The Pre-Principate Portraiture of Caligula go to portraitsofcaligula.com for more info. (educational use only By Joe B. Geranio The portraiture of the Julio-Claudians is not an easy subject to examine. The essential goals of any such modern iconographic portrait study are, first, to assemble all known portraits of a given personage; second, to determine the appearance and style of each of the presumed lost prototypes on which all of the known surviving replicas are based; third, to attempt to date the creation of the lost prototype and surviving replicas and other portrait versions; and fourth to try to determine the reason(s) for the creation of each type.1 The main work to date that has been carried out is Boschung’s work, Die Bildnisse des Caligula.2 First a little history of the series inaugurated by the German Archaeological Institute. The Romische Herrscherbild project is an ambitious project to collect and publish in a series of volumes (currently 12) 3 entrusted to different scholars all the surviving portraits of Roman emperors and their families. Progress had been unusually slow and the Romische Herrscherbild project is closer to completion then it was thirteen to fifteen years ago. For instance the comprehensive Die Bildnisse des Augustus, brought together by Boschung, who brought this magnum opus to completion within a Remarkably short time. The portraits of the Julio- Claudian emperors4 Present special problems because so many of the Julio-Claudians look alike- in their official likenesses, that is, perhaps not in life. Hairstyles really are fundamental to establishing imperial typologies. In some ways, emperors (princeps) wore hairstyles as these were badges of identity which helped distinguish them from other princeps and members from the imperial family. The same is true for imperial women and even a few private individuals. So “curl counting” as some graduate students call it, is a useful tool because of the model of portrait production and dissemination. The way most scholars think this worked is that the princeps and maybe some artistic advisors sat down with a sculptor and they came up with an official prototype of how they wanted the princeps to look (hairstyle, physiognomy etc.). That prototype was then made available and “copied” thus giving us the surviving replicas which form a “type”. All replicas then generally share similar characteristics of hairstyle and physiognomy, although there can be a great deal of variation, based on all sorts of factors such as material, context, artists or patron’ wishes, and geography , to name a few. A “variant” is usually something that is different enough from the “type” to establish it as a variant. If you have two portraits that are pretty close to one another, then you call it a type or subtype. The problem is with the gray area portraits, and I cannot think of a more gray area than pre-principate portraits of Caligula. The problem is that identifying the childhood portraits of Germanicus and his sons Nero Iulius, Drusus Iulius, and Caligula is extremely difficult because of the great similarity of hairstyles and family resemblance of these closely related males. Unless an inscription is found with the portrait, problems will continue. The only sure childhood portraits of Caligula seem to be those on the Grand Camee (pl. 35.6) and the Louvre cameo (pl. 35.7). I still think it is possible that the Walter's Head that was published by john pollini could be a pre- principate image, though not a very good provincial work and well under life size. Boschung, of course, dismisses it because the hairstyle doesn't conform. It could be mushed because of the provincial nature of the work. The facial features (the elongated face and wide, high forehead) do resemble him. But if not, Caligula this would be a case of Zeitgesicht. We cannot forget that, too, we only have a very small fraction of the portraits that were produced in antiquity. Ergo, if we only have two close portraits that are extant, how many lost works might there be behind these two extant portraits. Although there may be only two representatives of type today, in 50 years there may be quite a number of new works of that same type , given the plethara of new finds and scholarship that come up every year. For example, Since Boschung has published his book on the portraits of Augustus, there have been a number of new portraits of Augustus which have surfaced. Of the nearly 250 portraits of Augustus that have come down to us, there may have been more than 50,000! set up through out the empire. Portrait typology in the case of pre-principate Caligulan portraiture is very subjective business. Type I is the Herkalion type and type II is the Copenhagen type. The Haupttypus (i.e.type I) of