Preferred Citation: Kuttner, Ann L. Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus: The Case of the Boscoreale Cups. Berkeley:  University of California Press,  c1995 1995.


Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus

The Case of the Boscoreale Cups

Ann L. Kuttner

Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford
© 1995 The Regents of the University of California

Preferred Citation: Kuttner, Ann L. Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus: The Case of the Boscoreale Cups. Berkeley:  University of California Press,  c1995 1995.


List of Plates

(following page 12)

BR I:I. Augustus' World Rule

1. Roma, Genius of the Roman People, Amor, Venus

2. Amor, Venus, Victoria, Augustus, Mars, Gallia, et al.

3. Mars and the provinces—Africa, Asia, Gallia, Hispania, et al.

BR I:2. Augustus, Drusus, and the Princelings of Gallia Comata

4. Drusus and the Gallic chieftains with their infants

5. Drusus, Augustus, and the Gallic infants

6. Augustus' Praetorian Guard

BR II:I. Tiberius' Nuncupatio Votorum at the Capitolium

7. Tiberius imperator and his lictors in paludamenta

8. The altar group and the victim group

9. The victim group and the Capitolium

BR II:2 Tiberius' Triumph of 8/7 B.C.

10. Gallic officer behind Tiberius triumphator, crowned by the servus publicus

11. Tiberius triumphator and his quadriga, togate lictors and officer

12. The triumphal victim


13. BR I:I

14. BR I:2

15. BR II:I

16. BR II:2

Details: 17–25

Views of the recovered cups: 26–28



This is a book about art made for Romans and history made by Romans in the last years of the Republic and the opening years of the Empire—that is, in the Janus-faced age of Augustus' domination over the Roman world. It examines art made for the Roman elite, and the actions of the highest in that stratum, Augustus and his family. Their actions and their art, though, were often addressed to a much wider world, which now began to include non-Romans as an intended audience. So, while this is not a history of plebeian art or a social history, it is all the same a study of political and cultural phenomena that affected every stratum of society, in an age when the actions and patronage of a tiny group of nobles had the power to reverberate upon the entire Mediterranean world.

This book undertakes to explore the artistic and political ferment of the Augustan West by reference to a particular monument, the complex set of images that were copied onto a pair of silver cups a few years before the end of the last century B.C. I take them as a subject, and also as challenge—just how does one reconstruct styles and ideologies from the broken remnants of a great culture? This, a monograph on a monument, is a very traditional work by art-historical criteria; it is on a very traditional subject for Roman studies, historical relief. It does not offer any new methodologies or propose a large new critical vocabulary, unless it is a new methodology to look as widely as possible for evidence and to subject it to a consistent source criticism. My justificaton for the book is the book itself—new information, new narratives about Roman Gaul, the Augustan empire, and the shaping of Roman art.

Now it has become fashionable to discuss the Augustan Age. When I first became interested in the Boscoreale Cups in the late 1970s I felt very alone; it is interesting, years into a project, to feel on one's neck the hot


breath of the Zeitgeist . Yet the Boscoreale Cups and the questions they raise remain unexplored in the crowd of new books, articles, and catalogues; although I do not feel that this book replaces anyone else's opus, neither do I feel that recent publications have made this project otiose. This seems a particularly auspicious time, in fact, to be bringing out a monograph on the Boscoreale Cups. After nearly a century of seclusion during which they were feared lost or destroyed, in the fall of 1990 the cups were acquired for public display by the Louvre, thanks to the magnificent efforts of François Baratte. Having written this laudatio, I am extremely pleased that it is now about objects I and my readers can actually see, and drink to, if not from.

This book is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted in 1987 to the Graduate Group in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology at the University of California at Berkeley, here substantially revised. I was able to keep steadily abreast of new publications through the fall of 1989 and could make sporadic revisions into early 1991; the notes occasionally direct the reader to works that I did not have time to assimilate. The reader should know that important work on the art and history of the Republic and early Empire appeared after my revisions ceased, or is forthcoming. Of especial interest are the essays on art and history in K. Raaflaub and M. Toher, eds., Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate (Berkeley, 1990); E. Gruen's Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome (Ithaca, N.Y., 1992); C. B. Rose's thesis on Julio-Claudian portraits, to be published as Dynastic Art and Ideology by Cambridge University Press; and the new series on Roman provincial coinage by A. Burnett and his collaborators, which began to appear in 1992. In addition, R. Billows's article on the Ara Pacis processions as a supplicatio, which will appear in the Journal of Roman Archaeology, and K. Galinsky's article on the Venus panel of the Ara Pacis in the American Journal of Archaeology 96 (1992) promulgate crucial readings with which I would align my own work.

A word about illustrations and format. At -the front of the book are plates of the cups, a montage of each side, and selected details: generally, the text assumes the reader will look at these pictures, so it is not much larded with commands to do so. The rest of the illustrations are in the back of the book, with "figure" rather than "plate" numbers; captions and credits are given in the list of figures. Close to 300 objects, monuments, and images are mentioned in this book. I could not illustrate them all and was frustrated to be forced to choose among them. Because this work is aimed beyond the immediate circle of Roman art historians I could


not leave out all the famous works well illustrated elsewhere—besides, I needed them myself too often. I tried to illustrate when possible works little known or not often brought into the particular discussion at hand. Probably no one reader will be completely satisfied with the choices made. While it helps to have a good seminar room, a couple of good Roman handbooks (like Strong and Andreae) will generally serve. Texts not translated can be read in Loeb editions; many inscriptions are now in handbook collections, and Pollitt's sourcebook is also useful. The coin catalogues RRC (Crawford), BMCRE (Mattingly), and BMCRR (Grueber) should be to hand, with Ryberg's Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art, the 1988 Kaiser Augustus Berlin catalogue, and the Augustan surveys by Simon and Zanker. The notes refer to individual works by author's name and year of publication; full references can be found in the Bibliography. Abbreviations of periodical titles and monograph series generally conform to those of the Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut Jahrbuch, L'année philologique, or the American Journal of Archaeology . Abbreviation of the names of ancient authors and their works generally follow that of the Oxford Classical Dictionary . Greek is transliterated.

Many institutions and individuals assisted me. I would like to express my gratitude to the librarians and photographic staffs of the University of California at Berkeley, Columbia University's Avery Library, the Fine Art Department of the University of Toronto, the Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut in Rome and in Athens, the American Academy in Rome, and the American Numismatic Society. Like so many Romanists I owe a great debt to the DAI photographic section, that unmatched resource for scholarly endeavor (not least in its commitment to refrain from gouging scholarly pockets). Many curators assisted me with photographs and information. I must single out for their special generosity and encouragement William Metcalf of the ANS, Ernst Künzl at the Römisch-Germanisch Zentralmuseum-Mainz, François Baratte at the Louvre, and Joan Mertens at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I thank also Susan Walker at the British Museum, Raymond Wünsche at the Munich Glyptothek, Ursula Heimer at Bonn, Alfred Bernhard-Walcher of the Kunsthistorischemuseum Wien, Florence Wolsky of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Gertrud Platz of the Berlin Antikenmuseum, Ulla Petersen of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek in Copenhagen, and J. H. F. Bloemers of the Provincial Museum G. M. Kam in Nijmegen. The photographers Gisela Fittschen-Badura and Walter Drayer were also very helpful.

I feel affectionate gratitude still to the program for which I wrote the original thesis. I remain deeply grateful that the Group existed to shield


me from having to reject either history or art history, texts or things. The advisors who read the thesis, Erich Gruen and Andrew Stewart (cochairs), and Peter Brown, remain my models for the historical enterprise, whether applied to fine arts, politics, or the history of ideas. In that period the Institute of Medieval Canon Law in Berkeley and the Deutsche Historische Institut in Rome under the direction of R. Elze gave me a six-month research assistantship in Rome. In 1989 an NEH Travel to Collections Grant also helped to defray the costs of my research abroad.

Besides those already named, many other friends and colleagues have helped this enterprise, directly or indirectly, by their willingness to listen to my theories, challenge my ideas, and even read my manuscript. I cannot possibly hope to name all those who merit thanks. My deep affection and respect in this as in so many projects goes to Erich Gruen, ruthless skeptic and staunch supporter; Bert Smith has been a valued critic and reader; Glen Bowersock put his finger on my weakest arguments, and the warmth of his response was an important encouragement to revision. I thank my other, anonymous Press reader as well. The patience and fortitude of these readers has been exemplary; remaining inaccuracies, infelicities, and arguments that fail to compel should be put down to my account and not theirs. I was able at Erika Simon's invitation to try out some material on the students and faculty of the Archaeological Seminar at Würzburg, whom I thank for their critical attention and warm hospitality; it was a great pleasure to offer to Professor Simon a new vindication of theories about the Ara Pacis that she had proposed over twenty years ago. I thank also the organizers and audience for the 1986 Joint Panel of the APA-AIA, where the material in chapter 4 was first publicly presented; it was later tried on audiences in New York and Hamilton. The members of my 1989 Augustus seminar at Toronto, the graduate students of the Department of Fine Art, and T. D. Barnes of the Department of Classics provided much stimulation in the last stages of revision. I wish to thank also for their conversation and support Liz Bartmann, Bettina Bergmann, Sarah Leach Davis, William Harris, Diana Adams Hatchett, Alison Keith, Alina Payne, Joseph Scholten, and Ronald Syme. Richard Billows was for years a devoted critic who has my lasting gratitude; Brian Rose is a special comes, as friend and as fellow addict of Julio-Claudian iconography. Last, like a good Roman I turn to my extensive clan, to salute the love and support given by grandparents and parents and siblings, uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews and cousins—and to dedicate this book to Stephan Kuttner, avo et exemplo maiori .
Philadelphia, 1993



