There is no more reliance on metaphor. Augustus is represented, without a doubt, along with two Imperial family members who represent the establishment of his dynasty. Tiberius was born in 42  BCE to Livia and her first husband, Tiberius Claudius Nero. Tiberius was four years old when Livia, pregnant with her second son, Drusus, divorced  Tiberius Claudius Nero and immediately married Octavian. This altered the trajectory of Tiberius’ life, as he was in the closest contact with the emperor and got to see the political world of Rome up close and personal. Because of his stepfather, Tiberius could also move up the political and military ladders relatively easily. First, Tiberius served with Augustus in Spain before he was even twenty. Then Tiberius became quaes‑ tor in 23 BCE. Despite his accomplishments, Tiberius (and his mother) knew that he was not Augustus’ first or second choice to succeed him. Livia wanted her son, Tiberius, to be next on the throne, too, so she constantly manipulated Augustus into choosing Tibe‑ rius.74 Livia also promoted her younger son, Drusus Major (probably missing figure on the far left), along with her grandson (and Augustus’ Grandnephew through Octavia), Germanicus, as the two potential spares for Augustus, if anything should happen to her first choice, Tiberius. For Livia, Germanicus should be Tiberius’ second choice since the emperor had already adopted him in 4 CE.75 Germanicus was married to Agrippina the Elder, and he fought in Germania. Gods and Goddesses

The Aquileia Dish and Tazza Farnese rely upon deities and personifications, some of whom are thinly veiled historical portraits, to present an allegorical message about Mark Antony and Octavian, respectively. This is par for the course in stage one of iconographic development. By stage two, though, fewer deities are present in the Gemma Augustea. The upper register contains three historical figures, as discussed, and four deities: Roma, Oceanus, Oikoumene, and Tellus Italiae. These deities are not portraits of historical peo‑ ple and are utilized to emphasize specific Augustan ideological messages about the Pax Romana. They are distinctly Roman deities and personifications as well. Isis‑Euthenia from the Tazza Farnese has been transformed into the now‑common Tellus Italiae. Like‑ wise, Nilus has now been substituted with Oceanus, a possible reference to the marine battle at Actium.

Livia and the Gemma Augustea  87 Patron

The Gemma Augustea was an explicit dynastic statement promoting Tiberius as next in line for the throne, with Drusus Major and Germanicus as spares. After angling and positioning her son, Tiberius, to take over the throne with the gemstone and winning this succession argument, Livia tried even harder to get at the increased power she so desper‑ ately craved. When Tiberius became emperor, she played up her role as the mother of the princeps, desiring all the honors that came along with that role. In the Gemma Augustea, Livia manipulated and used Augustus’ paternalistic rules to her advantage. Marriage and childbirth were the main roles of Imperial women. So, while Livia herself is not present in the Gemma Augustea, her important accomplishment of producing male heirs is in the forefront: she is the mother of Tiberius and Drusus Major and the grandmother of Germanicus. “As the mother of Tiberius, she became the supreme head of the Roman family or Domus Augusta,” or house of Augustus.76 The Domus Augusta emerged sometime between 15 and 20 CE and glorified “Augus‑ tus’ family – past, present, and future.”77 By 23 CE and the reign of Tiberius, the Domus Augusta officially existed. Imperial men could show their power and family ties through their connection with important Imperial women, thus legitimizing their right to rule. Women were used to symbolize power.78 During the six generations of Julio‑Claudian emperors, rulers gradually included women in their public and private art to legitimize their right to rule. In stage two, women were yet to be included in art, but they would be in stage three of this life cycle of iconography.79 Here, in the Gemma Augustea, Livia’s presence is suggested with her two sons, Tiberius and Germanicus. In addition, Livia does not appear on the Gemma Augustea because she was the patron, and “her absence would have been a manifestation of her modesty.”80 Furthermore, Livia must be excluded from Augustus’ public role because she was a woman in a man’s world.81 The Domus Augusta and the emphasis on female family members stemmed from the dearth of male children in the Julio‑Claudian dynasty. There were few candidates for the throne, though there were always abundant women.82 Because Augustus had no sons, he had to depend upon his female relatives to give him an heir. Octavia’s sons, Gaius and Lucius, were Augustus’ hoped‑for heirs until their premature deaths. Later, Augustus had to rely on Livia’s two sons from a previous marriage (Augustus’ stepsons): Tiberius and Drusus Major. Julio‑Claudian men were aware of the many advantages their female relatives could provide. These Imperial women, with important connections, were often used to increase the status of men, allowing emperors and other male family members to achieve their objectives of aggrandizing themselves and legitimizing their right to rule.83 For example, by marrying a particular woman, a man might connect with a prestigious Roman family with a long lineage, thus strengthening his own legitimacy and his children’s. In general, Imperial women in state monuments of the Early Roman Empire sym‑ bolize “traditional feminine virtues of fecundity, abundance, and familial continuity.”84 However, the most important Imperial women, like Livia, carried even more weight in artistic representations and were included because of their role in manipulating the deci‑ sions of their husbands, the emperors. In addition, sometimes it was advantageous for an emperor to include an Imperial woman to show the family connections and resultant political alliances. The inclusion of Livia, or in the Gemma Augustea, an allusion to her through the use of her sons, also symbolized the Domus Augusta and gens Iulia.85

88  Livia and the Gemma Augustea Message Victory and Conquest

The Gemma Augustea belongs firmly to stage two of the life cycle of iconography, which is clear when comparing the iconography of victory and conquest with that used in the Aquileia Dish and the Tazza Farnese. In the Tazza Farnese, these conquests are depicted through the Isis‑Euthenia, cornu, and the sphinx, which are iconographic attributes de‑ rived from non‑Roman sources and are not changed or transformed into something Ro‑ man. However, in the Gemma Augustea, a distinctly Roman vocabulary has developed. Iconography is sometimes derived from Greek and Hellenistic sources in the Gemma, such as the barbarians, crenelated crown, zodiac signs, and laurel wreath. However, in the Gemma Augustea, artists and designers adapt and transform these symbols in a uniquely Roman way. For example, this theme of conquest is shown with barbarians in the lower register of the Gemma Augustea. Instead of depicting the barbarians as noble and admirable, such as the Hellenistic Pergamene artists did with the Dying Gaul and Figure D (Triptolemos as a Gaul) in the Tazza Farnese, in the Gemma Augustea, the motif of the barbarian has been adapted to a new Roman type. They are the denigrated captives of the Roman Empire and emphasize the Roman army’s role in conquering and pacify‑ ing the Roman world. To further underscore the enemy’s subjugation, the barbarians are placed in the lower register, separate from and below Augustus and the other deities and personifications. The sphinx, Isis‑Euthenia, and the olive tree were also utilized in the Tazza Farnese to symbolize Octavian’s victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra. The olive tree, in particular, strongly associates with Greece and alludes to Augustus’ naval victory over Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony at the Greek city of Actium.86 In contrast, by the mature Augustan age, or stage two, a standard Roman iconographic feature has replaced the more obscure olive tree and the other borrowed Egyptian iconography: the laurel crown, which Tiberius wears on the Gemma Augustea. Though the wreath only appears once in the Gemma Augustea, it became even more popular during the Julio‑Claudian period and will be worn by most figures in the Grand Camée de France. The Romans transformed the laurel wreath, which was borrowed from ancient Greece, into the ultimate symbol of power, victory, and success. Furthermore, the laurel held special significance for Augustus, who not only was busy establishing artistic rhetoric early in his reign but also wanted to create an “arboreal mythology.”87 A pair of laurel trees famously flanked Augustus’ house entrance on the Palatine Hill. Early on in the Augustan period, the presence of laurel trees alluded to this famous pair and represented the victories of Augustus. Likewise, the lituus was adapted to suit new Roman purposes. Etruscan in origin, the lituus became uniquely Roman in the Empire. The small curling staff indicates the future military victories of Augustus and his generals, along with his religious authority.88 Furthermore, Augustus himself acts on different levels in the Gemma Augustea. He is the historical figure of an emperor, shown with the lituus and scepter; he is a victor through the successes of the younger generation, who were working on his behalf. How‑ ever, Augustus is god‑like and connected to Jupiter with his heroic semi‑nudity, eagle, and scepter.89 The Gemma Augustea also references the Roman triumph with the combination of Ti‑ berius in his chariot being crowned victor, the conquered barbarians in the lower register,

Livia and the Gemma Augustea  89 and the abundant militaristic imagery. A quintessential Roman event, the triumph was the most important public event held in the city and the greatest honor possible for the emperor; “it brought together religious ritual, the reward of military glory and personal initiative, the material benefits of war, and broad participation for the people of Rome in the whole endeavor of warfare.”90 Another standard feature of the Roman triumph was the participants, including the victorious general, captives, the army, and Roman citizens. The focus of the triumph was always on the triumphant general, who wore both a tunica palmata and toga picta and rode on his quadriga, or a four‑horsed chariot. Furthermore, the triumphant general typi‑ cally wore a laurel crown and carried a laurel branch in one hand and a scipio eburnius, an ivory scepter topped with an eagle, in the other.91 A captive slave stood in the chariot with the triumphant general and crowned the triumphator with a gold oak leaf wreath. Men on horseback flanked either side of the quadriga: these men were either important members of the general’s army who had helped him in his military success or the general’s sons. This quintessential Roman event, the triumph, is now shown with specificity in stage two of the life cycle of iconography. Pax Romana

Another shared theme of the Tazza Farnese and Gemma Augustea is the celebration of the Pax Romana. In order to represent the prosperity of the Roman world in the Tazza Farnese, agricultural tools, including the knife, plow, and sack of seeds, were used. As discussed in the previous chapter, these items do not frequently occur in Imperial sculp‑ ture, either public or private. As such, utilizing these farming tools represents the first step in formulating a vocabulary to symbolize the new emperor’s most significant accom‑ plishment. After the Tazza Farnese, the agricultural tools were abandoned because other iconographic features more successfully referenced the Roman Peace. In addition, Tellus Italiae replaces the Isis‑Euthenia, and Oceanus supplants ­Nilus – more uniquely Roman deities. In the Gemma Augustea and Roman relief sculp‑ ture, Tellus Italiae and her babies are used to allude to the Pax Romana. She is a fertility figure who symbolizes fecundity, prosperity, and abundance and is the perfect deity to communicate these ideas. While she was utilized in the Aquileia Dish, in the Gemma Augustea, she is now closely associated with the emperor. Instead of a cow, Tellus Italiae is now accompanied by two healthy, robust children, echoing the Tellus Panel in the Ara Pacis Augustae (Figure 2.3). Dynasty

The Gemma Augustea is an argument for dynastic succession. The upper register has the emperor Augustus as its central character, with Tiberius, Germanicus, and (possibly) Drusus as his successors. The line of orderly succession is further emphasized with the fig‑ ure of Germanicus, who, as Augustus’ great‑grandnephew, was also in line to be emperor if he had survived.92 In this way, the Gemma Augustea visually communicates that the “Princeps will be followed by another with the same qualities, and at his side will stand another young prince.”93 The lower register appropriately refers to this orderly succes‑ sion, for only through the successful military campaigns of those that follow Augustus can the peace and hence the Imperial dynasty continue.94

90  Livia and the Gemma Augustea In contrast to the earlier Tazza Farnese, the Gemma Augustea deals explicitly with the dynastic issue of showing succession, freely putting the next generation on display, and directly advertising familial relationships. As stated earlier, Roman Imperial cameos were presents to the emperors, but they were gifts that served a propagandistic and persua‑ sive purpose. Gemstones like the Gemma Augustea were used to persuade the emperor to choose his successor: in this case, Tiberius. If Tiberius were unavailable, Germanicus and Drusus were next in line to the throne. This message makes it likely that the Gemma Augustea was presented as a gift to the emperor (Augustus in this case) from Livia, who was trying to advance her family. As can be seen from this brief analysis, in a little over a generation, the iconography of the Early Empire became more Roman as the Augustan period progressed. At the very beginning of the Empire, after Augustus’ victory at the Battle of Actium, iconography was derived from Egyptian, Greek, and Hellenistic sources and was not translated into Ro‑ man terms. By the mature Augustan age, Imperial iconography had been well‑­established in the public and private spheres. While many symbols were still based on Greek and Hel‑ lenistic precedents, they were adapted to communicate a particular Augustan ideology. In addition, others were distinctly Roman without any foreign precedents. The combina‑ tion of iconography from different sources demonstrates the Roman love for eclecticism. Furthermore, in the mature Augustan age, iconography in Imperial cameos is becoming increasingly complex and multivalent. Symbols can be combined with other symbols to imbue the iconography with a more complex and esoteric meaning.95 In addition, the Gemma Augustea was utilized as an iconographic testing ground, with Livia and her designers playing with symbols and conventions in the gemstone. Augustus is represented as god‑like and in the same compositional zone as deities and personifica‑ tions, which would become common in public art later in the first century CE. Notes 1 For more on the seventeenth‑century gold frame, see Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008, 98). 2 Pollini (1978, 173) and Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008, 103). To reconstruct what the original Gemma Augustea might have looked like, consult Giuliani and Schmidt (2010). 3 For more on Victory, see Vollkommer (1997). 4 Hornblower and Spawforth (1996, 783). 5 See Balestrazzi (1994). 6 For more on Oikoumene, see Canciani (1994). 7 See Cahn (1997). 8 See Ghisellini (1994). 9 Upon close examination, something has also been excised in the bottom‑left register. Traces of a quiver and a bow case remain at the top of someone’s head: see Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008, 108–109). 10 Because of the inclusion of Scorpio, Tiberius’ birth sign, many scholars posit that the scene refers to one of Tiberius’ successful military campaigns. Most commonly, the barbarians on the left are thought to be Illyrian, and therefore, the scene would refer to Tiberius’ Illyrian victories in 9 CE. 11 Zwierlein‑Diehl claims that Figures P and Q are Mars and Mercury, respectively (Zwierlein‑­ Diehl 2008, 114). 12 However, the hairstyle and the outfit of Figure P look feminine, as if it should be Diana. The head seems smaller than the other figures in the lower register, suggesting that Figure P was recut later in the Gemma Augustea’s history, changing the soldier to the goddess. 13 Pollini (1978, 186). 14 Pollini (1993, 266).

Livia and the Gemma Augustea  91 15 For a comprehensive table of interpretations and dates, see Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008, 270–273): The author covered scholars from Peiresc in 1620 to Meyer in 2000, including Kähler (1968), Scherrer (1988), and Pollini (1993). Also consult Fullerton (1985), Fullerton (2010), DeGrum‑ mond (2012), Pollini (2012), Fischer (2014), Fischer (2016b), and Smith (2021). 16 Küthmann (1950), Bruns (1953), Pollini (1978), and Kähler (1968) take this approach. In the minority are those who read the scenes depicting the adventus of Tiberius into Rome in 9 CE after his Illyrian conquests. Bernoulli (1891) and Furtwängler (1900) subscribe to this theory, which no one has followed since. For a new interpretation and date of the Gemma Augustea, see Fullerton (2010). Fullerton dates the Gemma Augustea to 12 BCE and states that the gemstone commemorates Drusus’ establishment of Roma and Augustus cult centers in the north. DeGrummond concurred in her 2012 AIA paper, “The Gemma Augustea: Not Made for Rome” (DeGrummond 2012). 17 Kleiner (1992, 71). 18 All of the proposed dates for the event commemorated are before the death of Augustus and show Tiberius as young and subsidiary, so this interpretation needs to be examined again. 19 If this figure is indeed Germanicus, this limits the possible date of the Gemma Augustea. Tibe‑ rius would not have included Germanicus in the cameo after the youth died in 19 CE, especially since there was suspicion that Tiberius was behind Germanicus’ death. 20 Kleiner (1992, 71). 21 Pollini (1993, 286). 22 Pollini (1993, 265). Oceanus, one of the Titans that helped Jupiter defeat the Giants, enhances this interpretation. 23 The mingling of gods and mortals together was borrowed from the Greeks, in particular their votive reliefs (see Zanker 1988, 12). In the Roman Republic, this mixing of gods and mortals is on the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, but no emperors are depicted alongside these deities. 24 For more information on the emperor’s divinity, see Sweet (1919), Taylor (1981), Pollini (2012), and Koortbojian (2013). 25 Rose states, “Augustus refused all attempts to confer divine honors on himself or the living members of his family, and there were no freestanding statuary groups erected prior to 14 CE that featured Augustus in the company of divinities” (Rose 1997, 12). 26 On this altar, Augustus and the members of the Imperial family are on the side friezes that depict the Imperial procession, while the gods are on the four relief sculptures on the front and back. 27 Zanker (1988, 5). 28 On the Gemma Augustea, the scepter indicates Augustus’ role as the viceregent of Jupiter, and this role is referenced in Augustan poetry (Horace, Odes 3.5.1‑4). 29 Hornblower and Spawforth (1996, 1636–1638). 30 The scepter appears in coins frequently. In most examples, coins depict the emperor holding the scepter on the reverse, while the obverse has a female or male personification. The scepter also appears in many objects of private art, including the Boscoreale Cups. In the scene of the Triumph of Tiberius, the emperor holds a scepter in his left hand that associates him with Jupiter since that is an attribute of the deity. The scepter was sometimes found in the public relief sculpture. From the Julio‑Claudian period and dating to 41–54 CE, the Ravenna Relief portrays Augustus with his arm raised; originally, he was once gripping a scepter. For more on the Boscoreale Cups, see Polacco (1955), Vermeule (1963), Kuttner (1987), and Kuttner (1995). For the Ravenna Relief, see Hafner (1955) and Pollini (1981). 31 See Rose (1997). For example, the Statue of Augustus from Thessaloniki, Greece, depicts the emperor standing in heroic semi‑nudity, communicating his divine‑like status. 32 In private art, the eagle appears in cameos and the Triumph of Tiberius on one of the Boscore‑ ale Cups. There are also numerous examples of eagles in relief sculpture, including a fragment of the Piazza della Consolazione reliefs. See Kuttner (1995). 33 Pollini (1993, 280). 34 For more on Augustus’ desire to connect himself to Apollo, see Zanker (1988, 85–89). 35 In the center, Augustus wears priestly attire and holds the lituus in his left hand. However, the Altar of the Lares was most likely originally a household shrine and would have been viewed by only a few people.

92  Livia and the Gemma Augustea 6 Tameanko (2013, 36). 3 37 Suetonius’ Life of Tiberius 14.2–4. 38 For more on zodiacal signs, see Gury (1997). For Augustus’ connection to the stars, see Bar‑ bone (2013). 39 Zanker (1988, 48). 40 See Dwyer (1973) and Barton (1995). 41 Suetonius Life of Augustus 94.12. Suetonius mentions the many prophecies about the young Octavian, all of which associate the future emperor with the sun. Because of this, it might be deemed unusual by some that the Gemma Augustea and other monuments did not use the Li‑ bra. To explain this, Dwyer suggests that Capricorn in the Gemma Augustea and its appearance throughout Augustan art are meant to symbolize the position of the sun when Augustus was conceived (Dwyer 1973, 60). For more on Augustus and his horoscope, see Lewis (2008). 42 Barton (1995, 33). 43 Subsequent emperors did not adhere to this format of utilizing the moon’s sign, and Tiberius and Titus were among those who preferred to use more traditional sun signs. 44 The earliest examples of the Capricorn appear on coins that date to 41 BCE (Dwyer 1973, 62). 45 With these references to the conquest of Egypt, the Capricorn was appropriately used. Slightly later, the Capricorn would refer to other victories of Augustus, such as his conquest of Parthia (Dwyer 1973, 63–64). 46 Santangelo (2013, 257–258). 47 In public art of the Roman Empire, the most prominent appearance of Capricorn is in the Campus Martius complex. Designed by Augustus as the ultimate monument to himself and his accomplishments, the Campus Martius included a mausoleum, an Egyptian obelisk that functioned as a sundial, and the Ara Pacis Augustae. The mausoleum reflected the power of Augustus and his dynasty. Not only were his ashes eventually placed there, but many other members of the Julio‑Claudian family’s final remains were deposited there. The Egyptian ob‑ elisk, looted from Heliopolis after Augustus defeated Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium, communicated the emperor’s victory over Egypt and the Roman Empire’s su‑ premacy under Augustus. Originally, a globe decorated with a Capricorn was placed atop the Egyptian obelisk, as described by Pliny the Elder. Furthermore, the obelisk’s base inscription declares that the monument was dedicated to the sun. Because Capricorn is considered the sign of the sun, this is another allusion to this iconographic feature. The monument additionally functioned as a sundial, making its connection to the sun even more explicit (Zanker 1988, 96–98; see also Pliny Natural History 36.72). For more on the Campus Martius district, con‑ sult Rehak and Younger (2009). 48 For example, “the frequent association with the cornucopia and peace makes the Capricorn, the guarantor of aurea aetas” (Barton 1995, 49). 49 Barton (1995, 39). 50 The combination of Capricorn with other iconographic elements prominently appears in an early Imperial cameo in Vienna (Cameo of Augustus in a Chariot Drawn by Tritons, sardonyx, 27 BCE, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria, XI A 56). Augustus holds a laurel branch in this gemstone while driving a chariot pulled across the sea by the Tritons, who will aid him in his naval victory. The two outer Tritons hold globes in their raised hands. On the right, the globe is surmounted by a small figure of Victory, who holds a corona civica. On the left, the Triton holds a globe that rests on two Capricorns and is surrounded by an oak wreath. Just as in the Gemma Augustea, the Capricorn has become a symbol of victory, further emphasized through the other iconography. 51 This could also be the star of Julius Caesar. See Pandey (2013). 52 Barton (1995, 51). 53 Dwyer (1973, 65). The Scorpio sign appears most frequently in Roman mosaics. Besides being a symbol of Tiberius, the Scorpio also later became the emblem of the Praetorian Guard. 54 For example, the Julio‑Claudian Ravenna Relief in the Museo Nazionale in Ravenna depicts Augustus at the far fight wearing a corona civica. Later emperors also wore the corona civica, including Claudius in the freestanding portrait from Lanuvium. 55 Flory (1995, 43). 56 Ovid Metamorphoses 3.1.39‑46. 57 Flory (1995, 44).

Livia and the Gemma Augustea  93 58 Occasionally, other Greek goddesses wore the mural crown, including Artemis and Cybele. In the Roman pantheon, Tyche was transformed into Fortuna. 59 The Greek mural crown differs from the Roman one, a military honor given to conquering gen‑ erals who were always male and historical figures. In this case, the crown was only awarded to the most deserving men, usually emperors, who had conquered a city or fortress and were the first to enter it (Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, 5.6.16, Suetonius, Life of Augustus, 25.3). Made of gold, the mural crown was rarely awarded because it was expensive, and many did not sur‑ vive such a feat. The Roman mural crown will be discussed further in the next chapter because Augustus wears one in the Grand Camée de France. 60 For more on barbarians, see Ferris (2000). For images of the Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, see Kleiner (1992). 61 On the exterior frieze of the temple dedicated to Athena Parthenos, the four sides contain scenes of Amazonomachy, Centauromachy, Gigantomachy, and the Sack of Troy. While the Persians are not physically represented in these metopes, mythological battles allegorically refer to Athens’ recent conquest over their enemy. Not unique to the Parthenon, these battle scenes appear on temple decorations throughout ancient Greece and even in the other temples on the Acropolis. For more on the sculpture of the Parthenon, see Jenkins (2008). 62 For more on the Altar of Zeus at Pergamon, see Pollitt (1986) and DeGrummond and Ridgway (2001). 63 Attalos I also set up victory monuments in Delos, Delphi, and Athens. See Stewart (2004). 64 For example, the Dying Gaul from the first or second century CE, Roman copy of a third cen‑ tury BCE Hellenistic original, Capitoline Museums, Rome, Italy (Inv. S 747). 65 Ferris (2000, 11). 66 This third type seems to have emerged under Augustus, and the captive barbarian (men, women, and children) frequently occurred throughout the Roman Empire. There are not as many extant examples of barbarians in sculpture from the Republican period, but from what remains, one can glean certain attitudes Romans had about barbarians. Triumphal imagery is abundant during the Republic, though depictions of the barbarians are rarer. When barbarians are represented in Republican art, typically, it occurs in a battle scene. For example, in the Monument of Aemilius Paullus from 168 BCE, we see the Romans’ victory over the Macedo‑ nians in Delphi. For an illustration, see Kleiner (1992, 28). 67 Schneider (1996, 22). Captive barbarians were rarely depicted as defeated in battle. 68 For a discussion of barbarian children, see Rose (1993). For more on the Boscoreale Cups, see Kuttner (1995). 69 Bradley (2004, 299). 70 The Roman taste for specificity is much older than the Augustan age and is present in Re‑ publican art. For example, the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus of the early first century BCE depicts a Roman census, though, on this same monument, there is also a mythological scene of the marriage of Neptune and Amphitrite. An earlier example and one that only contains a historical scene is the Monument of Aemilius Paullus, with its scene of the Battle of Pydna from 168 BCE. So, while Roman specificity existed before the Augustan age, the designers of the Tazza Farnese nevertheless decided to adhere to allegory. (For more on Roman sculpture, consult Kleiner 1992.) 71 For example, as Fullerton demonstrated in his 2010 paper, the presence of Roma and Augustus is more than just the goddess and the emperor. This pairing represents the cult of Roma and Augustus, which was exclusively a provincial cult that emerged from earlier Hellenistic prac‑ tices. See Fullerton (2010). 72 Zanker (1988, 101, 337). 73 Zanker (1988, 82–84). 74 Kleiner (2005, 50–52). 75 Germanicus was the son of Drusus Major/Drusus the Elder. 76 Kleiner (2005, 32). 77 Fullerton (1985, 473). 78 Corbier (1995, 182). 79 The Ara Pacis Augustus dates to 13 BCE, almost two decades before the official establishment of the Domus Augusta, and the ideas of the “house of Augustus” and the role of women have already taken shape in this monument. In the processional panels on the north and south sides:

94  Livia and the Gemma Augustea “there is not a single man whose presence is justified otherwise than by his link to Augustus through a woman who is herself a relation of Augustus (daughter, sister, wife, niece)” (Corbier 1995, 179). In the 1970s, Diana E.E. Kleiner observed that the Ara Pacis Augustae included, for the first time, women and children of the Imperial family on a public monument in ancient Rome. This inclusion was a deliberate tactic by Augustus to communicate his dynastic plans while also promoting his recent legislation to encourage the birthrate among the nobility. One would assume that after the Ara Pacis Augustae, such inclusion of Imperial women and chil‑ dren on a state public monument became commonplace. However, this was not the case, and after the Ara Pacis Augustae, Imperial women in the Augustan period were seldom included in the sculpture of public state monuments (see Kleiner 1978). 80 Pollini (1978, 219). 81 Bartman (1999, 86). 82 Corbier (1995, 179). 83 Harvey (2020, 1). 84 Kampen (1991). 85 The Imperial women of the Early Roman Empire were depicted differently from those from the Roman Republic. In the Republic, elite women were usually shown in their roles as wives, mothers, and daughters and mostly in funerary and religious artworks. But by the late Republic and Early Roman Empire, this had changed. Images of Imperial women began to appear in public places, not confined only in funerary and domestic contexts. In addition, different roles of elite women began to be emphasized beyond being wives, mothers, and daughters. Impe‑ rial women could also communicate the “power, prosperity, and perpetuation of the state” ­(Harvey 2020, 2). This display of female power and prosperity is because Imperial women were granted more honors and privileges than their Republican predecessors (Harvey 2020, 6). 86 In the Aquileia Dish, Mark Antony has no specific victory or conquest to advertise. Instead, the emphasis is on his connection with Cleopatra, and the abundance Egypt will provide for Rome. Mark Antony and Cleopatra’s children represent the continuation of this abundance and their Imperial dynasty. 87 Kellum (1994, 211). 88 The lituus has also been interpreted as a sign that Tiberius’ and Germanicus’ victories occurred under the auspices of Augustus (Pollini 2012, 85). 89 In contrast, in the public sphere, Augustus is only a man, albeit the primus inter pares, on the Ara Pacis Augustae, participating in the dedicatory procession. In addition, public sculpture like the Ara Pacis Augustae was much more straightforward. Scenes were separated from one another, with one section focusing on allegory and others concentrating on history, deities, and mythology; these different parts could then be contemplated together as a grand message but only after viewing each part separately. The Ara Pacis Augustae, intended for the whole populace, speaks with many distinct voices, but unlike the Gemma Augustea, those voices are not layered together. 90 Miles (2008, 58). 91 Maxfield (1981, 102). 92 Pollini (1993, 267–268). 93 Zanker (1988, 232). This ignores the missing figure, though. 94 The missing figure was likely Nero Claudius Drusus, Livia’s younger son and another possible heir to the throne after her older son, Tiberius. 95 While a public monument like the Ara Pacis had to separate mythological, allegorical, and historical scenes, Roman cameos had no constraints because of their private audience. A Ro‑ man Imperial cameo can combine these modes into the same composition. This occurs on the Gemma Augustea, which combines mythological figures (Oceanus, Tellus), allegorical figures (Victory, Oikoumene), historical figures (Augustus, Tiberius, and the Roman soldiers), and gods (Roma and Augustus’ Jupiter‑like guise) into one complete work of art. Compact in size, the Gemma Augustea was limited to how much could fit within the composition’s two registers, whereas the Ara Pacis had multiple sides and an interior and an exterior. Therefore, the Gemma Augustea operates on many levels and is multivalent in its meaning and message.

5 Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France

Agrippina the Elder Agrippina the Elder was born in 14 BCE and was the daughter of Julia, Augustus’ daugh‑ ter, and Marcus Agrippa, Augustus’ right‑hand man. In 5 CE, Agrippina the Elder married Germanicus, another important member of the Julio‑Claudian family; Germanicus was the nephew and adopted son of the emperor, Tiberius, and the Grandnephew of Augus‑ tus. The couple had several children together, including Caligula, Agrippina the Younger, Drusilla, Livilla, Drusus Caesar, and Nero Caesar. But Germanicus died in 19 CE in An‑ tioch while on a military campaign. Decades later, the ancient historian Josephus wrote that Germanicus believed he had been poisoned on the orders of Tiberius. Agrippina the Elder harbored suspicions about her husband’s death. In turn, Tiberius was suspicious of Agrippina the Elder, especially when his son Drusus died in 23 CE, because this meant that her sons were now in direct line for succession. Tiberius eventually exiled Agrippina the Elder in 29 CE with Drusus Caesar. Both mother and son died in exile in 33 CE.1 Agrippina the Elder took notice of Livia’s successful cameos. After all, Livia helped both her husband and her son become emperor. In 23 CE, following the death of Tiberius’ son and now that her sons are next in line for the throne, Agrippina the Elder follows Livia’s example and commissions her own large Imperial cameo, the Grand Camée de France, to convince the emperor Tiberius to choose one of her three sons for the throne (Figure 5.1). Agrippina the Elder would have known the Gemma Augustea and spent am‑ ple time analyzing the earlier gemstone, becoming fluent with its Imperial message and its feminine function. Agrippina the Elder then sought to create a new, updated, and better version that responds to and is in constant dialogue with the Gemma Augustea, all in the hopes of once again successfully manipulating the mind of an emperor. Provenance of the Grand Camée de France The Grand Camée de France has been known since the Middle Ages. After disappearing in antiquity, King Philip of Valois listed the cameo in the 1341 inventory of the treasury of Saint‑Chapelle in Paris.2 Prior to this, the cameo had probably been brought to Paris as war booty by crusaders returning from Constantinople. While in Constantinople, the cameo was a treasured object of the Byzantine emperors.3 Shortly after drafting the inventory of 1341, Philip of Valois gave the Grand Camée de France to Pope Clement VI as part of the papal treasury of Avignon; this gift was most likely the result of the French king’s financial difficulties. Pope Clement VI soon found himself in a similar state of pecuniary distress and was forced to give the gemstone to DOI: 10.4324/9781003315308-5

96  Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France

Figure 5.1 Grand Camée de France, sardonyx, 31 cm × 26.5  cm, 23 CE, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, Paris, France (264). Copyright: Carole Raddato, 2015.

Charles V, the heir to the French throne. Charles V was responsible for returning the Grand Camée to Sainte‑Chapelle in 1379, at which time he adorned the gemstone with a sumptuous and expensive gold frame embedded with precious stones. A pedestal was also added to the frame, which was enhanced with enamel decoration depicting the four evangelists and twelve apostles placed in niches.4 During the Middle Ages, the Grand Camée de France was regarded as a religious mon‑ ument and relic and the figurative scene in the cameo was interpreted with a Christian meaning; the central figure was identified as Joseph from the Egyptian pharaoh’s court. With its assumed biblical and Christian associations, the public venerated the Grand Camée de France, and the cameo was used in religious celebrations at Sainte‑Chapelle. Because of its perceived religious significance, the Grand Camée de France was carefully guarded and preserved at Sainte‑Chapelle throughout the Middle Ages.5

Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France  97 The Grand Camée de France remained at Sainte‑Chapelle until 1791, when the Na‑ tional Assembly of France decreed the sale of the assets held by the chapel along with the relics and other precious goods from the church of Saint‑Denis, bringing all of the artifacts to the Cabinet des Médailles of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris where the cameo is on display today. In the early nineteenth century, the Grand Camée was stolen from the Cabinet des Médailles and taken to Amsterdam, where it was stripped of its medieval frame, which caused damage to the gemstone and resulted in the fracture of the whole lower edge. Fortunately, the cameo was safely and swiftly returned to Paris in 1805, when it was recut and reworked.6 In addition, at this time, the gemstone was set into a new frame designed by the Neoclassical artist Pierre‑Maximilien Delafontaine, a student of the famous French painter Jacques‑Louis David; this frame was deemed to harm the cameo and was later removed.7 The largest of the surviving ancient Roman Imperial sardonyx cameos, the Grand Camée de France, measures approximately thirty‑one by twenty‑six and a half centim‑ eters and is expertly carved in five layers, a testament to the expertise of the gem‑cutter. The background is the dark layers of the stone, while the figures are primarily carved in white. However, many figures in the Grand Camée are bicolored with limbs and heads composed of white, while their bodies are highlighted in streaks of brown.8 While the Grand Camée de France is remarkably well‑preserved, the cameo is broken in several prominent places. Several fissures are distinctly evident within the cameo, most noticeably at the upper‑right corner, the lower‑left corner, directly through the central figure, and finally at the lower‑right corner. Furthermore, the gemstone has sustained loss that can most noticeably be seen in the foot of the enthroned emperor and in the lower‑right register where some unfortunate figures have lost their heads. Most likely, this is because the Grand Camée was recut in the third century CE and reworked again in the nineteenth century.9 Figures The sardonyx cameo is divided into three registers that are crowded with twenty‑three total figures (Figure 5.2). The upper two registers, the earthly and the heavenly realms, occupy roughly three‑quarters of the composition. The main figure of the central zone is Figure A. This figure is the emperor and the focal point of the cameo. He is seated on a throne and depicted in heroic semi‑nudity with a gorgon‑less aegis across his lap. Like Augustus in the Gemma Augustea, the emperor on the Grand Camée de France holds symbolic objects: in his right hand, he grips a small, curling lituus, and in his left hand, he holds a large scepter. Like many other figures in the Grand Camée, the emperor is crowned with a laurel wreath. Enthroned to the emperor’s right is an older woman, Figure B, and like her male companion, her body is in three‑quarters view. Unlike the emperor next to her, she is entirely clothed and slouched on her throne. Like many other figures in the cameo, she is bicolored: the mantle covering her legs is white, while her hair and tunic are brown. She lightly grips several poppy pods and wheat between her thumb and forefinger in her upturned right hand, suggesting a link with Ceres. There is something in her left hand as well, but it is not clear what it is. Another male‑female pairing occurs directly to the left of Figures A and B: Figures C and D. Like the boy on the far left, Figure C is in military garb and wears a cuirass and cloak and plumed helmet and holds a shield in his left hand. While his body is depicted frontally with his legs in a slight contrapposto stance, his face is in profile and reveals a

98  Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France

Figure 5.2  Diagram of the Grand Camée de France. Copyright: Author Drawing.

straight, aquiline nose, a large ear, and a slightly prominent chin. The matronly woman behind the young man steadily meets his gaze. Like the woman to her left, Figure D wears a laurel crown. At the far right of the middle zone of the Grand Camée de France, there is another male and female pairing, Figures E and F. Both figures’ heads turn to the left and are raised slightly upward. Figure E stands with his chest forward, and his right arm raised, holding up a trophy. He wears military clothing with a mantle pinned at his right shoul‑ der and a helmet upon his head. The young woman to his right also looks upward. Seated on a throne whose armrest is composed of a sphinx, Figure F is fully clothed though her arms are bare; an additional light brown drapery covers her lower half. Figures G and H, a boy standing in front of a woman, are at the far left. Wearing a cui‑ rass, the boy holds a shield in his left hand. One foot rests on a helmet and cuirass, while the other stands on a shield decorated with a stylized gorgon head. Behind the young boy is a seated woman shown in profile; only the upper portion of the woman’s body is vis‑ ible, and she wears a flowing garment pinned at her shoulders. Directly in front of Figure 2’s throne is a dejected child, Figure I: a barbarian. With his shoulders hunched and head tilted downward, one immediately senses this boy is defeated. His facial expression is lachrymose, echoing his body language, with his mouth

Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France  99 downturned in despair and his eyes slightly open. His garments are also different from the others: he does not wear military garb, but instead, his costume is foreign, with large pants, a shirt, and a Phrygian cap. The shield behind him is now broken. In the upper celestial zone are four male adult figures, one boy, and one flying horse. Beginning at the far left, Figure L wears military clothing, and he grips the inside of his shield with his left hand while his right hand holds the upper rim. His curly locks of hair are crowned with a laurel wreath. To the right of Figure L are two floating men who overlap each other; Figure M is in front of Figure J. The most prominent example of the bicolor treatment of the human figure occurs in Figure M, as his entire outfit is a brown‑ ish hue, leaving only his face, hands, and feet white. Positioned horizontally and almost parallel to the ground line below, Figure M’s body is frontal, while his head is in profile to the right. He wears shoes and a cap, with a cloak falling from his left shoulder. In his hands is a white globe, smooth and undecorated. He supports the stately Figure J, who is connected to the emperor of the central scene through his central positioning along with his attribute: he holds a scepter. However, instead of wearing a laurel wreath, Figure J is adorned with a veiled crenelated crown. A small, winged boy, Figure N, is to the right of Figures J and M and is the only completely nude figure in the Grand Camée de France. He is Cupid and is depicted in a three‑quarter view, with his face turned slightly to the right with his chin touching his chest, looking toward the horse and the rider. In his hands are the reins of the winged horse, Figure O. This is Pegasus in flight; he is both brown and white of the sardonyx. Astride Pegasus is Figure K, a male figure, looking toward the central figures of this level. He holds the reins with his left hand and gestures to the central figure with his right. The mantle billows behind him, giving the distinct impression of movement and wind. He also wears a laurel crown. While fourteen figures and a winged horse fill the top three‑quarters of the composi‑ tion, the lower section is smaller yet crams nine figures into its claustrophobic space. Not only does the tiny space distinguish this lower register from the rest of the composition, but it is further separated through the utilization of a distinct ground‑line upon which the figures of the earthly realm stand. This ground‑line is in stark contrast to the lack of division between the upper and the middle registers, consisting only of the open sky between these figures. This apparent divide between the lower register and the rest of the composition and the tight space communicates that these figures are significantly inferior to those above them. This divide is enhanced further by comparing the posture of the figures in the middle and upper register, who are all stately and regal with strong profile faces and commanding postures. In contrast, the figures below are hunched over, their faces downcast with expressions of defeat and dejection. These figures are not worthy of praise and admiration. These barbarians have been conquered by the Imperial people above, a similar situation to the Gemma Augustea. The defeat of these barbarians has allowed the figures in the upper two registers to become a powerful dynasty of the Roman Empire. The figures on the lowest register are easily identified as barbarians because the men have the distinctive scruffy hair and beards of foreigners, and all the figures, whether male or female, wear different clothing types from the Romans. Weapons litter the lowest register, a reference to the military battle that led to the conquering of these barbarians. There is armor, including a shield decorated with aegis and gorgon. While the front of the shield shows signs of wear, the face of a gorgon is decipherable, with snakes emerging from the curly locks of the monster’s hair.