Caligula was undoubted created when he came to power in 37; it first and foremost reflected Tiberius’ hairstyle and indirectly that of his father, who in reality was imitating Tiberius as the next in line to succeed Tiberius. I argue that Tiberius’ last portrait type is the Chiaramonti type (a rejuvenated type), not as Boschung argued the Copenhagen (cat. 624). Boschung’s Nebentypus I, which is somewhat related to be sure to the Haupttypus, can in my opinion be considered a second type, his type II. It specifically recalls one of his father Germanicus’ types, as represented in the head from Tarragona (see Boschung’s Gens Aug. cat.), more than the Bezier’s portrait of Germanicus that Boschung mentions. This hairstyle is very different than any of Tiberius’s several types. Boschung can’t explain what necessitated the creation of his Nebentypus I, which he takes is represented in six replicas and all created in his principate. These are, in my opinion, close enough to one another to be considered a separate type, his type II. A number of these type II portraits (unlike most of the Haupttypus replicas) show him with corona civica, which Boschung associates with the title of Pater Patriae that he accepts (unlike Tiberius) at the outset of his principate. Boschung’s speculated Nebentypus II seems to be s spin off of Boschung’s Nebentypus I, with an Augustus look about it (esp. Metro Mus. NY, Boschung pl.37). I suspect this was a special issue, sort of like Roman special medallion issues. I would think that his type II (known in six replicas) were created in 40 after his “triumphal” return from the northern frontier, for which he received an ovatio—the real triumph was to come after he conquered Britain (had he not been assassinated). He had made incursions into Germany like his father Germanicus (hence the name, which actually goes back to Tiberius’ brother Drusus I) may explain why the lock configuration resembled that of his father Germanicus, and not Tiberius. In this way, he could underscore the likening himself to Germanicus rather than Tiberius (after all Tiberius hairdo was already used in typeI). Although he would have worn a myrtle crown for the actual ovation (that is if he followed tradition), the wearing of the corona civica in his portraits in the round would have underscored his saving the lives of citizens alla Augustus. Interestingly, no portraits in the round of any princeps or male member of the family are shown wearing a myrtle crown. Numismatics for Caligula In the absence of surviving statues with inscribed bases naming the persons portrayed, scholars have for centuries turned to coins for labeled portraits of Roman princeps. Thus it is no suprise that numismatic evidence has always played a large role in the study of Roman portraiture. The evidence provided has, however, frequently been used uncritically by archaeologists and art historians. All too often those publishing Roman portraits examine and illustrate as comparanda only a few randomly selected pieces, most often those reproduced on the plates of the British Museum’s multi-volume catalogue or specimens readily available to them in local collections, whether they be comprehensive cabinets like those in London, New York, Paris, etc. or the small study collections in the possession of some university museums. Reliance on such a sample can easily lead the art historian astray. The coin portraits need to be subjected to their own “replikenrezension” and to achieve this a die study is required. Only the earliest dies in a given series are likely to be faithful reproductions of the official (three-dimensional) model provided to the mint. All subsequent dies will be copies, occasionally with pronounced variations, of the profile portraits portrayed engraved on the first dies. For use in sophisticated modern studies of imperial portraiture, only the coins struck from the earliest dies in each series will suffice. Pre-Principate coinage will be from the reign of Tiberius, and unfortunately most specimens are rather crude. According to Von Kaenel the portraits of Caligula on the aureii and denarii are all in right profile; those on sestertii, dupondii, and asses are all in left profile. Von Kaenel concludes that all of the imperila issues reproduce a single official portrait type and that what variations exist are of a stylistic and not of a typological nature. Furthermore, since the two profile views are not mirror images, von Kaenel suggests that they faithfully reproduce the left and right side Respectively of a single model in the round and he believes that comparison with marble replicas of Boschung’s “Haupttypus” confirm the same master “vorbild” lies behind both the sculptured and numismatic replicas. According to von Kaenel, the