Aims and Methods

This study fills a long-standing gap in Roman studies as the first comprehensive examination of the skyphos pair commonly known as the Boscoreale Cups, or the Boscoreale Cups of Augustus and Tiberius (one of my aims is to see that Tiberius' brother Drusus henceforth comes to mind also when the cups are mentioned; see chapter 8). Excepting one recent article on one panel of one of the cups, after the initial publication in 1899 no one has explored the cups' relief decoration in any depth.[1] Discussion of individual scenes, and of the program of the cups as a pair, has been cursory, subordinate to other investigative goals, and unbacked by rigorous visual or iconographic examination. Indeed, it is fairly plain that one reason the cups' iconography is so little known is that many cursory surveys supply only one shot of each cup face, omitting a good two-thirds of each scene; many more give one shot only to illustrate both cups.[2] Many published references to the cup pair make it plain that their authors have not looked beyond such an abbreviated visual record.[3] The Augustus cup, especially the center shot of its allegorical panel, is most popular in general surveys, and correspondingly in the scholarly literature.[4]

Because it is generally taken for granted that some at least of the four decorative panels copy monumental prototypes—that is, imperial state reliefs—the cups figure briefly in many surveys of Roman relief as well as of Roman silver, as in many general handbooks on Roman art. This (usually) implicit premise is seldom developed. The date assigned to the cups, or to their postulated monumental sources, ranges from the reign of Augustus to that of Claudius. Early datings based on iconography are contested, for instance, by scholars who see the style as Claudian but look at


the height of the relief work rather than at figure style. There has been little or no interchange between iconographers and stylistic historians of Roman relief, on the one hand, and silver specialists, on the other. Indeed, although every beginning student of Roman art is taught that the Boscoreale Cups are somehow important, the advanced student can seldom say exactly why.

The answer to the why of the cups' importance is basically very simple: they are iconographically rich and stylistically superb. They document one of only two cycles of Roman imperial state reliefs to survive from the entire Julio-Claudian period, the other being the Ara Pacis; and they supply the only surviving nonfragmentary examples of a genre not common even among the Julio-Claudian fragments, that is, scenes that are not solely processions on foot in the manner of the Ara Pacis friezes. By thorough comparison with the canons of official representation, as they can be reconstructed from late Republican and Imperial coinage, relief, and commemorative sculpture, the cups are shown here to copy a unified set of monumental relief panels. All four of the cup scenes depend on these monumental panels, including the well-known and problematic allegory of Augustus as world ruler. This study not only verifies the "monumental prototype" hypothesis once and for all; it embraces the implications of that hypothesis: this is a book about a Julio-Claudian imperial state monument. I would hope that after this study no comprehensive study or exhibition on the Age of Augustus would ever again overlook the cups. In exploring their iconography and compositions, I have ended by feeling as if I had been given the miraculous chance to write the first monograph analysis of, say, the Ara Pacis reliefs . . .

Whether or not my readers become fully convinced of my dating of the cups and of their prototypes—both Augustan, before Tiberius' "exile"—this study should interest not only art historians but also historians, an audience not much exposed to the cups in the literature of its own discipline. I hope that the cups will now become as familiar as the Ara Pacis or the Gemma Augustea to historians of imperial image making.

The four sides of the Boscoreale Cups are decorated in high relief with political and historical subjects. This itself is noteworthy: the four panels are unique among extant Roman silver, where figural representation seems generally to have confined itself to mythological subjects. Literal historical narrative, what I call documentary narrative, was not the usual province of any luxury art (silver, gems, figured pottery, domestic wall painting and stucco). Overt political allegory is more common in the imperial luxury arts, especially gem work, and on military paraphernalia,


but the allegorical panel on the Augustus cup has no real parallel in the extant silver corpus. The only piece remotely comparable is the problematic Aquileia dish (fig. 17), on which Antony in the character of Triptolemus (?) sacrifices to Demeter, attended by various mythological figures. However, this tableau—a portentous conflation of Neo-Attic and Hellenistic court styles—has no narrative impact to speak of compared with the Boscoreale, or BR, allegory.[5]

Some Arretine ware does hint at lost silver with allegorical political imagery, as this fine molded pottery imitated the shapes and decorative vocabulary of vessels in precious metal. Such political images are, however, as rare in the vast Arretine corpus as in silver, and the extant examples seem themselves to depend on compositions (especially statuary groups) formulated originally for imperial state monuments (figs. 65–67). (Significantly, the politico-allegorical Arretine fragments are Augustan, which agrees with an early Julio-Claudian date for the BR cups.) None of the schemata preserved by ceramics, though, approach the BR allegory in iconographic or stylistic complexity, nor do they have any narrative content to speak of; none pretend to depict historical "reality" transpiring before our eyes.[6]

The unique status of the cups qua decorated silver hampers all stylistic analyses based solely on comparison with other surviving metalwork.[7] Not only the subjects represented but also the figure types used are unparalleled in luxury metalwork. The relief style employed has struck silver specialists as distinct from other figural relief styles in the genre of decorated silver.[8] The only aspect in which the cups can genuinely be compared with other silver is in the working of the medium itself: that is, the decoration of drinking cups with a shell of silver worked in repoussé (beaten out from behind) to produce very high relief decoration. Comparison with other Roman silver avails little in explaining the style or iconography of the cups' decoration and is useless for construing an exact date.[9] As discussed in appendix A, this taste for very high relief decoration in silver (and, one might add, in decorative marble work) can be observed elsewhere in Augustan art, especially in the surviving repertoire of floral and vegetal themes (cf. fig. 1).

This leads me to state a major premise: to date the cups, one must begin with iconography, including under that heading not only content (e.g., Venus Genetrix) but also the forms in which the content is expressed (e.g., a particular figure type of Venus Genetrix). Iconography in this sense is inextricably involved with "style," overlapping to a greater or lesser degree with characteristics usually discussed under the heading of purely


formal aspects of the execution of individual figures. Also falling under both headings (iconographic and stylistic) is the analysis of compositional schemes, narrative and symbolic groupings of two or more figures; in such schemes the figures can have a fixed iconographic significance of their own, or the identities of the figures involved can change while maintaining stereotyped groupings that have expressive or esthetic value. Although such analysis by means of compositional iconography is common in other areas of art history (e.g., the Kurt Weitzmann "school" on medieval and Byzantine manuscript illumination), up to now I. S. Ryberg's Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art has stood alone as a sustained effort to apply such a mode of analysis. Finally, there is iconography in its most restricted sense: the identification of individual figures by means of their attributes and (in the case of real persons) their facial features. Such portrait identification (in this case, of Augustus and his stepsons Drusus the Elder and Tiberius) places the cups in time and provides the starting point for their interpretation; iconography in all its senses will permit the cups to be situated within an evolving artistic tradition, where real stylistic affinities to official art tie the cup representations to the middle Augustan period.

This investigation follows the structure of the cups, considering each of the panels in turn. "Panel" means one of the four sides of the two cups, demarcated by the placement of the cup handles; each panel constitutes a distinct composition narrating a distinct event, real or imagined. I begin with the Augustus cup, BR I: BR I:1 (allegorical narrative) shows the bestowal and confirmation of Augustus' world rule, including homage by a group of ethnic personifications (chapter 1); on BR I:2 (documentary narrative) Gallic leaders sponsored by Drusus the Elder hand over their children to Augustus' fatherly protection (chapter 3). The Tiberius cup, BR II (documentary narrative), shows the precampaign sacrifice (nuncupatio votorum ) and triumph of 8-7 B.C. of Drusus' brother Tiberius (BR II:1 and 2; chapters 5 and 6). Next I investigate echoes of the BR cups in two later monuments, the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum and the Ludovisi sarcophagus (chapter 7); their demonstrable dependence on the iconography and compositions of the BR cups shows that the cups' own monumental prototypes continued to stand in Rome and to influence later imperial art into the third century A.D. And I discuss the status of Tiberius and Drusus in ancient and modern sources, in order to set the BR cups in their proper context as documents of Augustan succession policy, touching on key genre compositions in Augustan propaganda and on the nature of the BR cups' monumental prototype (chapter 8). In con-


clusion I provide final statements on the date and visual sources of the BR cups' decoration, and on the themes and program of the cup pair. The text closes with appendices on the cups' relation to Roman silverworking and on K. Schönberger-Münch's 1988 dissertation analysis of the cups.