100  Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France Interpretations Like the Tazza Farnese and the Gemma Augustea, scholars have proposed various dates, interpretations, and identifications of the figures for the Grand Camée de France.10 The dates suggested for the cameo range from the Hellenistic age of the second century BCE to the Roman Empire as late as the second century CE, though most date it to the Early Roman Empire due to its similarity to the Gemma Augustea. There has also been no consensus as to who is represented on the Grand Camée, and therefore, the research on this cameo is dense and complex. Tiberius and Livia with the Apotheosis of Augustus

Throughout the Medieval period, the Grand Camée de France was interpreted as a Chris‑ tian scene of Joseph at the pharaoh’s court of Egypt. Peiresc, a French astronomer and antiquarian, challenged this interpretation in the early seventeenth century. Instead of a Christian scene, Peiresc proposed that the Grand Camée de France was an ancient work and represented the apotheosis of the Roman emperor Augustus.11 Accordingly, the Grand Camée de France includes Augustus in the upper register and Tiberius and his mother, Livia, in the central zone, whom Germanicus accompanies. Most scholars today, including myself, agree with Peiresc’s identifications of these main figures. In the eighteenth century, some scholars rejected Peiresc’s theory and instead claimed that the central zone represented the inauguration of Germanicus’ assignment in the East in 17 CE. Therefore, it is Germanicus’ apotheosis that occurs in the upper area.12 In this interpretation, Tiberius is enthroned with his mother Livia beside him, along with an armed Germanicus and Germanicus’ mother, Antonia: Figures 3 and 4. Behind Livia is Drusus Minor, Figure 5, the son of Tiberius, who participated in Germanicus’ campaigns in the East. Drusus Minor stands next to his wife, Livilla, Figure 10, the sister of German‑ icus and Claudius. Above the terrestrial realm, Germanicus is depicted again astride the winged horse Pegasus; he is in the act of apotheosis. Divus Augustus hovers in the center of this heavenly scene, held aloft by Aeneas, Figure M.13 Finally, at the left of the upper zone is Drusus Major, the father of Germanicus. These eighteenth‑century identifications remained standard until the twentieth century. In 1974, Jeppesen proposed a revised interpretation of the Grand Camée de France, identifying Figures A and B as Tiberius as Jupiter and Livia as Ceres, respectively.14 Di‑ rectly to the left and standing before the emperor and his wife is Figure C, the praetorian prefect Lucius Aelius Sejanus.15 The two women flanking Sejanus are Figures H and D, Iuventus/Hebe and Bonus Eventus. At the far right are Figures E and F, Drusus Major as Mars and Julia as Venus, Tiberius’ dead brother and late wife, respectively. Instead of a Persian barbarian at the foot of Julia Augusta’s throne, Jeppesen proposes that Figure I is the mourning eunuch, Lygdos. Finally, in the upper register, Augustus is Figure J with a barbarian, Figure M, below him, while at the far right is Figure K, Drusus Minor on Pegasus accompanied by Cupid. Jeppesen’s identifications are problematic at best since all are based on circumstantial evidence and not a close examination of the portraiture of the Julio‑Claudian Imperial family. By the beginning of the twentieth century, scholars generally agreed that the Grand Camée represented one of two things: either Tiberius’ reception of Germanicus after he returned to Rome after his campaign in Germany in 17 CE or Germanicus leaving for the East in the same year. Augustus observes this scene from the heavenly realm, while

Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France  101 humiliated barbarians in the lower register correspond to the successful campaigns of Germanicus, either his completed conquest in Germany or his future victory in the East. Whichever one of these interpretations was correct, there was a consensus that the cameo was produced during the reign of Tiberius. Caligula

In 1934, Curtius proposed that the cameo was manufactured during the principate of Caligula and that the cameo represents Caligula, Figure C, presented to Tiberius as the princeps iuventutis, or the “first among the young.”16 In the Grand Camée de France, Ca‑ ligula is the successor to the throne and stands before Tiberius and Livia, Figures A and B, sometime between 23 and 29 CE. Behind Caligula is Honos. To the right of the throne is Claudius, Figure E, who witnesses the apotheosis of his brother Germanicus and points to the scene occurring above him. Finally, the barbarian at the throne of Tiberius, Figure I, is the Parthian ruler Tiridates III who was in the court and was influential in the policy of eastern expansion. As to the remaining figures on the Grand Camée, Curtius identifies them by compar‑ ing these cameo portraits to those found in sculptures and coins. In the celestial zone, Figure J is Augustus, who reclines and is held aloft by Figure M, Alexander the Great, who wears a Persian garment. Flanking Augustus are Figures L and K, Drusus Minor and Germanicus, respectively, riding Pegasus. Drusus Minor was the son of Tiberius, who died in 23 AD. Furthermore, Drusus carries a shield that Curtius identifies as the silver shield given to Drusus Minor by the equites at Rome when he was proclaimed the princeps iuventutis.17 According to Curtius, the upper scene depicts the apotheosis of Germanicus, the father of Caligula. Curtius dated the Grand Camée de France to the beginning of the reign of Caligula in 37 CE, and the gemstone represents the dynastic lineage of the Julio‑Claudian dynasty, particularly its power and unity. Augustus is depicted in heaven as a god, and Germani‑ cus and Drusus are apotheosized. In the earthly realm, the power of the Julio‑Claudian family continues with Tiberius enthroned with Caligula flanking the emperor. Caligula is ready to ascend the throne following Tiberius’ death. According to Curtius, because the cameo focuses on Caligula’s succession, this means that the gemstone must date to soon after that.18 Claudius and Agrippina the Younger

In 1964, A. Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta went against the standard interpretation that claimed that Tiberius was the emperor in the center of the terrestrial zone. Through physiogno‑ mic analysis, Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta proposed that Figure A is Claudius accompanied by his fourth wife Agrippina the Younger, who had recently been raised to the status of augusta.19 The young soldier standing next to the emperor and his wife, Figure C, is a young Nero, Agrippina the Younger’s son and Claudius’ stepson. In the upper zone, Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta identifies the three major figures as Augustus, Tiberius, and Ca‑ ligula, all of whom, according to Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta, are crowned with laurel wreaths (Figures J, L, and K, respectively).20 Augustus, already deified, is the most important, followed by Tiberius, who succeeded him and Caligula. While Tiberius and Caligula are not yet deified, their status is nonetheless enhanced by the fact that they bask in the presence of Augustus and act as divi augusti filii. With these new identifications,

102  Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta asserts that the Grand Camée de France refers to the adoption of Nero by the emperor Claudius in 50 AD. Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta contends that this adop‑ tion was an “event of far‑reaching political and dynastic importance and was worthy of such grandiose commemoration.”21 As to the remaining figures, Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta identifies the soldier on the far right, Figure E, as Germanicus, Claudius’ esteemed and mourned‑for brother. At Germanicus’ side is his wife, Agrippina the Elder, Figure F, who was admired for remaining faithful to her deceased husband long after he had passed away.22 At the far left, Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta identifies Figure G as Britannicus, Claudius’ son and the younger stepbrother of Nero.23 Both Nero and Britannicus wear military garb, a symbol of Claudius’ pride in the military capabilities of his family. In the background is another woman, Figure D, Claudius’ esteemed mother, Antonia Minor. Interestingly, she further connects Claudius and Nero since she was related by blood to both. At the base of an enthroned couple of Claudius and Agrippina is a man in Persian attire (Figure I), whom Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta identifies as Mithridates, the king of Bosporus, to whom Claudius granted an official par‑ don.24 The barbarians on the lowest register allude to the military victories of Claudius. Finally, in the upper register, Alexander the Great holds Augustus aloft. Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta proposes a Claudian date for the Grand Camée.25 Clearly, identifying the figures on the Grand Camée de France has been a central is‑ sue in the scholarship – and a consensus on the date and identifications may never be reached. No matter which Imperial family members are portrayed, the piece’s overall message communicates the “glorification of the past, present, and future Julio‑Claudian dynasty.”26 What is essential is that the cameo “encapsulates the political ideology of the Julio‑Claudians and again underscores the close association of political and familial ties in the first century AD.”27 Reworking of the Grand Camée de France

Several scholars think the Grand Camée de France was reworked in the fourth century CE and that the two central figures were recut to represent Constantine and his wife, Fausta.28 At this time, the remaining figures in the central zone were provided with new identifications: all became family members of the fourth‑century emperor. To Constan‑ tine’s left are Crispus, his son, and Helena, his mother. At the far left is Clio, the muse of history.29 But not all scholars agreed that the Grand Camée de France was reworked in the Constantinian era, but think this reworking happened instead much later in the Baroque period of the seventeenth century. For these scholars, on the Grand Camée de France, the enthroned emperor was originally bearded; thus, the two central figures were originally Hadrian and his wife, Sabina, and thus, the original gemstone actually dates to 136 CE.30 During the Baroque period of the seventeenth century, the original version of the Grand Camée de France was reworked in France at the court of Catherine de’ Medici. This was not a random retouching of the gemstone but rather a political move for the House of Va‑ lois. Hadrian was changed to Tiberius in order to aggrandize the House of Valois, since this French institution viewed themselves as a continuation of Augustus. All the other surrounding figures were provided with new identifications corresponding to members of the House of Valois and the French court. While this hypothesis is interesting and unique, it gained no traction with scholars.31

Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France  103 Neronian Date

In the twenty‑first century, new technology allowed for new insights. Hugo Meyer uti‑ lized high‑definition photography for evidence of the recutting of the gemstone in the third century CE.32 Combined with stylistic comparisons, Meyer concluded that the Grand Camée de France was Neronian and dates to 58 CE. Consequently, Figure J in the heavenly realm is not Augustus but Divus Claudius.33 Surrounding Claudius are Dru‑ sus Minor on the left and Germanicus on the right. In the central area, Nero is the enthroned central figure and next to him is his wife, Claudia Octavia, to whom he was married from 53 to 62 CE. On the right are Romulus and Agrippina the Younger. On the far left are Claudius’ grandson and Claudia Antonia, and standing next to them are Mars and Fame. Scholars have not followed Meyer’s arguments.34 Patron

Finally, scholars have also examined the patronage of the Grand Camée de France, though most do so only in passing. Most agree that because of the size of the piece of sar‑ donyx, only a wealthy, Imperial family member would have been able to afford to com‑ mission such an elaborate, large cameo. Some believe a supporter of Agrippina the Elder and her sons must have been the patron.35 Others propose that Tiberius commissioned the gemstone.36 Most agree that Tiberius was definitely the recipient.37 In this case, the Grand Camée de France was probably a gift to Tiberius in the hopes of Nero or Drusus ascending to the throne (Table 5.1). Iconography Central Register

The central enthroned figure in the central portion of the Grand Camée is Tiberius (Fig‑ ure A), surrounded by living male and female Julio‑Claudian family members. Livia, Figure B, is enthroned to the right of Tiberius. To the left are Figures C and D, the son and mother pairing of Nero Caesar and Agrippina the Elder.38 Many identify Figure D as Agrippina the Younger and Figure F as Agrippina the Elder. But this does not make sense. Figure D is clearly a more mature woman, regal in her posture. This must be Agrippina the Elder with one of her sons, Nero Caesar. Agrippina the Elder is the mother of Drusus Caesar, Caligula, Nero Caesar, and Agrippina the Younger, all of whom appear in this central section with her, calling attention to her numerous suitable male offspring posi‑ tioned for the throne. Furthermore, she is placed directly beneath Augustus, strengthen‑ ing her connection to him and Livia, putting her in a good light. In addition, Agrippina the Elder, seeking the emperor’s good favor, positions herself directly next to Tiberius. She is even a little taller than the seated Tiberius, marking her subtly out as a very impor‑ tant figure in this scene – maybe even the most important, according to her. On the right are Figures E and F, Drusus Caesar and Agrippina the Younger, sister and brother. Figure F is much younger than Figure D. She is seated, and because of this, her head is lower than almost all the other figures in the central zone. Agrippina the Elder and her sons are the most important after Tiberius. At the far left are Figures G and H, the young Caligula accompanied by Livilla, the daughter of Drusus Major and the wife of Drusus Minor.

104  Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France Table 5.1  Figures: Grand Camée de France Grand Camée de France

Identification

Meaning

Figure A

Tiberius

Figure B

Livia

Figure C

Nero Caesar

Figure D

Agrippina the Elder

Figure E

Drusus Caesar

Figure F

Agrippina the Younger

Figure G

Caligula

Figure H

Livilla

Figures I

Barbarian

Figure J

Augustus

Livia’s son Augustus’ stepson and heir Tiberius is enthroned and wears a laurel crown, and thus he is celebrating a Roman triumph/ victory He holds a lituus and scepter • Livia is depicted as the goddess Ceres • She is enthroned and holds a poppy • Son of Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder • Siblings include Agrippina the Younger, Drusus Caesar, and Caligula • Wife of Germanicus • Mother of Drusus Caesar, Nero Caesar, Caligula, and Agrippina the Younger • Patron of the Grand Camée de France • Son of Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder • Siblings include Nero Caesar, Caligula, and Agrippina the Younger • Daughter of Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder • Siblings include Nero Caesar, Drusus Caesar, and Caligula • Future wife of Claudius • Future mother of Nero • Son of Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder • Siblings include Nero Caesar, Drusus Caesar, and Agrippina the Younger • Future emperor • Daughter of Drusus Major • Wife of Drusus Minor (son of Tiberius) • Sister of Germanicus • Symbolizes all conquered barbarians • First emperor of Rome • Husband of Livia • Stepfather of Tiberius • Depicted in the guise of Jupiter • Bringer of the Pax Romana • Died in 14 CE and shown deified here

(Continued)

Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France  105 Table 5.1 (Continued) Grand Camée de France

Identification

Meaning

Figure K

Germanicus

Figure L

Drusus Minor

Figure M

Alexander the Great? Aion/Aeternitas?

Figure N Figure O

Cupid Pegasus

Lower Register

Barbarians

• Great‑grandnephew of Augustus • Adopted by Tiberius • Potential successor to Augustus but died • Married to Agrippina the Elder • Children include Nero Caesar, Drusus Caesar, Caligula, and Agrippina the Younger • Died in 19 CE • Son of Tiberius • Husband of Livilla • Brother of Germanicus (Tiberius adopted Germanicus) • Died in 23 CE • Hellenistic ruler, 336–323 BCE? • Personification of Aion or Aeternitas? • Son of Venus • Winged horse • Born from the blood of Medusa, after Perseus decapitated her • Conquest and victory • The future of the Julio‑Claudian dynasty depends on the continuing conquest and subjugation of barbarians

Livia and her son Tiberius, though not directly in the center of the central level, are the focal point of the Grand Camée de France; they are enthroned and set higher on a platform, differentiating them from the other Julio‑Claudian family members. Livia and Tiberius’ iconography mark them out as divine, with Tiberius’ heroic semi‑nudity and the scepter he holds in his left hand, an attribute of Jupiter. Livia is not depicted as Juno, the wife of Jupiter, because Livia was the mother, not the wife, of Tiberius. Instead, Livia is associated with Ceres/Demeter because she holds poppies and sheaves of wheat, common attributes of the goddess.39 Livia was deliberately associated with Ceres/Demeter, empha‑ sizing her roles as a wife and mother and calling attention to her fertility. Livia’s body language is markedly different from her son’s. Tiberius is regal, reminding viewers that he is god‑like and in charge. In contrast, Livia is slumped in her chair and almost slides off it; she is so diminutive that she only comes up to about Tiberius’ chin. His throne is higher as well, though they seem to share the same footstool. This position, with Tiberius higher, exposes the hierarchical relationship of the mother and the son; she is inferior to her son, which reflects their toxic relationship after the death of Augustus and Tiberius’ ascension to emperor. Despite this unequal footing, Livia’s presence and prominent placement on the Grand Camée de France are nonetheless important. While she is not equal to the emperor, she is paired next to Tiberius and is celebrated as the matriarch of the family. Livia’s age is another important aspect. In her public portraits, Livia was always an idealized, never‑aging woman. In private art, like the Grand Camée de France, she is

106  Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France instead an older woman, reflecting the realities of the matriarch of a dynasty and also an indication that she did not commission the gemstone. This older depiction of Livia was possible because the Grand Camée de France was a work of minor art, meant to be seen by only a select few and not the entire Roman populace. The audience knew and spent time with Livia, so they would have known that she was not a young woman. Livia’s older age was not detrimental but was akin to veristic portraits of patricians and emper‑ ors, emphasizing the wisdom and experience that come with age. She is not a decrepit, senile woman who has lost control of her senses – she still has all her mental faculties and is an undisputed authority.40 Sitting behind Livia is her great‑granddaughter, Agrippina the Younger, the daughter of Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder and the future wife of Claudius. There are strik‑ ing physical similarities between Livia and Agrippina the Younger, and the gem‑cutter must have consciously made these two women look alike to strengthen their bond. Upper Register

Above Tiberius is the deified Augustus, Figure J, who is flanked by additional deceased members of the Julio‑Claudian dynasty, including Germanicus, Figure K, who died in 9 CE and was the husband of Agrippina the Elder and the father of Drusus Caesar, Nero Caesar, and Caligula. On the left is Drusus Minor (Figure L), the son of Tiberius, who died in 23 CE.41 The identities of a pair of figures in the upper register are more difficult to pinpoint: Figures M and N. Figure M has been identified as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, or Aion, the personification of eternity. Whoever this figure is, his overt function is to help apotheosize the Julio‑Claudian family members, as he carries them to the heavens. Figure M could easily be Aion, since he typically has an apotheosizing function in later Roman art. In addition, during the Roman Empire, Aion symbolized the unending continuation of the Imperial dynasty, something that the Grand Camée de France is em‑ phasizing and the Julio‑Claudians wanted to promote.42 Aion/Aeternitas also sometimes holds a globe and a scepter, and he usually is depicted nude or in heroic semi‑nudity. But in the Grand Camée de France, Figure M wears an eastern dress and a helmet; he is nearly covered from head to toe in clothing. Sometimes Figure M is identified as Julius Caesar, the great‑uncle and adoptive father of Augustus. Julius Caesar wanted to be the sole leader of Rome and was dictator from 46  BCE until his assassination in 44  BCE. Augustus continued in his stead, and from Augustus, a powerful Julio‑Claudian dynasty emerged. Including Julius Caesar would be an advertisement of the lineage of the family, and his position bolstering his adopted son is fitting. But why would he be dressed in this unusual manner? Other scholars proposed that Figure M was Alexander the Great. Julio‑Claudian em‑ perors, and even Mark Antony and Julius Caesar, always wanted to connect themselves to Alexander the Great, advertising their impressive lineage. Because Alexander the Great was Macedonian and put the Ptolemies, who were also Macedonian, on the throne in Egypt, his inclusion here is also an allusion to Egypt and Cleopatra. But again, the strange garb does not match the classicizing style of the Roman depictions of Alexander the Great. But perhaps, the gem‑cutter wanted to set this figure apart from the rest of the Julio‑Claudian figures. Alexander the Great was not a Roman, so he must be different from everyone else.43

Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France  107 Finally, Figure N, a small boy, maybe a year or eighteen months old. Because he is right next to Augustus, and he has a wing sprouting from his right shoulder, Figure N is Cupid, the son of Venus.44 Lower Register

The lower register is narrow and confined and filled to the brim with male and female barbarians, a baby, and abundant arms and armor. These barbarians represent the battles waged and won by the Romans to ensure the peace of the Empire along with the continu‑ ing fertility and abundance that can flourish during the Pax Romana. Placement of Figures

The arrangement of the figures in the Grand Camée de France is also significant, in par‑ ticular how the couples in the central register are connected to the figures above them.45 Tiberius is directly below Augustus (Figures A and J), connecting the first two emperors. Because Livia (Figure B) is paired with Tiberius, she also is immediately connected to Au‑ gustus, her second husband. On the right, Germanicus (Figure K) is above his son, Drusus Caesar, and his daughter, Agrippina the Younger (Figures E and F). To the left of Tiberius and Livia are Nero Caesar and Agrippina the Elder, who are son and mother (Figures C and D); she balances Livia on the other side of Tiberius. Nero Caesar’s adopted uncle, Drusus Minor (Figure L), the adoptive brother of Germanicus and the son of Tiberius, is above them, a little to the left. Augustus is almost directly above Agrippina the Elder, emphasizing their connection through Livia. Finally, at the far left are Figures G and H: Caligula and Livilla, the widow of Drusus Minor (Figures G and H). Livilla is appropri‑ ately paired with her husband, Drusus Minor, who floats directly above her (Table 5.2). Laurel Wreaths

The most prominent iconographic feature in the Grand Camée de France is the laurel wreath that crowns many men on the two upper zones, as well as some of the women. The popularity of the laurel wreath in public and private art was discussed at length in the previous chapter, but to briefly reiterate, the crown was initially awarded to a victori‑ ous general; Augustus subsequently adopted the symbol solely for himself and members of the Imperial family.46 For the male members who were awarded the privilege of be‑ ing adorned with this wreath, it “signified the privileged position of triumphator and emperor or potential emperor.”47 Many men in the Grand Camée wear the laurel crown, including Figures A, K, and L, marking these figures as part of a powerful dynasty. The remaining men do not wear (visible) laurel crowns in the two upper zones because they wear helmets, while Figure J wears a Roman mural crown. Presumably, these men could also be crowned with laurel wreaths if their helmets were removed. Furthermore, on the Grand Camée de France, the laurel wreath is also worn by Imperial women, as seen in Figures B and D. Livia, the wife of Augustus, was the first woman to be associated with this tradition‑ ally male attribute, and soon other female members of the Julio‑Claudian family were awarded the crown, including Agrippina the Elder, Livilla, Drusilla, and Agrippina the Younger, and at its most basic level, the crown symbolized status that communicated that

108  Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France Table 5.2  Iconography: Grand Camée de France Iconography

Meaning

Laurel wreath

• Worn by Tiberius and the other men in the central realm and some of the women • Roman triumphal procession • Military victory and accomplishments • The inclusion of women is a significant development • Domus Augusta • Women are celebrated for the roles as wives and mothers of the emperors • Livia holds a poppy flower, a symbol of Ceres • Livia was sometimes referred to as Ceres Augusta • Fertility, fecundity, and abundance • Livia also holds wheat, another symbol of Ceres • Fertility and abundance • Cosmos and the heavens • Power and domination, especially when combined with other militaristic imagery • World domination • If he is Alexander the Great, he symbolizes the passing of power from himself to the Julio‑Claudian dynasty • Augustus and the Julio‑Claudian emperors always wanted a connection to Alexander the Great • If Aion or Aeternitas, the personification of eternity is holding apotheosized Augustus aloft • Julius Caesar is descended from Venus • References Augustus’ divine lineage • Virtue • Immortality • Agrippina the Younger sits on a throne whose armrest is decorated with a female sphinx • Protector and guardian; apotropaic • Egypt? Mark Antony? Pax Romana? • Apotropaic • Protects the Julio‑Claudian family • Emperor’s ultimate authority • Tiberius’ role as interpreter of Jupiter’s will • Augustus’ terrestrial rule and his monarchical authority • Attribute of Jupiter Tiberius is god‑like Greek crown usually worn by geographical female personifications • Conquest and victory • Pax Romana Military victories

Imperial women

Poppy

Wheat Globe

Alexander the Great? Aion? Aeternitas?

Cupid Pegasus Sphinx

Gorgons Lituus Scepter Heroic semi‑nudity of Tiberius Corona muralis Barbarians Arms and armor

Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France  109 these women were part of the Imperial family.48 In addition, Flory asserts that an Impe‑ rial woman wearing a laurel crown could symbolize that the wife ruled together with her husband or that she had her own unique power; the “laurel indicated membership of the Julio‑Claudian family and thus becomes a symbol of kinship and family relations, whether mother, daughter, or wife.”49 Imperial Women and the Domus Augusta

Not only is it significant that women are crowned with laurel wreaths in the Grand Camée de France, but the inclusion of Imperial women in this large state cameo is a sig‑ nificant development in itself. The Tazza Farnese did not directly represent any Imperial family member, whether male or female; Augustus is praised merely through allegory and allusion. The reliance on subtle references ceased by the mature Augustan age, and Augustus, Tiberius, and Germanicus are unmistakably depicted in the Gemma Augustea surrounded by deities and personifications, but still, no Imperial women were included. The Grand Camée de France represents a further development in that here, most of the figures are historical and female members of the Julio‑Claudian family are prominently included. The Roman desire for specificity and history has almost completely supplanted allegory and mythology by the Julio‑Claudian period. In addition, the utilization of Im‑ perial women in the decoration of a cameo becomes another method to give prominence to Imperial lineage and the seamless succession of emperors. In short, women have be‑ come more important in the Grand Camée de France, and they are honored for their role in continuing the dynasty’s supremacy. The Domus Augusta, or “house of Augustus,” emerged sometime between 15 and 20 CE and glorified “Augustus’ family – past, present, and future.”50 In 12 CE, when the Gemma Augustea was created, the Domus Augusta was not fully formed. Because of this, and also because of her modesty, Livia was not depicted in the Gemma Augustea. But by 23 CE and the reign of Tiberius, the Domus Augusta officially existed, and now Imperial women made their first appearance in large Imperial cameos. Agrippina the Elder certainly wanted to showcase herself in the best light possible, so her inclusion, and that of her female relatives, was deliberate and served to aggrandize Tiberius, the emperor. Imperial men could show their power and family ties through their connection with important Imperial women, thus legitimizing their right to rule. Women were used to symbolize the power of men.51 Ceres: Poppy and Wheat

Portraits of Livia frequently appear in the private sphere, especially in Imperial cameos, and she was often associated with the goddess, Ceres. The empress was even referred to as Ceres Augusta. The purpose of depicting Livia as Ceres was “not so much to ex‑ press through the comparison specific qualities attributed to the subject (as in the Greek world), as to stress the association of the various goddesses with the imperial family.”52 Ceres and her earth goddess imagery in Augustan art can be connected to the Pax Ro‑ mana, particularly concerning prosperity. Therefore, it is not surprising that Livia would appropriate this earth goddess imagery here in the Grand Camée de France.53 Typically, a portrait of Livia in the guise of Ceres is easy to identify because she holds either poppies or stalks of wheat.54

110  Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France Because the Grand Camée de France contains Imperial women in its decoration, in particular, Livia as Ceres, the gemstone possesses iconography that has not yet been dis‑ cussed, specifically the poppy heads Livia holds. Because Livia is frequently assimilated with the goddess Ceres, the goddess of agriculture, it is appropriate that she be shown with some of the fruits of this goddess’ labor. Poppies bloom as the wheat ripens, so ma‑ ture seed pods may indicate the harvest is over. Therefore, when associated with Livia, the poppy symbolizes the fecundity and fertility of the goddess. Fittingly, in the Grand Camée de France, Livia holds the pod of a poppy full of many seeds, which further em‑ phasize the fertility aspect of this flower. Wheat has been seen before: it appears in the Aquileia Dish and the Tazza Farnese. In both cases, the wheat symbolized the fertility of Rome, specifically in reference to Egypt’s role in this abundance. Here, Ceres holds stalks of wheat along with the poppy, and it is another symbol of her role as an earth goddess who spreads fertility throughout the Ro‑ man Empire. With this emphasis on fertility that produced agricultural abundance (and also the family shown), the wheat also references the Pax Romana established by Au‑ gustus and now maintained by Tiberius – it will carry on throughout the Julio‑Claudian dynasty, no matter which family member is emperor. Globe

The Grand Camée de France has another iconographic element that does not appear in the Tazza Farnese or Gemma Augustea: the globe carried by Figure M in the uppermost decorative zone symbolizes the entire cosmos and heavens. Furthermore, a globe tradi‑ tionally symbolizes complete domination. Figure M is Alexander the Great, marked out as different through his unusual clothes, and he holds tightly onto the orb while Augustus reclines behind him. Alexander the Great with the orb, along with his proximity to Au‑ gustus, symbolizes the passing of power from himself to Tiberius, directly below, and to the Julio‑Claudian family. Because the globe is the ultimate symbol of dominion over the entire cosmos, one would expect the object to be included in many Imperial works of art, but the symbol does not appear as much in the public sphere until the second century CE. But the globe frequently appears in private art, especially in coins where a personification typically holds it. There is also an earlier Imperial sardonyx cameo of Augustus in a chariot drawn by Tritons that prominently features globes.55 In the center is the victorious Augustus in the chariot; the Tritons on either end each hold a globe aloft. On the left, the globe is crowned with two Capricorns and a corona civica, and on the right, the orb is topped with a small figure of Victory, thus further emphasizing the gemstone’s theme of victory.56 The globe does not make a prominent appearance in the public art of Rome until the second century CE pedestal of the Column of Antoninus Pius (Figure 5.3). On one side of the pedestal, a nude winged male usually identified as Aion stretches diagonally across the composition and lifts Antoninus Pius and Faustina to heaven to become deified.57 The nude male grips billowing drapery in one hand, and in the other, he holds a globe and a snake. The globe symbolizes power and domination, especially when combined with the eagles, arms, armor, and scepters. Greek Sphinx

Another iconographic element that does not appear either on the Tazza Farnese or the Gemma Augustea is a Greek sphinx, a hybrid animal composed of a winged lion’s body

Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France  111

Figure 5.3 Apotheosis of Antoninus Pius and Faustina, Column Base of Antoninus Pius, 161 CE, Vatican Museums, Italy (Cat. 5115). Copyright: Lalupa, 2006.

and a woman’s head (the Tazza Farnese had an Egyptian sphinx). At the far right of the central zone, Figure F is a young Imperial woman who sits on a throne whose armrest is decorated with a female sphinx. This hybrid creature appears most frequently in Greek art, especially vase painting. In Roman art, Greek sphinxes appear both in the public and in the private spheres. These hybrid creatures were widespread on cuirass statues, espe‑ cially heraldically, as is the case in the Augustus of Primaporta statue’s shoulder pieces. In this case, its role as a protector and a guardian ensures the continued peace of the Roman Empire and its resultant abundance and prosperity. The sphinxes on the Grand Camée de France also served the same apotropaic function. In addition, it is an oblique reference to Augustus’ conquest over Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium since this naval battle occurred in Greece. Therefore, this iconographic attribute was another way to connect the Julio‑Claudian Imperial family back to their progenitor. Gorgoneia

The heads of gorgoneia decorate five shields in the Grand Camée de France: the one held by the woman on the far left; the aegises on the shields that frame the central women with the baby in the bottom register; by a barbarian Figure 16 on the left; and perhaps under the right foot of Figure G, the boy standing in the central register.58 Gorgons were previ‑ ously discussed with the Tazza Farnese. Usually, gorgons serve an apotropaic purpose, and this continues to be one of the functions on the shields of the Julio‑Claudian soldiers in the Grand Camée. However, a significant change has occurred. On the Grand Camée de France, the gorgons are now part of the main decoration and not relegated to the back

112  Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France of the cameo. This visible use of a gorgon also occurred on the earlier Blacas Cameo from the British Museum that depicts Augustus with an aegis decorated with the creature.59 Like the gorgon on the underside of the Tazza Farnese, the gorgon on the Grand Camée de France served an apotropaic purpose, warding off any evil that might come to the now‑established Roman Empire and the continual protection of the Pax Romana established by Augustus. After all, the gorgoneion traditionally symbolized renewal, re‑ juvenation, and fertility and was a perfect symbol of the Pax Romana. Pegasus and Cupid

Pegasus is a new iconographic feature in the large Imperial cameos of the Early Roman Empire.60 The winged, white horse was popular in Greek mythology and was born from the blood of Medusa after Perseus decapitated her. While the horse might have merely been a helpful feature, utilized to keep figures aloft in the upper register’s composition, the connection to the gorgon Medusa is a meaningful one, with the numerous gorgons affixed to shields below. While Pegasus appears in Greek vase‑painting, there are not as many examples in Ro‑ man art and most that survive come from the private sphere, mainly mosaics and small cameos. Mosaics and wall paintings from Pompeii depict the winged horse, usually in stories of Bellerophon, the hero who captured the horse.61 In antiquity, Pegasus became a symbol of virtue, and his inclusion aggrandizes the Julio‑Claudian family, past, present, and future. But more importantly, by the Roman period, Pegasus was a symbol of im‑ mortality.62 Hence, his placement in the heavenly realm, with the apotheosized immortal emperor, is entirely appropriate. Cupid appears in the upper register next to Augustus. Decades before, Cupid was an iconographic feature in the Augustus of Primaporta statue, where the chubby baby sat atop a dolphin next to the emperor’s right foot. Julius Caesar, Augustus’ adopted father, claimed he had divine lineage and was descended from Venus.63 In the statue, the inclu‑ sion of Venus’ son, Cupid, subtly connected Augustus, through his adopted father, to Ve‑ nus, signifying that the emperor too is descended from the gods. In the Grand Camée de France, Cupid hovers in the sky, right next to the deceased emperor. Like the Augustus of Primaporta, Cupid references the emperor’s divine lineage, which can be traced through the Julii to Venus. Additional Familiar Iconography

In the middle terrestrial zone of the Grand Camée de France, the emperor holds the lituus and scepter, two objects that symbolize the power and authority of the ruler and were utilized in the Gemma Augustea. The scepter also connects the emperor to Jupiter. Divus ­Augustus also holds the scepter in the celestial realm. Only Tiberius and Augustus hold these objects, for the scepter and lituus were reserved for the emperor, whether living or dead. In addition, both Augustus on the Gemma Augustea and Tiberius on the Grand Camée de France are depicted in heroic semi‑nudity. As discussed in the previous chapter, he‑ roic semi‑nudity connotes a quasi‑divine status. In the case of Augustus in the Gemma Augustea, he is depicted in the guise of the god Jupiter. In the Grand Camée, the same convention is used for Tiberius, and like Augustus, Tiberius is god‑like, a representation that was only possible in private art in the Early Roman Empire.64 Most likely, the direct comparison between Tiberius and Augustus was deliberate, pointing him to make the same choice of an heir that his predecessors did.

Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France  113 In the upper celestial zone, Augustus wears the Roman corona muralis, or mural crown, an award granted to conquering generals. A mural crown, made of gold, was rarely awarded since few men survived such a feat, thus emphasizing Augustus’ achieve‑ ments. In contrast, the mural crown in the Gemma Augustea is worn by Oikoumene, symbolic of the civilized world. Most commonly, Augustus wears either a laurel crown or a corona civica. However, in private art, he is sometimes crowned with the corona muralis, as is the case with the cameo of Livia. Here the wife of Augustus is enthroned and holds a bust of her divinized husband, who wears the crenelated crown.65 Another iconographic feature that has been discussed at length in previous chapters is the barbarian. Like the Gemma Augustea, the lowest level of the Grand Camée de France is replete with foreign captives. However, the bottom level of the Grand Camée de France is now exclusively devoted to them – Roman soldiers are no longer present in the later cameo. However, this does not mean that the scene of barbarians is any more pleasant on the Grand Camée de France, and it might even be more disturbing because the bar‑ barians are cramped into such a tiny space. In addition to the usual scruffy bearded men and scared women, children are also now present in the Grand Camée de France.66 They are subjugated and dejected.67 Even with these differences, the barbarians of the lower register of the Grand Camée de France communicate the same message as the Gemma Augustea: the conquests of the emperors above them. These victories were responsible, in the case of the Gemma Augustea, for establishing the Pax Romana. In the Grand Camée de France, the military victories that are referenced are the battles that are now necessary to maintain the pacification of the Roman Empire, a continually expanding territory. The Grand Camée de France also contains abundant arms and armor, even more than the Gemma Augustea. As evidenced in the previous chapter, arms and armor are ubiqui‑ tous in the art of the Roman Empire, both in the public sphere and in the private realm. Traditionally, the inclusion of armor connotes a similar message to the inclusion of bar‑ barians: it symbolizes military victory. Life Cycle of Iconography: Stage Three The Tazza Farnese represents the first stage of iconographic development when symbols are created, and their meanings are beginning to be comprehended. The Gemma Augu‑ stea is from the second stage: when iconography matured. Now, the Grand Camée de France is representative of the third stage: iconography is now fully understood and has become even more complex and distinctly Roman. The Grand Camée de France adopts some of the iconography of the Gemma Augustea but enhances and adds to it. In particular, the Grand Camée de France represents an updated version of the Gemma Augustea. The patron of the Grand Camée would have undoubtedly known the Gemma Augustea and spent ample time studying the earlier gemstone, becoming fluent with its Imperial message and successful purpose of manipulation. The patron of the Grand Camée subsequently decided to commission a new, updated version that responds to and is in constant dialogue with the Gemma Augustea, all in the hopes of once again success‑ fully manipulating the mind of an emperor. Patron

The Grand Camée de France and Gemma Augustea have the same context and type of patron: both were Imperial commissions with Imperial female patrons, and the gem‑ stones were displayed and stored in an Imperial house or collection. The patron of the

114  Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France Grand Camée de France was Agrippina the Elder, the wife of Germanicus, one of the deceased members of the Julio‑Claudian family in the upper zone of the gemstone.68 Since Drusus Minor (Drusus Julius Caesar or Nero Claudius Drusus, son of Tiberius) is also deceased in the upper zone, the Grand Camée de France must date after his death in 23 CE. Immediately following the death of his son, in 23 CE, Tiberius subsequently adopted two of Agrippina the Elder’s sons, Drusus Caesar and Nero Caesar: these two young men were now potential heirs to the emperor’s throne. Her third son, Caligula, is put in there for good measure as a third heir. Agrippina the Elder gave Tiberius the Grand Camée de France after the death of his son and heir and advertised her three sons as heirs, as an effort to gain favor with the emperor and get one of her sons on the throne. The gemstone, therefore, displays the potential for the successful dynastic succession of Ag‑ rippina the Elder’s family, with many possible heirs to the throne surrounding Tiberius. Agrippina the Elder even placed herself in the composition of the Grand Camée de France, whereas Livia is absent in the earlier Gemma Augustea. Agrippina the Elder hoped to be as successful as Livia was with the Gemma Augustea, since Tiberius even‑ tually succeeded Augustus, perhaps due to the gift of an ostentatious gemstone. Upon completion, Agrippina the Elder gave the Grand Camée de France to Tiberius, her stepfa‑ ther and husband’s adopted father and uncle, utilizing the gift as manipulation. Unfortu‑ nately, little turned out as Agrippina the Elder had hoped. Tiberius did not trust her, and in 29 CE, he ordered her arrest and that of her two elder sons, Nero Caesar and Drusus Caesar. Eventually, she was put on trial, exiled, and died in 33 CE. Nero Caesar and Dru‑ sus Caesar did not live long, and they died in 31 and 33 CE, respectively. While Caligula managed to succeed Tiberius, that is not likely to have been the result of the creation of this beautiful piece of propaganda. Style

The Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France further relate through shared Clas‑ sical, Hellenistic, and Roman styles. Both cameos are eclectic in their style, drawing on things like Greek drapery and nudity and creatively recycling and reusing these styles.69 Because the patron and designers of the Grand Camée de France wanted to imitate the earlier gemstone, the use of a similar style is appropriate.70 The patron of the Grand Camée, after studying the Gemma Augustea, must have stipulated to the carver and designers that the new gemstone should match its style. Furthermore, in both cameos, the low‑relief figures are skillfully rendered from different viewpoints, including frontal, three‑quarters view, and profile, and all are shown in a variety of poses and gestures. Also, many of these figures, particularly the historical ones, have individualized features; both patrons wanted the Imperial family members to be recognizable. Size

The Grand Camée de France improves the Gemma Augustea in its size, as the later gemstone is larger than the earlier cameo, representing the popular notion that bigger is better. (The Grand Camée de France measures thirty‑one by twenty‑six centimeters, while the Gemma Augustea is nineteen by twenty‑three centimeters.) While the Gemma Augustea was originally larger, in particular on the left side where figures have been cut off, the Grand Camée de France was still probably larger than the earlier gemstone.71 This increase in size makes sense, especially when one considers that both Agrippina the Elder and Tiberius would have seen the Gemma Augustea, and she would have wanted a larger

Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France  115 version and one that included more figures than the Gemma Augustea in order to impress the emperor. In addition, the figures of the Grand Camée de France, even the barbarians, are all larger than the figures of the Gemma Augustea. Composition

The composition of the Grand Camée de France, just like its style, is derived from the earlier Gemma Augustea. Both cameos have upper and lower zones separated by a thin white ground‑line. The upper zone contains the members of the Imperial family, while the barbarians are relegated to the lower register. However, the Grand Camée de France’s composition does not replicate the Gemma Augustea. Unlike the Gemma Augustea, the upper register of the Grand Camée de France is significantly larger than the lower one and is divided into a celestial zone and a mundane level, separating the living members of the Julio‑Claudian family from the dead and apotheosized. Also, the lower register of the Grand Camée de France, which contains the barbarians, is now significantly smaller. Types of Figures

The Grand Camée de France also responds to the Gemma Augustea by the type of figures included. The upper register of the Gemma Augustea includes Augustus, Tiberius, and Germanicus surrounded by personifications and deities. Likewise, the middle register of the Grand Camée de France has historical Imperial figures, including Tiberius, Livia, Caligula, Nero, and Drusus Caesar, and Augustus, Drusus Minor, and Germanicus in the upper celestial zone. However, the designer of the Grand Camée de France includes fewer personifications and deities than the Gemma Augustea. Depending on the exact iden‑ tifications, the Grand Camée de France focuses almost completely on historical figures of the Imperial family (Cupid and Pegasus are exceptions to this).72 By the time of the Grand Camée, there was less reliance on the inclusion of deities and personifications. At this point in the Early Roman Empire, the Imperial family had its own deified members, including Divus Augustus, to include and therefore was not relying on the traditional gods of the Roman pantheon.73 The Grand Camée de France focuses specifically on the family and its dynastic issues. In the Gemma Augustea, Augustus is surrounded almost entirely by deities and person‑ ifications. Roma, Tellus Italiae, Oikoumene, and Oceanus are all directly adjacent to Au‑ gustus. The upper register contains other historical figures, but Tiberius and Germanicus, along with the missing third historical figure, are relegated to the left and are separated from Augustus by Roma. In the Grand Camée de France, Tiberius is accompanied by Nero Caesar, Drusus Caesar, and Caligula, along with several Imperial women like Agrip‑ pina the Elder, Agrippina the Younger, and Livia. There are no overt deities or personifica‑ tions, though there are subtle connections with Jupiter and Ceres in the figures of Tiberius and Livia. In the upper register, Augustus is surrounded by deceased members of the Julio‑Claudian family, including Drusus Minor and Germanicus, rather than deities and personifications. The upper register also has the only two (or three) distinctly mythologi‑ cal figures in the entire cameo: Cupid, Pegasus, and perhaps Figure M (Aion/Aeternitas). In both cameos, the featured rulers are depicted the same. In the Gemma Augustea, Augustus is enthroned and grips a lituus in his right hand and a scepter in his left; his head is turned to the left. In addition, Augustus is depicted in heroic semi‑nudity that al‑ ludes to his connection to Jupiter. In the Grand Camée de France, Tiberius is the featured emperor in the terrestrial realm, and this figure is based directly on Augustus on the

116  Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France Gemma Augustea. However, one difference between these two emperors is that Augustus is in the process of being crowned with a corona civica, while Tiberius already wears a laurel wreath. Except for this, the two figures are identical. Undoubtedly, the patron of the Grand Camée de France wanted to associate Tiberius with Augustus, creating a paral‑ lel to the earlier Gemma Augustea. Augustus himself is depicted differently in the two gemstones. As just stated, in the Gemma Augustea, the emperor is depicted in a Jupiter‑like guise, and many posit that Augustus was still alive at the time of the production of the Gemma Augustea. On the later Grand Camée, which dates to after the death and deification of Augustus, the em‑ peror is now shown in the celestial zone where he is fully clothed as he rests on the back of Figure M; he is now the Divus Augustus. Instead of being crowned with a corona civica, in the Grand Camée, Augustus wears a veiled radiate crown that enhances his divinity. In his right hand, though, he still holds a scepter. Another development in the Grand Camée de France is the prominent placement of women in the mundane level. While the Gemma Augustea includes women, such as Roma, Victory, Oikoumene, and Tellus Italiae, these are all deities and personifications. No historical women are represented in the Gemma Augustea, even though Livia com‑ missioned the gemstone. The Grand Camée de France responds to the Gemma’s absence of Imperial women and its silence about their role in the dynasty. But these Imperial women are the wives and mothers of the emperors and their likely heirs, and these crucial roles must be emphasized. Therefore, the Grand Camée de France includes in its central terrestrial zone Livia, Agrippina the Elder, and Agrippina the Younger, who wear the laurel crown that marks them out as significant. Each female is enthroned next to her male counterpart: her son. Livia sits next to Tiberius, while Agrippina the Elder stands next to Nero Caesar, and Agrippina the Younger is next to Drusus Caesar. In the Gemma Augustea, Livia advances the prospects of her sons without appearing in the scene. In the later Grand Camée de France, Livia is now the source of the dynasty and has been given prominent placement in the composition. The Grand Camée de France is an advertisement for the Domus Augusta, a new phrase coined toward the end of Augustus’ reign and was a reference to the emperor’s dynasty. The Domus Augusta was represented by the inclusion of Augustus’s male successors and Imperial family members in various artistic media like coins. Commemorating women in art increased after the death of Augustus in 14 CE.74 By the time of the Grand Camée de France, the Domus Augusta was well‑established, and Imperial women were seen as an essential part of the family, and “because of her unique structural place in the dynasty, it was impossible for her not to be represented.”75 Now, in the Grand Camée de France, female members of the Imperial family are given deserved recognition and praise. Iconography

In terms of iconography, the Grand Camée de France continues with militaristic imagery and contains male figures who wear cuirasses, while helmets, shields, and weapons fill the scene, mainly the bottom level. Like the subdued barbarians, these symbols empha‑ size the military prowess of the Imperial family. The peace of the Roman Empire is still dependent upon the continued military success of the Julio‑Claudian family. Symbols of fertility also occur in the Gemma Augustea and the Grand Camée de France. In the earlier cameo, fertility is primarily referenced through Tellus Italiae’s

Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France  117 inclusion and her children and cornucopia. On the Grand Camée de France, Livia is de‑ picted as the goddess Ceres, the goddess of fertility and agriculture, holding two poppies and two stalks of wheat. In its reference to fertility, the Grand Camée updates and refines what was present in the Gemma Augustea. As to differences, the designers of the Grand Camée de France do not use zodiacal signs. In the Gemma Augustea, the signs of the zodiac, Capricorn and Scorpio, are utilized to emphasize the importance of Augustus and Tiberius, respectively. In the Grand Camée, all such signs have been omitted, most likely because by this point, the Julio‑Claudian family has asserted its dominance and no further legitimization or aggrandizement is necessary.76 The family does not need to push a specific victory. Dynastic Message

Finally, the message and function of the Grand Camée de France is taken directly from the Gemma Augustea. With the Gemma Augustea, Livia offered Augustus her opinion that the emperor should choose Tiberius, her son, as the next in line to the throne. Align‑ ing with “an heir and a spare,” Germanicus was included in the upper register so that if Tiberius were unable to take the reins, her grandson was the next likely candidate. The gemstone was presented to Augustus as a gift, wrapping this propagandistic message up into a pretty package. Like the Gemma Augustea, the Grand Camée de France argues the dynastic issue of showing succession by putting the next generation on display, thus explicitly advertis‑ ing familial relationships. Now, however, Tiberius was the reigning emperor, and it was to him that all cases for inheritance had to be made. Because the patron of the Gemma Augustea was an Imperial woman, it would make sense that a woman also commis‑ sioned the Grand Camée. Any woman who studied the Gemma Augustea in such depth, to the point that she would want one like it, would have been acutely aware of the fact that Livia’s presentation of the Gemma Augustea was successful since Tiberius became emperor. Therefore, the patron of the Grand Camée created her own updated version, hoping for the same result. The Grand Camée de France switches from the inclusion of numerous deities and per‑ sonifications and instead emphasizes the dynastic ideas of the Domus Augusta. While the Gemma Augustea promotes dynastic ideas and proposes a dynasty to Augustus because the emperor no longer has one of his own blood (Julia’s sons), these dynastic messages are hidden by various personifications and deities. In the Grand Camée de France, how‑ ever, the Imperial dynasty is now the entire focus of the gemstone. Tiberius has lost his own son and adopted son, so there is a similar break, leaving an opening for Agrippina the Elder to make her case. The Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France are undeniably closely related, and they became pendants, meant to be viewed side by side, with each gemstone’s meaning and propaganda increased by its relationship to the other one. The Gemma Augustea is all about Augustus and Livia establishing a dynasty. With the Grand Camée de France, the dynasty has been established and now must be maintained through a seamless suc‑ cession of power. The Grand Camée de France represents the unity of the Julio‑Claudian family. In both, the Pax Romana and the victory of civilization over barbarianism are emphasized. More obliquely, though, both gemstones were commissioned by a woman to subtly push forward her son or sons for the throne.

118  Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France Notes 1 For more on Agrippina the Elder, see Wood (1988, 1999). 2 The inventory of 1,341 reveals a prosperous economy in the Middle Ages, with precious items that could be used as inheritance or a commodity (Giard 1998, 25). 3 Rochetti (1959, 295). Most likely, the Grand Camée de France left Rome after the fall of the Western Roman Empire at the beginning of the fifth century CE and was taken to Constantino‑ ple. But its provenance prior to the Medieval period is educated speculation. See Giard (1998, 25) for a hypothesis of the gemstone’s history during this gap. 4 Giard (1998, 26). The frame probably held the attention of worshippers even more than the “Joseph” scene in the cameo. The representation of the evangelists and apostles, along with their sumptuous and expensive setting, also encouraged admiration and devotion. 5 Rochetti (1959, 295). Following the 1,341 inventory of Sainte‑Chapelle, the Grand Camée de France was continuously cited in similar registries, most notably the inventory of 1,573. This list is of particular interest because it describes the frame that Charles V commissioned in detail. Another essential note in the 1,573 inventory mentioned the cracks in the cameo, and consequently, a terminus ante quem is established for the fissures (Giard 1998, 26). 6 Giuliani and Schmidt (2010, 69–71). 7 Rochetti (1959, 296). Delafontaine’s frame was removed in 1832. 8 These color effects were probably the result of various processes described by Pliny the Elder (Natural History 74.12). The stone would have been heated and boiled in honey, changing the gray layer to brown and black. For more on this process, see Giuliani and Schmidt (2010, 89–90). 9 Giuliani and Schmidt (2010, 68–69). 10 For more on the Grand Camée de France, see Babelon (1897), Charbonneaux (1948), Zwet (1954), Simon (1967), Jeppesen (1974), Kaspar (1975), Jucker (1976), Giard (1998), Zwierlein‑­ Diehl (2008), Giuliani and Schmidt (2010), Heinlein (2011), and Fischer (2014, 2016b). 11 Peiresc describes his discovery in a letter to Girolamo Aleandro the Younger, one of the most notable humanists of the seventeenth century. The letter is precise in its description and the figures’ identities. See Peiresc et al (1995). 12 Rochetti outlines these early interpretations of the Grand Camée de France (Rochetti 1959, 296). 13 Aeneas was identified as such because of his Phrygian dress. 14 Consequently, Jeppesen, like other scholars, dates the Grand Camée de France to the reign of Tiberius (Jeppesen 1974). 15 This identification is convenient since there are no known portraits of Sejanus. 16 Curtius believed that Tiberius strove to highlight his mortality, adhering to the theory that he was the “first among equals.” However, in the Grand Camée, Tiberius is shown in the guise of Jupiter, and Curtius maintains that Tiberius would never have divinely depicted himself during his lifetime (Curtius 1934). 17 Curtius (1934, 136). 18 For other interpretations, identifications, and dates for the Grand Camée consult Gagé (1935), Balsdon (1936), Fuchs (1936), Hohl (1938), Schweitzer (1942), Byvanck (1943), Byvanck (1947), Charbonneaux (1948), Bruns (1953), and Jucker (1976). 19 Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta (1964, 157). Like those before her, Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta performs sty‑ listic analyses to identify the central figure as Claudius despite claiming that these analyses are inherently subjective. I do not agree with her identifications or date for the Grand Camée de France. 20 Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta is incorrect regarding the three figures in the upper zone wearing laurel crowns since Augustus has a mural crown. 21 Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta (1964, 157). 22 Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta does not explain that Germanicus, Agrippina the Elder, and Antonia the Younger were all dead by 50 CE, yet on the Grand Camée, they are pictured with the living. 23 While the age difference between these two brothers was negligible, Britannicus is depicted on the Grand Camée de France as significantly younger than his older brother, perhaps because Nero’s adoption was the main subject of the cameo. Also, Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta identifies the figure next to Britannicus, H, as Octavia, who was the young boy’s sister and Nero’s intended bride (Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta 1964, 157).

Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France  119 4 Mithridates was brought to Rome in 49 AD and had the status of a privileged prisoner. 2 25 According to Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta, the Grand Camée de France demonstrates the mature Claudian style with its adept handling of space, the contrast between light and dark, and the sophisticated manipulation of the two‑toned agate stone. Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta claims that all of these characteristics are visible in the Gemma Claudia, which is firmly and reliably dated to 50 CE, and thus, a similar Claudian date for the Grand Camée de France is to be expected. (The Gemma Claudia will be discussed in Chapter 7.) 26 Kleiner (1992, 149). 27 Kleiner (1992, 151). Nevertheless, Kleiner’s interpretation of the cameo mainly depends on the identification of the central figure as Tiberius dates to 26–29 CE. According to Kleiner, in the upper register is Divus Augustus, who is easily recognizable. Wearing priestly garments and holding a scepter, Augustus is shown as both the Pontifex Maximus and a god. Beneath him, carrying the deified emperor to heaven, is Aion, Figure M, the male personification of eter‑ nity. At Aion’s left is Drusus Minor, Tiberius’ son, who died in 23 CE. The other male figure on the right, riding Pegasus and accompanied by Cupid, is Germanicus. In the earthly realm, Tiberius is enthroned in the center next to his mother, Livia, who holds poppies in her right hand, revealing that she is in the guise of Ceres. To the left of Tiberius and Livia is a standing couple, Figures C and D: Julia, the granddaughter of Tiberius, and Nero Germanicus, the son of Germanicus and Julia’s husband. According to Kleiner, Tiberius is bestowing upon Nero Germanicus a military command. Behind Nero, Germanicus is a young boy in military garb, probably Caligula, behind whom is a seated woman who holds a scroll in her hand, which per‑ haps identifies her as a sibyl, Figure H, who holds a prophecy regarding the fate of the Imperial line. (Schmidt states that the scroll results from the recutting – see Giuliani and Schmidt 2010, 70.) Agrippina the Elder and Drusus Major are on the far right, one final Imperial couple. 28 For example, see Meyer (2000) and Jucker (1976). 29 Meyer (2000, 27). Meyer used photographs of a plaster cast of the Grand Camée de France, which allowed him to see evidence for the recutting that heretofore was missed; all the heads in the central register were completely recut in late antiquity. 30 Bruns (1953) and Rochetti (1959, 295). The most striking likeness of the females’ hairstyles on the Grand Camée de France are with Matidia and Sabina from the Hadrianic period. Another issue that Bruns disputed is the figure apotheosized in the center of the heavenly realm, the Divus. This motif did not occur in Roman art, according to Bruns, until Titus in the central bay of the Arch of Titus, and the first coin with this image did not appear with the Divus until a coin during the reign of Hadrian. She concluded that the Grand Camée de France must be later and that it could not possibly be one of the earliest examples of an apotheosis in art, and therefore, the gemstone cannot date to the first century CE. Bruns examined the hairstyles of the women in the central zone of the Grand Camée de France, dating the first and third on the left females’ hairstyles not to the Julio‑Claudian period but rather to the reign of Hadrian in the early second century CE. For more on women’s hairstyles in the Roman Empire, also see Zwet (1954, 1956). 31 Bruns (1953) and Rochetti (1959). 32 Meyer (2000). Meyer’s goal was to provide a new perspective on the art of the Roman Empire by producing a new chronology of the large Imperial cameos and relief sculptures. Meyer was almost entirely focused on chronology and only briefly mentions important issues like patron‑ age, reception, and the meaning of these works. Meyer himself admits that his book is difficult and not readily accessible. 33 Meyer (2000, 27). 34 See Hales (2002) and Mayer (2004). 35 Scheiderich (2017, 17). 36 Scheiderich (2017, 18). 37 Wood (1999, 308). Wood thinks the gemstone was a present to the Imperial couple to celebrate Claudius’ adoption of Nero. The gemstone emphasizes Imperial succession, with power pass‑ ing from one emperor to his successor. 38 Figure F, on the right, 39 Bartman (1999, 112). 40 Bartman (1999, 112–117). 41 These identifications closely follow Giuliani and Schmidt.

120  Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France 2 Gradel (2002, 310–311). 4 43 Portraits of Alexander the Great do not represent him in a costume similar to Figure M, though. See Stewart (1993). Perhaps this was a case of artistic license of the patron or gemmarius in the depiction of Figure M, wanting to show that he was not Roman. This is the most problematic figure in the Grand Camée de France. He must be of importance, though, since he carries the apotheosized Augustus. 44 For more on Cupid, see Blanc and Gury (1986). 45 Wood (1988, 1999). 46 Augustus also used laurel bushes at his house on the Palatine Hill. According to Flory, this was a special appropriation of the traditional iconographic element. For more on Augustus’ use of laurel wreaths, see Alföldi (1970). 47 Flory (1995, 43). 48 Examples of Imperial women crowned with the laurel wreath are found most frequently in the private art of the Roman Empire, especially cameos such as Gemma Claudia (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna IX A 63) and the Cameo of Livilla (Altes Museum, Berlin 145). The Impe‑ rial women in these smaller cameos are shown in profile wearing a laurel crown. In addition, Livilla holds a poppy, while the Gemma Claudia has additional iconographic elements such as cornucopias and an eagle. 49 Flory (1995, 46). 50 Fullerton (1985, 473). 51 Corbier (1995, 182). 52 Zanker (1988, 234). 53 In the case of the Gemma Augustea, where Livia is absent, Tellus represents prosperity. 54 For example, a sardonyx cameo of 14 CE shows Livia as both a priestess of Augustus’ cult and associated with Ceres (Cameo of Livia as Ceres with the Bust of Augustus, sardonyx, 10 cm tall, 14 CE, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria, Inv. IX A 95). 55 Cameo of Augustus in a Chariot Drawn by Tritons, sardonyx, 27 BCE, Kunsthistorisches Mu‑ seum, Vienna, Austria (XI A 56). 56 Victory is often coupled with a globe; this same pairing occurs on a clay lamp (see Zanker 1988, 267). This globe refers to the victory at Actium, which left Octavian in control of the whole Mediterranean. 57 This comparison, even a century later, lends validity to the identification of Figure M as Aion. But the question of the foreign costume remains. 58 Interestingly, Tiberius’ aegis is not decorated with a gorgon. 59 Blacas Cameo (Sardonyx Cameo of Augustus), sardonyx, 12.8 × 9.3 cm, 14–20 CE, The British Museum, London, United Kingdom (1867,0507.484). 60 See Lochin (1994) and Cartwright (2013). 61 For example, see Bellerophon, Pegasus, and Athena, from the House of Lucius Betucius Placi‑ dus, in Pompeii, Italy from the first century CE. 62 Cartwright 2013. 63 Augustus of Primaporta, 20 BCE, Vatican Museums, Italy (Cat. 2290). 64 This god‑like depiction of Tiberius makes sense only during the emperor’s reign, since he was never deified. 65 Cameo of Livia as Ceres with the Bust of Augustus, sardonyx, 10 cm tall, 14 CE, Kunsthis‑ torisches Museum, Vienna, Austria (Inv. IX A 95). 66 See Kampen (1996) for more on gender in Roman art and Uzzi (2005) for children in the visual arts. 67 This is similar to the barbarians seen in the Temple of Apollo Sosianus and the later Column of Marcus Aurelius. 68 Giuliani and Schmidt agree with this (Giuliani and Schmidt 2010, 35). Furthermore, the Grand Camée de France most likely dates between 19 CE, when Germanicus died, and 29 CE, the year Livia died. 69 See Zanker (2012). 70 It is possible that the same family of artists made the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France, which could help to explain their similar styles. In Vollenweider (1966), the scholar at‑ tributes the Gemma Augustea to Dioskurides and the Grand Camée de France to Dioskurides’ son, Eutyches (Vollenweider 1966, 68).

Agrippina the Elder and the Grand Camée de France  121 71 The Gemma Augustea is four hundred and thirty‑nine square centimeters in area, while the Grand Camée de France is eight hundred and six square centimeters in area. The Grand Camée de France is 84% larger than the Gemma Augustea, a significant difference. Even if the lost portions of the Gemma Augustea were added to its area, the Grand Camée still would be much larger. Perhaps the designers of the Gemma Augustea were not able to procure a larger stone, but by the time of the Grand Camée, they had access to these larger pieces. Another possibility is that the Gemma Augustea did not need a celestial zone because Augustus was alive, and thus the cameo did not need to be larger than it already is. By the time Grand Camée de France was made, Augustus was deified and therefore had to be included in a heavenly zone, expanding the size of the cameo. 72 For example, Pegasus is undeniably in the composition, and perhaps Aion and Honos depend‑ ing on which interpretation one adheres to. 73 See Giuliani and Schmidt (2010). 74 Flory (1996, 287). 75 Flory (1996, 297). 76 The lack of astrological symbols in the Grand Camée de France could be merely a difference in patronage, though Tiberius was interested in astrology.

6 Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment

Agrippina the Younger and Caligula Agrippina the Elder was not as successful as Livia was with her large Imperial cameo, but her son, Caligula, nonetheless became emperor. About a decade and a half after the Grand Camée de France, Agrippina the Younger followed the examples set by her mother, Agrippina the Elder, and great‑grandmother, Livia, and commissioned the first of two Imperial cameos: the now fragmentary cameo of Caligula and Roma (Figure 6.1). This fragment, made during Agrippina the Younger’s brother Caligula’s reign, has figures that are larger than those on the Gemma Augustea and likely would have been even larger than all of its predecessors. Agrippina the Younger’s cameo was an attempt to persuade Caligula to view her son, Nero, as a potential heir. Agrippina the Younger was born in 15 CE to Agrippina the Elder and Germanicus. She had several siblings, most notably Caligula, Drusilla, and Livilla. In 28 CE, Agrip‑ pina the Younger married Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, and they had a son, Nero, in 37  CE. Like her mother and great‑grandmother, Agrippina the Younger, according to ancient sources, wanted power and was aware of the power of images to sway and ma‑ nipulate.1 The cameo fragment was one of the ways that Agrippina the Younger tried to wield her power, trying to persuade Caligula to follow her dynastic plan. Agrippina’s older brother, Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus, was known as Caligula, or “little boots,” a nickname bestowed upon him while he was a boy on the front with his father and wore a miniature uniform. When Germanicus, Agrippina the Younger and Caligula’s father, died prematurely in 19 CE, followed by their brother Drusus Caesar in 33 CE, Caligula became one of the leading contenders to succeed Tiberius, along with Tiberius’ grandson, Tiberius Gemellus. Caligula won the succession wars and was em‑ peror from 37 to 41 CE, a short, tumultuous four years.2 He became emperor at only twenty‑four and died at twenty‑nine years old. Caligula’s principate was initially celebrated, and the new emperor began his reign by honoring many of his family members. However, this quickly changed to a reign marked by executions, scheming, and the abandonment of all Augustus’ principles. Soon after taking power, Caligula had his rival, Tiberius Gemellus, murdered so that his reign would not be challenged by his rival. Because of his many enemies, Caligula lived in constant fear of assassination, though this paranoia was not unfounded since the emperor was assassinated in 41 CE. Ancient writers describe Caligula as a depraved, crazed emperor, and a cruel socio‑ path.3 In contrast to the Julio‑Claudian emperors who preceded him, Caligula wanted to be worshipped as a god openly. Under Caligula, the heads of public sculptures of DOI: 10.4324/9781003315308-6

Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment  123

Figure 6.1 Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment, sardonyx, 11  cm tall, 38–41  CE, Kunsthis‑ torisches Museum, Vienna, Austria (IX A 59). Copyright: KHM‑Museumsverband.

124  Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment divinities were replaced with his portraits, a bold move.4 This signified Caligula’s insanity to the Roman Senate and people.5 Furthermore, Caligula was also accused of committing incest with his three sisters, a charge that scandalized the Roman populace.6 Caligula had three younger sisters: Agrippina the Younger, Drusilla, and Livilla. While Caligula did many abhorrent things while emperor, he highly regarded his sisters, and these three women enjoyed unprecedented honors because of their ability to bear future Julian heirs to the Julio‑Claudian throne.7 Imperial women had a crucial and political role to play in the continuation of the bloodline.8 By publicly praising his sisters, Caligula set the stage that any son of one of his sisters was a suitable heir. Caligula also promoted his three sisters and honored them because they emphasized his connection to Agrippina the Elder, his mother, and Livia, his great‑grandmother. Even though Tiberius exiled her, Caligula nonetheless emphasized his connection to his mother, Agrippina the Elder, who was directly descended from Augustus. By doing so, Caligula could claim the Julian line and advertise his pietas. However, like all Imperial women, the power that Caligula’s sisters wielded was more ceremonial and symbolic, though they possessed substantial persuasive powers. Drusilla, Agrippina the Younger, and Livilla were able to influence and manipulate Caligula into doing something they wanted. Like Livia and Agrippina the Elder before them, Agrip‑ pina the Younger used luxurious and expensive cameos as their subtle art of feminine persuasion.9 After Caligula’s death, the emperor’s sisters suffered hostile public relations because of their brother. Each was accused of an incestuous relationship with her brother, prob‑ ably an attempt to vilify the hated emperor; recent scholars have claimed no evidence for incest – this fixation on incest was probably because Caligula’s sisters received honors typically bestowed upon a wife. But Caligula constantly had marital woes. While Ca‑ ligula married four times, three marriages ended in divorce, signaling his unhappiness and possible obsession with his sisters, who could more readily guarantee an Imperial successor. None of his first three marriages were successful in producing an heir. Milonia Caesonia, his last wife, bore Caligula’s daughter, Julia Drusilla, and she shared a high status similar to his sisters.10 Drusilla was Caligula’s favorite sister; she died unexpectedly in 38 CE at the age of twenty‑two. Had Drusilla survived, when Caligula died, her husband, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, most likely would have become emperor, and Drusilla’s sons would have been next in line. In his grief, Caligula deified his sister, transforming her into a diva. Caligula’s family situation quickly fell apart after the death of Drusilla. His program of family propaganda disintegrated in 39 CE when Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, Drusilla’s widower, was convicted of treason along with Agrippina the Younger and Livilla. Ca‑ ligula had Lepidus executed. While he saved his sisters from death, he did have both exiled.11 When Caligula was killed in 41 CE, the Senate did not deify him and instead instituted a damnatio memoriae. Because of the damnation of his memory and his short four‑year principate, there are few surviving portraits of Caligula, and many that did survive were recarved and turned into new figures like Claudius, the next emperor.12 Provenance of the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment The cameo fragment with the emperor Caligula and Roma first entered the Imperial Habsburgs’ possession in 1724 and then into the Treasury of 1750. The gold and blue

Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment  125 enamel frame, designed by Andreas Osenbruck, dates to the seventeenth century and is reminiscent of the Habsburg crown insignia.13 The provenance before 1724 is unknown. The cameo fragment is now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, Austria, and is in the same room as the Gemma Augustea and Gemma Claudia, along with several other Roman Imperial cameos. Figures The Caligula and Roma cameo is made of sardonyx, and traces of gold particles still remain on the relief background.14 Measuring eleven centimeters high by ten centimeters wide, the shape of the cameo fragment is irregular because the gemstone was cut down or broken at some point in its history.15 Most relief edges are slightly undercut, but the origi‑ nal edge of the relief is preserved on the left side, from Caligula’s fingers to the sphinx’s wings. The rest of the edges were broken and sanded smooth; some damage is visible on the upper edge. The regrinding is especially visible in the lower‑left corner, where the damaged rear leg of the throne was smoothed into an arch shape.16 Because this cameo is a fragment, it represents a small portion of the original gem‑ stone, which must have been much larger and more impressive. Despite its fragmentary status, the cameo is clearly of superior quality, probably because it was thicker than previous cameos that allowed for more relief and detail. One is immediately struck by the two figures’ similarity to Augustus and Roma in the earlier Gemma Augustea.17 ­Because of its high quality, some scholars even proclaim that the fragment is even more exquisitely carved than the Gemma Augustea, making its fragmentary status even more painful. What must this extraordinary stone have looked like in its original, extant state? The cameo fragment has only two figures: the emperor Caligula, who briefly ruled from 37 to 41  CE, and the goddess Roma. Despite its fragmentary status, the small cameo packs much into this small space with only two figures. First, the placement of the figures is profoundly significant: Caligula is on the left, and Roma is on the right. Caligula is given the most important placement in the cameo: he is on the left, the spot usually reserved for gods, while Roma is on the right.18 The emperor, in this cameo frag‑ ment, makes the bold statement that he is more important than the goddess, which means that Caligula is a deity. On the left, Caligula slouches on a double throne, his head in profile to the right and crowned with a laurel wreath. The emperor’s drilled eyes turn to and meet the gaze of Roma next to him. Caligula sits on a throne whose leg and armrest are decorated with a winged Greek sphinx; the creature’s head has corkscrew curls, a reference to Isis and Egypt. The sphinx’s bust and wing emerges from the leg of a lion, which acts as a leg of the throne. The emperor is depicted in heroic semi‑nudity, with a bare chest showing off his toned abdominal and pectoral muscles. Drapery covers his lower half, and his legs are slightly outstretched on a footstool. In the crook of his left wrist, Caligula steadies a large scepter capped with a flower; the scepter is held in place by the big toe of his right foot. Ca‑ ligula’s feet are bare, which, along with his placement and the heroic semi‑nudity, further symbolize his divine status. Caligula’s right hand is outstretched and holds a double cor‑ nucopia that overflows with fruit. Caligula has stippling on the cheeks; facial hair was unusual for cameo depictions, in addition to public art where emperors were typically shown clean‑shaven.19

126  Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment To the right of Caligula is the goddess, Roma, who sits with her torso and legs twisted slightly to the left. Her head, too, turns to the left, her eyes meeting Caligula’s. With a slightly meek and quizzical expression, Roma looks to Caligula for assurance or ap‑ proval, reinforcing the hierarchy present in this gemstone. Roma is fully clothed and wears a sleeveless chiton belted below the bust. Her sandaled feet are next to the foot‑ stool on which Caligula’s feet rest. Her chin‑length hair is capped with a crested helmet, and she holds a large oval shield in her lap. Her right arm is outstretched, with her right hand supporting the shield. Her left hand is behind the shield, with her left index finger points directly upward. Because of the finger gesture and the way the two figures are looking at each other, they are in the middle of a conversation.