Roman die engravers were provided with either a single head in the round to serve as a model for their miniature profile portraits or with two separate relief portraits corresponding to the left and right sides of a sculptured head of Caligula’s “Haupttypus.” This is an important observation and it would be interesting to know if it is typical of Roman numismatic portraiture for left- and right facing portraits of the same person to be rendered differently or whether the coinage of Caligula is exceptional in not employing mirror images. Some more thoughts on Caligula’s portraiture and typology. I think it would have been difficult For a die-cutter to have used a life-size portrait in the round (in plaster/clay) as a model. More likely, he/they used a large medallion with the image in profile. The predominance of Republican denarii in first-century hoards > is a fact. *I read recently that two-thirds of the circulating > denarii recovered from Pompeii (AD 79) were Republican. > * Every collector experiences that denarii of Caligula, Claudius, > and Nero before his debasement of 64, are much harder to come by than > denarii of Augustus, Tiberius, or Nero after his reform. That is the > second fact upon which de la Bodoyere bases his deductions. > Die studies by Giard and von Kaenel have shown that a lot of > dies were used for denarii of Caligula and Claudius, despite their > rarity today. But I am not aware of similar studies of the denarii of > Tiberius and Augustus, which might allow us to compare the apparent > original volumes of production. > The rarity of denarii of Caligula-early Nero might have other > causes than initial low production: the recoining of Caligula's coins > because of damnatio, and recoining of Claudius and early Nero for > profit after the debasement of 64. Of course Augustus and Tiberius > were also recoined after 64, but their coins had been around > considerably longer so had greater chances of being concealed in > hoards and so surviving until today. > * It would be interesting to know if there are large denarius > hoards buried before 64, say early in Nero's reign, that might reveal > something about the original level of production of denarii under > Claudius. * For example, the value of the (Click link for more info and facts about denarius) denarius in (Click link for more info and facts about Roman currency) Roman currency gradually decreased over time as the (An inhabitant of the ancient Roman Empire) Roman government altered both the size and the silver content of the coin. Originally, the silver used was nearly pure, weighing about 4.5 (A metric unit of weight equal to one thousandth of a kilogram) grams. From time to time, this was reduced. During the reign of the Claudio-Julian Emperors, the denarius contained approximately 4 grams of silver, and then was reduced to 3.8 grams under (Roman Emperor notorious for his monstrous vice and fantastic luxury (was said to have started a fire that destroyed much of Rome in 64) but the Empire remained prosperous during his rule (37-68)) Nero. The denarius continued to shrink in size and purity, until by the second half of the (Click link for more info and facts about third century) third century, it was only about 2% silver, and was replaced by the (Click link for more info and facts about argenteus) argenteus. The denarius, the silver coin that would become the mainstay of the Roman economy, was first struck in 211 BC and was valued originally at 10 asses (As). Approximately a century later, in 118 BC, it was revalued at 16 asses to reflect the shrinking size of the bronze and copper As. Minting of highly valued gold coinage, in the Republic, was only issued in times of dire need. The aureus was the primary gold coin of the Roman empire and was introduced in the late republic during the time of the imperators. The aureus carried a fixed value of 25 denarii and its larger value would ease the burden of money transfers during times of war. While the denarius remained the backbone of the Roman economy for 5 centuries, the silver content and accompanying value slowly decreased over time. This debasement of the metal purity in coins fluctuated with the strength of the Empire and was mainly an indication of the state lacking precious metals, reduced treasury, and inflation. When first introduced the denarius contained nearly 4.5 grams of pure silver and remained that way throughout most of the Republican period. With the establishement of the Imperial system the denarius remained fairly constanst under the Julio Claudians at 4 grams of silver. With the accession of Nero, however, the content was debased to 3.8 grams, Gaius Caligula GAIUS CALIGULA. 