To identify the participants and explain the action and themes of each panel, I range over many new or problematic aspects of Roman art, politics, and religious rite. So, the allegorical panel BR I:1 is treated in two chapters: the second discusses special problems in the depiction of Augustus, the seated togate honorific type, its association with ethnic personifications, and the association of "real" with divine figures in Republican and Augustan art; it includes a lengthy excursus on the so-called Anaglypha Traiani and the Hadrianeum province-emperor group. The third chapter discusses the political iconography of ethnic personifications in the Republic and early Empire, distinguishing modes of depiction to track the depiction of corporate groups. Chapter 4, devoted to BR I:2, explores the practice of "son-giving" by non-Roman elites to the Republican state and to Augustus; the evolution of rapidly stereotyped compositions to express Augustus' new message of dynastic inheritance of rule; and the political mandate of Drusus the Elder in Gaul for Augustus, critical portions of which are reconstructed on the basis of visual evidence (especially this cup) that supplements gaps in the textual record. Chapter 5 discusses the BR victim-slaying composition (the "Pausias motif"), explains the rite of nuncupatio votorum, and outlines Augustan modes of architectural depiction in decorative and monumental relief. Chapter 6 explores the role in actuality and art of the servus publicus, who makes a unique appearance in the triumph of BR I:2, and reconstructs military styles for displaying awards to show that Gallic auxiliaries accompany Tiberius' procession.

Thorough analysis of the iconography of these four scenes shows that the cups were made in the lifetime of Augustus before Tiberius' accession in A.D. 14, indeed before his exile in 6 B.C., copying a set of monumental reliefs commissioned by or for the emperor and his heirs in the city of Rome. These reliefs (which can be linked to the Ara Pacis) were made around the time of Tiberius' triumph awarded in 8 and celebrated in 7 B.C., associating with Tiberius' gloria projects completed by his brother Drusus shortly before Drusus' death in 9 B.C., both brothers acting under the auspicia and to augment the glory of the emperor Augustus. The date mandated by political iconography is supported by stylistic evidence; the purely artistic aspects of these panels, from small details to broad spatial and compositional structures, have multiple correspondences in the extant


corpus of late Republican and Augustan imperial art. Miniaturization of a public monument is no anomaly in this age—the inner altar of Augustus' Ara Pacis (13-9 B.C.) is itself a radically miniaturized version of the great Hellenistic royal altars of Asia Minor (Pergamon, Priene, Miletos).[10]

Because the cups, like much Roman art, describe political reality and historical event, I would naturally have to touch on historical problems. This text, however, aims at more than art history backed by bare historical outline: the cups are valuable historical documents in their own right and deserve to be so included in the historical debate on policy and practice in the Age of Augustus. Most obvious is the contribution of BR I:2 (see chapter 2): this panel and its comparanda describe an historical event known from no surviving text, a carefully staged "happening" connected on the one hand with Augustus' policies in Gaul and on the other with the political role of Drusus the Elder as one of Augustus' prospective heirs before his untimely death in 9 B.C. The Tiberius cup and the program of the cup pair help to illuminate the place of the brothers Tiberius and Drusus in Augustus' dynastic schemes prior to Drusus' death and Tiberius' self-imposed exile in 6 B.C., a place often slighted and misunderstood. The nature of Augustan propaganda about such dynastic schemes is itself a significant historical fact; the BR cups are valuable and legible examples of such propaganda. Finally, the allegory BR I:1 and its ethnic personifications (thoroughly examined for the first time), in apposition to the "son-giving" scene of BR I:2 and to the Tiberius cup, delineate a particular Augustan form of benevolent imperialism and illuminate the Augustan dialectic of pax and bellum .

History of the Cups

The Boscoreale Cups originally belonged to a hoard recovered in 1895 of 109 pieces of gold and silver plate and a cache of coins belonging to the owners of a wine-producing villa rustica on the southeastern slopes of Vesuvius near the modern village of Boscoreale.[11] The hoard was placed in an empty cistern in the wine cellar of the villa when its owners fled before the eruption of A.D. 79. Although some care was evidently taken to store all the more precious articles on hand in the wine cellar, the eruption itself intruded on the final packing; various domestic artifacts were left behind in the rooms above, and the corpses of several persons who did not flee in time were found at the site.

The eruption of A.D. 79 is thus a terminus ante quem for the manufacture


of all artifacts from the site. The contents of the hoard are an assemblage accreted over three-quarters of a century, valuable documentation of the taste and needs of a prosperous Roman family owning a vineyard cum summer retreat; I know no study of the hoard as such a document of taste, although such a study would be worthwhile. The pieces of plate range from soup spoons and shellfish forks to very elaborate pieces meant for display rather than use, like the famous Africa dish. Many of the finer pieces can be assigned by style and iconography to the reigns of the first two emperors, ca. 20 B.C. to 40 A.D.; this accords with the coinage sequence, an unbroken series from Augustus to Domitian dominated by well-worn issues of Augustan and Tiberian date. Thus the family who owned the hoard seems to have established its prosperity under Augustus. A set of salt dishes in the hoard are inscribed with what may be the name of a freedman of Octavian manumitted between 44 and 27 B.C.[12] A pair of dishes have portrait emblemata, which might be classified as imagines clipeati, of a late Republican or early Julio-Claudian man and wife.[13]

The hoard has many other drinking cups (pairs and singletons),[14] but "the Boscoreale Cups" commonly denotes the pair discussed here. By the time of the eruption the cups were well worn, with whole pieces of the relief decoration torn away. They must have been preserved as sentimental and artistic heirlooms; practicality and the desire to set an elegant service would otherwise have led to the cups' being melted down for reuse of the silver. The family probably owned a more accessible summer residence closer to the coast, not associated with a working farm, where more up-to-date metalwork would have been displayed for grander entertainment and where the stock of cash on hand would have included newer issues of a better weight; the vessels of the Boscoreale hoard seem to have been relegated to what we would call home use.

The Boscoreale hoard is now displayed in the Louvre and includes since 1991 the Augustus and Tiberius cups. These, with four other pieces, had been retained for his private collection by Baron Edouard Rothschild when that nobleman donated the rest of the hoard to the Louvre, and when he underwrote the hoard's publication by P. Héron de Villefosse in the 1899 issue of Monuments Eugène Piot . In the years intervening the cups have been further damaged; the results for the Tiberius cup are not too serious, but the scenes on the Augustus cup have been significantly mutilated. Fortunately, Héron de Villefosse published excellent plates and a detailed physical description of both cups. The descriptions of the four panels that open four of my chapters are based on the visual and textual documents of 1899, and this book is primarily illustrated like all previous


scholarship (except the 1991 museum republication), with reproductions of the 1899 plates.[15] These remain the only record of the cups in their original modern state of preservation. In 1991 I was able to check my critical descriptions against what is left of the cups' relief shell.[16] The heavy damage to the Augustus cup is especially lamentable. Many details crucial to this inquiry are now irrecoverable.

The history of the Boscoreale hoard has recently become more clear, though the history of the historical cups remains problematic. The account in the 1899 publication is that the Villa "Pisanella" property was excavated under state auspices beginning in 1895, and that the excavation staff stole the hoard in spring of that year. The laborer who first opened the cistern where the hoard was cached is supposed to have concealed the find, and then with his foreman to have smuggled the hoard out of Italy. More recently, a fuller account has been published, as the Italian archeological service took a critical interest in the historiography of the find. The villa rustica where the hoard was cached, near the modern village of Boscoreale, was located on private property belonging to Vincenzo da Prisco; he was able to sell the hoard and the other villa finds to the antiquarian Canessa, who handled the export and eventual resale of these finds. These events were made possible by the lack, at the time, of effective legislation governing the conservation of Italy's archeological patrimony; the case caused much scandal in Italy and was in fact the catalyst for the formation of the first effective legal barriers against such archeological "rape."[17] When the hoard went on the market, the Louvre was approached for the then enormous sum of 500,000 francs (I revert here to the 1899 account). When the museum could not meet this price, single pieces began to be sold off. At this point Edouard Rothschild stepped in and bought the hoard for the Louvre, on the stipulation that it go on permanent display; he bought back the dispersed pieces, save for the female emblema dish, which the British Museum refused to sell back. The baron did reward himself by retaining six pieces, including our two cups, although he had all these pieces included in Villefosse's 1899 monograph. In 1986 a new catalogue of the hoard was brought out in popular format by François Baratte, curator in the Louvre's Départment des antiquités grecques et romaines; when the generosity of the current Rothschild owners joined the cups to the Louvre collection, Baratte republished them—with the first color plates!—in the first issue of the new museum journal (Revue du Louvre 1 [1991]).

What happened to the Boscoreale Cups between 1899 and 1991? No author after Héron de Villefosse seems to have viewed them firsthand, or


made an effort to do so.[18] They dropped out of sight, and the scholarly consensus by the 1970s was that they had been mislaid by the close of the Second World War and that the Augustus cup might have been destroyed.[19] As Francois Baratte informs me, the Rothschild family believes that the cups never left family control; they did, however, pass through a period when they were vulnerable to damage. From firsthand examination of the cups, two points emerge. For some unspecified period they were stored or passed around in such a way that previous damage was exacerbated, that is, holes already torn in the relief shell widened around their edges; this is the nature of the damage on the Tiberius cup, and it conforms to the twentieth-century "legend" of that cup's continued existence. The second point is that one of the cups, the Augustus cup, fell prey to vandalism—not the complete destruction of its "legend," but active mutilation all the same. Great swathes of silver have been torn off the core on both sides of this cup, as if someone had absentmindedly peeled a label from a beer bottle; this may be accidental damage. However, in at least one place one can see that someone has cut crudely around the outlines of figures in high relief, as if to detach as a keepsake one figure at a time: such crude shear marks are clearly visible around the missing officer who stood behind Augustus on BR I:2, and the neat rectangular tear in front of Roma on BR I:1 may also demonstrate such clipping. Now that the Quedlinburg Itala has resurfaced in the family bank vault of a World War II officer, one can perhaps hope that a kitchen shelf or jewelry box somewhere holds a torn silver scrap with odd little people on it . . .