Interpretations Augustus and Roma

Research on the cameo fragment with Caligula and Roma began in the mid‑eighteenth century, and the two figures were first identified as Augustus and Roma.20 The female figure was also sometimes identified as Roma as Livia. However, most discarded this as‑ sociation with Livia due to the idealized facial features and hairstyle of the figure, which do not match Livia’s physiognomy or coiffure in surviving portraits.21 Many scholars over the last two centuries agreed with this identification of Augustus and Roma while adding some nuances along the way.22 Picard‑Schmitter focused on a neglected part of the fragment: the top of Augustus’ scepter, which he identified as a kiborion framed by two curved leaves. According to Athenaeus 3, the kiborion is the fruit containing the Egyptian plant kolokasia, which is shaped like a drinking bowl that narrows at the bottom. This Egyptian connection was significant since Octavian defeated Cleopatra and Mark Antony.23 Susan Wood also interpreted an Egyptian reference in the cameo fragment, stating that the double cornucopia, a Ptolemaic iconographic feature used by Cleopatra, and the sphinx were references to Octavian’s conquest of Egypt. She identified the two figures as Augustus as Jupiter and Roma. The Ptolemaic double cornucopia combined with a Ro‑ man emperor on a throne symbolized an Imperial victory in Egypt.24 The striking similarity in style, level of craftsmanship, and composition between the cameo fragment and the Gemma Augustea has also been interpreted as more evidence that the emperor on the fragment is Augustus. Wood states that the two cameos look alike because they were both made for Octavian/Augustus. The male and female pair on the Gemma Augustea and the cameo fragment share the same postures, slightly slumped and slouching lazily. Because of the Ptolemaic iconography and the similarity to the Gemma Augustea and classical art, the cameo fragment depicts Octavian as the victor over Egypt, and he is shown god‑like, in the guise of Jupiter.25 Wood then addresses Octavian’s beard, as this is an unusual feature. While Octavian had a mourning beard after Julius Caesar’s death in 44 BCE, by the time of the Battle of Actium, almost fifteen years had passed since the death of his adopted father, and thus, a mourning beard was no longer appropriate, so he should not have facial hair. Therefore, the beard must refer to something else, mainly that Octavian is in the guise of Jupiter, a god who is often represented as bearded, and “perhaps the artist simply wanted to give

Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment  127 his subject more of the features of Jupiter, whose pose and style of dress is here adopted by the emperor.”26 Wolfgang Oberleitner also identified the two figures in the cameo fragment as Divus Augustus and Roma and emphasized the similarity between these two figures with Au‑ gustus and Roma in the Gemma Augustus; the cameo fragment is a mirror image of the Gemma Augustea. The emperor in the fragment wears a laurel crown, holds a scepter, and is enthroned next to Roma, just like Augustus in the Gemma Augustea. According to Oberleitner, the artist of the cameo fragment was a court stone cutter but not the same one that created the Gemma Augustea because in the fragment, “the cut is not as hard as the earlier gemstone, the drawing of the details is richer, and the poses of the two figures are more pathetic.”27 For Oberleitner, the cameo fragment glorified a historical act, though he does not know which event because the rest of the cameo is missing and would have held impor‑ tant clues. Oberleitner posits that this event might have been an act or event that was praised only after Augustus’ death. He dates the cameo to after Augustus’ death in 14 CE because he interprets the sphinx on the throne, which he interprets as the daemon of the cult of the dead, indicating that Augustus must be dead at the time of creation. In ad‑ dition, the overflowing cornucopia is another attribute of a deified emperor. Therefore, Oberleitner proposes that this fragment was made to celebrate Augustus’ newly dei‑ fied status. Augustus was consecrated a god one month after his death, in September of 14 CE, and Oberleitner states this is what the cameo fragment celebrated.28 Some schol‑ ars still cling to the idea that the cameo celebrates the first emperor.29 Some even think the cameo depicts Octavian before 27 BCE, making the gemstone a contemporary of the Tazza Farnese.30 Caligula and Roma

Today, most are now convinced that the emperor in the cameo fragment is not Augustus but Caligula.31 In 1970, Kyrieleis instigated a decisive turn in the research on the cameo fragment when he identified the enthroned emperor as Caligula accompanied by Roma.32 The emperor was previously identified as Augustus because of stylistic similarities with Augustus on the Gemma Augustea and the Egyptian iconography of the double cornu‑ copia, which was thought to symbolize Augustus’ victory over Cleopatra and Mark An‑ tony at the Battle of Actium. After all, the double cornucopia is the hallmark symbol of Arsinoe I, the Ptolemaic queen, and Ptolemy I Philadelphos, and following their reign, the use of a double cornucopia to reference sibling marriage was a common practice among the Ptolemies.33 But Kyrieleis interpreted these Egyptian elements differently, stating that they are sym‑ bols that are not exclusive to Augustus – they are specifically Ptolemaic connotations and are instead a reference to Caligula, who wears a mourning beard, indicating that he is grieving the death of his sister, Drusilla. Because of the Ptolemaic references, specifically the double cornucopia, the cameo was dedicated to the memory of Caligula’s deceased sister and glorified the sibling relationship between the emperor and Drusilla. Therefore, the date of the cameo fragment can be narrowed down to shortly after the death of Drusilla in 38 CE.34 Kyrieleis also dismissed the identification of the emperor as Augustus through stylistic analyses that reveal remarkable physical differences. In the cameo fragment, the male

128  Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment figure has a high rectangular head, a straight nose, a receding lower lip, and a sharp angle between the forehead and the hair on the side of the head. These were all distinguishing features of Caligula, not Augustus.35 Michaela von Fuchs agreed with Kyrieleis and believes there is no doubt that the cameo fragment with Caligula and Roma depicts the emperor mourning his sister Drusilla, who died in June 38 CE.36 The double cornucopia and sphinx, reference Egypt, and the dou‑ ble cornucopia refer explicitly to the sibling marriages of the Ptolemies, emphasizing the close sibling relationship of Caligula and Drusilla. The exceptional honor of deification bestowed on Drusilla can also be connected to the Ptolemies since Ptolemaios II deified his dead sister and wife, Arsinoe II, in 268 BCE.37 Drusilla was the first female member of the Domus Augusta to be consecrated.38 In the cameo fragment, Caligula mourns the death of his sister, and according to Von Fuchs, he reacts to her apotheosis.39 Caligula sits next to Roma, and the goddess’ hand gesture, with the left finger raised, points toward the heavens, where the deceased Drusilla now resides. The reflective surface of the oval shield of Roma originally contained a scene of the apotheosis of Drusilla. Caligula, according to Von Fuchs, stares at this shield, seeing the deification of his beloved sister.40 The gesture of Roma’s finger and the presentation of the shield to Caligula are the keys to understanding the scene in the cameo fragment. Roma attempts to get Caligula’s attention, wanting the emperor to see in its reflection the apotheosis of his sister. Traces of gold particles remain in the shield, indicating that there was initially partial gilding on this shield, which would have further called attention to it and what would have been a tracing of the apotheosis. Like Kyrieleis, von Fuchs also focused on the double cornucopia, which is an attribute connected to Egypt. The Ptolemaic reference is essential to Caligula because it connects him to his familial relationship with Mark Antony, his great‑grandfather. Caligula vener‑ ated his great‑grandfather so much that in 39 CE, he forbade honoring Augustus’ victory over Mark Antony and instead celebrated Mark Antony and Cleopatra.41 Iconography Caligula and Roma

The female figure in the cameo fragment is the goddess, Roma. She wears a helmet and holds a shield, two of the goddess’ most familiar attributes. There is no doubt that she is indeed the goddess of Rome. However, identifying the male figure has been a matter of debate, as already discussed. Early on, scholars identified him as Augustus, mainly because the stylistic similarities of the cameo and the composition of the emperor and the goddess Roma were almost identical to those of the Gemma Augustea. The Egyptian iconography on the cameo fragment was also interpreted as a connection to Augustus’ defeat over Cleopatra and Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium. However, Augustus is the wrong identification. When examined more closely, there are significant stylistic differences between por‑ traits of Augustus and the male figure on the cameo fragment, suggesting that he was not Augustus. The figure also wears a beard. Some scholars who identified this figure as Au‑ gustus explain away the incongruous beard by saying that this is a connection to Jupiter. However, this is a beard of mourning, for Caligula was still grieving the premature death of his sister (Table 6.1).42

Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment  129 Table 6.1  Iconography: Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment Iconography

Meaning

Scepter

• Scepter was a sign of terrestrial rule and monarchical authority • Attribute of Jupiter • Represents the fertility and abundance of the Pax Romana, continued by Caligula • The lily is a symbol of motherhood, procreation, and love; thus, it connects to Caligula’s deceased sister • Also can connect to Caligula’s wife • Worn by Caligula • Roman triumphal procession • Military victory and accomplishments • Maintenance of the Pax Romana Caligula is god‑like Roma points upward to the heavens, directing Caligula’s attention to Drusilla’s apotheosis • Sphinxes often have death or funerary meanings in Greek art • References Drusilla’s death • Guardian • More generally, a symbol of fertility and abundance brought on by the Pax Romana and continued by the Julio‑Claudian emperors • Popular Ptolemaic iconography: when put into the context of Caligula mourning his sister, this subtly alludes to the common practice of sibling marriage among the Ptolemies • The inclusion of women is a significant development • References the Domus Augusta • Women are praised for their roles as wives and mothers of the emperors • Here, sisters of emperors are also praised Military victor Conquest, victory, Pax Romana Like Roma, the Imperial women might have had hand gestures to point out important things

Lily on top of the scepter

Laurel wreath

Heroic semi‑nudity Hand gesture of Roma Female sphinx

Double cornucopiae

Reconstruction: Imperial women

Reconstruction: Arms and armor Reconstruction: Barbarians Reconstruction: Hand gestures

Scepter Topped with Flower

Caligula holds a scepter in his left hand. The scepter, as discussed in previous chapters, is a long staff that symbolizes the emperor’s terrestrial rule and monarchical authority. In the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France, the scepter was not crowned with anything. However, here in the fragment, it is topped with some kind of flower, which has not been the focus for many scholars, maybe because its identification does not alter the message of the cameo too much.43 Caligula holds a cornucopia bursting with fruits in his right arm, and the flower, no matter what type it is, on top of the scepter further emphasizes the abundance and fertility occurring in Caligula’s reign; he is extending the Pax Romana.

130  Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment The flower is difficult to identify because it was damaged at the break. However, the flower roughly resembles a lily, with its many petals unfolding and creating a triangular shape.44 The lily fits the cameo’s overall theme of Drusilla, mourning, and dynastic suc‑ cession. In Greek mythology, the lily symbolized motherhood and procreation – which refer to Drusilla’s role as a wife and mother of a (possible) future emperor and her status as an Imperial role model. In addition, the lily sends a message about Caligula’s two re‑ maining sisters, especially Agrippina the Younger, who remains an emblem of the Domus Augusta and has Nero to continue the Julio‑Claudian dynasty. The lily and its connection to motherhood and procreation is therefore still appropriate when applied to the living sisters of Caligula. The lily, in Greek mythology, was also representative of rebirth. This, too, is fitting for this cameo because it honors Drusilla, who has just died and is being apotheosized. Finally, in Roman mythology, the lily is a symbol of love. This is also ger‑ mane for the cameo, in which Caligula’s beloved sister is mourned.45 Laurel Wreath

Like many emperors before him, Caligula wears a laurel wreath that symbolizes victory, power, and success in the Roman world. More specifically, the laurel wreath was often symbolic of a military victory when worn by men. Thus, Caligula subtly alludes to a military victory and his role in maintaining the Pax Romana. Heroic Semi‑Nudity

Like Augustus and Tiberius in the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France, Ca‑ ligula is depicted in heroic semi‑nudity and has bare feet, indicating that he is god‑like. However, the cameo fragment takes this one step further, as Caligula is not just god‑like but also a divinity and holds the position of honor. Seated to Roma’s right on the left side of the fragment, Caligula is placed in this honor position to communicate his significance. He is more important than Roma, and Caligula is also a god. This type of depiction of a Roman emperor was still taboo in the public sphere in Rome, though Caligula was caus‑ ing trouble by placing his head on sculptures of gods, much to the Senate’s dismay. In private art, Caligula here is brazenly a god. Hand Gesture of Roma

In Greek and Roman art, hand gestures sometimes have iconographic meaning. Augustus has his arm outstretched with his hand in a gesture of oration in the Augustus of Prima‑ porta statue, immediately recognizable to Roman citizens.46 The cameo fragment likewise utilizes a symbolic hand gesture. Unlike Roma in the Gemma Augustea, the goddess in the cameo fragment has her left arm raised up with her left finger pointing upward. Roma is gesturing to where the deceased Drusilla would now be: in the heavens.47 Caligula looks directly at Roma, and her gesture reassures him that his sister is apotheosized. Ptolemaic Iconography

The Egyptian iconography in the cameo fragment was initially interpreted as referenc‑ ing Octavian’s victory over Cleopatra and Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium. How‑ ever, not everything Egyptian references Augustus, and since this figure is not Augustus,

Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment  131

Figure 6.2 Ptolemaic Double Cornucopiae from the Reverse of Coin of Arsinoe II, silver, Collec‑ tion of M. Demetriou. Copyright: Tilemahos Efthimiadis, 2011.

this interpretation must be reevaluated. These double cornucopias are indeed Egyp‑ tian, and this Ptolemaic iconography means something specific when utilized within the context of Caligula. The double cornucopia was the hallmark symbol of Arsinoe I, the Ptolemaic queen, and her husband (and brother) Ptolemy II Philadelphos – and the symbol appears frequently, especially in coins like this third‑century BCE silver one from the Museum of Numismatics in Athens, Greece. The obverse (not pictured) has a bust of Arsinoe II, while the reverse is decorated with the double cornucopia overflow‑ ing with the abundance of Ptolemaic Egypt (Figure 6.2). After their reign, the use of double cornucopias was a reference to sibling marriage that was a common practice among the Ptolemies.48 The double cornucopia more generally serves as a symbol of Egypt and the fertil‑ ity and abundance that Caligula’s reign brings to the Roman Empire.49 When paired with Caligula and his mourning beard, this Ptolemaic iconography further alludes to the close sibling relationship of the Ptolemies, emphasizing the brother‑sister bond of Caligula and Drusilla. Instead, the Ptolemaic reference is attractive to Caligula because it connects him to his familial relationship with Mark Antony, his great‑grandfather. Caligula venerated his great‑grandfather so much that in 39 CE, he forbade the celebra‑ tion of Augustus’ victory over Mark Antony and instead celebrated Mark Antony and Cleopatra.50

132  Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment Female Sphinx A winged female sphinx decorates one leg of Caligula’s throne.51 She has the body of a lion, wings, and the head of a woman. This female sphinx could simply be a part of the furniture. However, female sphinxes often have death or funerary meanings in Greek art and were often part of grave stelae of men who died young. These sphinxes, which often topped the stelae, acted as guardians.52 This funerary context holds significance for the female sphinx on the fragment, because Caligula is mourning the death of his sister. The sphinx therefore references Drusilla’s death and perhaps even acts as a guardian for her. Reconstruction What has been preserved in the Caligula and Roma fragment only represents a small part of the original gemstone, and many scholars have posited what the original might have looked like. The fragment could hardly have been inferior to the Gemma Augustea, and the cameo fragment probably would have been even larger than its predecessor.53 The cameo fragment also must have been as rich in figures in iconography as the Gemma Augustea and the Grand Camée de France.54 Zwierlein‑Diehl completed the most comprehensive study of the fragment and its re‑ construction.55 In her analyses, she revealed that the original edge of the cameo is present on the left side along Caligula’s right arm and down to the wing tips of the sphinx. Be‑ cause this is the remaining original edge, no other figures could be to the left of Caligula, and additional figures could only be expected to the right of Roma. However, Zwierlein‑­ Diehl does not think there were any figures to the right of Roma for compositional reasons.56 If there had been more figures to the right, the emperor would no longer be in the center of the action.57 However, Zwierlein‑Diehl does not mention more about its reconstruction. Was there anything below the figures? Above the figures? Roma’s point‑ ing gesture needs a target. In comparing the fragment with the Gemma Augustea, the figures of Caligula and Roma are comparable in size to those found in the upper register of the Gemma Au‑ gustea; in its original state, this now fragmentary gem was on a similar scale. But most likely, the patron of the cameo fragment presented Caligula with something bigger and more impressive than its two predecessors, the Gemma Augustea and the Grand Camée de France. Most likely, there were additional figures to the right of Caligula and Roma, contrary to what Zwierlein‑Diehl thinks. However, these figures would not have been as significant as the emperor/god and goddess and thus do not detract from Caligula’s pride of place, as will be discussed shortly. Upper Register

Following its predecessors, the fragment of Caligula and Roma probably consisted of two or three registers (Figure 6.3). The patron wanted something on a scale never seen before, so this would have meant the stone was larger and contained three registers to pack in more figures and iconography. If there were three registers, the uppermost one would have contained the apotheosis of Drusilla, Caligula’s beloved and newly deceased sister. Because Caligula mourns his sister below, and the placement of figures in large Im‑ perial cameos had special meaning, Drusilla would have been placed above her brother to emphasize the close relationship between the two siblings. In addition, she might be

Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment  133

Figure 6.3  Reconstruction of the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment. Copyright: Author Reconstruction.

apotheosized on Aion or Aeternitas, the personifications of eternity. Another possibility is Pegasus, who was used on the Grand Camée de France as a symbol of immortality, But what about the other figures in this upper zone? Caligula abandoned most of Augus‑ tus’ principles, so it would not make sense for the first emperor to be included in the up‑ per zone. However, Caligula saw the political and propagandistic advantages of showing his parents, Agrippina the Elder and Germanicus. Even though Tiberius exiled Caligula’s mother, Agrippina the Elder, including her and Germanicus would show the emperor’s pietas and obliquely refer to Augustus. Drusus Caesar, Caligula’s brother who died in 33 CE, is another possibility in the upper zone of the Caligula and Roma fragment. But there is another possible figure that could have inhabited the heavenly realm. Drusilla was probably on the left, directly above Caligula. But who would have been in the center? Maybe Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder? What about someone who was not a Julio‑Claudian family member? There is already a break in tradition because Ca‑ ligula is depicted as a god in the fragment. Perhaps tradition is broken again, and Mark Antony was in the center of the upper zone, in much the same manner as Augustus in the upper register of the Grand Camée de France. The Ptolemaic iconography and references in the cameo fragment alluded to Cleopatra and, by association, Mark Antony (not to mention Alexander the Great). Caligula went against the grain in abandoning Augustus’ way of thinking, and what better way to demonstrate this than to highlight Augustus’ nemesis? Middle Register

Caligula and Roma, as Zwierlein‑Diehl noted, must be at the far left side of the origi‑ nal cameo, with no other figures to the left. This differs from Augustus and Tiberius in

134  Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camèe de France, where the emperors are just right of center. The change in the placement of the emperor from the earlier cameos, how‑ ever, was deliberate and served a specific purpose. The left spot was the position of honor to show the divinity and significance of the figure. Placing him on the far left, next to no other fi ­ gures on that side, can only further emphasize his importance in this ­composition – everyone was probably looking or pointing in his direction, guiding view‑ ers’ eyes toward him. Because Caligula is the most important figure and was depicted as a deity, in the frag‑ ment, there were probably no other important divinities or personifications in the middle zone besides Roma who sits beside him. In addition, in the third phase of iconography, there is less allegory and divinities, so this cameo fragment followed the Grand Camée de France’s lead in including mostly members of the Julio‑Claudian family to emphasize dynasty and succession. Potential male heirs to the throne were paramount to Caligula as he had no sons, and these relationships must have been emphasized. But Caligula did not have any sons, and this lack of a male heir for the dynasty was a serious problem. Drusilla, now deceased, likewise did not have any sons who could be her brother’s potential heir. But Caligula had two other living sisters, and it was to their sons that he could look for heirs. Therefore, the most likely historical figures featured on the fragment were Caligula’s two remaining sisters: Agrippina the Younger and Liv‑ illa, and their male offspring. There was only one young boy to turn to: Agrippina the Younger’s son, Nero. Agrippina the Younger already made an appearance on the Grand Camée de France. But here, in the original cameo of this fragment, Caligula’s sister would have played an even more critical role since now her brother was the emperor. Caligula could get her young son, Nero, who was born in 37  CE, onto the throne. Agrippina the Younger wanted Nero to take center stage, and a very young Nero must have been depicted in this register. She also would have wanted to have a prominent place in the composition, so she and her son most likely were in the center of the middle zone. Agrip‑ pina the Younger, wanting to keep the focus on herself and Nero, would have excluded Livilla so that she was not even in contention. But Agrippina the Younger would have had to include one of Caligula’s wives – it would have been weird for her not to. Caligula had four wives, but it is unlikely that three of these wives would have been depicted in the original fragment. Caligula’s first wife, Junia Claudilla, died before he became emperor. His second marriage, to Livia Or‑ estilla, was not happy as she was forced to divorce her first husband to marry Caligula.58 This marriage lasted only a day before Caligula divorced her. Caligula’s third marriage to Lollia Paulina was a brief six months in 38 CE, so she likely did not appear in the cameo. But Caligula’s fourth wife, Milonia Caesonia, probably was included in the original cameo. The two most likely married in 39 CE, and in that same year, their daughter, Julia Drusilla, was born; she was named after Caligula’s beloved deceased sister. With Caligula mourning Drusilla on the far left of this central zone, and the apotheosized Drusilla di‑ rectly above him, including his wife and a new daughter, the namesake of his deceased sister, fits with the theme of the gemstone. In addition, including Caligula’s fourth wife was another way to communicate d ­ ynastic succession. While Caligula and Milonia Caesonia did not yet have a male heir, there was still time (or so they thought) to produce one. Milonia Caesonia was the emperor’s wife, but she also could be the mother of the next emperor, god willing (or hopefully not, for Agrippina the Younger). However, if not, one boy in the family was already willing to

Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment  135 take that open spot: Agrippina the Younger’s son, Nero, and he could one day be married to his cousin, Julia Drusilla. Agrippina the Younger, though, would not have wanted to stress Milonia Caesonia’s potential role as the mother of the heir, so while she would need to be included, Milonia Caesonia would not be as important as Agrippina the Younger’s placement in the composition. Also, Agrippina the Younger would have wanted Nero and Julia Drusilla to be next to each other to further ingrain the idea of the future of the dynasty. Lower Register

The lower register of the cameo fragment, like the Gemma Augustea and the Grand Camée de France, would have been filled with captive barbarians. These conquered in‑ dividuals reference victory and conquest and the continuation of the Pax Romana under Caligula. An exciting possibility for this bottom register is that it could have something to do with Caligula’s annexation of Mauretania in Western Europe in 40 CE. Ptolemy of Mau‑ retania, the son of Cleopatra Selene II and Juba II, and grandson of Cleopatra and Mark Antony, was in charge. According to Suetonius (which is not necessarily fact), Caligula was jealous and upset that some saw Ptolemy of Mauretania as the true heir to the Ro‑ man throne and therefore had him murdered. Moreover, wouldn’t it be like Caligula and his followers to have two contradictory statements in this cameo? On the one hand, the Ptolemies are directly referenced in the cameo fragment, and Mark Antony might have even been in the upper zone. Nevertheless, at the bottom, that same cameo might allude to Caligula’s murder of his cousin, Ptolemy.59 This means that the Ptolemies are simulta‑ neously honored and vilified on the same gemstone. What If There Were Only Two Registers?

Because the patron of the original cameo probably wanted something bigger and more ostentatious than the previous two large Imperial cameos, it is most likely that there would have been three registers. Despite this, it is still a possibility that there were only two registers. If this were the case, the two registers were likely composed of the apothe‑ osis scene above and Caligula, Roma, his wife, sisters, and Nero on the bottom. Caligula is mourning his sister, so it makes the most sense that her apotheosis would be included in the register above. The barbarians could have been done away with, and the overall message was still crystal clear: a mourning Caligula, the emperor was now a god, and the importance of dynastic succession. Possible Iconography of the Original Cameo

The cameo fragment has only two figures, Caligula and Roma. It has insightful iconog‑ raphy for a relatively small space, from the Ptolemaic references (double cornucopia) to the beard to the hand gesture of Roma and the laurel wreath. But this would have been the largest Imperial cameo and would have contained many more symbolic objects. The Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France included military paraphernalia, so, likely, this fragment would have had plenty of this as well. Arms and armor communi‑ cated victory, so even if there was not a third register with barbarians, conquest was still referenced along with the Pax Romana.

136  Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment Table 6.2  Reconstruction: Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment Cameo Fragment

Meaning

Caligula

• Emperor • Son of Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder • Siblings include Nero Caesar, Drusus Caesar, and Agrippina the Younger • Emperor Goddess of Rome • Sister of Caligula • Daughter of Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder • Mother of Nero • Son of Agrippina the Younger • Nephew of Caligula • Potential heir to the Julio‑Claudian line Sister of Caligula, Agrippina the Younger, Drusilla, and Nero Caesar Fourth wife of Caligula

Roma Reconstruction: Agrippina the Younger (middle register) Reconstruction: Nero (middle register) Reconstruction: Livilla (middle register) Reconstruction: Milonia Caesonia (middle register) Reconstruction: Julia Drusilla (middle register) Reconstruction: Drusilla (upper register) Reconstruction: Agrippina the Elder (upper register) Reconstruction: Germanicus (upper register) Reconstruction: Drusus Caesar (upper register) Reconstruction: Mark Antony (upper register) Reconstruction: Barbarians (lower register)

Daughter of Caligula and Milonia Caesonia • Sister of Caligula • Died in 38 CE • Apotheosized • Wife of Germanicus • Mother of Caligula, Drusus Caesar, Nero Caesar, and Agrippina the Younger • Died in 33 CE • Father of Caligula • Husband of Agrippina the Elder • Died in 19 CE • Brother of Caligula • Died in 23 CE • Roman politician • Died in 30 BCE • Great‑grandfather of Caligula • Conquest and victory • The future of the Julio‑Claudian dynasty depends on the continuing conquest and subjugation of barbarians

Like the Grand Camée de France, the Imperial women probably wore laurel wreaths to show their Imperial status and roles in the Domus Augusta. However, these women were probably not linked to other deities or personifications. For example, in the Grand Camée de France, Livia was depicted as Ceres/Demeter. In the original fragment, Ca‑ ligula’s sisters and wife were not shown as deities, for that honor was reserved wholly for Caligula. This also represented an even more decisive move away from allegory. To add more complexity, these women could have had hand gestures like Roma. Maybe Agrip‑ pina the Elder pointed to Nero, calling the viewer’s attention to the (hopefully) next in line to the throne. Livilla, Caligula’s other sister, might be pointing upward toward Ger‑ manicus or Agrippina the Elder, the siblings’ parents (Table 6.2).

Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment  137 Life Cycle of Iconography: Stage Three Like the Grand Camée de France, the cameo fragment with Caligula and Roma rep‑ resents the third phase of the development of iconography when iconography is fully understood and becomes even more complex. The cameo fragment reacted to the Camée de France and the Gemma Augustea, improving upon these gemstones, with the higher quality stone and size. Patron

The dialogue between the large Imperial cameos did not stop with the Grand Camée de France. The patron of this now fragmentary cameo, Agrippina the Younger, was look‑ ing at both the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France and was influenced by both. Like her mother before her (Agrippina the Elder) and Livia before that, Agrippina the Younger used what power she had available to her to try to persuade her brother, Caligula, to make her son Nero his successor, mainly because at that point, the emperor had no sons. While Agrippina the Younger had no official power, she was not without influence. Like Livia and Agrippina the Elder, Agrippina the Younger commissioned a large Imperial cameo, the largest of all, to get into Caligula’s good graces and try to ma‑ nipulate him into doing something she wanted: seeing Nero as his heir. This was the most expensive and lavish of all the Imperial state cameos and was utilized as a persuasive gift to make Caligula see things Agrippina the Younger’s way. There is a tight window when Agrippina the Younger could have commissioned the original cameo. The cameo also must have been created before but not after Caligula’s assassination in 41 CE. Nero was born in 37 CE, so Agrippina the Younger would have commissioned this gemstone with its message of dynastic succession to Caligula after the birth of her son. Drusilla, who plays an integral part in the cameo, died in June 38 CE and was deified in September the same year. And suppose Milonia Caesonia was indeed on the cameo – in that case, this narrows the date further as she and Caligula wed in 39 CE and had their daughter, Julia Drusilla, later that year, pushing the date to 39–41 CE. Finally, Agrippina the Younger and her sister, Livilla, were exiled in 38 CE. All of these taken together mean that the fragment was made between September 38 CE and sometime in 39 CE. Composition, Style, and Types of Figures

The composition of the cameo fragment is another factor in dialogue with the earlier ones. As was already mentioned, the figures of Caligula and Roma are mirror images of Augustus and Roma on the Gemma Augustea. This must have been a deliberate reference to the previous gemstone. This is a significant parallel and is more direct here than with the Grand Camée de France; the Gemma Augustea is what the patron is interested in, and perhaps that is because of the focus above on Mark Antony in the fragment. Because of this similarity, it makes sense that the rest of the composition would have been some kind of variation of the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée, with either two or three registers: barbarians on the bottom, members of the Julio‑Claudian family in the middle, and apotheosized family members above, including Drusilla.60 In its complete condition, the composition may have been similar to the Gemma Augu‑ stea, but even the tiny amount preserved shows salient differences. First, Caligula was the

138  Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment last figure on the left side of the cameo. As such, the emperor was the goal of the entire composition, leading the eye from the right to the left. No divinities or personifications stand behind him, strikingly different from the Gemma Augustea in which Augustus is supported by Oikoumene, Oceanus, and Tellus Italiae. Furthermore, while both cameos contain Roma, her position has changed in the later Caligulan fragment. In the Gemma Augustea, Roma sits on Augustus’ symbolically important right side. At the same time, Roma is relegated to Caligula’s left side in the fragment, suggesting that the emperor now has a higher status than the goddess herself. This change in rank matches Caligula’s proclamation that he was a god and should be worshipped.61 Therefore, there is a change from an emperor mingling with gods in the Gemma Augustea to the depiction of an em‑ peror who ranks higher than a god in the Caligula and Roma fragment. If the Grand Camée de France was an updated version of the Gemma Augustea, the original cameo with Caligula and Roma must have been an even more ostentatious and over‑the‑top version of its two predecessors. Agrippina the Younger wanted to outdo both Agrippina the Elder and Livia. Caligula’s sister also wanted to get on his good side and soften him up so that he would see Nero as a possibility. Agrippina the Younger would have had access to the Imperial collection, and since she was even featured on the Grand Camée de France, though with this new cameo, she now wanted a more starring role. The classicizing style of the cameo fragment is identical to the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France, with its high degree of realism, impeccable craftsmanship, and level of detail. As for deities and personifications, the cameo fragment includes Roma, which might seem like a step backward since there were no overt mythological figures beyond Cupid and Pegasus in the Grand Camée de France, but this goddess was included for a particular purpose. Roma was included to emphasize that Caligula is the real god with power here. Size

To Agrippina the Younger, just like her mother with the Grand Camée de France, bigger was better. So she commissioned the biggest large Imperial cameo to date. While what re‑ mains is just a fragment, the size of that fragment is telling. The height is eleven centime‑ ters, with Caligula and Roma taking up almost the entire height. In contrast, the Gemma Augustea is nineteen inches tall, in total. Even if there were only two registers, the cameo fragment would probably be slightly taller than the Gemma Augustea. Furthermore, the figures within the fragment are larger than Augustus and Roma in the Gemma Augustea. The Grand Camée de France measures thirty‑one centimeters tall, and Agrippina the Younger would have wanted her cameo to be as tall as this, preferably taller. With one register of the cameo measuring eleven centimeters, if there were three registers, this cameo likely would have at least been thirty centimeters, rivaling the Grand Camée and thus be an appealing gift to give Caligula. Iconography

In terms of iconography, if the cameo fragment had a bottom register, it would have been filled with barbarians and militaristic imagery like cuirasses, helmets, shields, and other weapons. The barbarians and military objects advertise the victories of the Imperial

Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment  139 family. Not only that, but the peace of the Roman Empire is still dependent upon the continued military success of the Julio‑Claudian family. Symbols of fertility were included in the Gemma Augustea and the Grand Camée de France, and they are also in the cameo fragment. In the earlier cameo, fertility is primarily referenced through Tellus Italiae’s inclusion, her children, and cornucopia. On the Grand Camée de France, Livia is depicted as Ceres, the goddess of fertility and agriculture, hold‑ ing poppies and stalks of wheat. Now, the cameo fragment uses the double cornucopias and the lily on the top of the scepter to communicate this fertility and abundance. The cameo fragment has some significant differences, making it more complex and multivalent than the Grand Camée de France. When combined with the mourning beard, the double cornucopia is a reference to Ptolemaic sibling marriage and Caligula’s close relationship with his newly deceased sister. Finally, like the Gemma Augustea, Tazza Farnese, and the Grand Camée, the cameo fragment was a private iconographic testing ground for Imperial symbols. Caligula is no longer depicted in the guise of a god; he is a god, and in fact, he is even more important than Roma. In the early first century CE, such depictions of the emperor were still rare within Rome. Agrippina the Younger probably wanted to flatter her brother, but she was most likely following along with his practice of putting his sculptural heads onto sculptures of gods. This new iconography would eventually become mainstream in the public sphere. Notes 1 Ginsburg (2006, 4–5). 2 Kleiner (1992, 126). 3 Caligula was “ruthless, financially irresponsible, obsessed with ceremony at the expense of sub‑ stance, culturally insensitive and politically inept, or that his principate eroded the last vestiges of democracy in Roman government” (Wood 1995, 457). Also consult Philo On the Embassy to Gaius and Cassius Dio Roman History. 4 Kleiner (1992, 126). 5 Pollini (2012, 377). However, “official monuments and inscriptions provide no evidence lend‑ ing validity to the allegation that Caligula claimed to be a living god, and all of Caligula’s im‑ ages on official state coinage have a noticeable absence of divine trappings, divine guise, or any other sign” (Pollini 2012, 381). 6 See Suetonius The Twelve Caesars and Cassius Dio Roman History. 7 Wood (1995, 458). 8 Wood (1995, 457). 9 There is no direct or definitive evidence for one of these persuasive conversations between Ca‑ ligula and one of his sisters, but this would have happened. 10 Wood (1995, 459). 11 Wood (1995, 459). 12 Kleiner (1992, 126). 13 See Kunsthistorisches Museum, “Kameo: Kaiser Caligula und Roma” Oberleitner (1985, 28), and Walker and Higgs (2001, 268). 14 See Oberleitner (1985). 15 Walker and Higgs (2001, 268). 16 Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008, 96). 17 Some scholars date the cameo fragment to even earlier, claiming that the cameo fragment pre‑ ceded the Gemma Augustea and was from the earliest part of the Imperial period and that it is more closely related to the Hellenistic tradition in form and content (Eichler and Kris 1927; Richter 1971). 18 Von den Hoff (2009, 258).

140  Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment 19 Beards became common for emperors when Hadrian popularized them in the second century CE. The stippling on Caligula’s face is reminiscent of third‑century CE portraits along with the stipple on Tiberius on the (recut?) Grand Camée de France. 20 Mariette (1750). Mariette, however, was not working from the original gemstone but rather a drawing of his friend Bertoli’s cameo and subsequently engraved by Sedelmayer. Mariette also identified Roma as a portrait of Livia. 21 Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008, 298). 22 In the early nineteenth century, Adolf Furtwängler was the first to note the beard on the male figure. Like Mariette, Furtwängler also identifies this figure as Augustus, and because of the beard, he dates it to slightly before the Gemma Augustea. (Furtwängler 1900; Zwierlein‑Diehl 2008, 298.) 23 See Picard‑Schmitter (1971) and Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008, 299). 24 Walker and Higgs (2001, 268). 25 Walker and Higgs note that the figures even have similarities to the east section of the Panathe‑ naic frieze on the Parthenon, with its seated, relaxed deities (Walker and Higgs 2001, 268). 26 Walker and Higgs (2001, 268). 27 Oberleitner (1985, 30). 28 Oberleitner (1985, 28–30). 29 Richter (1971), Picard‑Schmitter (1971), Oberleitner (1985), Galinsky (1996), and Stevenson (1998). 30 Stevenson states, “[T]here is also for example the Ptolemaic cameo of a semi‑naked Octavian enthroned alongside Roma. Once again, the identification with Octavian and the date prior to 27 BCE, while not at all unreasonable, reflect assumptions that should be questioned” (Steven‑ son 1998). 31 There are, still, some outliers who do not interpret the cameo fragment as Caligula and Roma (Mikocki 1995; Pfrommer 2005). Mikocki identifies Drusilla in the guise of Roma, while Pfrommer identifies Caesonia, Caligula’s wife, as Roma. Pfrommer also thinks that it is pos‑ sible that the figure’s beard on the cameo fragment alludes to Alexander the Great and is not a mourning beard (Mikocki 1995; Pfrommer 2005; Von Fuchs 2009, 8). 32 Kyrieleis (1970). 33 Kyrieleis (1970) and Von Fuchs (2009, 7). 34 Many have agreed with Kyrieleis’ interpretation, including Megow. See Megow (1987), Meyer (2000), and Zwierlein‑Deihl (2008). (In 2000, Meyer identifies the cameo fragment of Caligula and Roma as the earliest “evidence for large Roman cameos” because he dates the Gemma Augustea to the Claudian era and the Grand Camée de France to the Neronian era.) 35 Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008, 295). 36 Von Fuchs (2009, 14). 37 Von Fuchs (2009, 14). 38 When Livia died in 29  CE, Tiberius did not allow his mother’s consecration. Only thirteen years later, during Claudius’s reign, she was finally made a diva. 39 Von Fuchs (2009, 10). 40 Von Fuchs does not provide any evidence for this scene of apotheosis on the shield. While there are traces of gilding, that is not proof of what originally decorated the shield. 41 Von Fuchs (2009, 11). 42 See Kyrieleis 1970, Megow 1987, Meyer 2000, and Zwierlein‑Deihl 2008. 43 As a reminder, Picard‑Schmitter was one of the few scholars attempting to identify this plant and said it was colocasia antiquorum. However, the plant/flower on top of the scepter does not resemble the colocasia antiquorum. 44 It is possible that this is the calyx of the flower too, with the rest broken off. 45 Kandeler and Ullrich (2009, 1894). 46 Augustus of Primaporta, 20 BCE, Vatican Museums, Italy (Cat. 2290). 47 Von Fuchs (2009, 14). 48 Kyrieleis (1970) and Von Fuchs (2009, 7). 49 In 1989, Boschung did not want to interpret the double cornucopia as an exclusive symbol of the Ptolemaic sibling marriage. Instead, it is a multivalent symbol with further significance and the traditional symbol of a simple cornucopia that communicates fertility and abundance. Boschung also investigates the shield held by Roma, identifying it as a clupeus virtutis of

Agrippina the Younger and the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment  141 Augustus. Thus, Caligula and Augustus are connected in this cameo fragment (Boschung 1989; ­Zwierlein‑Diehl 2008, 299). In 2002, Boschung returned to the cameo fragment and its rela‑ tionship to the similar Gemma Augustea and claimed these gemstones provide insights into the cult of Roma and Augustus and Livia and Tiberius in the Augustus and Roma Temple of Leptis Magna. See Boschung (2002). 50 Von Fuchs (2009, 7). 51 For more on Greek sphinxes, see Kourou et al (1994). 52 For example, a sixth‑century BCE Marble capital and finial in the form of a sphinx (Metropoli‑ tan Museum of Art, New York City, 11.185d). 53 Megow (1987, 185). 54 Kyrieleis (1970). 55 Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008). 56 Zwierlein‑Diehl does not explain the remaining white drapery to the right of Roman’s leg and knees that seems to belong to another figure. Boschung theorizes that the depiction of the apotheosis of Drusilla was to the right of Caligula and Roma (Boschung 1989). 57 Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008) and Von Fuchs (2009, 9). 58 See Cassius Dio Roman History and Suetonius The Twelve Caesars. 59 Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Life of Caligula, 35; Cassius Dio LX.8; and Pliny the Elder, Natural History volume 2. 60 Just as in the Gemma Augustea, the emperor is seated next to the goddess Roma. In contrast, Tiberius on the Grand Camée de France is accompanied by members of the Imperial family, not divinities, and because this gemstone is larger, the figures are also bigger. 61 Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Life of Caligula 22.36‑9, Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008, 145), and Pollini (2012, 69–132).