37-41 AD. Æ Sestertius (31.57 gm). Struck 37-38 AD. Rome mint. C CAESAR AVG GERMANICVS PON M TR POT, laureate head left / S P Q R/ P P / OB CIVES / SERVATOS, legend in four lines with an oak wreath. RIC I 37; BMCRE 38; BN 50; Vagi 554; Cohen 24. This week's coin was chosen simply for it beauty, It is the finest Caligula sestertius I have had the privilege to handle and it is perhaps one of the finest known of this type. The beautiful brown patina, mingled with traces of red and green, and the fully struck devices showing every vein of every leaf in the oak wreath, make this coins a treasure to behold. Sestertii of Caligula are not rare, but do command a premium in today's market, particularly in the outstanding condition of this coin. During Caligula's short reign, only 4 types of Sestertii were issued in his name: 1) ADLOCVT COH, Caligula addressing soldiers; 2) AGRIPPINA, DRVSILLA, IVLIA, SC, Caligula's three sisters; 3) SPQR OB CIVES SERVATOS, legend in four lines within wreath; 4) DIVO AVG, S-C, Gaius sacrificing before hexastyle temple. The types were repeated each year with changing obverse inscriptions. A fifth type was issued in Agrippina Sr.'s name which has her bust on the obverse and a carpentum on the reverse. Over the years, I have probably handled 100 of the these coins and have never given them much thought, after all the type is rather dull. Coming up with something interesting to write though raised a question. It is interesting to note that all the current standard references for this sestertius fail to mention the fact that it lacks the usual designation of SC typically found on sestertii. They all make special note of the Adlocutio type which also lacks the SC and suggest that it must have been a special issue struck by Caligula from aes acquired from some source other than the aerarium, but none mention this type. Was it also struck from aes acquired from another source, or is their another explanation for the lack of SC? Both types were issued throughout Caligula's reign and the SC is never added. Were these special issues every year? That to me seems difficult to believe. Perhaps these two issues were Caligula's first issues and there was some confusion as to whether SC belonged on them at all; these were the first Rome mint sestertii to carry and emperor's portrait on the obverse and it may have been seen as disrespectful. The lack of SC on the reverse lead Gnecchi to conclude that this type was a medallic issue and he included it in his work on Roman medallions. Anyway, something to think about. Enjoy. perhaps as a reflection of the high cost of rebuilding the city and his palace, after the fires. Regarding the recut mfa boston head It looks like the Boston head started life as a Caligula (notice high hairline of original); then, after his death, it was recut into a youthful looking Tiberius. See the profile of the young Tiberius in my article figs. 5-6 (Copenhagen Tiberius). The lower roughened surface of the marble just below the original Caligulan hairline suggests that the original hairlocks were covered over in marble dust stucco, giving the new Tiberius image a lower hairline -- one more in keeping with Tiberius earlier types (my Type II, e.g.). The roughening of the surface of the marble below the original Caligulan hairline on the forehead suggests that this was done to make the stucco adhere better. Over the centuries the stucco would have disintegrated revealing the original high-carved hairlocks of Caligula beneath. Cf. the portrait of Gaius recut into a Nero, in which the upper fringe of locks is that of Gaius in his last type (see my G. & L. book, pl. 22). This is case, the sculptor carved Nero's locks further into the forehead with stucco being used only to fill in the space between the locks of Gaius' original hairline. Again, the disappearance of the stucco over time leaves the odd double fringe of locks of the before (Gaius) and after (Nero). john Location: Roman Gallery Findspot: Caria, (said to have been found at Marmaris) Description: The portrait was formerly identified as the young Tiberius, modified for the addition of a wreath. Since the recutting, however, only affects the hair arrangement above the forehead, it is now thought to be a portrait of Drusus, son of Germanicus and brother of the Emperor Caligula, reworked as a portrait of the Emperors Claudius or Tiberius. Drusus Germanici was killed by order of Tiberius in A.D. 33. The identification of the portrait is made difficult by its quite idealized and rather generalized form and style. It is also possible that the head might have originally represented Caligula himself, but the absence of a "countercurl" at the proper left corner of the forehead is rare in marble portraits of Caligula. The neck, which has been broken across the front, was worked for insertion in