The Cups in Context

Pairs of drinking vessels are as typical in finds of Roman silver as single vessels.[20] They belonged to that part of a Roman silver service called the argentum potorium, which embraced a variety of vessels and implements useful or necessary to the ritual of communal drinking; the Boscoreale hoard is itself exemplary of such a set.[21] Two cups instead of one imply use in a particular manner: the owner is drinking with a friend and wishes to share a matched set of cups. Such convivial drinking, at a meal or simply at a drinking session, was an integral feature of cultured life in Greece from the High Archaic period on and from at least the second century B.C. was a standard feature of cultured Roman practice as well. At such drinking bouts friends were meant to speak as well as drink, on a topic either elevated or merry; in any case witty conversation was the


goal. Paradigmatic is of course Plato's Symposion, both event and text; a perhaps less oppressively uplifting sort of occasion may be imagined from the Hellenistic poet Phalaikos' mock epitaph for his friend Lykon, as a host memorable both for the charm of his own speech and for the scintillating conversation at any drinking bout over which he presided (Greek Anthology, vol. 1, no. 6, Loeb edition).

The host and his guest(s) might let the conversation take its own course, but they might as easily set their topics guided by an outside stimulus, whether the reading/singing of poetry or prose or the contemplation of artwork in the host's dining room. That category included drinking cups.[22]Ekphrasis on decorated vessels, expounding on the decorations dramatic or moral content, was a topos of Hellenistic and Roman poetry; various extant drinking cups themselves imply such attentive conversation. It is with this (generally unexpressed) premise in mind that so many authors take cups with mythological subjects to be veiled allegories or satires on Julio-Claudian court politics. Such hypotheses are unprovable; there are enough good examples of "didactic" cups without this suspect class.[23]

An exemplary text is an epigram written by Antipater of Thessalonika to accompany the gift of a cup pair to his friend and patron L. Calpurnius Piso (Gow and Page, Greek Anthology, 2: 541). In paraphrase: I send you two bowls, each a perfect hemisphere (cf. the profile of Megarian bowls), one engraved with the constellations of the southern sky and the other with the constellations of the northern sky, making two halves of the celestial globe; drink and empty yours so that you can [turn it over and] look at the figures, throw away your Aratus for you have the phainomena before your eyes. A parallel Augustan reference to such gift giving is preserved by Plutarch (Mor. 207): Maecenas gave Augustus every year a silver patera (phiale) for a birthday present. The Hellenistic poet Aratus of Soli was famous for setting in verse a complete astronomical guide, the Phainomena; extremely popular in the early Empire, it was translated into Latin by the young Germanicus. Imputing interest in such a work implied a high level of education and culture; the decoration of Antipater's cups (given, and presumably commissioned, in Rome) served also this taste for serious learning as an adornment of leisure and pleasure. The use to be made of the cups is clear: Piso is to drink, and then discuss the star map on his cup with the drinking companion who holds the pendant cup. Note especially that the two cups are fully meaningful only when paired, as their decorative programs constitute distinct and complementary portions of a greater whole. This is obvious, for instance, on the skyphoi decorated


with the Twelve Labors of Hercules, three to a side and six to each cup;[24] in most or all Roman cup pairs, the decoration sets up a game of compositional and semantic correspondence and antithesis, from one side to another and between vessels.[25]

An exemplary parallel in silver to Antipater's epigram is furnished, from the Boscoreale hoard, by a pair of beakers decorated with animated skeletons (MonPiot 5 [1899]: pls. vii–viii). Skulls and skeletons, in model form and on drinking vessels, gems, and mosaics, were typical adjuncts to the late Republican and early imperial feast, a reminder to "drink and be merry, for tomorrow you will be as these." In a unique twist, on the Boscoreale beakers[26] the skeletons impersonate a gallery of famous poets, tragedians, and philosophers engaged in various "real" and allegorical activities; detailed inscriptions label the philosophers and their attributes, and by some a "spoken" phrase sums up his literary or philosophical stance. These parody the moralistic portrait assemblages that decorated aristocrats' libraries and gardens; they could be evoked without parody, as on the early Julio-Claudian Berthouville cup, where philosophers and poets conversed with the Muses and characters from their works.[27] Most of these unnamed sages can still be recognized from their known portrait types, as ancient spectators were expected to do in compliment to their artistic, as well as literary, connoisseurship. One can imagine the owner of the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum resting from earnest researches in the dense Epicurean texts recovered from his library by indulging in comic relief while showing off his erudition over his wine with such a pair of cups, laughing at their parody of Epicurus among others.[28]

The Boscoreale Cups of Augustus and Tiberius functioned like the cup pairs described above: they were meant to be observed carefully and discussed knowledgeably by the owner and his friends, who would muse over details as well as over the general themes of the decoration. Each cup can be read as having a discrete historical story and political theme—one features Augustus on either side, the other Augustus' stepson Tiberius; one shows Drusus the Elder, Tiberius' brother; the other, Tiberius. Though each cup can be enjoyed singly, the two are obviously pendants, which give up the fullness of their message only in apposition; this is a major premise of my analysis.

This particular cup pair was meant to stimulate not a literary discussion but a discussion of the historical glories and campaigns of the Augustan house; the owner must have enjoyed historical memoirs like Caesar's campaign accounts and the German wars of Pliny the Elder, as well as the poetry and philosophy relevant to the other cup pairs in his collection.


This (so far) unique commission to copy a public monument onto a pair of drinking cups must have had some bearing on the personal experiences of the original owner.[29] It is most likely that he received or commissioned these cups because he had served on the staff(s) of the brother generals celebrated here for their related commands in northern Europe;[30] think of an educated member of the Roman gentry like Velleius Paterculus, whose family made its fortune serving Augustus and his heirs (cf. the Augustan grounding of the BR hoard discussed above), and whose gratitude combined with his historical interests in the writing of history on behalf of his general Tiberius.[31] A tie between the original owner and the cups' images would account for their preservation in damaged state by the owner's descendants[32] (the display of time-damaged art was an affectation of the nobility in regard to portraits and trophies of their ancestors).[33] It is because cups like these were meant to be carefully examined and discussed that an undertaking like mine is justified; if Antipater's cups could stand in for the endless hexameters of Aratus, the length of my excursus on a pair of silver cups does not seem uncalled for.


1. BR I:1. Augustus' World Rule. Roma, Genius of the Roman People, Amor, Venus.


2. BR I:1. Augustus' World Rule. Amor, Venus, Victoria, Augustus, Mars, Gallia, et al.


3. BR I:1. Augustus' World Rule. Mars and the provinces—Africa, Asia, Gallia, Hispania, et al.


4. BR I:2. Augustus, Drusus, and the Princelings of Gallia Comata. Drusus and the
Gallic chieftains with their infants.


5. BR I:2. Augustus, Drusus, and the Princelings of Gallia Comata. Drusus, Augustus, and the Gallic infants.


6. BR I:2. Augustus, Drusus, and the Princelings of Gallia Comata. Augustus' Praetorian Guard.


7. BR II:1. Tiberius' Nuncupatio Votorum at the Capitolium. Tiberius imperator
and his lictors in paludamenta .


8. BR II:1. Tiberius' Nuncupatio Votorum at the Capitolium. The altar group and the victim group.


9. BR II:1. Tiberius' Nuncupatio Votorum at the Capitolium. The victim group and the Capitolium.


10. BR II:2. Tiberius' Triumph of 8/7 B.C. Gallic officer behind Tiberius triumphator, crowned by the servus publicus .


11. BR II:2. Tiberius' Triumph of 8/7 B.C. Tiberius triumphator and his quadriga, togate lictors and officer.


12. BR II:2. Tiberius' Triumph of 8/7 B.C. The triumphal victim.


13. BR I:1.


14. BR I:2.


15. BR II:1.


16. BR II:2.


17. BR I:1, det. Amor with shell
dish and alabastron.


18. BR I:1, det. Mars and provinces (Africa,
Asia [?], Gallia, Hispania, et al.).


19. BR I:1, det. Augustus on rusticated
sella curculis .


20. BR II:2, det. Gallic child
by Augustus.


21. BR II:2, det. Drusus I.


22. BR II:2, det. Drusus I, Gallic child and adolescent,


23. BR II:1, det. The Capitolium, with eagle on
globe in pediment.


24. BR II:1, det. Torqued Gallic officer.


25. BR II:2, det. Tiberius' quadriga
(personification, victory, trophy).


26. Tiberius cup, BR II, Louvre: view from above, with thumb-plate decoration.
Photograph, courtesy F. Baratte.


27. Augustus cup, BR I:2: enthroned Augustus and lictors (current state).
Photograph courtesy of F. Baratte.


28. Augustus cup, BR I:1, Mars and provinces (current state).
Photograph courtesy of F. Baratte.


Augustus' World Rule

The allegorical panel BR I:1 (pls. 1–3, 13) is dealt with in three chapters. This chapter gives the base description (see p. 215 n. 16 for damage after 1899) and analyzes all figures except Augustus and the personifications at right; it also discusses the emperor-Venus group. Chapter 2 covers formal and conceptual aspects of the presentation of Augustus as a seated togate figure associated with ethnic personifications and with divinities. Chapter 3 treats the ethnic personifications, relating them to Republican and Augustan iconographic traditions (especially grouped personifications).