7 Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia, and the End of Large Imperial Cameos

Agrippina the Younger and Claudius Caligula was assassinated before he could name Agrippina the Younger’s son, Nero, the heir to the Roman Empire. Claudius, who was never expected or prepared to be emperor, began his principate in 41 CE. In 49 CE Claudius married his niece, Agrippina the Younger – and she, for the second time, used the medium of an Imperial cameo to communicate her dynastic importance to the emperor along with her crucial family con‑ nections and impeccable virtue, all with the ultimate goal of promoting her son, Nero, as the best candidate for the throne (over Claudius’ own son, Britannicus). Agrippina the Younger gave the Gemma Claudia to her new husband to celebrate their wedding in 49 CE. The Gemma Claudia does not address the issue of divinity (like the Caligula and Roma fragment and the Gemma Augustea) and instead focuses on the dynastic issues, which was probably prudent after the assassination of Caligula (Figure 7.1). Instead of referencing Claudius’ immediate predecessor, Caligula, the Julian and Claudian families are represented and honored. But it is not a very large or complex gemstone – and is less than half the size of either the Gemma Augustea or the Grand Camée de France. But the Gemma Claudia is the closest thing to a large Imperial cameo from the reign of Claudius. The Gemma Claudia represents the final fourth stage of the life cycle of iconography, when symbols begin to wane, become less complex, lose popularity, and eventually die out. The medium of the large Imperial cameo itself was on its way out – as is directly evidenced by the significantly smaller and less grand Gemma Claudia. Born in 10 BCE, Claudius was the penultimate emperor of the Julio‑Claudian dynasty and never thought he would become emperor of Rome because of his delicate and nerv‑ ous disposition.1 Because of this, Claudius’ childhood and adulthood did not prepare him to take over the ruling of the Roman Empire; he was neither educated in law or speaking nor experienced in warfare. Instead, Claudius spent his youth not in the world of men but mainly with his mother, Antonia Minor, and grandmother, Livia. Despite this lack of preparation for the throne, Claudius ruled effectively for fourteen years while main‑ taining peace throughout the Roman Empire. As emperor, Claudius patronized building projects, made reforms, and became an energetic scholar.2 In his personal life, Claudius married four times. After the emperor ordered the execu‑ tion of his third wife, Messalina, in 48 CE, Claudius quickly remarried Agrippina the Younger in 49 CE. The disasters of Caligula and Messalina had left Roman citizens angry and disgusted, and the Senate and the Roman people wanted a more ordered government that was not rife with scandals and family drama. Agrippina the Younger was a good DOI: 10.4324/9781003315308-7

Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia  143

Figure 7.1 Gemma Claudia, sardonyx, 15 cm × 12 cm, 49 CE, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria (IX A 63). Copyright: KHM‑Museumsverband.

public relations move for Claudius because she was a paragon of virtue – and all hope for a return to order was placed on her shoulders. In addition, Agrippina the Younger was the daughter of Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder, and her stately Claudian bloodline further connected Claudius to his fourth wife’s great‑grandmother, Livia.3 Through this advantageous marriage, Agrippina the Younger linked Claudius to Augustus even more and emphasized the glories of the golden age.4 But Claudius was Agrippina the Younger’s much older uncle, and he would not have been an appealing husband, not only because of his age and their familial relationship but especially because of the stigma of his nervous disorder. However, Agrippina the Younger must have realized that her marriage to Claudius was politically advantageous for her and her family.5 Why else would Agrippina the Elder have tied her life to the emperor, who was constantly being threatened? Because of the advantageous marriage to the em‑ peror (and later, she was the mother of another emperor, Nero), during her lifetime, Agrippina the Younger wielded more power than almost any other woman in Rome ever had (except for Livia).6 Moreover, Agrippina the Younger was different from her Imperial female predecessors in that she wanted political power for her son, Nero, but she also wanted power for herself in some recognized capacity. In the visual arts, Agrippina the Younger is depicted as much kinder and more flatter‑ ing, which was the result of her having more say in the art that was produced and that

144  Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia she was consciously using imagery to gain support. Portraits of Agrippina the Younger appear on many more coins, more so than any other Julio‑Claudian Imperial woman. She was the first living Imperial woman to be depicted alongside her ruling husband on coinage and the first whose portrait was labeled. Most scholars explain Agrippina the Younger’s prominence and pioneering nature in coins because she was the sister to one emperor, married to another emperor, and the mother of another. Thus, she had con‑ siderable sway in the Imperial circle. Agrippina the Younger also utilized images of her mother, Agrippina the Elder, as a ploy in this visual propaganda war.7 Provenance of the Gemma Claudia The Gemma Claudia is the closest thing to a large Imperial cameo from the reign of Claudius.8 Roughly rectangular, the cameo measures twelve centimeters high by fifteen centimeters wide and is made of sardonyx with traces of gilding.9 The Gemma Claudia became a part of the Imperial possession of the Habsburgs in the seventeenth century and then made it into the collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, Austria.10 A gold frame was added in the first half of the eighteenth century.11 Figures The Gemma Claudia is neither as large nor as complex as the earlier large Imperial cam‑ eos, indicating a waning in the popularity of this medium and a decline in the complex‑ ity of iconography. With a more condensed, smaller space than large Imperial cameos, the Gemma Claudia probably cannot be considered a large Imperial cameo. Because the Gemma Claudia is much smaller than the Gemma Augustea and the Grand Camée de France, the gemstone also contains fewer figures and less iconography (Figure 7.2). Instead of registers, the composition of the Gemma Claudia is in one zone and includes two pairs of Imperial couples facing each other: an older couple on the right and a younger one on the left. These two pairs are depicted from the neck up, and their faces are in profile, with each pair’s faces turned inward so that each couple looks directly at the other. Between the two pairs, the negative space is highlighted by the brown parts of the sardonyx. Below the two jugate portraits are various iconographic elements, including, most prominently, two pairs of double cornucopias decorated with curling vines and various types of fruit. The two male portraits (Figures A and C) emerge from the top of these double cornucopias. Other objects are strewn around and in between the cornucopias. An eagle stands between the cornucopias, precisely in the middle of the bottom portion of the composition. The eagle’s wings are outstretched, and its body faces the viewer, the left leg in front of the right. His head turns to the left, looking toward Figure A, signaling this man’s importance in the composition. Behind the double cornucopias, on both the far right and the far left sides, are more objects: military paraphernalia. On the left are shields, breastplates, and helmets; on the right are more shields, helmets, and a trophy. At the left is the younger pair: Figure A, an Imperial male, and Figure B, his female counterpart, who is behind her male companion and slightly to the right; half of her face is still visible. Figure A’s bust emerges from a Ptolemaic double cornucopia, and his brow is wrinkled, resulting in a serious expression. His face and hairstyle are Julio‑Claudian and somewhat idealized, though he has a pronounced receding chin. He wears a corona

Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia  145

Figure 7.2  Diagram of the Gemma Claudia. Copyright: Author Drawing.

civica with ribbons flapping in the wind behind him, and an aegis of absolute rule wraps around his neck. Behind Figure A is Figure B. While half of her face and head are covered by Figure B, some essential features, including a large, straight nose, a slight overbite, and snail curls in her hair, are still visible. She wears a crown made up of wheat along with a mural crown (corona muralis). Figures C and D are the older jugate pair on the right. Figure C, the male, faces Figure A. Like Figure A, Figure C wears a corona civica.12 His bust also emerges from a Ptole‑ maic double cornucopia, and he wears a paludamentum or military cloak. While Figure C is idealized, he looks different from Figure A with his Adam’s apple, slightly longer hair, a prominent chin and nose, and a slight overbite. Nevertheless, there are enough similar facial features to suggest that these two might be relatives. Behind Figure C is Figure D, his female partner. Half of her face, like Figure B across from her, is obscured by her male companion. She has a large nose and a wavy hairstyle, and she wears a laurel crown on a crested helmet. Interpretations Claudius and Agrippina the Younger

Scholarship on the Gemma Claudia began in the late eighteenth century, coinciding with its acquisition into the Imperial Habsburg collection. Early research focused on identify‑ ing the two couples within the gemstone, excluding everything else, including the mean‑ ing and message of the cameo. In 1788, Eckhel recognized Claudius and Agrippina the Younger as Figures A and B, an identification with which most scholars still agree.13 Other early scholars identified Figure B as Claudius’ third wife, Messalina.14 However, after Messalina’s murder in 48 CE, the Senate ordered the destruction of her portraits,

146  Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia and it seems unlikely that only about a year later, the Gemma Claudia would include a portrait of her, even if it was kept in an Imperial treasury and not in public view. Con‑ sequently, it is more likely that the Gemma Claudia must depict Claudius’ fourth wife, Agrippina the Younger, whom he married in 49 CE.15 By the twentieth century, scholarly attention began to focus on the figures’ identi‑ fication along with the meaning of the cameo. In 1936, Siegfried von Fuchs wrote an influential article about the interpretation, meaning, and date of the Gemma Claudia.16 In particular, Fuchs stated that the cameo was long recognized as representing four ­Julio‑Claudian family members and that these four must be closely connected in some way or circumstance. Gemstones like the Gemma Claudia usually were commissioned for a particular situation. They were made for a reason, and if we know what that reason was, it will inform the interpretation and understanding of the gemstone.17 However, Fuchs, too, had to first identify the four Julio‑Claudian family members be‑ fore turning to the meaning. He agreed with others that the male on the left was, without a doubt, the emperor Claudius.18 In contrast, the figure paired with Claudius took more work to pinpoint. Like Claudius, Fuchs used stylistic analysis of the hairstyle of Figure B to identify her: she must be Agrippina the Younger, the fourth wife of Claudius and the sister of Caligula. On the right, Fuchs identified Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder, Agrippina the Younger’s parents, and Claudius’s new in‑laws.19 Most scholars agree with Fuchs’ identifications.20 The two married couples are presented to the viewer and are connected by various re‑ lationships. Germanicus is the brother of Claudius. Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder are the parents of Agrippina the Younger, the niece of Claudius; therefore, they are also the new in‑laws of Claudius. The familial relationships became stronger with the mar‑ riage of Claudius and Agrippina the Younger. Even though Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder are deceased, Claudius’ bond with his brother, sister‑in‑law, father‑in‑law, and mother‑in‑law has become even more intimate. This closeness is reflected in the equality of the two sides of the composition, which are almost identical, and thus, the cameo em‑ phasizes the almost equal Imperial fame of Germanicus to that of Claudius. Furthermore, the cornucopias act as four branches growing out of a common root: this is the genealogi‑ cal tree of the Imperial couples within this gemstone, all of whom have a common root in Augustus.21 By marrying Agrippina the Younger, Claudius’ assumption of the principate was legitimized further since Tiberius had adopted Germanicus (Tiberius was his uncle), and Tiberius was the son of Livia, the wife of Augustus. While the two sides are mostly equal, the connection between Claudius and Agrippina the Younger is paramount in the cameo. While the double cornucopias act as an ances‑ tral family tree, they are also covered with various fruits and vines. The cornucopias are, as always, a symbol of prosperity, fertility, and abundance. But these horns of plenty also have another significant meaning within the cameo. The four Julio‑Claudian family members rest upon these overflowing Ptolemaic double cornucopias, and this means that this marriage is the real reason for the creation of this cameo. Because the cornucopias symbolize fertility, and the figures rest on top of them, they signify the need for children and heirs. This was the reason for Claudius and Agrippina the Younger’s marriage and the commissioning of this gemstone. Fuchs acknowledges that it is likely that Agrippina the Younger knew how to exploit her relationship with Claudius.22 Over half a century later, Judith Ginsburg agreed with Fuchs’ identifications and that the Gemma Claudia was a response to the disastrous events of 48 CE, specifically the be‑ trayal by Claudius’ wife, Messalina, and her eventual execution that year.23 Claudius was

Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia  147 desperate for positive public relations, and the Gemma Claudia served as a strategic pub‑ lic relations communication device and was a “statement of Claudius’ claim to dynastic legitimacy through his marriage to Agrippina and the new relationship it formed with her parents.”24 Because the gemstone depicts Agrippina the Younger and her parents, it advertises Agrippina’s embodiment of the Julian and Claudian lines in her person and, thus, holds out the promise that the kind of strife between family members of the two branches of the ruling family which characterized previous reigns will not recur in the current one.25 Ginsburg says that the Gemma Claudia is retrospective in its imagery and iconography, as it looks to and borrows from the past to legitimize Agrippina the Younger’s new hus‑ band’s right to rule.26 Figures C and D

On the right, the identities of Figures C and D have been slightly more difficult to pin‑ point, with suggestions ranging from Tiberius and Livia (mother and son); Augustus and Livia‑Roma (husband and wife); Britannicus and Octavia (children of Claudius and Messalina); Drusus the Elder and Antonia (parents of Claudius and grandparents of Ag‑ rippina the Younger); and Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder (the most prevalent iden‑ tification of the pair, as discussed previously).27 In 1821, Visconti was the first to identify the pair on the right as Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder.28 Sometimes Agrippina the Elder is identified as being in the guise of Minerva. However, this is unlikely because the goddess is a virgin deity, and Agrippina the Elder was the mother of nine children. More likely, Agrippina the Elder, with the helmet and laurel wreath, is in the guise of the god‑ dess Roma.29 Reworking of the Gemma Claudia?

In the last thirty years, several scholars focused their research on the possible rework‑ ing of the Gemma Claudia, arguing that the cameo was commissioned during the reign of Caligula, and Caligula was originally Figure A.30 After Caligula’s assassination, the Senate declared a moderate damnatio memoriae.31 Before Caligula’s images could be destroyed, Claudius saved many of his predecessor’s portraits from destruction.32 After Claudius married Agrippina the Younger, his new wife initiated the reworking of many of these Caligulan monuments, changing Caligula to images of the new emperor, and the Gemma Claudia was an example of this.33 Susanna Künzl was the first to propose that the Gemma Claudia was reworked in antiquity from an earlier gemstone based on new evidence from photographs of casts of the gemstone.34 The original Imperial figures on the left (Figures A and B), according to Künzl, were Caligula and either his wife, Caesonia, or his deceased sister, Drusilla (as the fertility deity Ceres). On the right are Caligula’s parents, Germanicus (in his role as a general) and Agrippina the Elder (in the guise of Roma), wearing a corona civica (Figures C and D).35 After Caligula’s early death, the gemstone was quickly transformed for the next princeps, Claudius, and several alterations were made to make Figure A a portrait of the new emperor.36 This reworking of the Gemma Claudia occurred in 49 CE, and Künzl asserts that a key piece of evidence for the reworking of Figure A are the physiognomic

148  Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia differences that set the now‑Claudius apart from the other three figures in the gemstone, especially his male counterpart, Germanicus (Figure C).37 Gerhardt Schmidt systematically studied photographs of the casts of the Gemma Clau‑ dia and created photomontages from those photographs, to prove it was a reworked Caligulan gemstone.38 Schmidt identified the four figures as Claudius and Agrippina the Younger on the left and Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder on the right.39 With its Ptolemaic iconography, the original cameo depicted Caligula and one of his sisters, most likely Drusilla, on the left and their parents on the right. Schmidt builds on Künzl’s original theory, especially the salient differences between the two male figures in the Gemma Claudia. Germanicus has no perceivable traces of re‑ working, so he is almost an entirely original figure. However, when Figure A is compared to Germanicus, many alterations indicate a reworking, changing the original Caligula into the new figure of Claudius.40 First, Claudius’ head is much smaller than Germani‑ cus’; the emperor’s head does not match his brother’s, stylistically or technically. Before the reworking, the two male heads were roughly the same size, but now there are changes in the profile’s forehead, hair, eyes, nose, and contours, especially Claudius’ receding chin. Another striking difference occurs in the hairstyle of the figure of Agrippina the Younger. This figure is no longer Drusilla, with a Caligulan‑era hairstyle. Now Agrippina the Younger has the ringlet hairstyle, popular in the Claudian principate.41 Nevertheless, there are detractors to this reworking theory. R.R.R. Smith believes that Figure A was possibly Caligula later reworked into Claudius, but cautions that “visible traces of reworking are slight and easily interpreted in other ways.”42 Furthermore, other things are wrong with this reworking theory, especially for scholars identifying the origi‑ nal couple on the left as Caligula and one of his sisters. First, there is no precedent for an emperor to be depicted with his sister in a jugate portrait, which is unheard of in a cameo, large or small. This type of pairing was reserved for husbands and wives and thus is ap‑ propriate for the two couples on the Gemma Claudia, which will be discussed further shortly. In addition, the figures’ hairstyles are a valuable dating mechanism, and Figure A’s coiffure is wholly inaccurate for Caligula, as is the figure’s large brow (Table 7.1).43 Iconography Ptolemaic Iconography

Fuchs’ identifications are correct. On the left are Claudius and his wife, Agrippina the Younger, while on the right are her parents, Germanicus (Claudius’ brother) and Agrip‑ pina the Elder. The Ptolemaic iconography in the Gemma Claudia is undisputed.44 The double cornucopias and jugate portraits derive directly from Ptolemaic coins. Ptolemaic iconography was not unusual in Roman art, especially in the late Republic and Early Roman Empire, as there was extensive communication and contact between Rome and Egypt. Some of these Ptolemaic iconographic features inevitably made their way into Ro‑ man art and became popular, in particular the jugate portrait of a ruling couple and the double cornucopia.45 In large Imperial cameos, Ptolemaic iconography appeared in the earlier cameo frag‑ ment with Caligula and Roma, and now it is continued here in the Gemma Claudia. Why? What purpose does it serve Claudius and Agrippina the Younger? Perhaps it was not meant to serve them but was an original and unchanged part of Caligula’s cameo that was later reworked into Claudius. In this case, the Ptolemaic iconography makes perfect

Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia  149 Table 7.1  Figures: Gemma Claudia Gemma Claudia

Identification

Meaning

Figure A

Claudius

Figure B

Agrippina the Younger

Figure C

Germanicus

Figure D

Agrippina the Elder

• Emperor • Brother of Germanicus • Husband and uncle of Agrippina the Younger • Brother‑in‑law of Agrippina the Elder • Fourth wife of Claudius • Claudius’ niece • Daughter of Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder • Sister of Caligula • Mother of Nero • Great‑granddaughter of Livia • Great‑granddaughter of Augustus • Adopted son of Tiberius • Older brother and father‑in‑law of Claudius • Posthumous portrait: he died in 19 CE • Mother of Agrippina the Younger and Caligula • Wife of Germanicus • Granddaughter of Augustus • Step‑granddaughter of Livia • Posthumous portrait: she died in 33 CE

sense. Caligula and his sisters already had a propensity for Ptolemaic references, with the double cornucopias in the cameo fragment, which were a Ptolemaic symbol of pairs of siblings. In the Gemma Claudia, the Ptolemaic jugate portraits are now added to the mix, probably to further reference the close sibling relationship he had with his deceased sister, Drusilla. Caligula also strayed from references to Augustus and instead chose to highlight his connection to Mark Antony and Cleopatra through Ptolemaic references. Thus, his allegiance to the Ptolemies is fully displayed in the Gemma Claudia. But what if the Gemma Claudia was not a reworked Caligulan gemstone but an origi‑ nal Claudian cameo? There were still legitimate reasons for Ptolemaic references. Ag‑ rippina the Younger had a propensity for jugate portraits of herself and Claudius, and this motif is found in many coins of the pair. The jugate portraits connect Claudius and Agrippina the Younger with the Ptolemies. However, such a connection to the Hellenistic world and monarchy was taboo in the monumental public art of the new Roman Empire and did not appear immediately. This jugate portrait took a few decades to make it into Roman portraiture and did not show up until Claudius and Agrippina the Younger in 50/51 CE.46 But it was a way to reference Hellenistic kingship and thereby convey the power of the ruling couple. The double cornucopias are another Ptolemaic iconographic feature and symbolize sibling relationships, which was also useful for an uncle‑niece pair. But there are also many familial relationships on display: Germanicus is Claudius’ brother, and Agrippina

150  Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia the Elder is Claudius’ sister‑in‑law. The four figures are related to one another and emerge from the same family tree. They are the descendants of the great Augustus, a connection that Claudius surely would have wanted because Claudius is the only one without a di‑ rect bloodline connection to Augustus.47 Agrippina the Elder and Agrippina the Younger are the granddaughter and great‑granddaughter of Augustus, respectively. Germanicus is not related by blood to Augustus, but Germanicus was adopted by Tiberius, who was, in turn, adopted by Augustus, so he, too, is related to the first emperor.48 The pair of double cornucopias are covered with various fruits and represent fertility, the need for children, and specifically an heir. Also, when the cornucopiae are combined with the abundant mil‑ itary paraphernalia, another message of the Gemma Claudia becomes clear: only through war and battle can peace and fertility be gained (Pax Romana). This connects the Gemma Claudia back to Augustus and the Gemma Augustea. Jupiter and Absolute Rule

Another familiar Roman iconographic attribute in the Gemma Claudia is the eagle with wings outstretched in the center of the cameo. With its head turned to the left and look‑ ing directly at Claudius, the eagle signals that the emperor is the most important figure in the cameo and that he shares a connection to Jupiter since the eagle symbolizes the god. In addition, Claudius wears the aegis of absolute rule, another attribute of Jupiter. Claudius is god‑like, akin to Augustus in the Gemma Augustea and Tiberius in the Grand Camée de France. Military Paraphernalia

Like the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France, the Gemma Claudia contains a variety of military paraphernalia, including armor, helmets, shields, and a cuirass. As in the other earlier large Imperial cameos, these arms and armor also symbolize military vic‑ tory, specifically those victories of Claudius and Germanicus in both the eastern and the western parts of the Roman Empire. However, Claudius was the only brother to survive to become emperor, so he received the pride of placement on the left.49 Crowns

Like other large Imperial cameos, the figures in the Gemma Claudia wear iconographi‑ cally significant crowns. Like Augustus in the Gemma Augustea, and as a deliberate nod to him, Claudius and Germanicus wear the corona civica, symbolizing heroic victory and Imperial authority. When combined with the eagle, the corona civica further emphasizes that Claudius is god‑like and shares a connection to Jupiter. Agrippina the Younger, on the left, wears a wheat wreath and a corona muralis. The wheat wreath references fertility and Egypt and harkens back to the figure of Demeter on the Aquileia Dish and the wheat held by Livia on the Grand Camée de France. In addi‑ tion, Agrippina the Younger is crowned with the corona muralis, which was worn by the figure of Oikoumene in the Gemma Augustea. Like Oikoumene, Agrippina the Younger wants to be viewed as the protector of the civilized world. On the right, Agrippina the Elder wears a plumed helmet, which directly connects her to the goddess Roma, who was depicted on the Gemma Augustea. She also wears a laurel wreath, symbolizing victory, perhaps in her successful role in the Domus Au‑ gusta. Including women in the Gemma Claudia strengthens the legitimacy of the men.50

Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia  151 Table 7.2  Iconography: Gemma Claudia Iconography

Meaning

Double cornucopiae

• More generally, a symbol of fertility and abundance brought on by the Pax Romana and continued by the Julio‑Claudian emperors, including Claudius • Four figures emerge from the double cornucopiae – they are from the same family tree and are descendants of Augustus • Popular Ptolemaic iconography carried over from a reworked Caligulan cameo? Jugate portraits • Ptolemaic iconography – symbolizes close sibling relationships • Hellenistic reference of kings and queens that was permissible in private art Eagle • Attribute of Jupiter • Symbolizes Claudius’ absolute rule as the eagle looks directly at Claudius Military paraphernalia • Military victories, specifically those won by Claudius in the West and Germanicus in the East Corona civica (Claudius and Germanicus) • Crown of oak leaves awarded to people who saved Roman citizens by killing an enemy • Heroic victory • Oak is associated with Jupiter • Imperial authority Corona muralis and wheat wreath • Corona muralis is a Greek crown usually worn (Agrippina the Younger) by geographical female personifications • Oikoumene wears a corona muralis on the Gemma Augustea, and the inclusion here is a deliberate attempt to connect the personification with Agrippina the Younger – she too is the protector of the civilized world • Wheat crown references fertility and references the female figures on the Aquileia Dish Plumed helmet with laurel wreath (Agrippina • Plumed helmet is an attribute of Roma (another connection to the Gemma Augustea) the Elder) • Agrippina the Elder in the guise of Roma • Laurel crown is a symbol of victory, perhaps Agrippina the Elder’s successful role in the Domus Augusta

For decades, very few scholars mentioned the women behind Claudius and Germanicus; these Imperial women were afterthoughts not worth their time. However, the women are instrumental in the meaning of the cameo, especially their identities and the iconography associated with them (Table 7.2). Life Cycle of Iconography: Stage Four The Grand Camée de France and the cameo fragment with Caligula and Roma belonged to the third stage of the life cycle of iconography, when symbols were at their height of popularity and complexity. But the Gemma Claudia represents a transition to the fourth

152  Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia phase. With its significantly smaller size and lack of iconography and figures, the Gemma Claudia represents iconography on the decline, as well as the decline in the popularity of the cameo medium. While familiar iconography is utilized, the medium of the large Impe‑ rial cameo is waning, and the iconography’s complexity and the gemstone’s size are both shrinking. The Gemma Claudia is referential, but its overall iconography is not complex or pushing any boundaries. Instead, Gemma Claudia’s iconography is a restricted pas‑ tiche of some iconography found on earlier large Imperial cameos. Patron

The purpose of the Gemma Claudia was the same as its predecessors: the gemstone was a gift from an Imperial woman to the emperor. Agrippina the Younger gave the gemstone to her new husband on the occasion of their wedding. Familial relationships are stressed, especially all that Agrippina the Younger brings to the table. Fertility and dynastic suc‑ cession are also alluded to, for with this union, there is the hope that the new couple will soon have an additional heir to the throne. Agrippina the Younger was only thirty‑four at the time of her marriage to Claudius and was possibly still fertile. But if she were unable to bear another child, Agripinna the Younger already had Nero to push for dynastic suc‑ cession. While Claudius had Britannicus, his son with Messalina, Agrippina the Younger would have wanted her own son to be emperor, as this would increase her standing too. Agrippina the Younger wrapped up this message in a pretty package, and the purpose of this gift was to get Claudius to do what she ultimately wanted, which was to choose her son, Nero, for the throne.51 While Nero was not depicted on the gemstone, he is al‑ luded to with the message of dynastic succession. If the new couple cannot conceive, that is okay because Agrippina the Younger already has Nero waiting in the wings – in fact, this is probably the scenario that she would prefer and that she had already pushed for in the past. Agrippina the Younger had previously used a large Imperial cameo, the Caligula and Roma cameo fragment, to subtly manipulate her brother, Caligula, to choose Nero as heir. However, Caligula was killed before her large Imperial cameo could benefit her and her son, Nero. The Gemma Claudia serves the same purpose as the Caligulan fragment but was a gift for a different emperor: her husband, Claudius.52 Following the disastrous end of his third marriage to Messalina, Claudius was quickly coaxed into marrying again: Agrip‑ pina the Younger, the daughter of Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder, and his niece. His new wife wanted to justify to the Imperial circle and her husband that her marriage, while against the incest laws, was good for the Julio‑Claudian dynasty. In particular, the Gemma Claudia was probably a wedding gift to her husband, Claudius, with the purpose of convincing the emperor to make her son, Nero, or any of their future sons together, the leading candidate for succession.53 Because it was meant to celebrate this new marriage, the two Imperial couples on the Gemma Claudia reflect this union, though the bride’s parents were both deceased by 49 CE. While it was unusual for the bride’s parents, rather than the emperor’s, to be rep‑ resented on the right, this was a deliberate choice of Agrippina the Younger, who wanted to connect Claudius more intimately to the Julian line of the family through his bride and, thereby, link the new emperor with Augustus (Agrippina the Elder is the biological granddaughter of Augustus).54 Furthermore, another goal of the Gemma Claudia was to reshape the opinion of the principate following Caligula and Messalina while simultaneously aggrandizing

Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia  153 Agrippina the Younger’s role in this rebranding. To that end, the traditional and formal composition and austere style of the Gemma Claudia imply that a return to order after previous disastrous events results from Claudius’ marriage to Agrippina the Younger.55 Taken as a whole: With the cornucopia, which points to abundance and prosperity, the bed of arms it rests on, the eagle, Jupiter’s bird, who looks to Claudius, the cameo suggests the link between the marriage of Agrippina the Younger and the re‑establishment of Claudius’ political position.56 Size

The Gemma Claudia represents a step backward in many ways. Smaller than the other large Imperial cameos, the Gemma Claudia is nonetheless the largest and highest quality cameo from the late Julio‑Claudian period. There is no evidence that it was reduced in size during its history, so the gemstone was always designed to be this small. This could have been because this was the largest piece of sardonyx available. Under Caligula, the largest piece of sardonyx had already been used for the cameo fragment with Caligula and Roma – perhaps the resources had been completely depleted. The treasury was also in shambles during Caligula’s reign, so there was not excessive money in the reserves, which could have been the reason for a smaller stone – maybe that’s all that Agrippina the Younger could afford. However, the smaller size also could have been a show of mod‑ esty for Agrippina the Younger, who was trying to make a good impression. She would no longer go over the top, like she did with the cameo fragment for her brother. The excessive spending that was rife during the reign of Caligula was now over. Composition

While the Gemma Claudia has the same familiar classicizing style, the composition repre‑ sents a departure from the previous gemstones. The Aquileia Dish and the Tazza Farnese had a round tondo for the composition, but the Gemma Claudia is a small rectangle. The Gemma Augustea had two registers; the Grand Camée de France had three registers; the Gemma Claudia had none. All the previous gemstones were packed with many charac‑ ters, their bodies completely depicted and in various poses and postures. But the Gemma Claudia has only four figures, which are reduced to static, formal busts. The composition of the Gemma Claudia is completely different from the earlier large Imperial cameos and entirely depends on these Ptolemaic jugate portraits. There is less life and vitality in the Gemma Claudia. It is a beautiful gemstone, to be sure, but it lacks the pizzazz and complexity of the earlier large Imperial cameos. The busts lack verve as they stare across at each other. There is no overt narrative here to draw the viewer further into the scene, another expression of the waning popularity of the large Imperial cameo medium. The Gemma Claudia only has historical figures, while the other large Imperial cameos contain many more.57 While the cameo fragment of Caligula and Roma included a de‑ ity, now there is a return to only mortals, though Agrippina the Elder and Agrippina the Younger wear crowns that allude to the goddesses Oikoumene and Roma, and Claudius is god‑like. In that way, there is a subtle connection to the earlier Gemma Augustea and Caligula and Roma fragment. But this, too, is a step backward for the Gemma Claudia,

154  Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia which does not directly address the issue of divinity and instead focuses on the dynastic, familial issues, which was prudent after the assassination of Caligula. Instead of referenc‑ ing Claudius’ immediate predecessor, Tiberius, both sides of Claudius’ Julian and Clau‑ dian families are represented through the four figures of the Gemma Claudia. It is interesting to note, though, another way that the Gemma Claudia is going back‑ ward: there are no children on the gemstone. Instead, only the emperor, his wife, and his wife’s deceased parents are included. Yes, dynastic issues are addressed, but these are mostly to legitimize Claudius’ right to rule and to connect him to Agrippina, the Elder, and, thereby, Augustus, his and his new wife’s illustrious ancestors. But all potential heirs are excluded and are only alluded to through the cornucopias and the fruit. Why does the Gemma Augustea abandon this tradition, especially when Agrippina the Younger has a son, Nero, who is a suitable candidate? Probably because Claudius has two children of his own, which would upset any references she makes. Why is there an obvious step backward in the iconography and complexity of the Gemma Claudia? Where is the “bigger is better,” “more is more, and less is a bore” at‑ titude that we have seen in the previous large Imperial cameos? Agrippina the Younger has already exploited large Imperial cameos as much as possible. Before commissioning the Gemma Claudia, she had what was probably the biggest, most ostentatious Imperial cameo made: the cameo fragment with Caligula and Roma. But now, at the time of the creation of the Gemma Claudia, Agrippina the Younger is no longer a sister of an emperor (Caligula). She is now even more important as the emperor’s wife, Claudius. Agrippina the Younger has more power and agency than even her mother, Agrippina the Elder, ever had, and Agrippina the Younger can easily sway Claudius to name Nero his successor without too much manipulation. Hence, Agrippina the Younger goes smaller and less complicated. Less is more. Agrippina the Younger was also probably cognizant of Claudius’ more modest tastes and that it is still the early days of their relationship, so she had more time to have another child or convince Claudius to adopt Nero as the heir. This referentiality had much to do with the patrons of the large Imperial cameos: Imperial women were at the helm, using a work of minor art in order to convince the emperor to choose her son as heir. Livia looked to Cleopatra, Agrippina the Elder used Livia as a model, and Agrippina the Younger followed in her mother’s footsteps. Each large Imperial cameo was a blueprint for the next Imperial woman to follow, and expand upon, in their commission. This Imperial female patronage also has important implications for the overall un‑ derstanding of these large Imperial cameos. Large Imperial cameos are female art forms, and the gemstones were specifically utilized as instruments of private propaganda to ag‑ grandize each woman’s role in the Imperial family and advance certain members of her family, who are displayed enticingly as potential successors to the emperor. Such obvious displays of dynastic succession were not acceptable in the public arts. Hence, Livia and Agrippina the Elder instead turned to one of the most expensive media of the minor arts to tell their stories. Women had more influence and input in creating these cameos, as op‑ posed to the art of the public sphere, which the emperor had a heavy hand in developing. Just as poison is a woman’s weapon, large Imperial cameos were a female empress’ type of propaganda. These cameos were more important than public relief sculpture because, though their audience was small, it included, and was specifically intended for, the most important person in the Roman Empire: the emperor himself.

Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia  155 Livia learned quickly from Cleopatra’s Aquileia Dish that images could be used as weapons in a propaganda war and could persuade and influence people to get what she wanted. With the Tazza Farnese, Livia advertised her husband’s important accomplish‑ ments and suitability to be the first emperor of Rome and that he deserved this honor over Mark Antony. After success with the Tazza Farnese, Livia tried her hand again with the Gemma Augustea, this time pushing her son, Tiberius, to be Augustus’ heir. Livia was trying to flatter her husband by gifting the object to him while also ingratiating her son, Tiberius, and grandson, Germanicus. While Livia is absent from the composition, her presence is palpable since she was the emperor’s wife, the mother of Tiberius, and the grandmother of Germanicus, all of whom are depicted in the upper register. These two candidates for the throne, along with the future Julio‑Claudian dynasty, would not exist or be successful without Livia. Because Livia was twice successful with her large Imperial cameos, Agrippina the El‑ der tried it herself with the Grand Camée de France, putting her three sons on display so that Tiberius would choose one as his successor. Agrippina the Elder gave the gemstone to Tiberius, the current ruler. In this case, Agrippina the Elder chose to include herself in the composition, and she sits near Livia, the emperor’s mother and the matriarch of the dynasty. Like Livia with the Gemma Augustea, Agrippina the Elder wanted to make a case for the successor of the throne, and she advertised her three sons, Nero Caesar, Dru‑ sus Caesar, and Caligula, as the obvious candidates. However, Tiberius could not abide Agrippina the Elder and exiled her. Eventually, Caligula, one of Agrippina the Elder’s sons, became emperor in 37 CE, but that happened long after she died in 33 CE.58 But the outcome of the Grand Camée de France was successful enough for Agrip‑ pina the Elder’s daughter, Agrippina the Younger, to commission her two large Imperial cameos. First, Agrippina the Younger gave the Caligula and Roma fragment, probably the largest, most ostentatious, of these cameos, to her brother and emperor, Caligula. Like the other large Imperial cameos, this gemstone was an expensive and exquisite gift to persuade Caligula to name Agrippina the Younger’s son, Nero, as heir. Then, when she was married to the emperor Claudius, Agrippina the Younger gave her husband, the smaller Gemma Claudia. Dynastic relationships were emphasized, and while Nero was not depicted in the Gemma Claudia, probably because his succession was a done deal, Agrippina the Younger gave Claudius the gemstone to flatter and entice him. What Happens to Large Imperial Cameos? Power and Propaganda presents a case study for the four stages of the life cycle of ico‑ nography, which are visible in the large Imperial cameos (and the Aquileia Dish, a sil‑ ver picture dish) of the Early Roman Empire. The Aquileia Dish and the Tazza Farnese represent the first stage, or the period of creation, when an iconographic symbol is first used, tested out, and its underlying meaning begins to be understood. The Tazza Farnese, dating to immediately after the Battle of Actium, was an artistic response to the earlier Aquileia Dish. Both use allegory along with Egyptian, Hellenistic, and Greek iconogra‑ phy. The Tazza Farnese especially represents the first inkling of the Roman Empire, when a new Imperial ideology and iconography was barely in its infancy and relied on earlier Egyptian, Hellenistic, and Greek iconography to convey a Roman message. Several dec‑ ades later, the Gemma Augustea eschews the allegory of the Tazza Farnese and represents a new, more mature Roman iconography: this is the second phase when iconography

156  Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia fully emerged and matured. A uniquely Roman visual language is now present, though there are still a few things borrowed here or there from Egypt or Greece. In another few decades, the Grand Camée de France and the Caligula and Roma cameo fragment respond to the Gemma Augustea, and both try to outdo their predecessors in size, num‑ ber of figures, iconography, and complexity. This represents the third stage, when the iconographic tradition is well‑known and established and becomes even more complex. Finally, in the fourth stage, iconography, along with the medium of the large Imperial cameo itself, starts to wane, loses popularity, and eventually dies out. The Gemma Clau‑ dia represents the beginning of this fourth stage of the life cycle of iconography, with its decline in size, iconography, storytelling, and complexity.59 Eventually, large Impe‑ rial cameos stopped being produced, and thus, there was no more development in their iconography. In this case study of the life cycle of iconography, we see the language of the Roman Empire at work, developing and changing organically with the needs of the dynasty. According to the data, based on the number of cameos that survive, high‑quality, complex, large Imperial cameos were a “Julio‑Claudian and Augustan phenomenon” and disappeared after these periods.60 After the Gemma Claudia, cameos continued to be made. However, the size of the gemstones shrank even more. These cameos in the 1950s and 1960s, during the last decades of the Julio‑Claudian dynasty, are never on the same scale as the Gemma Augustea or Grand Camée de France, so they cannot be classified as large Imperial cameos.61 They are smaller and not as complex or chock‑full of figures and iconography. Thus, the fourth stage of the life cycle of iconography is even more visible with these later Julio‑Claudian gemstones. The complexity and variety of the iconogra‑ phy, and even the medium of large Imperial cameo itself, are dying out. The Flavian Dynasty

Why were large Imperial cameos popular in the Julio‑Claudian periods, and why did they have such a short life span of less than a century? Why did production in this particular medium cease after the Julio‑Claudians? When Nero died in 68 CE, and the Julio‑­Claudian dynasty ended, the circumstances and the preference for cameos changed dramatically. After a brief transition period, the Flavian dynasty succeeded the Julio‑Claudians, with Vespasian followed by his two sons, Titus and Domitian (Figure 7.3). By the time of the Flavians, it was less important to advertise dynastic issues than to legitimize the new dy‑ nasty’s right to rule. In the Julio‑Claudian period, the goal was to create the idea of the Roman Empire and establish the idea of a dynasty. We see that progression in the large Imperial cameos. By the Flavian dynasty, however, the Roman Empire was solidified, and the focus changed. Vespasian already had two adult sons to succeed him, so display‑ ing dynastic succession had become moot.62 Instead, Vespasian wanted to ensure that Rome unquestionably accepted his right to rule since his family could not pretend to be connected to the illustrious Julio‑Claudians or even the aristocracy. This legitimization was done by emphasizing the traditional Roman language of conquest, particularly the dynasty’s important victory in the Jewish Wars in Judea.63 By the Flavian dynasty, the Domus Augusta was also over and no longer relevant, and there was no longer a need to advertise these important familial relationships in gemstones that were used to push Imperial women’s sons to the throne. There was no need for an Imperial Flavian woman to commission a large Imperial cameo to give to the emperor to promote her son as heir. In addition, both Vespasian and Titus’ first wives had died by the time their dynasty began, and neither of their second wives took an interest

Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia  157

Figure 7.3  Flavian Family Tree. Copyright: en:User:Steerpike, 2007.

in the Julio‑Claudian art of persuasive, private large Imperial cameos, because there was already a clear dynastic succession in place. The Flavians also might have wanted to dis‑ tance themselves from their predecessors. Thus, Flavian women did not want to repeat anything that Julio‑Claudian women were known to do.64 Abandoning the medium of large Imperial cameos, which had been so important to female Imperial family members, was another way for the Flavians to go in their new direction. Thus, the medium of large Imperial cameos disappears in the Flavian dynasty. But where does some of the pioneering iconography found in the large Imperial cam‑ eos of the Early Roman Empire go? The Tazza Farnese, Gemma Augustea, and Grand Camée de France served as an iconographic testing ground for the Julio‑Claudians, ex‑ perimenting with transmitting new Imperial messages that would become common in public art in later dynasties. Indeed, this transmission to the public sphere was another reason large Imperial cameos were nonexistent in the Flavian art; many of these conven‑ tions could now be displayed in public. Thus, some of the experimental iconography of large Imperial cameos was transmitted to mainstream public art. Divinities, Apotheosis, and God‑like Emperors

The convention of the emperor mingling with divinities is an example of how the ico‑ nography of large Imperial cameos foreshadows what will later become standard in the public art of the Roman Empire. This comingling of deities and members of the Imperial

158  Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia

Figure 7.4 Ara Pacis Augustae, 13–9 BCE, Museum of the Ara Pacis, Rome, Italy (12015). Copy‑ right: Manfred Heyde, 2009.

family within the same compositional zone was not acceptable in public art of the Au‑ gustan and Julio‑Claudian periods.65 On public monuments like the Ara Pacis Augustae (Figure 7.4), the emperor was depicted on the Imperial processional frieze as distinctly apart from deities.66 In a freestanding and public portrait, the Augustus of Primaporta statue depicts the emperor as a victorious general giving a rousing speech to his troops. At first glance, he does not appear to have any references to deities. However, the cupid at his feet and the divinities and personifications on his cuirass were subtle ways to reference that Augustus had the gods on his side.67 However, politics and conventions changed, and the revolutionary iconography of the large Imperial cameos was eventually transmitted to the public sphere by the Flavian period. For example, in the triumphal relief sculpture from the Arch of Titus, Titus rides a quadriga and is preceded by Roma (Figure 7.5). Victory stands behind the emperor and crowns him with a laurel wreath. In addition, personifications of the Senate and the Peo‑ ple of Rome stand beside his chariot. In the Flavian dynasty, combining personifications and deities with the emperor in the same compositional zone was now acceptable in the public sphere. Such a gathering became even more commonplace as the Roman Empire progressed.68 Large Imperial cameos are unique, in that they put forth the convention of the emperor and divinities together early on and foreshadow this iconography that will later become ubiquitous in the public sphere.

Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia  159

Figure 7.5 Triumph of Titus from the Arch of Titus, Rome, Italy, 81 CE. Copyright: Paolo Villa, 2022.

Large Imperial cameos also contained the depiction of the apotheosis of the emperor long before its appearance in public art.69 The upper zone of the Grand Camée de France shows Augustus and his Julio‑Claudian family members in the heavens, having been divinized. There were no depictions of an apotheosis of an emperor in the public sphere until the Flavian dynasty in the late first century CE, another iconographic convention borrowed from large Imperial cameos that were now transmitted to the public sphere. On the top of the vault in the bay of the Arch of Titus in Rome is the Apotheosis of Titus (Figure  7.6). The Flavian emperor sits on the back of an eagle whose wings are outstretched. This scene was on a public arch, visible to anyone beneath the bay. Only a short while after cameos’ decline in popularity, this apotheosis motif transitioned to the public sphere and would continue to be popular. Going hand in hand with the apotheosis of the emperor is the depiction of the emperor as a god or god‑like. In the Gemma Augustea, Augustus mingles with divinities, and he is also in the guise of Jupiter, with the scepter, eagle, and bare chest. Similarly, Tiberius in the Grand Camée de France has the scepter and bare chest of Jupiter, making him god‑like. Caligula takes this two steps further in the cameo fragment and is depicted as a god (and not just in the guise of one), but by his positioning, the message is that he is even more important than Roma. However, in the Augustan and Julio‑Claudian periods, em‑ perors could only subtly allude to their god‑like qualities in the public sphere. For exam‑ ple, in the Augustus of Primaporta statue, the emperor has the gods on his side, and there are subtle allusions to his divine heritage, but he is not god‑like. During the Augustan and Julio‑Claudian periods, there was a strict prohibition from public depictions in Rome of the emperor as a god within the city of Rome.70 The emperor was not a god; he was the first among equals, primus inter pares. Augustus and (most of) the Julio‑Claudian emper‑ ors resisted that depiction in public art in Rome. Unlike the kings of the Near East and the pharaohs of ancient Egypt, the standard interpretation of the Roman emperor held

160  Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia

Figure 7.6 Apotheosis of Titus from the Arch of Titus, Rome, Italy, 81 CE. Copyright: ­Amphipolis, 2014.

that he was not considered a god during his lifetime in the early Empire. The emperor was deified after death when he would subsequently enter the pantheon of Roman gods.71 Poetry, Elegance, and the Ideal of Imperial Majesty

There are also more subtle iconographic conventions occurring in large Imperial cameos that eventually appear in public sculpture. First, in cameos, the emperor is not specifically doing anything. Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius do not address the troops, sacrifice, or distribute the largess, among many other Imperial activities popular in pub‑ lic relief sculpture.72 In large Imperial cameos, the emperor represents something more abstract, like absolute power, victory, or the Pax Romana because “cameos had higher concerns, with absolute power, victory, peace, abundance, key family members, and des‑ ignated successors.”73 Poetic and complex iconography conveyed these ideals and com‑ municated their Imperial, majestic messages. In contrast, art in the public sphere in the Julio‑Claudian period was typically much more straightforward and blunt. Imperial women are also praised in large Imperial cameos for their important roles as wives, sisters, and mothers of the emperors. They are the bedrock of the Domus Augusta. However, in the public sphere, women were not depicted frequently in relief sculpture in the first century CE. Yes, they were included in the Imperial processional friezes of the Ara Pacis Augustae, but this is not the norm. Augustus and his successors shied away

Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia  161 from praising and including female family members in the public arena. But Imperial women eventually featured prominently in large Imperial cameos – and even when they are absent, as in the Gemma Augustea, Livia’s bearing of sons is distinctly praised. The prominence of Imperial women and the message of their role in the success of the Domus Augusta are other reasons for their female patronage. The women are behind the creation of these cameos and want to be in the composition.

Figure 7.7 Apotheosis of Sabina from the Arco di Portogallo, 117–138 CE, Capitoline Museums, Rome, Italy (Inv. MC 1213). Copyright: Foto in Comune.

162  Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia The moods of large Imperial cameos and public state relief sculptures are dif‑ ferent, and the gender of the patron was a contributing factor to these differences. Large Imperial cameos are the poetry to public state relief sculpture’s prose. Imperial women commissioned large state cameos, which were lyrical, complex, and elegant. Cameos had to be multidimensional and complex so that women could use them for their coded propagandistic language. On the contrary, in the Augustan and Julio‑­ Claudian periods, the emperors were the patrons behind public state relief sculp‑ tures. These scenes were straightforward prose, easy to understand, with subjects repeated. The intended audience of artwork was certainly a motivation for either the poetic or the prosaic style since a more cultured and educated elite was the audi‑ ence for cameos, and the general public needed to be able to understand public relief sculpture. The more poetic style, combined with representing the ideal of Imperial majesty and the inclusion and praise of women found in large Imperial cameos, will all become visible in the public sphere by the time of the reign of Hadrian in the second century CE. This could be because Hadrian was the most educated and well‑traveled. He was a philhellene, had a passion for art of the past, and even was an amateur architect. After the death of his wife, Sabina, he wanted to praise her publicly, and her apotheosis was the subject of a relief sculpture in the Arco di Portogallo (Figure 7.7), which has the more poetic style of the large Imperial cameos. First, the emperor is not doing anything; instead, he represents the ideal of Imperial majesty and rule. Hadrian is enthroned in the lower right, and the index finger of his right hand points upward to his apotheosized wife in the heavens above. Next, Sabina is included and divinized after her death – a great honor that had not yet been depicted in the public sphere. Overall, the style of the Arco di Portogallo is more lyrical and poetic than the typical, brutal, and prosaic style found in public relief sculpture. It may have taken more than a century to arrive, and it might not have become the most popular style. However, here with Hadrian, we can see the ongoing influence of the elegance of large Imperial cameos. After the Augustan and Julio‑Claudian peri‑ ods, the large Imperial cameos were “conserved in Palatine collections,” where emperors could study and admire them. Some, like Hadrian, were influenced by their lyrical and poetic styles.74 Notes 1 Today, Claudius probably would be diagnosed with dystonia, a nervous disorder that causes drooling, stuttering, and irregular movements. In antiquity, this disorder made Claudius unfit for public life (Osgood 2011). 2 Osgood (2011, 9–11). 3 Claudius’ grandparents were Octavia (Augustus’ sister) and Mark Antony. Thus, Claudius was related to Augustus. But Agrippina the Younger had an even more direct line back to the golden age since Livia was her great‑grandmother. 4 While her lineage made her a paragon of virtue, ancient literary sources also portray Agrippina the Younger as power‑hungry and someone who would do anything to gain more influence, in‑ cluding poisoning her family members, committing incest with her son, and sleeping with other women’s husbands. Agrippina wielded much power behind the scenes with subtle machina‑ tions and manipulations. Tacitus described Agrippina the Younger as the consummate schemer and claimed her marriage was the highlight of her ambitions (Tacitus XIV). According to some, Agrippina the Younger was a stereotypical schemer willing to do anything to get herself, her husband, and her son ahead. She was “lusting after power, manipulating men and women to her ends, and, when thwarted, retaliating with calculated ruthlessness” (Ginsburg 2006, 4–5).

Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia  163 (Let it be noted the double standard here, as when a man does anything to get ahead, he is ambitious and driven. When it is a woman, she is a schemer and manipulator.) 5 Ferrero (1978, 278). 6 Osgood (2011, 223). Like Livia, her predecessor, Agrippina the Younger, exerted tremendous power and influence for a woman in antiquity. Agrippina the Younger received even more hon‑ ors than her role model, Livia, including receiving the title Augusta sooner. 7 Ginsburg (2006, 55–57). Before Agrippina, Imperial women were represented on coins, but there was reluctance to do so. 8 For an exhaustive bibliography of the Gemma Claudia, consult Zwierlein‑Diehl 2008. The major sources for the Gemma Claudia include Fuchs (1936), Kraft (1952), Rochetti (1959), Megow (1987), Künzl (1994), Guillaume‑Coirier (2004), Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008), von den Hoff (2009), Fischer (2014), Schmidt (2019), and Smith (2021). 9 Smith notes traces of gilding in Germanicus’ crown and between the eagle and the left double cornucopia (Smith 2021, 46). 10 Kunsthistorisches Museum, “Gemma Claudia.” The provenance prior to its Habsburg acquisi‑ tion is unknown. 11 Google Arts and Culture, “Gemma Claudia.” 12 Figure C’s crown looks slightly different from the corona civica of Figure A, which has acorns. But Figure C’s crown cannot be an olive or laurel crown because of the drill holes. 13 Eckhel (1788). Opposite them, Eckhel identified the emperor’s parents, Drusus Major and Antonia Minor, as Minerva. 14 Arneth (1849). In 1849, Arneth identified the pair on the left as Claudius with Messalina, his first wife, and Tiberius with his mother, Livia, on the right. 15 Guillaume‑Coirier (2004, 26). 16 Fuchs (1936). 17 Fuchs (1936, 213). 18 By 1936 and the time of writing his article, almost all agreed with this identification of Claudius. Fuchs compared Figure A to portraits of Claudius, noting the similarities in the hairstyles (Fuchs 1936, 214–216). 19 Fuchs (1936, 217). Some identified Agrippina the Younger as Cybele/Ceres. This syncretized fertility deity had importance for Romans, as Cybele was viewed as a protector of cities against foreign enemies (Wood 1999, 307 and Livy 29.10.4‑6.). Because Agrippina the Younger is crowned with a corona muralis, she is Oikoumene, the goddess of the inhabited world (Wood 1988, 409). 20 Recently, Smith weighed in on these accepted identifications of the figures on the Gemma Claudia: Claudius and Agrippina the Younger on the left and Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder on the right (Smith 2021, 19). Smith states that the “cameo is one of the most effective visualizations of universal Imperial power and dynastic specificity: Roman identity and Hel‑ lenistic majesty are indissolubly merged” (Smith 2021, 20). 21 Fuchs (1936, 232). 22 Fuchs (1936, 233–234). However, Fuchs does not go so far as to identify Agrippina the Younger as the patron; instead, he believes the cameo was a gift to the newlyweds. 23 Smith also agreed with this date and that the Gemma Claudia dates to after Messalina’s execu‑ tion and was meant to celebrate the wedding of Claudius and Agrippina the Younger (Smith 2021). 24 Ginsburg (2006, 92). 25 Ginsburg (2006, 93). 26 Ginsburg (2006, 93). 27 For example, see Lenormant (1843) and Arneth (1849). Another possibility is that Figure D is Roma since she wears a helmet and has idealized features. 28 Visconti (1821). Bernoulli (1891) agrees with Visconti about the pair on the right but was the first to recognize the woman with Claudius on the left as Agrippina the Younger. Also see Nau (1968), Richter (1971), Kleiner (1992), and Rose (1997). 29 Wood (1999, 307) and Hölscher (1988, 529–531). 30 See Künzl (1994), Guillaume‑Coirier (2004), and Schmidt (2009, 2019). 31 See Dio Cassius. 32 Schmidt (2009).

164  Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia 33 Other surviving cameos supported this reworking theory and had original Caligula‑Drusilla jugate portraits changed to Claudius‑Agrippina the Younger. Schmidt cites the emperor with the attributes of Jupiter (Marlborough‑Alsdof, The Art Institute of Chicago) and Marlborough Cameo (Schmidt 2009). 34 Künzl (1994). 35 Guillaume‑Coirier also agreed with the reworking theory (Guillaume‑Coirier 2004, 59–60). 36 Künzl (1994, 296). 37 First, the treatment of the eyes indicates there have been revisions. There are two variants of the pupils in the figures of the Gemma Claudia, with the eyes of Germanicus and Agrippina similar to one another and differing from Claudius on the right. The noses are another indication of revision. A close inspection of Claudius reveals that his nose is much shorter, and the nostrils are smaller than Germanicus’. Like the nose, the neck of Claudius is also shorter and thicker compared to Germanicus on the right. Künzl also sees a difference in hairstyle, claiming that Claudius is one of the emperor’s typical coiffures. Furthermore, Claudius’ profile line and fore‑ head differ from Germanicus’, receding noticeably. Overall, the style of Claudius is different from Figure C and instead matches with Claudian portraits, while Germanicus is most closely related to Tiberian and Caligulan portraits. In addition, Agrippina the Younger’s hairstyle is strikingly different from that of Agrippina the Elder. All these physiognomic differences are because the original figure, Caligula, was reworked to transform him into Claudius (Künzl 1994, 289–290). Zwierlein‑Diehl disputed Künzl’s theory, criticizing Künzl for only using pho‑ tographs of casts as proof instead of the gemstone itself. Künzl’s argument, Zwierlein‑Diehl claims, would have been more persuasive if she had measured the thickness of the gemstone since this is more direct physical evidence for the reworking since any revision would result in the removal of some of the material. Zwierlein‑Diehl says the thickness of the stone was crucial since everything Künzl presents in her article as “proof” can be explained by the treatment of the surface and contours and the unique stone itself (Zwierlein‑Diehl 2008, 315). It is not a sign of overwork, and such small remaining parts also occur in the best cameos. 38 Schmidt (2009, 2019). 39 According to Schmidt (2009, 2019), this figure only could have initially been Caligula. He was never Augustus or Tiberius because there was no reason to rework the portraits of these two earlier emperors – and the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camèe de France, two cameos that feature these two emperors, attest to the fact that portraits of Tiberius and Augustus were not revised and remained untouched throughout antiquity. Schmidt notes, though, that it is sur‑ prising that the boy on the left side of the Grand Camée de France, often identified as Caligula, was never reworked (if it was Caligula). Schmidt claims the Grand Camée de France was made in 29 CE when Caligula was fourteen. However, that adolescent age does not match the small boy in the Grand Camée. Instead, Schmidt thinks that the young boy on the Grand Camée is Nero, the second heir to the throne, who was seven when the cameo was made, a much better fit than the teenaged Caligula. 40 Schmidt remarks that Künzl’s article has routinely been ignored throughout the years, and its validity is questioned when it has been brought up. Fortunately, the revision during antiquity was not done correctly, so modern viewers can see that Figure A was visibly reworked. 41 Schmidt (2009). 42 Smith (2021, 46). 43 Smith (2021, 46). 44 See Eichler and Kris (1927), Charbonneaux (1957), and Möbius (1964). 45 Möbius (1964). However, this is difficult as not much art survives from Alexandria, and what does survive cannot be definitively assigned to coming from that city. 46 Ginsburg (2006, 58). 47 Claudius was the son of Antonia Minor, who was the daughter of Mark Antony and Octavia, who was Augustus’ sister. So Claudius could connect himself to Augustus – just not as directly as everyone else. 48 Ginsburg (2006, 92). 49 Wood (1999, 306–307). 50 Ginsburg (2006, 92). 51 Fuchs (1936, 232–238) and Zwierlein‑Diehl (2008, 36–37). Some think that the Gemma Clau‑ dia “was probably made at the expense of a rich city as a gift for the marriage” of Claudius and Agrippina the Younger in 49 CE (Wood 1988, 422; Fantham et al. 1994, 311).

Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia  165 52 Because of the evidence from Künzl and Schmidt, I also think that the Gemma Claudia was an earlier Caligulan gem. Agrippina the Younger wanted to add a cherry on top of the Caligula and Roma fragment that she gave her brother, the emperor. But then Caligula was assassinated. Following her husband’s lead, Agrippina the Younger reused earlier Caligulan artworks for the new emperor when she married Claudius. After the excess of Caligula’s reign, surely the Roman treasury was thankful for this fiscal responsibility, and it would have pleased her more modest new husband too. 53 Agrippina the Younger knew no bounds when promoting her son to succeed her husband. It is “assumed that Agrippina the Younger poisoned Claudius with a mushroom dish to secure the succession of her son Nero” – though this alleged poisoning was still years away when the Gemma Claudia was made and given to Claudius (Scheiderich 2017, 19). 54 Scheiderich (2017, 18–19). 55 Osgood (2011, 221). 56 Osgood (2011, 222). 57 We assume the Caligula and Roma cameo fragment was much larger in its original state and contained many figures in multiple registers. 58 Caligula and his cousin, Gemellus, were adopted by Tiberius as co‑heirs, but upon Tiberius’ death, Caligula had his cousin killed so that he could be the sole ruler. 59 See Megow (1987). There are later Imperial cameos, which Megow discusses, but they are much smaller; thus, they cannot be considered large Imperial cameos. Large Imperial cam‑ eos on the scale of the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France were not seen again in the Roman Empire. While cameos were still being produced after Nero at the end of the Julio‑Claudian dynasty, they were no longer as large, complex, or chock‑full of iconography; they cannot be classified as large Imperial cameos because of their size. 60 Smith (2021 11). See Smith’s pie chart and stacked bar chart on page 10 for the data on the surviving Imperial cameos from the Roman Empire, divided into dynasties. Seventy‑three per‑ cent of all Imperial cameos, large and small, date to the Early Roman Empire, specifically the Julio‑Claudian period. Some later fourth‑century CE cameos were most likely reworked, or at least reinterpreted, Julio‑Claudian cameos, like the Ada Cameo. Smith lists five possible large Imperial cameos from the fourth century CE that are high in quality: Belgrade Cameo, Triumph of Licinius Cameo in Paris, Rothschild Cameo, Ada Cameo, and the Cameo of the Hague. 61 Furtwängler (1900, 325). Furtwängler stated that there were no significant cameos after the Julio‑Claudian period. Some scholars have noted examples of large Imperial cameos from the fourth century CE, such as the Ada Cameo and possibly the Cameo of the Hague, both of which are discussed in Chapter 8. 62 Furthermore, the Republican ideas against a royal concept like dynastic succession were no longer important. Rather the sons of Vespasian offered the advantage of a simple succession after the turmoil of the Year of the Four Emperors. 63 Future emperors would try to legitimize their right to rule by linking themselves to their im‑ mediate predecessor, or even Augustus, thereby stating that they were merely one in a long line of emperors. For example, Trajan tried to link himself to Augustus iconographically, and Septimius Severus legitimized his right to rule by actually claiming to be an Antonine. For more on this, consult Kleiner (1992). 64 Vespasian did this with his veristic portraits, eschewing the typically idealized style preferred by the Julio‑Claudians. 65 There is a discussion of this issue in Kuttner (1995) and Pollini (2012). For example, Pollini maintains a strict difference between official and nonofficial representations of the emperor (Pollini 2012, 69). 66 There are few extant works of Augustan art; therefore, the Ara Pacis Augustae is always the prime example of the period. While the Ara Pacis Augustae does not show the emperor in the same zone as divinities and personifications, we do not know this was completely taboo in pub‑ lic art. If, as Kuttner thinks, the Boscoreale Cups reflect monuments in the public sphere, then the mixing of mortal and divine in the public sphere occurred in public art in the Julio‑Claudian period (Kuttner 1995). 67 Augustus of Primaporta (Augustus as a General), 20 BCE, Vatican Museums, Italy (Cat. 2290). 68 Another example from the Flavian period is the Cancelleria Reliefs from 93 to 95  CE. The adventus of Vespasian has the gods mingling with Vespasian, specifically Roma. The Forum Transitorium also has a frieze that has gods and personifications.

166  Agrippina the Younger, the Gemma Claudia 9 For more on apotheosis of the Roman emperor, see Kreitzer (1990). 6 70 Claudius was the first Julio‑Claudian emperor to be depicted as a god in the public sphere, though this was a freestanding sculpture from outside Rome. Refer to Figure 4.4 in Chapter 4 for an image of Claudius as a God from Lanuvio. 71 The divinity of emperors is a difficult and much‑debated topic in Roman art, specifically whether an emperor was considered a god during his lifetime (for general information, see Sweet 1919; Gradel 2002). According to Chalupa (2007), there are typically two opinions on this matter. First, some scholars claim that Roman emperors were not gods (Nock 1934; Bickerman 1973). In this case, the Roman Imperial cult is political and affords its rulers special status. The second opinion is that Roman emperors “were considered to be more than average humans but not gods, and certainly not when alive” (Chalupa 2007). Instead, emperors were connected to the gods and enjoyed a special relationship with divinities, but they were not gods themselves until they died (Herz 1988; Pollini 1989; Elsner 1995; Peppel 2003; Pollini 2012). The issue of the divinity of Roman emperors is further complicated by geography, for outside of Italy, the liv‑ ing emperor was worshipped during his lifetime in certain provinces (see Price 1984; Fishwick 1987). 72 Smith (2021, 24). Smith compares the style of large Imperial cameos to poetry, whereas public relief sculpture is prose. 73 Smith (2021, 32). “We see absolute god‑rulers of a world empire at peace, frozen in staged allegories and still moments of classical tranquility, but they are also distinctively Roman god rulers, recognizable by their sharply defined portraits, their attributes, and their cool, aloof style.” 74 Smith (2021, 9).

8 The Revival of Large Imperial Cameos in the Fourth Century

Large Imperial cameos were a Julio‑Claudian phenomenon. But in the fourth century CE, large Imperial cameos returned with Constantine and his successors, exhibiting familiar Imperial iconography and messages.1 There are four possible large Imperial cameos from the fourth century: the Belgrade Cameo, the Rothschild Cameo, the Ada Cameo, and the Cameo of the Hague.2 Some have argued that these fourth‑century cameos were reworked from first‑century originals. Constantine sometimes reused sculpture, not because he was unable to afford the expense of a new commission but because the old sculpture served a specific propagandistic purpose.3 In the case of the large Imperial cameos, an original or revised gemstone connected Constantine and his heirs to Augustus and the Golden Age of Rome. These fourth‑century cameos served similar purposes as those from the first century, promoting dynasty, family, and victory. The Belgrade Cameo The Belgrade Cameo was excavated outside the Serbian city of Belgrade in 1900; its provenance prior to this is unknown.4 Made of sardonyx, the Belgrade Cameo is a large fragment measuring fifteen by nineteen centimeters, and, most likely, with its irregular curving line, the piece was from the bottom right rounded corner of a square or rectan‑ gular cameo.5 If that were the case, the figures in the fragment would not have been part of the central scene.6 One of the unusual features in the Belgrade Cameo, not visible in any other large Imperial cameos, is the carved border of its surviving original edges. Un‑ fortunately, not much of the decoration is decipherable besides some geometric shapes. These shapes could be jewels used to decorate diadems like the ones worn by the main figure (Figure 8.1).7 What remains in the fragment is a battle scene with a beardless soldier in armor and wearing a diadem. He holds a spear and is astride a running horse, moving to the right. Conquered, fallen enemies are dead below the rider and horse. On the far left of the frag‑ ment is another soldier, depicted in a much smaller scale than the one on horseback. This smaller soldier also wears armor, checking on the dead and dying enemy left in the wake of the rider and horse. Research on the Belgrade Cameo commenced soon after its excavation at the begin‑ ning of the twentieth century, and most have focused on issues of style, date, and ico‑ nography.8 In 1900, Adolf Furtwängler first identified the rider as the Thracian king, Rhoimetalkes, and interpreted the scene as the Thracian insurrection of 16–13  BCE.9 In 1922, Gerhart Rodenwaldt dated the Belgrade Cameo, because of its style, to ap‑ proximately the second quarter of the fourth century CE, and since then, most agree that DOI: 10.4324/9781003315308-8

168  The Revival of Large Imperial Cameos in the Fourth Century

Figure 8.1 The Belgrade Cameo, sardonyx, 15 × 19 cm, 323–324 CE, National Museum of Bel‑ grade (116/IV). Copyright: Pavle Cikovac, 2004.

the gemstone is an original Constantinian production.10 Usually, the rider is identified as Constantine I or one of his sons, and the fragment is dated to about 323 or 324 CE because of the jeweled diadem.11 The Rothschild Cameo The provenance of the Rothschild Cameo is unknown, though when it was bought by the Rothschild family in Paris in 1889, paperwork stated that it was from Spain.12 Meas‑ uring sixteen centimeters in diameter, the cameo is in a filigree frame, a later addition.13 The Rothschild Cameo depicts the busts of a man and a woman from the chest up. The man stands on the left and wears a long‑sleeved tunic with a cuirass on top. His left arm crosses his chest, and his unseen right arm presumably holds the scepter on the far left. The woman stands behind her male companion, and she wears a long‑sleeved tunic.

The Revival of Large Imperial Cameos in the Fourth Century  169

Figure 8.2 Rothschild Cameo, sardonyx, 16 cm in diameter, Private Collection. Copyright: Public Domain.

There is consensus that this couple is Imperial, and because of the cross on the man’s crown, they also must be Christian (Figure 8.2).14 Based on its Late Antique style, most scholars believe the Imperial couple is from the fourth or fifth century CE.15 The most popular identifications for the couple have been Theodosius I and Aelia Flaccilla; Honorius with his first wife, Maria; or Honorius with his second wife, Thermantia (Maria’s sister).16 But there is a general agreement that the Imperial couple is Honorius and his first wife, Maria, and that the gemstone was made to commemorate their wedding.17 Honorius was the son of Theodosius I and Aelia Flac‑ cilla. Born in 384, Honorius was emperor of the West from 393 to 423, while his older brother, Arcadius, ruled the eastern half. Honorius married Maria in 398 when he was only fourteen years old. When Maria died in 404, Honorius married her sister, Therman‑ tia, only a year later.18

170  The Revival of Large Imperial Cameos in the Fourth Century The Imperial male is usually identified as Honorius because of his similarity to a por‑ trait of the emperor in the Probus diptych of 406.19 Some scholars, including Elisabetta Gagetti, Siri Sande, and R.R.R. Smith, claim that the Rothschild Cameo was originally a Julio‑Claudian gemstone depicting Claudius and either Messalina or Agrippina the Younger and that it was later reworked in the fourth century CE, transforming the earlier couple into Honorius and Maria. In particular, for Sande, Maria’s hairstyle and facial features are strikingly similar to Agrippina the Younger.20 Sande believes that the original gemstone depicts Claudius and Agrippina the Younger and was made to celebrate their marriage in 49 CE. For the Rothschild Cameo, there was a meaningful parallel between the two Imperial couples. In the original cameo, Claudius and Agrippina the Younger were not only husband and wife but also uncle and niece. Honorius and Maria also rep‑ resent husband and wife, along with uncle and niece. Maria’s mother, Serena, was Hono‑ rius’ cousin. Theodosius I, Honorius’ father, adopted Serena, making her his adopted sister and her daughter, his niece via adoption.21 The Ada Cameo The Ada Cameo, now in Trier, decorates the cover of an eighth‑century Carolingian codex (Figure 8.3).22 Made of sardonyx, the gemstone is 10.7 centimeters wide and 8.5 centim‑ eters high. Within this rectangular composition, two eagles with their wings outstretched decorate a balustrade or chariot that occupies almost three‑quarters of the height of the gemstone. Above the balustrade or chariot, and out of scale, are five busts of Imperial family members, Figures A–E (Figure 8.4). At the far left, Figure A is a veiled young girl. Next to her is the emperor, Figure B, identified by his laurel crown and more mature age. Next to the emperor is a young boy, Figure C, with a curious‑looking star‑like shape on the front of his brow. The boy sits next to a mature woman, Figure D, who is most likely the emperor’s wife. Finally, at the far right is another boy, Figure E. Scholars have long debated the date of the Ada Cameo. Most, though, date the gem‑ stone to the reign of Constantine because of style, specifically the similarities of the figures with fourth‑century hairstyles and cleanly shaven faces.23 Usually, the figures are identi‑ fied as Constantine, Helena, Fausta, and two sons and heirs, Constantine and Fausta’s sons, Constantius II and Constantine II.24 Adolf Furtwängler was among the first to disagree with a Constantinian date for the Ada Cameo. He claimed it was Julio‑Claudian though of noticeably lesser quality than the other large Imperial cameos of that time, like the Gemma Augustea and Grand Camée de France.25 For Furtwängler, the Imperial family members in the Ada Cameo are Claudius, Messalina, Antonia (Claudius’ mother), Octavia, and Britannicus. More recently, R.R.R. Smith agreed that the Ada Cameo is more likely from the Julio‑Claudian period, primarily based on the hairstyles. For Smith, the coiffures of Figures B and E are more similar to Claudius and Nero, respectively.26 Furthermore, Smith also claims that the figures’ ages do not match those of Constantine’s family members. Instead, he iden‑ tifies them as Claudius, Agrippina the Younger, and the three children of their blended family. From left to right, these are Octavia and Britannicus (Figures A and C), the chil‑ dren of Claudius and Messalina, who were twelve and thirteen, respectively, along with a sixteen‑year‑old Nero (Figure E) on the far right, Agrippina the Younger’s son.27

The Revival of Large Imperial Cameos in the Fourth Century  171

Figure 8.3  Ada Cameo, sardonyx, 10.7 cm wide, 53–54  CE, Stadtbibliothek Trier, Germany ­(Codex 22). Copyright: Stadtbibliothek Trier, Germany.

Figure 8.4  Diagram of the Ada Cameo. Copyright: Author Drawing.

172  The Revival of Large Imperial Cameos in the Fourth Century Cameo of the Hague There is only one other potential fourth‑century large Imperial cameo: the Cameo of the Hague, which was formerly housed in the Geldmuseum in Utrecht but was moved to the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden, the Netherlands in 2013 (Figures 8.5 and 8.6).28 The Cameo of the Hague is much larger than the previous three gemstones and measures 29.7 centimeters wide and 21.1 centimeters high. Therefore, it is the only fourth‑century cameo that is truly on par, in size, with the Gemma Augustea and the Grand Camée de France. However, the Cameo of the Hague has no registers and fewer and larger figures than the first‑century gemstones. Before arriving in Leiden, the gemstone had a tumultuous history. After it was owned by Peter Paul Rubens, the Flemish Baroque master, in the seventeenth century, it was later on a boat that sank off the coast of Australia, though fortunately, the cameo was rescued. Then, [f]or over twenty years, attempts were made to sell the stone to local rulers of the East Indies, Persia, and Thailand, but to no avail. The cameo returned to Amsterdam. Its last private owner was King Willem I.29

Figure 8.5 Cameo of the Hague, sardonyx, 29.7  cm wide × 21.1  cm wide, 43–48 CE, National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden, The Netherlands (GS‑11096). Copyright: National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden.

The Revival of Large Imperial Cameos in the Fourth Century  173

Figure 8.6  Diagram of the Cameo of the Hague. Copyright: Author Drawing.