a draped (or draped and cuirassed) statue or bust. The ears are chipped, and the crown of the head has been damaged slightly. Otherwise, allowing for the alterations mentioned in the description below, the head is in excellent condition, with an irregular but attractive yellow patina. Mfa head Provenance/Ownership History: By 1971: with Robert E. Hecht, Jr. (said to have been found at Marmaris [ancient Physkos] on the southern coast of Caria); purchased by MFA from Robert E. Hecht, Jr., November 10, 1971 Just came across a ref. to Caligula wearing a radiate crown: Philo, /Legatio ad Gaium/ 95. However, I would be careful about the source, since Philo was a Jewish propagandist and very anti Caligula. This ref. is in Philo's list of gods that Caligula dressed up as, Philo intensionally omitting no doubt that these were the costumes Caligula wore when he performed pantomime in private -- but a great opportunity for Philo to distort. The radiate crown he wears on the coinage signifies that he is a descended from Divus Augustus -- same for Nero, only he could claim kinship with both Divus Augustus and Divus Claudius. NOTES 1. See in general J. Pollini, Book Review, Dietrich Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Augustus, Das romische Herrscherbild, pt. 1, vol. 2. 2. See D. Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Caligula. Deutsches . . Archaologisches Institut, Das romische Herrscherbild 1,4 Berlin: . . Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1989. 138pp, 52 pls. ISBN 3-7861-1524-9. . . DM190. 3. I 7: D. Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Caligula (1989) II 1: G. Daltrop - U. Hausmann - M. Wegner, Die Flavier. Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, Julia, Titi, Domitilla, Domitia (1966) II 2: W. H. Groß, Bildnisse Trajans (1940) II 3: M. Wegner, Hadrian, Plotina, Marciana, Matidia, Sabina (1956) II 4: M. Wegner, Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit (1940) III 1: H. B. Wiggers - M. Wegner, Caracalla, Geta, Plautilla, Macrinus bis Balbinus (1971) III 2: R. Delbrueck, Die Münzbildnisse von Maximinus bis Carinus (1940) III 3: M. Wegner, Gordianus III. bis Carinus (1979) III 4: H. P. L'Orange - M. Wegner, Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen 284-361 n. Chr. Die Bildnisse der Frauen und des Julian (1984) III 5: Th. Pekáry, Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft (1985) IV: A.-K. Massner, Bildnisangleichung. Untersuchungen zur Entstehungs- und Wirkungsgeschichte des Augustusporträts (43 I 2: D. Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Augustus (1993) 4 See Pollini (as in n. 1), 725 In English and American scholarship, the use of emperor and empress), which has been so prevelant, projects false notions onto the past, especially in terms of leadership and governance. Although Rome had acquired an empire (imperium) already under the republic, Caligula was not an emperor, a word that, of course, derives from imperator but had a quite different meaning in antiquity. Caligula’s, like that of Augustus was princeps (“first citizen” or “leader”), a term already In use under the republic. The Roman historian Tacitus (Annales 1.9), writing in the 2nd century c.e., pointed out that Augustus had established neither a kingship nor a dictatorship but a principate (governance by a princeps): “Non regno tamen neque dictatura , sed principe nominee constitutam rem publicam.” 5 Possible “pre-principate portraits of Caligula: see John Pollini, “A Pre-Principate Portrait of Gaius (Caligula)?”, The Journal of The Walters Art Gallery, Volume 40 (1982) pp.1-12. The Walters head is much debated and some scholars; such as Boschung see the head as possibly Nero Julius son of Germanicus and brother of Caligula. See Z. Kiss, L’Iconographie des Princes (Warsaw, 1975), p. 150 figs. 533-539 attempts to identify five portraits of young boys as the young Caligula. See L. Fabbrini, RomMitt 73-74 (1966-1967), pp. 140ff. pls. 44-45. See F. Johansen, The Sculptured Portraits of Caligula, Ancient Portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum, Volume 1 1987, p. 95. Johansen see the portrait found at Carthage as an early portrait of Caligula before his accession. See H. von Heintze, Die antiken Portrats in Schlob Fasanerie bei Fulda (Mainz, 1968), no. 21. For the proposal that the La Spezia and Dresden portraits may represent the youthful Gaius (rather than his father Germanicus): H. Jucker, “Die Prinzen auf dem Augustus-relief in Ravenna.”Melanges d’histoire ancienne et d’archeologie offerts a Paul Collart (Lausanne: 1976), p.249, n.64 On the bust (found in the theater at Luni) in the Museo Archeologico, La Spezia, inv. No 54. See further C. Pietrangeli, “Appunti su due ritratti giulio-claui.”Congresso