Description (pls. 1–3, 13)

At center the emperor Augustus (pl. 19) sits on a throne on top of a low dais, a footstool under his feet. The emperor is turned at a slight three-quarter angle to his right, but the dais and stool project straight out from the relief ground. The front faces of these two supporting "boxes" are engraved with a rectangle to give the effect of a raised border. The throne is of no known standard or "real" type: it has the basic structure of a sella curulis, with a typical heavily fringed seat cover, but each bowed leg consists of a heavy arc of green wood, trimmed to leave visible branch scars.

Augustus, bareheaded, wears tunic, toga, and patrician boots (note the markings on his front right foot). His left arm is bent at a right angle close to his side; in his hand is a short cylindrical object, a scroll (rotulus ). He extends his slightly flexed right arm, a globe in his outstretched hand, toward the goddess approaching from his right. Augustus sits at ease, his legs slightly spread and his left foot pulled back. The part of his toga that would normally be pulled around and thrown over the left shoulder has


been allowed to fall across his lap in a heavy swag of drapery, its end coiled back over the left thigh to fall between the legs; the arrangement exposes his upper torso.

The emperor is flanked at either side by a group of standing figures; at the head of each group a divinity moves directly toward him. An outer figure at each end (Roma, Gaul) is in very high relief, so that when the scene is viewed head-on (pl. 2) these form a prominent static frame for the action around Augustus in the center. From our left to right, the subsidiary figures are Roma and the Genius of the Roman People and Venus attended by a young Amor on the left of Augustus, and Mars and a group of some seven provincial/national personifications on the right. The figures will be described in this order (on the personifications, see chapter 3).

Roma faces center, turned at a three-quarter angle, her weight on her outer (right) leg, balanced in this position by a now missing lance clasped in her raised right hand. Her left foot is raised and set on a small weapon pile; her left arm is held down along the body, the hand clasping the hilt of a sword hanging from a baldric slung from the right shoulder, its sheath thrust up and behind by the weight of her arm. The elements of the weapon pile are hard to distinguish because the cup is damaged at this point (note how Roma's left calf is flattened and torn); the piece underfoot is perhaps a helmet, that leaning behind the foot a shield or a body cuirass. The goddess is clad Amazon-style: high boots, a tunic belted well over the knee and girded again over the overfold, leaving the right breast bare. A mantle is bunched on her left shoulder and wound from behind about the left forearm; in clenching her sword hilt against her inner thigh, she has caught up the tunic to bare most of the upper left leg. Besides lance (missing) and sword, her armament includes a triple-crested helmet.

Roma's companion is the Genius of the Roman People. His stance is fully frontal, but his head is turned to Roma in profile view. His lower body is rendered in very low relief to accommodate the Amor before his legs; his upper body and his attributes are in much higher relief. The god is seminude: a mantle bunched on his left shoulder is brought around to cross his lower body, forming a skirt stretched in place from his left wrist, over which its other end hangs. His coiffure is singular: long and very curly hair, bound by a fillet and knotted behind the head in a chignon, with heavy bunches of loose curls next to the face. The god extends both arms down and outward: the right hand proffers a patera (libation dish) with a raised central boss, the left hand steadies the end of a long, slender cornucopia cradled against the left shoulder. From the top of this cornucopia spill bunches of fruit, a small pointed object (a wheat spike?) jutting


from the top; a shallow groove run its length, and a raised band binds the horn just under its lip.

Immediately below and before the Genius is a very young Amor in high relief. The winged and naked godling follows his mother Venus toward Augustus, his stance echoing hers: swaying forward with the weight on the left leg, the right leg and foot trailing behind, an object proffered before the figure-in this case, a shell dish held up in the left hand. Since Amor dangles an alabastron in his right hand, the arm relaxed at his side, the dish will hold perfume as a liquid gift, already poured out. Note the fine modeling of his features (though the head is slightly worn) and of the thick curls clustered around his head below the smooth hair cap; the feathers of his short wing(s) are engraved with equal care, and even the flutes of the tiny shell dish are clearly delineated (det., pl. 19).

Last, Venus heads this flanking group. She moves toward Augustus with a little winged Victory in her outstretched hands, in order to place the Victory on top of the globe that the emperor extends in her direction; her fingertips already almost touch the globe. The goddess steps forward with her weight on the left leg, her right leg trailing; her legs are in three-quarter view, her upper body twisted away in profile view. She wears a long, filmy chiton, girt at the waist, that clings to her torso in flattened ribbon folds and falls down over the tops of her smooth slippers; the right shoulder strap has slipped over the top of her shoulder and down onto the upper arm, although both breasts are still covered. Over this chiton she wears a voluminous mantle, which is bunched on the left shoulder and looped about her body in a great roll of drapery falling to the outer hip and caught up again over her (hidden) left forearm to fall in a long swag almost to her feet. From the loop of rolled drapery, the mantle depends in a skirt about her legs, leaving the hem of her chiton visible. Venus' long hair is caught back in a chignon under a high, peaked crown; below this crown her hair is pulled back off her brow in thick, wavy masses (see the central view of the cup face).

The little Victoria in Venus' hands should be thought of as animate in its own right, not just an inanimate object like the Genius's cornucopia or Amor's vessels. She floats on tiptoe, the right leg back, as if just alighting in Venus' hands in answer to a summons; her wings are still up and slightly spread, and her long, belted chiton is blown back in a mannered curve off the lower (right) leg. She extends a tiny laurel wreath on her own scale toward Augustus, a completely detached little "doughnut" of silver; she carries a long palm branch over her left shoulder (engraved on the relief ground).


On the other side of Augustus, to his left, a young and beardless Mars moves forward in a pose mirroring that of Venus, but with more rapid step, as indicated by the swirling of his tunic and mantle. His head is turned back, thus affording a full-face view, toward the group of personifications who follow him as their leader. "After" Venus has done with crowning Augustus' globe, he will usher them in front of the emperor. The god is fully armed, with lance, sword, helmet, cuirass, and greaves; wear and damage make it unclear whether he is barefoot or shod, but the raised edge of a greave seems to be visible over his left ankle. The Corinthian helmet has a high, flared crest, flanked by attached wings (see the central view of the cup face). The cuirass is in one piece, smooth and molded to the body, reaching low on the hips, with a raised lower edge (late Republican/early imperial type). Mars wears a Roman general's cloak, the paludamentum ; fastened at his throat with a round-headed pin, it blows back over his shoulders on either side to frame his torso in its billowing folds. A thin, knee-length tunic, worn under the cuirass, swirls about his thighs. Both arms are bent and pulled back: a lance is loosely couched in the right hand, while the left hand rests on the hilt of a sword, which hangs in its sheath from a belt slung from the right shoulder.

The personifications following Mars (fig. 18) are massed in a kind of tilted half-cylinder arranged in a front and a back rank of three figures each; behind the back rank at the far right of the scene there seems to be a seventh figure, in very low relief—one can see the curling hair on the back of its head, and the outline of collar and shoulder. The three in front, and the near figure of the back row, are visible to the extent that their distinguishing attributes can be read; the other two figures in the back row are indicated by heads in very low relief—the face of the middle figure is hidden—and have no visible distinguishing attributes. All seven figures are female; the outermost figure of the first row wears male dress, but its coiffure (long hair bound in a chignon) shows it to be female like the rest, who wear feminine attire. The seven are shorter than Mars almost by a head, indicating subordinate status; the two outer figures of the front row, who are most visible, clearly show deference by a slight bowing of their heads, and the open-palmed gesture of the outermost seems to indicate some acquiescent response to Mars' attention. While this group does, then, show attention and deference to Mars, none display any of the canonic signs of grief (i.e., humiliation), such as standing chin in hand. The group is "about to" move after the god, for they stand quietly while he is already in motion. Chapter 3 treats the individual attributes of the group:


Africa (front row, back figure, elephant cap), Asia (?) (center), Gaul (front row, outermost figure, in high relies, and Spain (back row, outermost).

Commentary: Individual and Group Iconographies

To sum up to the action of the scene, the emperor Augustus, attended by Roma and the Genius of the Roman People, is enthroned to receive the attentions of the patron gods of Rome and of his own Julian clan, Venus and Mars. Venus brings Victoria to crown the globe in Augustus' hand, symbolizing that she grants and recognizes Augustus' rule over the world. She is attended by Amor with an alabastron bringing a libation to honor this festive occasion. Mars leads in a group of provincial/national personifications, who represent in their own persons lands ruled by Rome, to pay homage to the emperor upon his assumption of triumphant world rule.