The Cameo of the Hague has a dynamic composition and narrative. Four Imperial figures stand in a chariot on the far left. The emperor (Figure A) holds a scepter in his right hand; he is Jupiter‑like. He wraps his left arm around the woman to his left, Figure B, who must be his wife. She holds sheaves of wheat and poppies in her right hand; she is in the guise of Ceres. Winged Victory (Figure G) flies in from the right, about to crown the emperor with a laurel wreath. Two children, Figures C and D, are an adolescent girl and a young boy, respectively. The boy wears military garb. Figure C snakes her right arm underneath Figure A’s arm to point to Figure D, the heir to the throne, calling attention to the orderly dynastic succession that will occur. Two centaurs (Figures E and F) drive the chariot on the left. In the bottom‑right corner, one of the centaurs has trampled a pair of barbarians (Figures H and I), who lay crumpled on the ground. The chariot on the far right also brandishes a trophy and a shield. A krater was knocked over in the melee.30 Most scholars focus on the date and identifications of the Cameo of the Hague.31 Most date the Cameo of the Hague to the early fourth century due to its Late Antique style, and some try to pinpoint the exact event shown, one of Constantine’s triumphs. Gerda Bruns believes it was made after Constantine’s victory over Licinius in 323, and his family is de‑ picted in the currus triumphalis.32 For Ruurd B. Halbertsma, the Cameo of the Hague has a similar Constantinian date, but he believes it depicts Constantine’s defeat of Maxentius and the celebration of his Decennalia. It may not matter whether this gemstone depicts a specific triumph or a general one. The important features are that a triumphal chariot is celebrating a victory, and the Imperial family is present. This large Imperial cameo must

174  The Revival of Large Imperial Cameos in the Fourth Century be a statement about dynastic succession.33 Three generations of Constantine’s family are on display, and the gemstone is a symbol of the continuity of Rome’s power, as celebrated on an earlier dynastic cameo. The cameo is thus a strong statement that good times have arrived and that all the new “members of the court” stand in the tradition of a grand age.34 For those who interpret the figures as Constantinian, Figure C presents a major problem. For example, Halbertsma identifies Constantine, his second wife, Fausta, and his son, Crispus. Figure C, according to Halbertsma, is Helena, Constantine’s mother. However, Figure C is much younger than Figures A and B; Halbertsma explains this was a result of reworking.35 But Figure C is also placed behind Figures A and B and is much smaller than them, which would not have been done if this were Helena. There is no parallel in Constantinian art for such a depiction of Helena.36 Unfortunately, if this gemstone is Constantinian, Figure C still defies identification.37 Some scholars date the Cameo of the Hague to the first century, noting that the less naturalistic style does not necessarily mean that it was from the fourth century CE. R.R.R. Smith says there are other possible reasons for this deviation in style, including the fact that “cameo consumption and production was sufficiently large in the first cen‑ tury CE to support different workshops employing different styles and techniques,” or that the thinner layers of sardonyx resulted in a less sophisticated gemstone.38 Because Constantinian portraits were based on Julio‑Claudian ones, it is often exceedingly dif‑ ficult to identify whether an object was made in the Early or Late Roman Empire. How‑ ever, Smith examines the hairstyle of the empress in the chariot and identifies the coiffure of “two rows of tight curls” unprecedented in fourth‑century CE female hairstyles.39 This is instead a first‑century CE hairstyle, popular during the middle of the first century CE during the reign of Claudius. Therefore, according to Smith, the Cameo of the Hague depicts Claudius and his wife, Messalina, and their two children, Octavia and Britan‑ nicus. For Smith, the gemstone celebrates Claudius’ 43 CE conquest of Britain and dates to sometime between 43 CE and the death of Messalina in 48 CE. Later in its history, the Cameo of the Hague, like other large Imperial cameos, was altered to suit Constantine’s purposes and propaganda.40 The debate remains over whether the Cameo of the Hague is from the first or fourth century CE or even a forgery of Peter Paul Rubens in the seventeenth century.41 Accord‑ ing to Smith’s interpretation, if it were Julio‑Claudian, it would date to Claudius’ mar‑ riage to Messalina and, therefore, was created after the Caligula and Roma fragment and before the Gemma Claudia. If Imperial wives and mothers commissioned large Imperial cameos, Messalina might have been the patron of the Cameo of the Hague. However, Messalina had two children with Claudius and did not need to push Britannicus to be heir since he was already. Her situation differed vastly from Livia, Agrippina the Elder, and Agrippina the Younger. If Messalina commissioned the gemstone, its purpose was probably to celebrate Claudius’ victory in Britain. Implications of the Revival of Large Imperial Cameos in the Fourth Century After the Gemma Augustea, Grand Camée de France, and Caligula and Roma cameo fragment, large Imperial cameos disappeared for centuries. Smaller cameos continued to be produced, but the medium of the large Imperial cameo died out, at least until

The Revival of Large Imperial Cameos in the Fourth Century  175 the fourth century CE, and the Belgrade Cameo, Rothschild Cameo, Ada Cameo, and Cameo of the Hague. The medium was brought back to connect the fourth‑century em‑ perors to the first century and to express similar messages of the power of the dynasty. The reappearance of large Imperial cameos in the fourth century coincided with the re‑ turn of Imperial family portraits. The Julio‑Claudians excelled at group family portraits in large Imperial cameos, with Imperial women “representing the crucial links between generations as the mothers and grandmothers of rulers.”42 With a return to sole rule in the fourth century after the tetrarchy, there was now a need to return to familial dynastic succession after the tetrarchy.43 Large Imperial cameos served as a perfect model for the dynastic family portrait. Three of the four fourth‑century cameos (Ada Cameo, Cameo of the Hague, and the Rothschild Cameo) prominently feature Imperial women and/or children, emphasizing the importance of dynasty in the fourth century. The fourth gem‑ stone, the Belgrade Cameo, is fragmentary and might have originally included a family portrait, though we may never know for sure. The fourth‑century large Imperial cameos “evoke traditional Roman Imperial iconography, drawing from both triumphal elements and idealistic Claudian family portraits.”44 Three of these four cameos (Rothschild Cameo, Ada Cameo, and the Cameo of the Hague) have been alleged to be fourth‑century reworkings of original first‑century gem‑ stones. Reworking a gemstone in the fourth century was relatively easy. Because the hairstyles of the first and fourth centuries were similar, extensive changes were not neces‑ sary for the coiffures. In addition, both periods exhibit idealism and classicism, making it easy to adapt a first century gemstone to a fourth‑century couple. While the patrons of these fourth‑century gemstones remain unknown, Imperial women, like Fausta, might have adopted the medium of large Imperial cameos to connect themselves to Livia and other Julio‑Claudian women, to advertise dynasty, and to push for their sons to be heirs. Ultimately, it does not matter whether they are first or fourth century. These large Impe‑ rial cameos, original or not, connected Constantine and his family to the Golden Age of Rome. Using familiar iconography, emperors and Imperial family members utilized these gemstones to promote dynasty, power, and propaganda. Notes 1 Papagiannaki (2013, 482). 2 Smith includes the Triumph of Licinius Cameo in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris (308) as an example of a large Imperial cameo. However, it is only 5.9 × 7.3 centimeters, even smaller than the Gemma Augustea (Smith 2021, 11). 3 The Arch of Constantine reused sculptures from monuments of Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius, connecting Constantine to the great second‑century emperors. 4 Krug states, “[T]o date, no other ancient remains of importance, such as a large villa or mau‑ soleum, have been discovered on that site, so the question remains open as to how and when in antiquity or later this cameo reached the place it was eventually found” (Krug 2011, 186). For more on the Belgrade Cameo’s provenance, consult Furtwängler (1900, 453–458). 5 Krug (2011, 186–188). 6 See Vollenweider and Avisseau‑Broustet (2003). 7 Krug (2011, 188). 8 For more on the Belgrade Cameo, see Furtwängler (1900), Rodenwaldt (1922), Bruns (1948), Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta (1964), Veličković (1983), Möbius (1985), Spier (1993), Spier (2007), Demandt and Engemann (2007), and Kuzmanović‑Novović (2009). 9 Furtwängler (1900, 453–458). 10 Rodenwaldt (1922). Papagiannaki connects the soldier on horseback with Alexander the Great, stating he is an “emperor in triumph in a Greek dress riding like an Alexander the Great over

176  The Revival of Large Imperial Cameos in the Fourth Century a field of barbarian corpses” (Papagiannaki 2013, 483). For Papagiannaki, the Julio‑Claudian emperors were not the only admired rulers. Alexander the Great was still an emblem of power and empire, and Constantine also borrowed Alexandrian iconography for his dynasty. Smith also notes the similarity with Alexander the Great and disagrees with a Constantinian iden‑ tification of the rider because of his long “Alexander‑like” hair. He says this figure is not a fourth‑century emperor (Smith 2021, 11). 11 Constantine was the first emperor to wear such a diadem, and his successors adopted the cus‑ tom, which was a “visual expression of his power and undisputed claim to the Imperial throne” (Papagiannaki 2013, 482). For more on Constantine’s diadem, also see Delbrück (1933, xii– xix) and Smith (1997, 177–180). 12 Gagetti (2011, 143), Sande (1993, 145), Reinach (1926, 188), and Delbrück (1929, 261). Reinach posits that the Rothschild Cameo was in Constantinople by the beginning of the thir‑ teenth century, after which it eventually made its way to Spain. A Greek inscription identifies the figures as St. Sergius and Bacchus, which was probably incised during the cameo’s time in Greek‑speaking Constantinople. 13 Sande (1993, 145) and Reinach (1926, 188). 14 Sande (1993, 146). 15 For more on the Rothschild Cameo, also consult Reinach (1926), Delbrück (1929), Bruns (1948), Coche de la Ferté (1957), Meischner (1993), Kiilerich (1993), and Gagetti (2011). 16 Other identifications have been made. For example, E. Coche de la Ferté identified the Imperial couple as Constantius II and his wife (Coche de la Ferté 1957). 17 See Gagetti (2011) and Sande (1993). 18 Bente Kiilerich suggests that the Rothschild Cameo depicts Honorius with his second wife, Thermantia, after Maria died in 404 (Kiilerich 1993, 93–94). However, Sande claims that it is unlikely that the woman is Thermantia. Honorius and Maria’s wedding was celebrated, while his second marriage to Thermantia was not, making it less probable that a cameo was created to commemorate this second marriage (Sande 1993, 148). However, there are no surviving por‑ traits of Maria, complicating the matters of the identification of the woman, which is entirely dependent on who the male counterpart is. 19 Diptych of Consul Anicius Petronius Propus with the Depiction of Emperor Honorius, ivory, 406 CE, Museo del Tesoro della Cattedrale, Aosta, Italy. Honorius is long‑faced and stern in this ivory panel, with similar facial features to his depiction on the Rothschild Cameo. How‑ ever, a noticeable difference between the two is facial hair. Honorius wears a short beard on the diptych, while on the gemstone, he has none. However, if the Rothschild Cameo was commis‑ sioned to celebrate the marriage of Honorius and Maria, the emperor was only fourteen at the time and likely would not have been able to grow a beard (see Sande 1993, 148). 20 Gagetti (2011), Sande (1993), and Smith (2021). Smith states that there are “clear signs that it has been cut down from a cameo of the mid‑first century CE” (Smith 2021, 11). Sande notes that the “hairdo, features with the narrow lips, and energetic chin” match the portraits of Ag‑ rippina the Younger (Sande 1993, 148). 21 Sande (1993, 153). Would fourth‑century viewers of the Rothschild Cameo have made a con‑ nection to the first century couple? Sande thinks they would have. 22 The Ada Cameo is sometimes called the Eagle Cameo with the Family of Constantine. For more on the Ada Cameo, see Furtwängler (1900), Bruns (1948), Alföldi (1950), Toynbee (1951), Alföldi (1963), Pohlsander (1984), Schwinden (1984), Wegner (1984), Henig (2006), and Spier (2007). Consult Pohlsander (1984) for a more extensive bibliography. 23 The Ada Cameo could have been reworked in the Constantinian period, thus explaining these clean‑shaven faces. 24 Papagiannaki (2013, 483). 25 Furtwängler (1900) and Pohlsander (1984). 26 Smith (2021). 27 Claudius’ son must still be alive because Britannicus died in 55 CE, but he is still included in the cameo. According to Smith, this means that the Ada Cameo must date after the marriage of Nero and Octavia in 53 CE but before the death of Britannicus in 55 CE. Smith thinks the Ada Cameo was commissioned to celebrate the marriage of the two teenagers on the gemstone, Nero and Octavia, in 53 CE (Smith 2021, 48). 28 The Cameo of the Hague is also known as the Hague Cameo, the Great Cameo of the Hague, or the Gemma Constantiniana.

The Revival of Large Imperial Cameos in the Fourth Century  177 29 Halbertsma (2015, 232). For more on the provenance of the Cameo of the Hague, also consult Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta (1951). 30 Smith believes that “both the krater and the centaurs transpose the military victory into a Dio‑ nysian cavalcade” (Smith 2021, 45). 31 For more on the Cameo of the Hague, see Furtwängler (1900), Bruns (1948), Vollenweider (1964), Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta (1964), Bastet (1968b), Richter (1971), Pohlsander (1984), Megow (1987), Henig (2006), Spier (2007), Megow (2011), Halbertsma (2015), Stephenson (2015), Halbertsma (2017), and Smith (2021). Furtwängler is in the minority and dates this cameo to the reign of Claudius because of the hairstyle of the young girl in the chariot. Oth‑ ers, as will be seen, think that Cameo of the Hague was a Julio‑Claudian gemstone that was reworked in the fourth century. 32 Bruns (1948). 33 Flory (1998, 494). 34 Halbertsma (2015, 231). 35 Halbertsma (2015, 224 and 231). 36 Pohlsander (1984, 96–97). 37 Pohlsander (1984, 96–97). Pohlsander also has problems with scholars who identify Fig‑ ure D as Constantius II. Why would Constantius II be depicted without his older brothers? Pohlsander also notes the pagan iconography, including the thunderbolt and centaurs, and thinks this indicates an earlier date. Ultimately, Pohlsander thinks the Cameo of the Hague is still Constantinian, and he identifies Figures A and B as Constantine and Fausta and Figure D as Crispus. Because there is only Crispus, the cameo must have been created before the birth of Constantine’s sons with Fausta (Pohlsander 1984). On the other hand, Stephenson does not agree with this identification of Figure D as Crispus, saying it was highly unlikely that Fausta’s stepson, and not one of her own sons, would be included. Stephenson thinks that the identifica‑ tion of this boy is the key to the understanding of the cameo. He identifies him as Constantius II, born in 317 and was named Caesar when he was seven years old in 324. Therefore, for Ste‑ phenson, the Cameo of the Hague must date from 324 to 326, the year Fausta died (Stephenson 2015, 237). 38 Smith (2021), Furtwängler (1900), and Vollenweider (1964) all identify this as Claudius. 39 For Smith, the hairstyle of Figure B is the only distinctive dating tool. He says that the “children have non‑specific portrait formulations that need only represent ‘girl, daughter’ and ‘young boy, son.’ The emperor’s portrait – youthful, clean‑shaven, with a simple fringe – is crude and could be taken as either first or fourth century” (Smith 2021, 46). 40 Smith (2021, 46). 41 Flory (1998, 494). 42 Kampen (2007, 124). Also, see Rose (1997). 43 Kampen (2007, 124). 44 Papagiannaki (2013, 483).

Illustrations

Figures 1.1 Julio‑Claudian family tree 10 2.1 Aquileia Dish, silver, 29.5 cm in diameter, before 31 BCE, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria (VII A 47) 21 2.2 Diagram of the Aquileia Dish 25 2.3 Tellus Panel, Ara Pacis Augustae, 13–9 BCE, Museum of the Ara Pacis, Rome, Italy (12015) 29 2.4 Silver Tetradrachm (Coin) Portraying Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony, 37–33 BCE, Art Institute of Chicago (2008.173) 31 2.5 Marble Bust of Cleopatra, 40–30 BCE, Altes Museum, Berlin, Germany (1976.10) 32 3.1 Tazza Farnese, sardonyx, 20 cm in diameter, late 1930s–early 1920s BCE, Naples National Archaeological Museum, Naples, Italy (27611) 44 3.2 Gorgon (Underside of the Tazza Farnese) 47 3.3 Diagram of the Tazza Farnese 48 3.4 Statue of Nilus, second century CE, Piazzetta Nilo, Naples, Italy 49 3.5 Hanging Showing Euthenia in a Garden, linen and tempera, from Egypt, first century CE, the Metropolitan Museum of Art (1984.178) 50 3.6 Silver Denarius Portraying Octavian, 28 BCE, Art Institute of Chicago (1920.3046)64 4.1 Gemma Augustea, sardonyx, 23 cm × 19 cm, 9–12 CE, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria (IX A 79) 72 4.2 Diagram of the Gemma Augustea 73 5.1 Grand Camée de France, sardonyx, 31 cm × 26.5 cm, 23 CE, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, Paris, France (264) 96 5.2 Diagram of the Grand Camée de France 98 5.3 Apotheosis of Antoninus Pius and Faustina, Column Base of Antoninus Pius, 161 CE, Vatican Museums, Italy (Cat. 5115) 111 6.1 Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment, sardonyx, 11 cm tall, 38–41 CE, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria (IX A 59) 123 6.2 Ptolemaic Double Cornucopiae from the Reverse of Coin of Arsinoe II, silver, Collection of M. Demetriou 131 6.3 Reconstruction of the Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment 133 7.1 Gemma Claudia, sardonyx, 15 cm × 12 cm, 49 CE, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria (IX A 63) 143

180 Illustrations 7.2 Diagram of the Gemma Claudia 145 7.3 Flavian Family Tree 157 7.4 Ara Pacis Augustae, 13–9 BCE, Museum of the Ara Pacis, Rome, Italy (12015)158 7.5 Triumph of Titus from the Arch of Titus, Rome, Italy, 81 CE 159 7.6 Apotheosis of Titus from the Arch of Titus, Rome, Italy, 81 CE 160 7.7 Apotheosis of Sabina from the Arco di Portogallo, 117–138 CE, Capitoline Museums, Rome, Italy (Inv. MC 1213) 161 8.1 The Belgrade Cameo, sardonyx, 15 × 19 cm, 323–324 CE, National Museum of Belgrade (116/IV) 168 8.2 Rothschild Cameo, sardonyx, 16 cm in diameter, Private Collection 169 8.3 Ada Cameo, sardonyx, 10.7 cm wide, 53–54 CE, Stadtbibliothek Trier, Germany (Codex 22) 171 8.4 Diagram of the Ada Cameo 171 8.5 Cameo of the Hague, sardonyx, 29.7 cm wide, 43–48 CE, National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden, The Netherlands (GS‑11096) 172 8.6 Diagram of the Cameo of the Hague 173 Tables 1.1 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.2 7.1 7.2

Life Cycle of Iconography Figures: Aquileia Dish Iconography: Aquileia Dish Figures: Tazza Farnese Iconography: Tazza Farnese Figures: Gemma Augustea Iconography: Gemma Augustea Figures: Grand Camée de France Iconography: Grand Camée de France Iconography: Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment Reconstruction: Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment Figures: Gemma Claudia Iconography: Gemma Claudia

12 27 36 51 61 76 84 104 108 129 136 149 151

Bibliography

Adkins, L. and Adkins, R. 2004. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alföldi, A. 1950. “Der grosse römische Kameo der Trierer Stadtbibliothek.” TrZt 19: 41–44. Alföldi, A. 1963. Die constantinische Goldprägung: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Bedeutung für Kai‑ serpolitik und Hofkunst. Munich: Verlag. Alföldi, A. 1970. Die monarchische Repräsentation im römischen Kaisserreiche. Darmstadt: Wis‑ senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Alföldi, A. and Campbell, S. 1997. Redeunt Saturnia Regna. Bonn: R. Habelt. Appadural, A. 2014. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arneth, J. 1849. Monumente des K.K. Münz‑ und Antiken‑Cabinettes in Wien. Vienna: Kunsthis‑ torisches Museum Wien. Babelon, E. 1897. Catalogue des camées antiques et modernes de la Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris: E. Leroux. Balestrazzi, E. di Filippo. 1994. “Roma.” LIMC VIII: 1048–1068. Ball, S. 1950. A Roman Book on Precious Stones. Los Angeles: Lorrin L. Morrison. Balsdon, J. 1936. “Gaius and the Grand Cameo of Paris.” JRS 26: 152–160. Bandinelli, R.B. 1970. Roma. La fine dell’arte antica. Milan: Bureau Biblioteca Univ. Rizzoli. Barbone, N. 2013. “Augusto e i suoi astri.” In Augusto, edited by E. LaRocca, 89–92. Milan: Mondacori Electa S.p.A. Barrett, A. 2004. Livia: The First Lady of Imperial Rome. New Haven: Yale University Press. Bartman, E. 1999. Portraits of Livia: Imaging the Imperial Woman in Augustan Rome. Cam‑ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Barton, T. 1995. “Augustus and Capricorn: Astrological Polyvalency and Imperial Rhetoric.” JRS 85: 33–51. Bastet, F.L. 1962. “Untersuchungen zur Datierung und Bedeutung der Tazza Farnese.” BABesch 37: 1–24. Bastet, F.L. 1968a. “Nero und die Patera von Aquileia.” BABesch 44: 141–161. Bastet, F.L. 1968b. “Die grosse Kamee in den Haag.” BABesch 43: 2–22. Belozerskaya, M. 2005. Luxury Arts of the Renaissance. London: Thames and Hudson. Belozerskaya, M. 2012. Medusa’s Gaze: The Extraordinary Journey of the Tazza Farnese. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beazley, J. 1951. The Development of Attic Black‑Figure. Berkeley: University of California Press. Belsen, J.D. 1980. “The Medusa Rondanini: A New Look.” AJA 84: 373–378. Bemman, K. 1997. “Cornu copiae.” LIMC VIII: 551–552. Bernoulli, J.J. 1891. Römische Ikonographie. Berlin and Stuttgart: Verlag von W. Spemann. Beschi, L. 1988. “Demeter.” LIMC IV: 844–892. Bickerman, E. 1973. “Consecratio.” In Le Culte des souverains dans l’empire romain, edited by W. den Boer, 1–37. Geneva: Fondation Hardt. Blanc, N. and Gury, F. 1986. “Amor, Cupido.” LIMC III: 952–1049.

182 Bibliography Boschung, D. 1989. Die Bildnisse des Caligula. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Boschung, D. 2002. Gens Augusta: Untersuchungen zu Aufstellung, Wirkung und Bedeutung der Statuengruppen des julisch‑claudischen Kaiserhauses. Mainz: von Zabern. Bradley, K. 2004. “On captives under the principate.” Canadian Classical Bulletin 58: 298–315. Brommer, F. 1979. Sculptures of the Parthenon: Metopes, Frieze, Pediments, and Cult‑Statue. Lon‑ don: Thames and Hudson Ltd. Bruns, G. 1948. Staatskameen des 4. Jahrhunderts nach Christi Geburt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bruns, G. 1953. “Die grosse Kameo von Frankreich.” MdI 6: 71–115. Bühler, H. 1973. Antike Gefässe aus Edelstein. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Byvanck, A. 1943. “De bekentnis van den grooten cameo in Parijs.” Historia 9: 25–32. Byvanck, A. 1947. “L’interpétation du Grand Camée de France.” Mnemosyne 13: 238–240. Cahn, H. 1997. “Oceanus.” LIMC VIII: 907–915. Canciani, F. 1994. “Oikoumene.” LIMC VII: 16–17. Canciani, F. 1997. “Iuppiter.” LIMC VIII: 421–461. Cartwright, M. 2013. “Pegasus.” World History Encyclopedia. www.worldhistory.org/Pegasus/ Castriota, D. 1995. The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chalupa, A. 2007. “Roman Emperors: Gods, Men, Something Between or an Unnecessary Di‑ lemma?” Religio: Revue pro Religionistikum 15: 257–270. Charbonneaux, J. 1948. “Le Grand Camée de France.” RA: 29–42. Charbonneaux, J. 1957. “Sarapis et Isis et la double corne d’abondance.” Hommages à Waldemar Deonna 28: 131–141. Charbonneaux, J. 1958. “Sur la signification et la date de la Tazza Farnese.” MonPiot 50: 85–103. Clinton, K. 1992. Myth and Cult: The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries. The Martin P. Nilsson Lectures on Greek Religion, Delievered 19–21 November 1990 at the Swedish Institute at Athens. Sweden: Svenska Institutet i Athen. Coche de la Ferté, E. 1957. Le camée Rothschild, un chef d’œuvre du IVe siècle après J. C. Paris: Libraire Laurent Tisnè. Corbier, M. 1995. “Male Power and Legitimacy through Women: The domus Augusta under the Julio‑Claudians.” In Women in Antiquity: New Assessments, edited by Richard Hawley and Barbara Levick, 178–193. London: Routledge. Cowan, E. 2009. “Tiberius and Augustus in Tiberian Sources.” Historia 58: 468–485. Curtius, L. 1934. “Neue Erklärung des grossen Pariser Kameo mit der Familie des Tiberius.” RM: 119–156. Dan, A. 2018. “Galateia in the Land of the Amazons: The Silver Plate of Yenikend (Azerbaijan) and Cultural Transfers between the Roman World and the Caucasus.” Khazar Journal of Hu‑ manities and Social Sciences Special Issue: 20–79. Dan, A., Grenet, F., and Sims‑Williams, N. 2018. “Homeric Scenes in Bactria and India: Two Silver Plates with Bactrian and Middle Persian Inscriptions.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 28: 195–296. De Angeli, S. 1988. “Ceres.” LIMC IV: 893–908. DeGrummond, N. 2012. “The Gemma Augustea: Not Made for Rome.” Paper read at the Ar‑ chaeological Institute of America annual conference, 6 January, Philadelphia, PA. DeGrummond, N. and Ridgway, B. 2001. From Pergamon to Sperlonga: Sculpture and Context. Berkeley: University of California Press. Delbrück, R. 1929. Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler. Berlin‑Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter. Delbrück, R. 1933. Spätantike Kaiserporträts: von Constantius Magnuz bis zum Ende des Westre‑ ichs. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Demandt, A. and J. Engemann, eds. 2007. Konstantin der Große. Mainz: Konstantin‑ Ausstellungsgesellschaft. Dwyer, E. 1973. “Augustus and the Capricorn.” RM 80: 59–67.

Bibliography  183 Dwyer, E. 1992. “The temporal allegory of the Tazza Farnese.” AJA 96: 255–282. Eckhel, J. 1788. Choix de pierres gravées du Cabinet Impérial des Antiques. Austria: Dekurzbek. Eichholz, D.E., ed. 1965. Theophrastus: De Lapidibus. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Eichler, F. and Kris, E. 1927. Die Kameen im Kunsthistorischen Museum. Vienna: Verlag von An‑ ton Schroll. Elsner, J. 1995. Art and the Roman Viewer: The Transformation of Art from the Pagan World to Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fantham, E., Foley, H., and Kampen, N, eds. 1994. Women in the Classical World: Image and Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Feldman, M. 2006. Diplomacy by Design: Luxury Arts and the “International Style” in the An‑ cient Near East, 1400–1200 BCE. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Feldman, M. 2014. Communities of Style: Portable Luxury Arts, Identity, and Collective Memory in the Iron Age Levant. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Ferrero, G. 1978. The Women of the Caesars. Williamstown, MA: Corner House Publishers. Ferris, I. 2000. Enemies of Rome: Barbarians through Roman Eyes. Great Britain: Sutton Publishing. Fischer, J. 2014. “Private Propaganda: The Iconography of Large Imperial Cameos of the Early Roman Empire.” PhD diss., The Ohio State University. Fischer, J., ed.  2016a. More Than Mere Playthings: The Minor Arts of Italy. Cambridge: Cam‑ bridge Scholars Publishing. Fischer, J. 2016b. “A Woman’s Weapon: Private Propaganda in the Large Imperial Cameos of the Early Roman Empire.” In More Than Mere Playthings: The Minor Arts of Italy, edited by J. Fischer, 39–57. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Fischer, J. 2017. “Establishing an Augustan Date and Interpretation for the Tazza Farnese.” In Breaking with Convention in Italian Art, edited by J. Fischer, 26–47. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Fishwick, D. 1987. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill. Flory, M. 1995. “The Symbolism of the Laurel in Cameo Portraits of Livia.” MAAR 40: 43–68. Flory, M. 1996. “Dynastic Ideology, the domus Augusta, and Imperial Women: A Lost Statuary Group in the Circus Flaminius.” TAPA 126: 287–306. Flory, M. 1998. “The Integration of Women into the Roman Triumph.” Historia 47: 289–494. Fowler, M. 2020. Reflections on Beauty and Ugliness: An Exceptional Archaic Greek Mirror at the Getty. Refereed Presentations. SECAC Art History Session Art as a Mirror of Life, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virtual Conference. Frothingham, A.L. 1911. “Medusa, Apollo, and the Great Mother.” AJA 15: 349–377. Fuchs, S. 1936. “Deutung, Sinn, und Zeitstellung des Wiener Cameo mit den Fruchthornbüsten.” RM: 212–237. Fullerton, M. 1985. “The Domus Augusti in Imperial Iconography of 13‑12  B.C.” AJA 89: 473–483. Fullerton, M. 2010. “Cameo Appearances: Roma, Augustus, and the Julio‑Claudian Clan.” Pa‑ per read at the Department of Classics, University of Waterloo, 18 March, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Furtwängler, A. 1900. Die antiken Gemmen. Leipzig: Giesecke und Devrient. Gagé, J. 1935. “Un manifeste dynastique de Caligula, d’après une nouvelle interpétation du Grand Camée de Paris.” RÉA 37: 165–184. Gagetti, E. 2011. “Three Degrees of Separation: Detail Reworking, Type, Updating and Identity.” In Gems of Heaven: Recent Research on Engraved Gemstones in Late Antiquity, c. AD 200‑600, edited by C. Entwistle and N. Adams, 135–148. London: The British Museum. Gaifman, M. 2018. The Art of Libation in Classical Athens. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gale, N. and Stos‑Gale, Z. 1981. “Ancient Egyptian Silver.” JEA 67: 103–115. Galinsky, K., ed. 1996. Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction. Princeton: Princeton Uni‑ versity Press.

184 Bibliography Galinksy, K. 2005. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gantz, T. 1996. Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gazda, E., ed. 1991. Roman Art in the Private Sphere: New Perspectives on the Decor of the Do‑ mus, Villa, and Insula. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Ghedini, F. 1986. “La figura recumbente di piatto di Aquileia e l’eusinismo alessandrino.” RdA 10: 31–42. Ghisellini, E. 1994. “Tellus.” LIMC VII: 879–889. Giard, J. 1998. Le Grand Camée de France. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale de France. Ginsburg, J. 2006. Representing Agrippina: Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giuliani, L. and Schmidt, G. 2010. Ein Geschenk für den Kaiser: Das Geheimnis des Grossen Kameo. Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck. Gołyźniak, P. 2020. Engraved Gems and Propaganda in the Roman Republic Under Augustus. Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing Ltd. Gondicas, D. 1986. “Eleusis.” LIMC III: 720. Google Arts and Culture. “Gemma Claudia.” Accessed July 11, 2023. https://artsandculture. google.com/asset/gemma‑claudia/2QEaTJXOwT‑SIw?hl=en Gradel, I. 2002. Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gross, W.H. 1959. “Zur Augustusstatue von Prima Porta.” NakG 8: 143–168. Greuel, M. 2009. “Coin with Portraits of Cleopatra and Mark Antony.” Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies 35: 34–35. Guillaume‑Coirier, G. 2004. “Nouvelle approche de la Gemma Claudia, l’apport des couronnes.” JS 21–60 Gury, F. 1997. “Zodiacus.” LIMC VIII: 490–497. Hafner, G. 1955. “Zum Augustus Relief in Ravenna.” RM 62: 160–173. Hafner, G. 1967. “Der Silberteller von Aquileia – kein ‘historisches relief.’” AA 82: 213–219. Halbertsma, R. 2015. “Nulli tam laeti triumphi – Constantine’s victory on a reworked cameo in Leiden.” BABesch 90: 221–235. Halbertsma, R. 2017. “One more note on the Constantinian Cameo in Leiden.” BABesch 92: 209–210. Hales, S. 2002. “Review of Prunkkameen und Staatdenkmäler römischer Kaiser: Neue Perspek‑ tiven zur Kunst der frühen Prinzipatzeit by H. Meyer.” JRS 92: 238. Hartswick, K. 1993. “The Gorgoneion on the Aegis of Athena: Genesis, Suppression, and Sur‑ vival.” RA 269–292. Harvey, T. 2020. Julia Augusta: Images of Rome’s First Empress on the Coins of the Roman Em‑ pire. New York: Routledge. Heinlein, C. 2011. “Kaiser und Kosmokrator: Der Große Kameo von Frankreich als astrale Al‑ legorie.” Ph.D. diss., Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen. Henig, M. 1983. “The luxury arts: Decorative metalwork, engraved gems, and jewellery.” In A Handbook of Roman Art, edited by M. Henig, 139–155. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Henig, M. 1994. Classical Gems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Henig, M. 2006. “Art in the Age of Constantine.” In Constantine the Great: York’s Roman Em‑ peror, edited by E. Hartley, J. Hawkes, M. Henig, and F. Mee, 225–230. York: York Museums and Galleries Trust. Hermerén, G. 1969. Representation and Meaning in the Visual Arts: A Study in the Methodology of Iconography and Iconology. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet. Herz, P. 1988. “Der römische Kaiser und der Kaiserkult: Gott oder primus inter pares?” In Men‑ schwerdung Gottes – Vergöttlichung von Menschen, edited by D. Zeller, 115–140. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Hohl, E. 1938. “Der Cupido der Augustusstatue von Primaporta und der grosse Pariser Cameo.” Klio 35: 269–284.

Bibliography  185 Hölscher, T. 1988. “Beobachtungen zu römischen historischen Denkmälern III.” AA 3: 523–541. Hölscher, T. 2004. The Language of Images in Roman Art. Translated by A. Snodgrass and A. Künzl‑Snodgrass. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hornblower, S. and Spawforth, A., eds. 1996. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hourihane, C., ed. 2012. From Minor to Major: The Minor Arts in Medieval History. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Howe, T. 1954. “The Origin and Function of the Gorgon‑Head.” AJA 58: 209–221. Impelluso, L. 2004. Nature and Its Symbols. Translated by S. Sartarelli. California: J. Paul Getty Museum. Ingholt, H. 1969. “The Prima Porta Statue of Augustus.” Archaeology 22: 177–187. Isager, J. 1998. Pliny on Art and Society: The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art. Den‑ mark: Odense University Press. Jenkins, I. 2008. The Parthenon Sculptures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jentel, M. 1990. “Euthenia.” LIMC IV: 120–124. Jeppesen, K. 1974. Neues zum Rätsel des Grand Camèe de France. Copenhagen: University of Aarhus. Johansen, F. 1976. “Le portrait d’Auguste de Prima Porta et sa datation.” Studia Romana in Ho‑ nerem Petri Krarup Septuagenarii 49–57. Jucker, H. 1976. “Der grosse Pariser Kameo.” JdI 91: 211–250. Kaempf‑Dimitriadou, S. 1990. “Boreas.” LIMC III: 133–142. Kähler, H. 1959. Die Augustusstatue von Primaporta. Cologne, Germany: Du Mont Schauberg. Kähler, H. 1968. Alberti Rubeni Dissertatio de Gemma Augustea. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Kákosy, L. 1982. “The Nile, Euthenia, and the Nymphs.” JEA 68: 290–298. Kampen, N. 1991. “Between Public and Private: Women as Historical Subjects in Roman Art.” In Women’s History and Ancient History, edited by Sarah B. Pomeroy, 218–248. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina press. Kampen, N. 1996. “Gender Theory in Roman Art.” In I Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome, edited by D. Kleiner and S. Matheson, 14–24. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kampen, N. 2007. “The Family in Late Antique Art.” In Third Nordic Symposium on Gender and Women in Antiquity, edited by L.L. Larsson and A. Strömberg, 123–142. Stockholm: Astrom. Kandeler, R. and Ullrich, W. 2009. “Symbolism of Plants: Examples from European‑­Mediterranean Culture Presented with Biology and History of Art: General Introduction.” Journal of Experi‑ mental Botany 60: 1893–1895. Kaspar, D. 1975. “Neues zum Grand Camée de France.” SchwMbll 25: 61–68. Kellum, B. 1994. “The Construction of Landscape in Augustan Rome: The Garden Room at the Villa ad Gallinas.” ArtB 76: 211–224. Kiilerich, B. 1993. Late Fourth Century Classicism in the Plastic Arts: Studies in the So‑Called Theodosian Renaissance. Odense: Odense University Press. Kleiner, D.E.E. 1978. “The Great Friezes of the Ara Pacis Augusta: Greek Sources Roman Deriva‑ tives and Augustan Social Policy.” MEFRM 90.2: 753–785. Kleiner, D.E.E. 1992a. Roman Sculpture. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kleiner, D.E.E. 1992b. “Politics and Gender in the Pictorial Propaganda of Antony and Octavian.” EMC 36: 357–367. Kleiner, D.E.E. 1996. “Imperial Women as Patrons of the Arts in the Early Empire.” In I Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome, edited by D. Kleiner and S. Matheson, 28–41. New Haven: Yale Uni‑ versity Press. Kleiner, D.E.E. 2005. Cleopatra and Rome. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Knight, V. 2012. Iconographic Method in New World Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer‑ sity Press. Koortbojian, M. 2013. The Divinization of Caesar and Augustus: Precedents, Consequences, Im‑ plications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

186 Bibliography Kourou, N., Komvou, M., Raftopoulou, S., Krauskopf, I., and Katakis, S. 1994. “Sphinx.” LIMC 7: 1149–1174. Kraft, K. 1952. “Der goldene Kranz Caesars und der Kampf um die Entlarvung des ‘Tyrannen.’” JNG 97. Krauskopf, I. 1990. “Gorgo, Gorgones.” LIMC IV: 285–330. Kreitzer, L. 1990. “Apotheosis of the Roman Emperor.” BiblArch 53: 210–217. Kremydi‑Sicilianou, S. 1994. “Zeus.” LIMC VIII: 310–371. Krug, A. 2011. “The Belgrade Cameo.” In Gems of Heaven: Recent Research on Engraved Gem‑ stones in Late Antiquity, c. AD 200‑600, edited by C. Entwistle and N. Adams, 186–192. Lon‑ don: The British Museum. Kunsthistorisches Museum. 2023a. “Gemma Claudia.” Accessed July 11, 2023. www.khm.at/en/ objectdb/detail/59155/. Kunsthistorisches Museum. 2023b. “Kameo: Kaiser Caligula und Roma.” Accessed July 11, 2023. www.khm.at/en/objectdb/detail/59151/. Künzl, S. 1994. “Gemma Claudia?” AKB 24: 289–297. Küthmann, C. 1950. “Zur Gemma Augustea.” AA 65: 89–103. Kuttner, A. 1987. “The Boscoreale Cups of Augustus: Studies in Augustan Art and Politics,” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley. Kuttner, A. 1995. Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus: The Case of the Boscoreale Cups. Berkeley: The University of California Press. Kuzmanović‑Novović, I. 2009. “Portraits of the Emperor Constantine and His Family Members in the Glyptic Art of Serbia.” In 3‑5 June 2008, Niš and Byzantium. Seventh Symposium, Niš, The Collection of Scientific Works VII: 77–86. Kyrieleis, H. 1970. “Zu einem Kameo in Wien.” AA 492–498. Lang, J. 2022. “Gems, cameos, and social practice.” In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Imagery and Iconography, edited by N. Elkins and L. Cline, 358–383. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lapatin, K. 2003. “The Fate of Plate and Other Precious Materials: Toward a Historiography of Ancient Greek Minor (?) Arts.” In Ancient Art and Its Historiography, edited by A.A. Donohue and Mark D. Fullerton, 69–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lapatin, K. 2015. Luxus: The Sumptuous Arts of Greece and Rome. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. LaRegina, A., ed. 1998. Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme. Milan: Electa. LaRocca, E. 1984. L’età d’oro di Cleopatra: Indagine sulla Tazza Farnese. Rome: L’erma di Brettschneider. LaRocca, E. 2010. “Art and Representation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies, edited by A. Barchiesi and W. Scheidel, 309–348. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Laubenberger, M. “Schale: Silberschale mit Allegorie der Fruchtbarkeit.” Kunsthistorisches Mu‑ seum. Accessed July 11, 2023. www.khm.at/objektdb/detail/70890/. Lenormant, C.  1843. Iconographie des empereurs romains et de leur famille. Paris: Bureau du trésor de numismatique et de glyptique. Lewis, A.M. 2008. “Augustus and His Horoscope Reconsidered.” Phoenix 62: 308–337. Lichty, V. 2016. “Menstruation in Hellenistic Art: A New Reading of the Tazza Farnese.” MA Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. Ling, R. 2000. Making Classical Art: Process and Practice. Stroud: Tempus Publishing Ltd. Lochin, C. 1994. “Pegasos.” LIMC VII: 215–230. Lucie‑Smith, E. 1984. The Thames and Hudson Dictionary of Art Terms. London: Thames and Hudson. Mariette, P.J. 1750. Traité des Pierres Gravées. Paris: de l’imprimerie de l’auteur. Mark, J. 2012. “The Eleusinian Mysteries: The Rites of Demeter.” World History Encyclopedia. www.worldhistory.org/article/32/the‑eleusinian‑mysteries‑the‑rites‑of‑demeter/#citation_info. Maschek, D.  2022. “Iconography and style in Republican and Early Imperial art (200  BCE to 14 CE).” In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Imagery and Iconography, edited by N. Elkins and L. Cline, 169–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bibliography  187 Matz, F. 1962 “Zum Silberteller aus Aquileia in Wein.” MarbWPr 82: 23. Maxfield, V. 1981. The Military Decorations of the Roman Army. Berkeley: University of Califor‑ nia Press. Mayer, E. 2004. “Review of Prunkkameen und Staatdenkmäler römischer Kaiser: Neue Perspek‑ tiven zur Kunst der frühen Prinzipatzeit by H. Meyer.” Sehepunkte 4: 10. Megow, W. 1987. Kameen von Augustus bis Alexander Severus. Berlin: De Gruyter. Megow, W. 2011. “Spätantike Herrscherkameen. Beobachtungen zum konstantinischen ‘Klassizis‑ mus’.” Jahreschefte des österreichischen archäologischen Institutes in Wien 80: 167–241. Meischner, J. 1993. “Der Hochzeitkameo des Honorius.” AA 613–619. Menes, J. 2004. “The Tazza Farnese: A Reinterpretation.” MA Thesis, University of Missouri‑Columbia. Merkelbach, R. 1973. “Die Tazza Farnese, die Gestirne der Nilflut und Eratosthenes.” ZÄS 99: 116–127. Merriam‑Webster.com Dictionary. “Propaganda.” Accessed July 14, 2023. www.merriam‑webster. com/dictionary/propaganda Metzger, H. 1995. “Le Dionysos des images éleusiniennes du IVe siècle.” RA 1: 3–22. Meyer, H. 2000. Prunkkameen und Staatdenkmäler römischer Kaiser: Neue Perspektiven zur Kunst der frühen Prinzipatszeit. Munich: Biering and Brinkmann. Miate, L. 2023. “Gaia.” World History Encyclopedia. www.worldhistory.org/Gaia/ Mielsch, H. 2001. Römischer Silber aus Ägypten in Berlin. Berlin: Walter de Gruyeter. Mikocki, T. 1995. Sub specie deae: les impératrices et princesses romaines assimilées à des désses: étude iconologique. Rome: Rivista di Archeologia Supplement 14. Miles, M. 2008. Art as Plunder: The Ancient Origins of Debate about Cultural Property. Cam‑ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Möbius, H. 1962. “Der Silberteller von Aquileia.” In Festschrift für Friedrich Matz, edited by N. Himmelmann‑Wildschütz and H. Biesants. Mainz: Zabern, 80–97. Möbius, H. 1964. Alexandria und Rom. Germany: Beck. Möbius, H. 1985. “Zweck und Typen der römischen kaiserliche Kameen.” ANRW 2.12.3: 32–88. More, D.  2013. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Trees. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mylonas, G. 2015. Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Nau, E. 1968. “Julia Domna als Olympia.” JNG 18: 52. Nock, A. 1934. “Religious Developments from the Close of the Republic to the Death of Nero.” Cambridge Ancient History X: 465–511. Oakley, J. 1990. “Zephyros.” LIMC VIII: 308–309. Oberleitner, W. 1985. Geschnittene Steine: Die Prunkkameen der Wiener Antikensammlung. Vi‑ enna: Hermann Böholaus Nachf. O’Donoghue, M. and Joyner, L. 2003. Identification of Gemstones. Oxford: Butterworth and Heinemann. Osgood, J. 2011. Claudius Caesar: Image and Power in the Early Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pandey, N. 2013. “Caesar’s Comet, the Julian Star, and the Invention of Augustus.” TAPA 143: 405–449. Panofsky, E. 1939. Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. New York City: Westview Press. Paoletti, D. 1990. “Gorgones Romanae.” LIMC IV: 345–362. Papagiannaki, A. 2013. “Imperial Portraiture and the Minor Arts in the Era of Constantine the Great.” In Saint Emperor Constantine and Christianity Volume II, edited by D. Bojović, 479– 491. Serbia: Centre of Church Studies. Patton, K. 2009. Religion of the Gods: Ritual, Paradox, and Reflexivity. Oxford: Oxford Univer‑ sity Press. Peiresc, N., Aleandro, G., Lhote, J.F., and Joyal, D. 1995. Correspondance de Peiresc et Aleandro. Clermont‑Ferrand: ADOSA.