Of the four scenes that decorate the BR cups, this one alone fits the norms that seem to govern the minor arts in the Greco-Roman period in general and the Augustan period in particular. That is, its style and composition are not only Greek but strongly classicizing—the preferred stylistic mode in the Augustan period—and the scene alludes to political reality by means of symbolic representation, not through literal-minded documentation of an actual historical event. This is also the only one of the four scenes that would really seem suitable to decorate the curving shell of a drinking vessel: the placement of figures within the composition sets up a structure that operates almost entirely in one sandwiched plane, instead of trying to give an illusion of "real space," which would be at odds with the formal unity between the object and its adornment (compare the scene on the other side of this cup). Greek art in all periods preferred tacit to open commemoration of historical reality in major as well as minor arts, particularly so in relief sculpture, which is why the genre of narrative historical relief was one of the few artistic genres left almost completely open to Roman innovation. In both the minor and the major arts, Roman patrons never openly shunned political depictions, but Roman taste, also, seems generally to have felt that considerations of decor in regard both to theme and to treatment made scenes like BR I:1 preferable in the sphere of the decorative arts to scenes like BR I:2 and BR II:1 and 2. Because of this, BR I:1 finds many more parallels in the Augustan minor arts for its general composition than do the other scenes, and its very mode of representation—political allegory—has many parallels in


such minor arts where the narrative mode of the other scenes finds few or none.

This division between the major and minor arts has another aspect, one that is very significant for our final conclusions as to the sources for the illustrations on these cups. A very strong case can be made for deriving the three other scenes (BR I:2 and BR II:1 and 2) from a prototype in the form of monumental relief or painting in the capital, and for looking at them as almost exact copies of that prototype, which can be dated with some certainty to Augustus' own lifetime (see especially chapters 2 and 3). Most scholars would not immediately refer BR I:1 to such a monumental prototype on the grounds of mode of presentation and content; the iconography of BR I:1 does not fit modern views as to what was "possible" in public imperial commissions under Augustus because it shows him in such close association with divinity. The modern rule is that Augustus followed late Republican norms in avoiding public depictions that set him too near the level of divinity, although this kind of artistic panegyric was not shunned in imperial commissions in the private, minor arts any more than it was shunned by his poets in their "unofficial" writings. For example, Augustus would no more have referred to himself as a praesens divus in a speech before the Senate than Horace would have expected to discomfort either his patron or his wider audience with such language in his poetry.[1] On the other hand, because of their close thematic interdependence I would prefer to derive all four scenes from a single prototype assemblage. In fact, this kind of representation is not without parallels in late Republican or Augustan public commissions (see pp. 35f. and 56f. below). If we ultimately accept that the allegory BR I:1 was not invented for this cup but was copied from such a public monumental commission, a significant addition will have been made to the discussion of Augustus' image and policy.

Because the figures in this scene require so much discussion individually, the commentary in this chapter has been structured to give ease of reference at the cost of narrative continuity. The analyses that support my identifications follow in discrete sections: Roma and the Genius, Venus, Amor, and Mars. The conclusion addresses the triad Mars-Augustus-Venus to introduce chapter 2, devoted to Augustus.

Roma and the Genius of the Roman People

The fact that these two figures converse (note the Genius's turned head) next to one another indicates that they are to be understood as an inter-


dependent pair (see pls. 1–2). A pair that consists of a goddess in Amazon costume and a young, half-naked god can be identified in two ways: as Roma and the Genius or as Honos and Virtus. When Honos and Virtus first appear in monumental relief in the Flavian period (see fig. 107) they can still easily be confused with Roma and the Genius of the Roman People, or GPR.[2] When M. Bieber in 1945 set about disentangling the two pairs in later imperial art,[3] she never renamed the BR pair, but others imitated her revisionism with regard to the cup without using her actual criteria,[4] and those who stuck by Roma and the GPR never sufficiently argued their case to quell dissent.[5] It is worth setting the record straight.

First, the attributes of neither figure fit an Honos and Virtus identification. Honos always wears a laurel crown, as he embodies noble achievement; both Honos and the Genius can carry a cornucopia, but only the Genius carries, and always carries, a patera (Honos bears lance, scepter, or palm).[6] As the BR figure is uncrowned and carries a patera, he must be the Genius of the Roman People. As for Roma and Virtus, both Amazon goddesses: in the entire Roman artistic corpus, only Roma appears with the weapon pile she has here, sitting or standing on or by it.[7]

Second, a methodological point: one should identify a figure by looking at comparanda from the period in question and the periods preceding it, in this case at Republican and Augustan images, turning to comparanda of a much later date only as a last resort. Only in this way can one be reasonably sure of reading the ancient political message of a given piece as its intended audience was expected to read it, conditioned by its previous artistic experience. In the Republic the only image of Honos and Virtus as a pair is as busts on a Republican issue of 70 B.C. (RRC 403) (fig. 51).[8] This coin is predated, however, by an extremely widely struck denarius series of ca. 89 B.C. issued by P. Cornelius Lentulus on which Roma and the Genius are paired as on the cup, facing front, while the Genius crowns Roma (CRR 86).[9] Indeed, an issue of 75 B.C. (RRC 337) has the exact figure type used over fifty years later for the BR Roma, including the detail of the way the left hand bearing down on the sword hilt catches up Roma's tunic on her left thigh; the only difference is that a wolf's head takes the place of the weapon pile underfoot (fig. 2).[10] There are, all through the late Republic, a very large number of Roma representations on gems (private images) and coins (official images), showing Roma with the Amazon costume or the weapon pile or both, as on the cup. Virtus and Honos appear singly only once more in the Republic—Virtus (RRC 401) in 71 B.C. in a different helmet from that of the double-bust issue, Honos (RRC 473. 1–2a–3) in 45 B.C. under special circumstances. Honos


in both Republican instances wears a laurel crown, as the embodiment of honor, and not the plain fillet or diadem worn always by the Genius (as on the cup) and, under the Genius's influence, by the Flavian Honos.[11] Last, their busts figure individually in a series put out in 19/18 B.C. by a descendant of the moneyer of 71 B.C., for Augustus' recovery of the Parthian standards and return to Rome. Honos is inscribed; Virtus, in a helmet with side feathers, is identifiable as his pendant. This isolated Augustan visual reference has nothing to do with the BR Genius and Roma (whose helmet is different from that of Virtus); it is highly specific to the circumstances of Augustus' humiliation of Parthia,[12] which is omitted in the BR allegory of world rule.

The Republican coin images of the GPR and of Roma are especially significant, as their iconography must have been assumed to be readily familiar to a Roman audience, promulgated officially and disseminated among the populace. They must ultimately depend on commemorative sculpture and paintings, of a kind now lost. In the Augustan period itself, an impeccable monumental parallel most certainly existed: an allegorical panel of the Ara Pacis (13-9 B.C.) showed the GPR in attendance on Roma (figs. 71, 73). Roma was depicted in a knee-length garment, seated on a weapon pile; the Genius, at her left, carried a cornucopia and turned his head toward her in converse as on the cup.[13] (Compare the pediment of the Temple of Mars Ultor in the Forum Augustum, dedicated in 2 B.C., shown on the Valle Medici relief, where Roma sits on a weapon pile; fig. 9b).[14] A late Republican tomb relief at Rome already showed a general crowned by the Genius and facing Roma (fig. 3)[15] in a composition treating homage by an ethnic personification; as the Ara Pacis complex (fig. 71) incorporated also the "peoples of empire," there seems to be a consistent iconographic system in the second half of the first century B.C. that matches Roma and the Genius with the homage of ethnic personifications.

It is worth discussing the respective cults of Honos, Virtus, Roma, and the Genius a little further. The relationship of cult practice to the dissemination of iconography is in this case paradoxical. The joint cult of Honos and Virtus was initiated ca. 205, when M. Claudius Marcellus appended a temple of Virtus to an existing shrine to Honos at the Porta Capena that had been set up ca. 233 by Fabius Vernicosus Cunctator; Marcellus set up his shrine so that one would now have to pass through the precinct of Virtus to enter that of Honos, making a nice ethical/ideological point. The most famous aedes of Honos and Virtus was an architecturally note-


worthy temple built for Marius by a Roman architect ca. 103; it may have stood on the Capitoline or on the Sacra Via at the site of the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina.[16] The cult statues to which the 72 B.C. issue may refer are probably those of this temple. Later, following the precedent of Marcellus and Marius, Pompey put shrines to Honos and to Virtus by the Temple of Venus Victrix in his theater complex in the Campus Martius. This profusion of shrines might make one wonder why the divine pair Honos and Virtus are represented but once in the official arts in the Republican and early imperial period—after all, there was only one shrine to the Genius of the Roman People and no temple to Roma in Rome at all.

One should remember that all these shrines represent the expenditure of triumphal manubiae on the cult of divine abstractions appropriate to such an occasion, more a way for the victorious military patron to say something about his own achievements than the expression of reverence for a deity already receiving continuous worship. All, except Marius' shrine, were outside the pomerium, which may indicate that the deities concerned were not in general considered official members of the Roman pantheon. We do not know much about their scale save for Marius' temple. Perhaps Honos' and Virtus' late appearance on the coinage means that few, if any, of the pre-Marian shrines had cult statues that directly represented the deities of the precinct; in the late first century B.C. Augustus could dedicate a precinct to a similar abstraction (Pax) with no cult statue. In any case, Honos and Virtus do not become prominent in the arts until the Flavian period, and even then they occur in monumental relief principally in triumph depictions as attendants of the emperor (cf. fig. 107, Arch of Titus), now the only triumphator permitted; this is still ad hoc allegorical reference as in the Republic.[17]

With Roma, the reverse occurs—there is representation in the arts but no cult in Rome. The cult of Dea Roma was a Greek invention, initiated and observed to express loyalty to the city-state that now dominated the Eastern Mediterranean; the Romans seem to have taken eagerly to this figure as an emblem when they wished to make a visual statement of political fact about their own urbs, once the Greeks had given them the artistic language in which to do so. As for the Genius of the Roman People: although the Cornelii Lentuli probably did not invent him, that gens did take a special interest in the deity; he appears on three different coin issues sponsored by members of the clan between 100 and 70 B.C. (e.g., fig. 44).[18] The god had a shrine in the Forum by the end of the Republic (cf. Dio 47.2.3, 50.8.2), but we cannot be more precise; he ap-


pears on the Ara Pacis, thus in the period 13-9 B.C. (figs. 72–73), and shared the Augustan worship on the Capitol of Venus Victrix, to whom the cup links him.[19] He turns up next in the civil war issues of A.D. 68. This Genius is the collective version of the private genius of each person and gens, the Roman religious counterpart to the Greek formulation of the Dea Roma.

To judge by the dates for Honos' shrine and the Republican coins, the Augustan emphasis on this divinity in the context of the Ara Pacis, and the fact that this deity is next taken up by coinage in the Neronian civil wars, it might be that official reference to the Genius was often ad hoc, like reference to Honos.[20] That is, it could be a kind of exaltation of the collective and an affirmation of its integrity, not only in terms of imperial domain (see above, p. 20) but also in response to felt civil tension and discord, either in the event or in the aftermath. On the Ara Pacis, pax insofar as it refers to Rome in the Roma-GPR panel means cessation of civil war, a great gift from Augustus to the Romans; on Domitian's Cancelleria reliefs the pair Roma-Genius may have had similar connotations, apt for Flavian propaganda.

Venus with Victory and Amor

These identifications are easy. Of interest here are the specific figure types selected for use and their associations, and the meanings conveyed by the situation of these figures vis-à-vis the others in the composition.


This Venus (pls. 1, 2, 3) derives from a well-known Roman figure type, a Neo-Attic creation of the late Republic incorporating sculptural conventions of late fifth-century and early fourth-century Athenian "Rich Style."[21] Its salient features are a chiton with slipped strap that clings to the torso in flattened ribbon folds and a mantle draped from the left shoulder so as to form a heavy roll of drapery at hip level that bares the upper curve of the right hip, while a single layer of cloth wraps the lower body down to or near the ankle. Venus can wear instead of a chiton a Roman woman's tunic, belted at the waist, with full loose sleeves reaching nearly to the elbow; this variant is a slightly later adaptation of the original type to a conception of Venus that is more decorous and matronly, for use in contexts where sensuality as a distinguishing feature of the goddess was to be elided. In an alternative and independent type, the goddess's torso is


naked, but she retains the distinctively draped mantle forming a heavy roll at the hips; Venus Genetrix/Victrix is so depicted on Caesarian coinage and at Boscoreale (see below).

In the Roman sphere, Venus mantled in this way is Venus Genetrix: that is, the avatar of Venus that was first made an object of cult by Julius Caesar. She was given exemplary form by the cult statue that Caesar commissioned from the prominent Neo-Attic sculptor Arkesilaos for his temple of Venus Genetrix (Pliny HN 35.155–56), centerpiece of his new Forum Julium (plan 122). This Venus was Venus Victrix as well, the patroness of Caesar's success;[22] Romans were used to thinking of Venus as a goddess of victory, by virtue of her status as consort to Mars, and as the mythic cycle that credited the founding of Rome to Aeneas and his people became more widespread, she was seen as a goddess having a very personal and motherly interest in the fate of her son's people and thus was linked more closely in the Roman imagination to Mars, "father" to the Romans as parent of Romulus. By the late second century B.C. (we do not know how much earlier) the clan of the Julli claimed direct descent through the Alban kings from a son "Iulus" of Aeneas, and thus descent from Venus herself. Caesar went public, as it were, with this claim and established a cult that at once honored the goddess as mother to all the Roman people and pointedly singled out his own family status as favorite son, special mediator of the goddess's favors to the Roman people.

Venus Victrix had been worshipped as a giver of success to Rome in her battles with foreign enemies; she had already been claimed as a special patroness by successful Roman conquerors, such as Sulla, the Epaphroditos, and Pompey. When he "trumped" Pompey's theater-temple to Venus Victrix with his Forum, Caesar celebrated Venus as genetrix not only to claim divine descent as well as sponsorship: it gave him a way to laud his success in the sphere of civil war, success that could not be openly celebrated in Rome in the same way as could the slaughter of foreigners. Lucretius' prologue to his great De rerum natura would by this time have been firmly embedded in the consciousness of upper-class Romans: it invoked Venus, as the great genetrix of the natural world, to grant Romans the gift of peace, the cessation of the murderous civil wars already raging; her power to do so, like her power to give victory, was based on her special relation to Mars, for she could persuade him to stop slaughter. Caesar thus celebrated himself as a special agent of the goddess for the resolution of civil strife.

This aspect of the goddess as genetrix did not necessarily color patronage of her cult by emperors later in the first century A.D., but naturally it


was still very strong in the reign of Augustus, who embedded the cult firmly in the political theology by which he justified his own special status in the state, as Caesar's son and avenger on the one hand and as the man who had ended civil war on the other. This political theology pervades the visual arts and building programs of the Augustan period; its most famous paradigm, combining the two themes just described with the attribution to Venus Genetrix/Victrix of responsibility for successful conquest,[23] is of course the Aeneid .

Caesar had already started building the Temple of Venus Genetrix; besides completing it in Caesar's name, how was Augustus to make plain his own sponsorship of Venus' cult? He did so by including her in the two greatest temple projects of his reign, in association with her divine consort Mars, whose worship in a "personalized" form Augustus elaborated along the lines of Caesar's veneration of Venus. Best known is the later of these two temple projects, the inclusion of Venus in the cult group inside and in the pedimental group outside of the Temple of Mars Ultor, dedicated in 2 B.C. as the centerpiece of Augustus' Forum, itself an obvious pendant to Caesar's Forum (fig. 122). Indeed, to get into Augustus' Forum one had to pass through the colonnades of Julius' Forum from the precinct of Venus Genetrix into the precinct of Mars Ultor (echoing the kind of deliberate accretion of temples that established a joint cult of Honos and Virtus, described above). Well in advance of the Temple of Mars Ultor, however, the Pantheon was consecrated in 25 B.C. and dedicated in 19 B.C. (plan 124). Its central triad consisted of Venus, the divus Julius Caesar, and Mars (Dio 53.27.2–3);[24] statues of Augustus and its builder, Agrippa, in the foreporch framed the door, and to an approaching spectator would have framed the central statues seen through the door.[25]

There is no firm evidence for Arkesilaos' statue or for the Venus in either the Pantheon or the Temple of Mars Ultor; we have only a later imperial relief (fig. 9b) depicting the pediment of the Temple of Mars, on which the goddess can be distinguished wearing mantle and chiton/tunic, with a baby Amor perched on her right shoulder, herself standing at the right hand of the central Mars.[26] We also have from outside the capital reliefs from Ravenna (fig. 8)[27] and from Algiers (fig. 6),[28] the first showing Venus in a loose tunic with an Amor on her shoulder, the latter grouping Venus in a chiton with a bearded Mars.[29] The Ravenna relief shows Livia as Venus Genetrix; contemporary and similar to it is a freestanding portrait of Antonia, wife of Drusus, from an imperial portrait group at Baia.[30] These figure types are taken (correctly) as early Julio-Claudian


echoes of major sculpture groups in the capital, and subsidiary monuments and works of art with Venuses on them are grouped with one or the other in a long modern debate that has tried to reconstruct (a ) Arkesilaos' cult statue and (b ) the cult statue in the Temple of Mars Ultor.[31]

The problem is that the reliefs differ from each other,[32] as well as from the representations on the Cherchel cuirass statue (fig. 5)[33] and the Boscoreale cup,[34] to name the best comparanda —chiton/tunic, Amor on shoulder/off shoulder,[35] these four variables occur in differing combinations.[36] We have no idea whether Augustus would have preferred that the pediment group on his Mars temple differ from the cult group inside—which is to say that the diagnostic value of the known pediment group is ambiguous. Meanwhile the important cult triad in the Pantheon, like the BR Venus-Mars group, seldom or never enters the debate, even though its Venus-Mars-Divus Julius seems the most appropriate model for the Cherchel cuirass group, for example.[37]

I do not propose to solve the problem of the sculptural prototypes for Julio-Claudian relief depictions of Venus. It suffices to say that the BR Venus, though Neo-Attic enough, does not match any of the previously posited replicas or depictions of important Venus statues, as no Amor sits on her shoulder (figs. 9b, 8; Temple of Mars Ultor, Ravenna),[38] and she wears the slipped-strap chiton and not the sleeved tunic (fig. 8, Ravenna). Indeed, the BR Venus' pose and Amor's placement are determined by the action of the broader scene; one cannot tie her down to a single freestanding prototype. Also, she must be considered in relation to the Mars who is her counterpart here as elsewhere, and he is not the bearded middle-aged Mars Ultor of the Pantheon and the Forum Augustum temple.