188 Bibliography Peppel, M. 2003. Die Praxis der Herrscherverehrung in Rom und seinen Provinzen. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Picard, C. 1951. “La patère d’Aquileia et l’éleusinisme a Rome aux débuts de l’époque impériale.” L’Antiquité Classique 20: 351–381. Picard‑Schmitter, M. 1971. “Bétyles hellénistiques. À la mémoire de Charles Picard.” Monuments et mémoires de la Fondation Eugène Piot 57: 43–88. Pfrommer, M. 2005. “Kameen, Gemmen, und Kameoglas.” In Ägypten, Griechenland, Rom: Abwehr und Berührung, edited by H. Beck, 284–288: Frankfurt: Städelsches Kunstinstitut. Plantzos, D. 1996a. “Hellenistic Cameos: Problems of Classification and Chronology.” BICS 41: 115–132. Plantzos, D. 1996b. “Ptolemaic Cameos of the Second and First Centuries BC.” OJA 15: 39–61. Plantzos, D. 1999. Hellenistic Engraved Gems. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Platz‑Horster, G. 1992. Nil und Euthenia: Der Kalzitkameo im Antikienmuseum Berlin. Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Platz‑Horster, G. 1997. “Der Capita‑Jugata‑Kameo in Berlin.” In La Glyptique des mondes clas‑ siques, edited by M. Broustet and M. Vollenweider, 55–70. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale de France. Pliny the Elder. 1991. Natural History: A Selection. Translated by J. Healey. London: Penguin Books. Pohlsander, H. 1984. “Crispus: Brilliant Career and Tragic End.” Historia 33.1: 79–106. Polacco, L. 1955. “Il trionfo di Tiberio nella tazza Rothschild da Boscoreale.” Atti e Memorie dell’ Accademia Patavina di Scienze Lettere ed Art: Memorie della Classe di Scienze Morali Lettere ed Arti 67: 253–270. Pollini, J. 1978. “Studies in Augustan Historical Reliefs.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley. Pollini, J. 1981. “Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and the Ravenna Relief.” RM 117–140. Pollini, J. 1989. “Man or God: Divine Assimilation and Imitation in the Late Republic and Early Principate.” In Between Republic and Empire, Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate, edited by K. Raaflaub and M. Toher, 333–363. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pollini, J. 1992. “Tazza Farnese: Augusto Imperatore ‘Redeunt Saturnia Regna!’” AJA 96: 283–300. Pollini, J. 1993. “The Gemma Augustea: Ideology, Rhetorical Imagery, and the Creation of a Dynastic Narrative.” In Narrative and Event in Ancient Art, edited by P. Holliday, 258–298. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pollini, J. 2012. From Republic to Empire: Rhetoric, Religion, and Power in the Visual Culture of Ancient Rome. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Pollitt, J.J. 1983. The Art of Rome c. 753 BC‑AD 337: Sources and Documents. Cambridge: Cam‑ bridge University Press. Pollitt, J.J. 1986. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Presicce, C. 2013. “Arte, imprese, e propaganda: L’Augusto di Prima Porta 150 anni dopo la sco‑ perta.” In Augusto, edited by E. LaRocca, 118–129. Milan: Mondadori Electa S.p.A. Price, S. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cam‑ bridge University Press. Raff, K. 2022. “Egyptianizing Art in Roman Italy.” Art Institute of Chicago. www.artic.edu/ articles/990/egyptomania‑in‑ancient‑rome‑and‑gilded‑age‑america Rehak, P. and Younger, G. 2009. Imperium and Cosmos: Augustus and the Northern Campus Martius. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Reinach, S. 1926. “Notes antiques.” GBA 68.1: 187–191. Richter, G. 1971. The Engraved Gems of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans. London: Phaidon Press Ltd. Rochetti, L. 1959. “Cammeo di Francia.” EAA: 295–298. Rodenwaldt, G. 1922. “Der Belgrader Kameo.” JdI 37: 17–38. Roller, L. 1999. In Search of God the Mother: The Cult of Anatolian Cybele. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bibliography  189 Rose, C. 1993. “Princes and barbarians on the Ara Pacis.” In Roman Art in Context in Context, edited by E. Gazda, 53–74. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rose, C. 1997. Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio‑Claudian Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rose, C. 2010. “Iconography.” In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies, edited by A. Bar‑ chiesi and W. Scheidel, 49–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rostovtzeff, M. 1926. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sande, S. 1993. “The Iconography and Style of the Rothschild Cameo.” In Late Antiquity: Art in Context, edited by J. Fleischer, N. Hannestad, J. Lund, and M. Nielsen, 145–158. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Santangelo, F. 2013. Divination, Prediction, and the End of the Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scheid, J. 2003. An Introduction to Roman Religion. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Scheiderich, K. 2017. “Politische codes und edle Steine.” AW 5: 13–19. Scherrer, P. 1988. “Saeculum Augustum  –  Concordia Fratrum: Gedänken zum Programm der Gemma Augustea.” Öjh 58: 115–128. Schmidt, G. 2009. “Gemmarius‑Sculptor.” www.gemmarius‑sculptor.de, www.gemmarius‑­sculptor. de/index.htm Schmidt, G. 2019. Politik in Edelstein: Das Geheimnis Römischer Prunkkameen. Oppenheim: Nünnerich‑Asmus Verlag & Media. Schneider, R. 1996. “The Barbarian in Roman Art: A Countermodel of Roman Identity.” The Colloquia of the XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. 13: 19–30. Schorsch, D. 2018. “Silver in Ancient Egypt.” Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. www.metmu‑ seum.org/toah/hd/silv/hd_silv.htm. Schroeder, C.A. 1977. “The Persea Tree of Egypt.” Journal of California Avocado Society 61: 59–63. Schwartz, G. 1990. “Triptolemos.” LIMC VIII: 56–68. Schweitzer, B. 1942. “Entstehungszeit und Bedeutung des grossen Pariser Kameo.” Klio 34: 328–356. Schwinden, L. 1984. Trier: Kaiserresidenz und Bischofssitz: Die Stadt in spätantiker und früh‑ christlicher Zeit. Mainz: von Zabern. Simon, E. 1967. “Beobachtungen zum Grand Camée de France.” KölnJb 9: 16–22. Simon, E. 1997. “Venti.” LIMC VIII: 186–192. Smith, R.R.R. 1991. Hellenistic Sculpture. London: Thames and Hudson. Smith, R.R.R. 1997. “The Public Image of Licinius I: Portrait Sculpture and Imperial Ideology in the Early Fourth Century.” JRS 87: 170–202. Smith, R.R.R. 2009. Aphrodisias: City and Sculpture in Roman Asia. Istanbul: Ertug and Kocabiyik. Smith, R.R.R. 2021. “Maiestas Serenas: Roman Court Cameos and Early Imperial Poetry and Panegyric.” JRS 111: 75–152. Spaeth, B. 1996. The Roman Goddess Ceres. Austin: University of Texas Press. Spier, J. 1993. “Late Antique Cameos c. A.D.  25–600.” In Cameos in Context: The Benjamin Zucker Lectures 1990, edited by M. Henig and M. Vickers, 43–54. Oxford: Derek J. Content. Spier, J. 2007. Late Antique and Early Christian Gems. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Spire, S. 1966. Book Review of Alexandria und Rom, by H. Möbius. JHS 86: 283–284. Squire, M. 2015. “Roman Art and the Artist.” In A Companion to Roman Art, edited by B.E. Borg, 172–194. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stephenson, P. 2015. “A Note on the Constantinian Cameo, Now in Leiden.” BABesch 90: 237–240. Stevenson, T. 1998. Prudentia. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland Bindery. Stewart, A. 1993. Faces of Power: Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

190 Bibliography Stewart, A. 2004. Attalos, Athens, and the Akropolis: The Pergamene “Little Barbarians” and their Roman Renaissance Legacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stewart, A. 2008. Classical Greece and the Birth of Western Art. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer‑ sity Press. Strano, S. 2016. The “Farnese Cup”: A New Egyptological‑Semiotic Analysis. Montre Compatri: Edizione Espera. Strong, D. 1966. Greek and Roman Silver Plate. New York: Cornell University Press. Strong, D. 1995. Roman Art. New Haven: Yale University Press. Strong, E. 1937. “Terra Mater or Italia?” JRS 27: 114–126. Suetonius. 1989. The Twelve Caesars. Translated by Robert Graves. London: Penguin Group. Sweet, L. 1919. Roman Emperor Worship. Boston: The Gorham Press. Tameanko, M. 2013. “The Zodiac on Ancient Coinage.” Coin News 50: 36–38. Taylor, L. 1981. The Divinity of the Roman Emperor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thompson, D.B. 1978. “The Tazza Farnese Reconsidered.” In Das ptolemäische Ägypten, edited by H. Maehler and V. Strocka, 112–122. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Thompson, D.B. and Koenen, L. 1984. “Gallus as Triptolemos on the Tazza Farnese.” BullAm‑ SocPap 21: 111–156. Toynbee, J. 1951. “Kleine Beiträge: Der römische Kameo der Stadtbibliothek Trier.” Trierer Zeitschrift 20: 175–177. Uzzi, J. 2005. Children in the Visual Arts of Imperial Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vasari, G. 2007. The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. Translated by G. du C. De Vere. United Kingdom: Random House Publishing Group. Veličković, M. 1983. Antike Porträts aus Jugoslawien. Frankfurt: Dezernat Kultur und Freizeit. Vermeule, C.C. 1963. “Augustan and Julio‑Claudian Court Silver.” AntK 6: 35–36. Veyne, P., ed. 1987. A History of Private Life. Vol. I, From Pagan Rome to Byzantium. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Visconti, E.Q. 1821. Iconographie Romaine. Paris: P. Didot l’aîné. Vollkommer, R. 1997. “Victoria.” LIMC VIII: 237–269. Vollenweider, M. 1964. Der Jupiter‑Kameo. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Vollenweider, M. 1966. Die Steinscheiderkunst und ihre Künstler in spätrepublikanischer und au‑ gusteischer Zeit. Baden: Grimm. Vollenweider, M. and Avisseau‑Broustet, M. 2003. Camées et intailles: catalogue raisonné. Les portraits romains du Cabinet des médailles. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Von den Hoff, R. 2009. “Caligula: Zur visuellen Repräsentation eines römischen Kaisers.” AA 1: 237–263. Von Fuchs, M. 2009. “Der trauernde Caligula und die Apotheose Drusilla auf dem Sogenannten Grossen Wiener Kameo.” Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 60: 7–20. Walker, S. and Higgs, H. 2001. Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wegner, M. 1984. “Ada Cameo, Trier.” In Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian biz zu den Konstantin‑Söhnen, edited by H. L’Orange, III. 4, 284–361 n. Chr. Das römische Herrscherbild. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Weitzmann, K. 1979. Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art. New York City: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Wilk, S. 2000. Medusa: Solving the Mystery of the Gorgon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wölfel, C.  1997. Der Teller von Aquileia. In Das Haus lacht von Silber: Die Prunkplatte von Bizerta und das römische Tafelgeschirr, edited by H. von Prittwitz and H. Mielsch Gaffron. Co‑ logne, 149–152. Germany: Rheinland‑Verlag Wood, S. 1988. “Memoriae Arippinae: Agrippina the Elder in Julio‑Claudian Art and Propa‑ ganda.” AJA 92: 409–426. Wood, S. 1995. “Diva Drusilla Panthea and the Sisters of Caligula.” AJA 99: 457–482.

Bibliography  191 Wood, S. 1999. Imperial Woman: A Study of Public Images, 40 BC–AD 68. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers. Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta, A. 1951. “De lotgevallen van den Grooten Camee in het Koninklijk Pen‑ ningkabinet.” Oud Holland 66: 191–211. Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta, A. 1964. “Imperial Messages in Agate.” BABesch 39: 156–161. Zanker, P. 1988a. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Translated by A. Shapiro. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Zanker, P. 1988b. “Bilderzwang: Augustan Political Symbolism in the Private Sphere.” In Image and Mystery in the Roman World, edited by J. Huskinson, M. Beard, and J. Reynolds, 1–21. Great Britain: J.W. Arrowsmith Ltd. Zanker, P. 2012. Roman Art. Malibu: J. Paul Getty Museum. Zeitlin, F., ed. 1991. Jean‑Pierre Vernant: Mortals and Immortals. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Zwet, L. 1954. “Women’s Hairdress and the Grand Camée de France.” BABesch 29: 52–56. Zwet, L. 1956. “Fashion in Women’s Hairdress in the First Century of the Roman Empire.” BABesch 31: 1–22. Zwierlein‑Diehl, E. 1996. Book Review of Nil und Euthenia: Der Kalzitkameo im Antikienmu‑ seum Berlin, by G. Platz‑Horster. Gnomon 68: 470–472. Zwierlein‑Diehl, E. 2007. Antike Gemmen und ihr Nachleben. Berlin: De Gruyter. Zwierlein‑Diehl, E. 2008. Magie der Steine: Die antiken Prunkkameen im Kunsthistorisches Mu‑ seum. Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum and Brandstätter Verlag.

Index

Note: Bold page numbers refer to tables; italic page numbers refer to figures and page numbers followed by “n” denote endnotes. Ada Cameo 5, 165n60, 165n61, 167, 170, 171, 175, 176n22, 176n27 adventus 91n16, 165n68 agricultural implements (plow, bag of seeds, and small knife) 41n58, 58–59, 63, 66n18 Agrippina the Elder 2–4, 9, 18n47; and Grand Camée de France 95, 102, 103–107, 104, 109, 114–117, 118n22, 119n27 Agrippina the Younger 2, 4, 9, 15n5, 101–102, 106; and Caligula and Roma Cameo Fragment 122–139; and Gemma Claudia 142–162 Aion/Aeternitas 106, 110, 115, 119n27, 121n72, 133 Alexander Helios 22, 29, 35 Alexander the Great 20, 23, 101, 102, 106, 110, 120n43, 133, 140n31, 175–176n10 Alexandria 18n47, 20–24, 29–30, 41n49, 51, 53, 60, 66n31, 66n38, 67n53, 164n45, 176n10 Altar of the Lares 69n84, 79, 91n35 Altar of Zeus 82, 93n62 animal fecundity 28 Apollo 39n15, 57, 58, 69n101, 79, 82, 86 apotheosis 78, 100–101, 119n30, 128, 132, 135, 140n40, 141n56, 157–160, 162 Appadural, A.: Social Life of Things, The 18n55 Aquileia Dish 2, 3, 11, 17n47, 20–39, 43, 60– 65, 83–85; Alexandrian/Greek product, for Roman market 23–24; figures 24–30, 25, 27; iconography 30–35, 36; interpretations 26–30; life cycle of iconography 38–39; patron of 35–38; propaganda 38–39; provenance and date of 24; silver 20–24, 21, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33–39 Ara Pacis Augustae 28, 29, 54, 59, 70n102, 78, 89, 92n47, 94n79, 94n89, 158, 158, 160, 165n66 Arch of Titus 12, 119n30, 158, 159; Apotheosis of Titus 160; Triumph of Titus 159

Arco di Portogallo: Apotheosis of Sabina 161, 162 Arsinoe II 128 Art in the Hellenistic Age (Pollitt) 53 astrological signs 80–81; see also Capricorn; Scorpio Augustus 1, 3–6, 9, 13–15, 16n13, 16n14, 19n69, 22, 26, 28, 45, 54–57, 59, 62, 63, 71–75, 77–83, 85–90, 102, 103, 105–107, 109–117, 122, 124–128, 130, 131, 133, 137, 138, 143, 146, 147, 149, 150, 152, 154, 155, 158, 160, 164n39, 167; with gods and personifications 78; iconography 13–15; Pax Romana 13, 14; Tiberius and Livia with apotheosis of 100–101; see also Octavian Augustus of Primaporta 28, 40n44, 111, 112, 130, 158, 159, 165n67 barbarians 13, 46, 60, 66n19, 74, 75, 77, 82–83, 88, 93n66, 98–102, 107, 111, 113, 115, 116, 135, 137, 138, 173 Battle of Actium 2, 3, 12, 14, 23, 24, 37, 41n55, 43, 46, 52, 56–61, 64, 65, 67n40, 69n97, 71, 80, 85, 90, 92n47, 111, 126, 127, 128, 130, 155 Battle of Philippi 22 Beazley, Sir J. 1 Belgrade Cameo 5, 16n17, 16n24, 165n60, 167–168, 168, 175 Bellerophon 112 Belozerskaya, M. 6 biga 73; see also chariot Blacas Cameo 59, 69n91, 112, 120n59 Boscoreale Cups 7–8 Britannicus (Claudius’ son) 26, 102, 118n23, 142, 147, 152, 170, 174, 176n27 Brutus 22 Caelus 28, 54 Caesarion 20 Caligula 4, 12, 15n5, 16n17, 29, 40n37, 41n55, 95, 101, 103, 106, 107, 114, 115,

194 Index 119n27, 142, 146–149; 151–160, 164n39, 165n52, 174; see also Caligula and Roma cameo fragment Caligula and Roma cameo fragment 12, 54, 122–139, 123, 152, 156, 165n57, 174; composition of 137–138; female sphinx 132; figures 125–126; hand gesture of Roma 130; heroic semi‑nudity 125, 129, 130; iconography 128–131, 129; interpretations 126–128; laurel wreaths 125, 129, 130, 135, 136; life cycle of iconography 137– 139; lower register 135; middle register 133–135; patron 137; provenance of 123–124, 124–125; Ptolemaic iconography 130–131; reconstruction of 132–136, 133, 136; scepter topped with flower 129–130; upper register 132–133 Cameo of Augustus in a Chariot Drawn by Tritons 92n50, 110, 120n55 Cameo of Livia as Ceres with a Bust of Augustus 113, 120n54, 120n65 Cameo of the Hague 5, 167, 172–175, 172, 173, 176n28, 177n37 cameos see Ada Cameo; Blacas Cameo; Caligula and Roma cameo fragment; Cameo of Augustus in a Chariot Drawn by Tritons; Cameo of the Hague; Cameo of Livia as Ceres with a Bust of Augustus; Gemma Augustea; Gemma Claudia; Grand Camée de France; Nero Cameo from Nancy; Tazza Farnese Cancelleria Reliefs 12 Capricorn 74, 80–81, 84, 92n41, 92n44, 92n45, 92n47, 92n48, 92n50, 110, 117 Cassis, Ignaz Franz de 24 Cassius Dio/Dio Cassius 22, 163n31 centaurs 173, 177n30, 177n37 Ceres 26, 97, 100, 104, 105, 108, 109–110, 115, 117, 119n27, 120n54, 120n65, 136, 139, 147, 163n19, 173; see also Demeter chariot 25, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 41n64, 63, 72, 73, 88, 89, 92n50, 110, 158, 170, 173, 174, 177n31 Charles V 96 Claudius 4, 26, 29, 54, 78, 79, 92n54, 100–103, 106, 124, 142–155, 160, 162n1, 162n3, 164n37, 164n47, 165n52, 165n53, 166n70, 170, 174, 176n27 Clement VI, Pope 95 Cleopatra/Cleopatra VII 2, 3, 17n46, 20–39, 60, 66n38, 68n80, 88; Alexandrian/Greek product, for Roman market 23–24; children 22, 35; Demeter as 31–33, 32; as goddess 21; as mother 21; as queen 21; relationship with Mark Antony 20–23, 61–65 Cleopatra I 52 Cleopatra III 66n38

Cleopatra Selene II 22, 29, 35, 135 Column Base of Antoninus Pius 111 Constantine/Constantine I 5, 102, 167, 168, 170, 173–175, 176n10, 176n11, 177n37 Constantine II 170 Constantius II 170, 176n16, 177n37 corn 33 cornu, cornua 47, 50, 57, 58, 61, 77, 85, 88 cornucopia 33, 41n67, 55, 57, 66n21, 74, 76, 80, 81, 92n48, 117, 153, 154; see also Ptolemaic double cornucopia corona civica 12, 74, 78, 80, 81, 84, 92n50, 92n54, 110, 113, 116, 145, 147, 150, 151, 163n12 corona muralis 81, 82, 84, 113, 145, 150, 151, 163n19 Crispus 102, 174, 177n37 crowns see corona civica; corona muralis; laurel wreath; wheat crown Cupid 99, 100, 107, 112, 115, 119n27, 138 Demeter 25–28, 27, 30–35, 36, 38, 41n51, 41n64, 41n69, 41n71, 46, 56, 63, 64, 66n19, 105, 136, 150; chariot with winged serpents 33; as Cleopatra 31–33, 32; see also Ceres Dioskurides 120n70 Diptych of Consul Anicius Petronius Propus with the Depiction of Emperor Honorius 176n19 Domitian 2, 4, 15n2, 16n13, 156 Domus Augusta 4, 87, 93n79, 109, 116, 117, 128, 130, 136, 150, 156, 160, 161 Drusilla see Julia Drusilla Drusus Caesar 95, 103, 104, 106, 107, 114–116, 122, 133, 155 Drusus Major/Drusus the Elder 71, 76, 77, 86, 87, 100, 103, 119n27, 163n13 Drusus Minor/Drusus the Younger 100, 101, 103, 105, 106, 107, 114, 115, 119n27 Dying Gaul 88, 93n64 eagle 72, 74, 78, 79, 81, 84, 88, 89, 91n32, 110, 120n48, 144, 150, 151, 153, 159, 163n9, 170, 176n22 Egypt: historical figures 38; and Rome, alliance between 33; sphinx 46–48, 52, 55, 57–58, 60, 64, 65, 66n21, 85, 88, 98, 111 ekphrasis 7 Eleusinian Mysteries 27, 28, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 Etruscans 14 Euthenia/Abundantia 49–50, 50, 55, 66n22 Fausta 102, 170, 174, 175, 177n37 female sphinx 132 Flavian dynasty 2, 4, 12, 156–159, 157 Forum of Augustus 54 Franz I 24

Index  195 Gaia 26, 27, 33, 35, 38, 41n66, 65 Gaul 11, 22, 51, 55, 57, 58, 60, 63, 66n19, 69n85, 69n93, 82, 83, 85, 88, 93n64 gem‑cutter see gemmarius/gemmarii Gemma Augustea 1–4, 6, 7, 9, 11–13, 15n12, 16n16, 17–18n47, 18n58, 28, 39n5, 40n43, 40n44, 46, 60, 62, 65n15, 68n79, 69n82; astrological signs 80–81; barbarians 82–83; crowns 81–82; dynasty 89–90; eagle 72, 74, 78, 79, 81, 84, 88, 89, 91n32; figures 72–75, 73, 76; gods and goddesses 86; heroic semi‑nudity 74, 78, 84, 88, 91n31; historical figures 85–86; iconography 78–83, 84; interpretations 75, 77; life cycle of iconography 83–90; lituus 74, 79–80, 84, 88, 91n35, 94n88; Livia and 71–90; message 88–89; militaristic imagery 82–83; patron 87; Pax Romana 71, 77, 81, 83, 85, 86, 89; provenance of 71–72; sardonyx 72; scepter 72–74, 78–79, 84, 88, 89, 91n28, 91n30 Gemma Claudia 4, 12, 119n25, 120n48, 125; and Agrippina the Younger 142–162; composition of 153–155; crowns 150–151; figures 144–145, 145, 149; iconography 148–151, 151; interpretations 145–148; Jupiter and absolute rule 150; life cycle of iconography 151–155; military paraphernalia 150; patron 152–153; provenance of 144; Ptolemaic iconography 148–150; reworking of 147–148; sardonyx 143 gemmarius/gemmarii 7–9, 16n19, 16n21, 17n36, 17n42, 18n58, 60, 67n53, 97, 106, 120n43; patrons 9; technique 8–9; see also Cassius Dio/Dio Cassius; Dioskurides geographical references 60 Germanicus 29, 30, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 81, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91n19, 93n75, 94n88, 95, 100–103, 104–105, 106, 107, 109, 114, 115, 117, 118n22, 119n27, 120n68, 122, 133, 136, 136, 143, 146–152, 149, 151, 155, 163n9, 163n20, 164n37 Ghedini, F. 28 globe 65, 80, 92n47, 92n50, 99, 106, 110, 120n56 Golden Age of Rome 5 Gorgon 46, 47, 51–55, 59, 61, 65n16, 66n30, 67n38, 67n41, 68n56, 69n87, 69n89, 69n92, 98, 99, 108, 111–112 Grand Camée de France 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11–13, 16n16, 16n24, 17n42, 18n47, 18n58, 95– 117; composition of 115; Cupid 99, 100, 107, 112, 115, 119n27; dynastic message 117; figures 97–99, 98, 104–105; globe 110; gorgoneia 111–112; Greek sphinx 110–111; iconography 103, 105–113, 108; Imperial women 109, 110; interpretations 100–103; laurel wreaths 97, 99, 101,

107–109, 108, 116, 120n46, 120n48; life cycle of iconography 113–117; lower register 107; Neronian date 103; patron 103, 113–114; Pegasus 99–101, 108, 112, 115, 119n27; placement of figures 107; poppy 109–110; provenance of 95–97; reworking of 102; sardonyx 96; types of figures 115–116; upper register 106–107; wheat 109–110 Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (Strong) 42n72 Greek gods and goddesses 38 Hades 31 Hadrian 28, 70n105, 102, 119n30, 140n19, 162, 175n3 Helena 102, 170, 174 Hellenistic Empire 23 Hellenistic gods and goddesses 38 Henig, M. 61 Hermerén, G. 11, 12, 18n57, 18n59 heroic semi‑nudity 24, 74, 78, 84, 88, 91n31, 97, 105, 106, 108, 112, 115, 125, 129, 130 Hölscher, T. 13 Honorius 169–170, 176n18, 176n19 House of Valois 102 iconography: Aquileia Dish 30–35; Caligula and Roma cameo fragment 128–131, 129; definition of 13; Gemma Augustea 78–83, 84; Gemma Claudia 148–151, 151; large Imperial cameos 11–14; levels of 18n57; life cycle of 12; machine, in early Roman Empire 14–15; Tazza Farnese 56–60, 61 India 7, 14, 38, 53, 54, 67n46 Io 28 Isis‑Euthenia 47–50, 51, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64, 65, 85, 86, 88, 89 jugate portrait 39n5, 144, 148, 149, 151, 153, 164n33 Julia Augusta 69n84, 95, 100, 117, 119n27; see also Livia Julia Drusilla 4, 95, 107, 122, 124, 127, 128, 130–135, 137, 140n31, 141n56, 147–149, 164n33 Julio‑Claudian family tree 10 Julius Caesar 20, 22, 29–30, 37, 59–61, 63, 69n97, 80, 81, 92n51, 103, 112, 114, 122, 126; assassination of 22, 43 Jupiter 28, 77–79, 81, 84, 88, 91n22, 91n28, 91n30, 94n95, 100, 104, 105, 108, 112, 115, 116, 118n16, 126–128, 129, 150, 151, 153, 159, 164n33, 173; and absolute rule 150 Kepler, J. 80 Kleiner, D. E. E. 77, 94n79, 119n27

196 Index Kuttner, A. 8, 17n29, 17n30, 19n66 Kyrieleis, H. 127, 128 large Imperial cameos 1–19, 155–162; apotheosis 157–160; divinities 157–160; elegance 160–162; Flavian dynasty 156–157, 157; in fourth century, revival of 167–175; gemmarii 8–9; god?like emperors 157–160; iconography 11–14, 12; imperial majesty, ideal of 160–162; minor arts 5–6; poetry 160–162; propaganda 9–11 laurel wreath 12, 56, 73, 80–82, 88, 97, 99, 101, 107–109, 108, 116, 120n46, 120n48, 125, 129, 130, 135, 136, 147, 150, 151, 158, 173 Lichty, V. M. 67n41 lily 129, 130, 139 lituus 58, 69n83, 74, 79–80, 84, 88, 91n35, 94n88, 97, 104, 108, 112, 115 Lives of the Most Eminent Architects, Painters, and Sculptors (Vasari) 5, 15n7 Livia 2–4, 9, 17–18n47, 18n49, 37; with apotheosis of Augustus 100–101; and Gemma Augustea 71–90; and Tazza Farnese 43–65; see also Julia Augusta Livilla 95, 100, 103, 107, 120n48, 122, 124, 134, 136, 137 Lucius Aelius Sejanus 100 Marcus Agrippa 29, 95 Mark Antony 2, 3, 18n47, 20–39, 24; political aspirations 37; relationship with Cleopatra 20–23, 61–65; relationship with Octavia 37, 44; Triptolemos as 30–31, 31 Medici, Lorenzo de’ 46 Medusa 54, 59, 105, 112 Messalina 142, 145–147, 152, 163n14, 163n23, 170, 174 Meyer, H. 103 military paraphernalia/arms and armour (helmet, spear, shield, breastplate/cuirass) 73, 135, 144, 150, 151 Milonia Caesonia 124, 134–135, 137 minor arts 5–6, 8, 15n7–10, 24, 38, 154 Nero Caesar 4, 6, 12, 15n5, 16n13, 26, 28, 95, 103, 104, 106, 107, 114–116, 155 Nile River 47, 50, 51, 51, 58, 64, 68n68 Nilus 11, 12, 47–50, 49, 51, 55–58, 60, 64, 66n21, 68n62, 68n64, 68n68, 68n78, 86, 89 nymphs 12, 41n71, 50, 55, 57, 58, 60, 64 Oceanus 47, 74, 75, 76, 86, 89, 91n22, 94n95, 115, 138 Octavia (Claudius’ daughter) 26 Octavia (Octavian/Augustus’ sister) 22, 37, 44, 45, 62, 70n103, 86, 162n3, 164n47, 170, 174, 176n27

Octavian 2, 3, 12, 14, 16n14, 21–23, 29, 30, 37, 38, 39n7, 43–46, 52, 56–65, 69n97, 71, 80, 84–86, 88, 126, 127, 130; see also Augustus Oikoumene 13, 74, 75, 77, 81, 82, 86, 94n95, 113, 115, 116, 138, 150, 153, 163n19 olive tree 12, 25, 28, 31, 36, 47, 56–57, 60, 68n70–73, 85, 88 Ovid 33, 82 Panofsky, E.: levels of iconography 18n57; Studies in Iconology 11 patera 23–26, 27, 34, 35, 36, 46, 49, 50, 58, 61, 62, 63, 69n84, 78, 79, 85 Paul II, Pope 46 Pax Romana 13, 14, 45, 52, 57, 59, 71, 77, 81, 83, 85, 86, 89, 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 117, 129, 130, 135, 150, 160 Pegasus 99–101, 108, 112, 115, 119n27, 121n72, 133, 138 Persephone 25, 27, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 41n64, 41n71; chariot with winged serpents 33 Philip of Valois 95 Picard, C. 28 picture dish 1–3, 23, 24, 33–37, 39, 40n24, 40n37, 60, 61, 69n94, 155 Plantzos, D. 52 Pliny the Elder 7, 8, 15n10, 16n20, 16n21, 16n24, 17n37, 17n38, 39n15, 40n24, 53, 92n47, 118n8 Ploutos 30 Pluto 25 Pollini, J. 77 Pollitt, J. J.: Art in the Hellenistic Age 53 Pontifex Maximus 79, 119n27 poppy 97, 105, 108, 109–110, 117, 119n27, 120n48, 139, 173 Portrait of Claudius from Lanuvium 78 propaganda 9–11; Aquileia Dish 38–39; definition of 9–10 Ptolemaic art 20–21 Ptolemaic double cornucopia 125–128, 129, 131, 131, 135, 139, 140n49, 144–146, 148–150, 151, 163n9 Ptolemaic dynasty 20, 43, 52, 66n38 Ptolemaic iconography 130–131, 148–150 Ptolemy Caesar 20 Ptolemy of Mauretania 135 Ptolemy Philadelphus 22, 29, 35, 127 Ptolemy V Epiphanes 52 Ptolemy VI Philometer 52 Ptolemy VIII 67n38 Ptolemy XIII 39n2 Ptolemy XIV 39n2 quadriga 89, 158; see also chariot Roma 13, 75; hand gesture of 130 Roman triumph/triumphal procession 81, 88, 89

Index  197 Rome–Egypt alliance 35 Rose, C. B. 40n25 Rothschild Cameo 5, 168–170, 169, 175, 176n12, 176n18, 176n19, 176n21 Sabina 102, 119n30, 161, 162 scepter 26, 27, 33, 72–74, 78–79, 84, 88, 89, 91n28, 91n30, 97, 99, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110, 112, 115, 116, 119n27, 125–127, 129, 139, 140n43, 159, 168, 173; topped with flower 129–130 Scorpio 74, 75, 80, 81, 84, 90n10, 92n53, 117 serpents 25, 26, 27, 30, 33, 34, 36, 51, 59, 63, 99, 110, 173 silver 1–3, 5, 14, 20–24, 21, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33–39, 43, 46, 60, 61, 64, 67n53, 69n94, 69n96, 83, 84, 101, 131, 131, 135 silversmith 26 Smith, R. R. R. 52 snakes see serpents Social Life of Things, The (Appadural) 18n55 soldiers 13, 74, 76, 82, 83, 101, 102, 111, 113, 167, 175n10 sphinx: Egyptian 46–48, 52, 55, 57–58, 60, 64, 65, 66n21, 85, 88, 98, 111; female 132; Greek 57, 110–111, 125–128, 132 Strong, D.: Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate 42n72 Studies in Iconology (Panofsky) 11 Suetonius 80, 92n41, 135 Tazza Farnese 1–4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16n16, 20, 38, 39, 83–85; Augustan 53–55; figures 46– 51, 48, 51; Hellenistic 52–53; iconography 56–60, 61; life cycle of iconography 60–65; Livia and 43–65; provenance of 46; sardonyx 44 Tellus Italiae 13, 28, 33, 40n43, 41n66, 65, 74, 75, 77, 86, 89, 115, 116, 138, 139 Thompson, D. B. 53, 54

throne 9, 13, 39n15, 74, 75, 77, 86, 87, 90, 94n94, 95–98, 100–106, 104, 108, 111, 114, 117, 124–127, 132, 134–136, 142, 152, 155, 156, 164n39, 173, 176n11 thunderbolt 26, 27, 177n37 Tiberius/Tiberius Claudius Nero 3, 4, 9, 18n47, 37, 43, 62, 71–75, 77, 80, 81, 86–90, 95, 102, 103, 105–107, 109, 110, 112, 114–117, 122, 124, 130, 133, 146, 147, 150, 154, 155, 159, 160, 164n39; with apotheosis of Augustus 100–101 Titus 2, 4, 12, 15n2, 29, 92n43, 119n30, 156, 158, 159, 159, 160 Triptolemos 24, 26; agriculture 46; chariot with winged serpents 33; as a Gaul 11, 51, 55, 57, 58, 60, 82, 85, 88; as Mark Antony 30–31, 31 Triptolemos Dish see Aquileia Dish trophy 74, 75, 80, 98, 144, 173 Vasari, G. 15n8; Lives of the Most Eminent Architects, Painters, and Sculptors 5, 15n7 Venus 100, 112 Vespasian 2, 4, 15n2, 156, 165n62, 165n64, 165n68 Villa Farnesina 49 Von Fuchs, M. 128 wheat 25, 26, 27, 28, 33–35, 36, 41n71, 49, 50, 58, 64, 68n79, 74, 76, 97, 105, 108, 109–110, 117, 139, 150, 151, 173; crown 26, 27, 34, 35, 36, 41n71, 48, 151 Winds 50, 55, 60, 65 winged chariot 33 young women 34–35 Zadoks‑Josephus Jitta, A. 101–102 Zeus 26, 27, 33–35, 38, 78, 82; see also Jupiter