The figure type of this Victory follows a traditional Greek formula for depicting an alighting Nike, going back to fifth-century models like the Nike of Paionios at Olympia or the Nike in the hand of the Parthenon cult statue—striding stance, blown-back chiton, wings back and slightly spread rather than folded. The point to this Victoria is that she is about to be placed on top of the globe in Augustus' hand: the group about to be constituted is the Victory-on-a-globe group (fig. 20) that Octavian set up inside the Curia Julia (plan 122)[39] to celebrate his victory at Actium over Antony and Cleopatra. The group proclaimed the world dominion of Rome guided by the senatorial order in that it was set up to preside over


the deliberations of the Roman Senate; in an equally pointed way, it proclaimed the world rule just won by the young Octavian, "son" of the divus Julius in whose name the Senate house had been rebuilt by Octavian. The Senate, then, was to guide Rome under the auspices of the Julian clan, a truth they were literally forced to enter and to behold (exiting the chamber, they were of course struck by the view of the facade of the temple of the divinized Caesar and below it the altar marking his funeral pyre).

The significance of this Victory group was that assigned to the battle of Actium itself: at once a smashing conquest of Rome's foreign foes and the deathblow to the cycle of civil wars begun again with Caesar's death. The group was not a new commission but an "Old Master" taken from Tarentum in South Italy; perhaps it was meant to be seen as an Italian Victory. Immediately famous, the group remained for centuries a stock figure symbolizing Roman world rule, losing special reference to Augustus. However, here at the beginning of the Principate, a Victory with palm and wreath on a globe would have meant the Actium group, with all its associations particular to Augustus' own career. This kind of playful and sophisticated visual reference, where a famous monument is depicted being "consummated," occurs elsewhere in Augustan official imagery (see the Conclusion).


The association of Amor with Venus is hardly surprising, nor (in Roman eyes) is his presence in a composition about rule and victory.[40] He is after all Venus' divine offspring, and his presence emphasizes her role as genetrix and highlights Augustus' status as her mortal descendant. The divine son is here to bestow honor on his mortal cousin, following his mother's example: he is not offering to Augustus, but rather with his patera and perfume jug he is seen as about to pour out his own particular blessings, to grace the occasion with "the sweet smell of success" (pl. 17).[41] Note that Amor is shown as particularly youthful; in Greek contexts and sometimes in Roman art he can as easily be shown as an adolescent or as a youth. Showing him as a baby in Venus' company often seems a way to emphasize Venus' nurturing aspect, thus the baby Amor on Venus' hip versus the stripling Amores visible in the distance, in the Caesarian fresco at Boscoreale (fig. 4);[42] thus too the Hellenistic type of a little Eros at the goddess's shoulder (cf. figs. 10, 28–29) was extremely popular in early Julio-Claudian representations.[43]

Erotes/Amores hovering about a scene with various sorts of vessels are


an old stock motif of Hellenistic boudoir scenes; the motif has been transposed here to a more serious context.[44] Erotes of similar type (especially the little round wings) in procession, one with an alabastron and an oinochoe, appear on a central Italian terracotta of the third century B.C.[45] (In actuality, little boys miming Eros/Amor attended late Hellenistic and late Republican nobility, including Livia and Octavian at their wedding: Dio 44, 48.3.)[46] Bustling Amores had entered the world of political art, via their association with weddings, in the panegyric painting of Hellenistic monarchs like Alexander (the Wedding of Alexander and Roxanne: Lucian Herod. 5). Amor's shell dish and alabastron were originally connected with Venus as patroness of love and marriage. Amor pouring into a phiale from an alabastron was a common earring pendant into the late Hellenistic period, especially in Italy,[47] and one workshop specialized in Amorini with shell dishes;[48] a fine example occurs on an early Hellenistic bracelet at Alexandria.[49] Amor's role on the cup is paralleled in a late Republican version from Rome of a Hellenistic royal marriage painting, the Aldobrandini Wedding:[50] a nymph pours perfume from an alabastron into a shell dish for a mortal bride sitting with Venus (fig. 13). Compare the Amor who attends the coupling of Mars and Venus with an alabastron on a Julio-Claudian skyphos pair from the Casa del Menandro.[51]

In later Latin usage concha, "shell," was current to designate vessels used to pour and receive water.[52] Already in the Hellenistic period in Italy the nymphs of the goddess of love were associated with shell dishes[53] and alabastra on a class of bath paterae[54] from central Italy;[55] the bowls were set into a stylized shell hinge, and a nymph, sometimes holding an alabastron, functioned as handle.[56] The bath of Venus or Diana might be attended by an Amor laving water from a shell dish in the late Hellenistic and early imperial compositions that must have inspired these scenes on Hadrianic sarcophagi[57] and Flavian grave altars;[58] compare lamps of the first century B.C.-first century A.D. where the goddess crouches alone using a shell dish.[59] In the Hellenistic and imperial periods, numerous terracotta and bronze figurines from Italy and the Mediterranean document Amorini with shell dishes and/or alabastra.[60] Wherever there is a broader figural context, these occur in association with Aphrodite's bath or toilette.[61]

The BR Amor derives figurally and conceptually from this mixed Hellenistic and Republican background, with its strongly Italian character. In this iconographic tradition Aphrodite's son and nymphs might very well mingle, in court art and celebration, with favored rulers and aristocrats;[62] such banquets and marriage paintings are quoted on the grave altar of a


Flavian private citizen, where Amor with shell and alabastron alights on the banquet couch of Q. Socconius Felix and his wife, a unique introjection in an ordinary funerary banquet scene.[63] Significant on the BR cup is the shift of such Amor imagery into the sphere of outright political allegory dealing explicitly with conquest, hegemony, and politico-religious ritual. This is paralleled elsewhere in Augustan art, implicitly on the Ara Pacis (whose twin Amotes on Venus' lap (fig. 74) are analogues to Romulus and Remus and the children in the procession friezes; see p. 106 below). If the Trajanic reconstruction of Venus' temple in the Forum Julium copied the Caesarian/Augustan decoration, then the Augustan temple had a frieze of Amores readying Venus' bath and playing with the weapons of Mars.[64] More explicitly, Amor attended Augustus in public monuments in Rome, as in the original of the Primaporta Augustus (fig. 64) made for Livia's suburban villa,[65] as a Roman general who, like the BR Augustus, wears thoroughly mortal (albeit splendid) costume.[66]

The Aquileia dish (fig. 17) shows that the "politicization" of Amor imagery is rooted in the propaganda war between Caesar's heirs; here a heroic Antony sacrifices to Demeter, assisted by two Amores and Psyche (symbolizing his three children).[67] A parallel case is that of Amor with a large alabastron, who figures in rare love scenes, as on the Casa del Menandro skyphos; the only parallel in stone is an early Julio-Claudian monumental panel from Rome (fig. 12) reused on the Arcus Novus.[68] Here Venus, holding (probably) a Victory, inscribes Augustus' clipeus virtutis, flanked by nymphs who personify the oikoumene, as a tiny Amor flies down with an alabastron toward his mother; the iconography of the shield and pillar group at censer (Augustus' clipeus in the Curia) (cf. fig. 11) dates it to the reign of Tiberius or Augustus.[69] The thematic narrative (Venus ceremonially creates a symbol of rule for the emperor) is very similar to BR I:1, and the deployment of such an Amor in such a political allegory demonstrably links the BR composition to monumental relief. One can safely say that the "domestic" Amor motif was transformed under Augustus into a part of public commemorative vocabulary. Monumentalization of "domestic" imagery and theme is prominent in Augustan public monuments,[70] and it is always interesting to light on another example.

A point on style can be made here. Save for the massed group of personifications at far right, which itself forms a single "character," this Amor is the only participant forced into overlap with another figure; this is handled by setting him against the neutral ground of the drapery of an


adult figure behind, whose lower body shades off into low relief so that Amor can be modeled as fully as possible. This is reminiscent of the handling of similar child figures in the friezes of the Ara Pacis (cf. figs. 76, 78). Whenever possible, the children in these friezes are made to stand between the adults around them, slotting them into the interstices. But when for lack of space or other (iconographic) imperatives they have to be shown against the lower bodies of the adults, they are similarly silhouetted against a drapery plane parallel to the relief ground, and the relative heights of the planes of relief are juggled in the same way.[71]

Venus and Emperor Compositions

To sum up, Venus as victrix and genetrix brings Victory / the Augustan Victory to her mortal son, followed by her divine son. Augustus' peaceful world rule—note that he wears the toga, not armor—is attended by love and fertility. Venus' role in the scene is parallel and pendant to that of Mars on the other side of Augustus.[72]

To the architectural complexes described above as comparanda should be added the Ara Pacis, with its pendant panels containing Roma, the Genius, a syncretistic Venus, and Mars;[73] besides these, some other examples from the major and minor arts are worth citing. The two finest Augustan cuirass statues, the Primaporta Augustus (fig. 64) and the Cherchel statue (fig. 5) (marble copies after bronze originals) associate images of conquest with Amor (Primaporta statue support) or Venus with Amor (Cherchel cuirass): this would seem then to have been one of the standard motifs available in the creation of such imperator portraits. The Primaporta statue's bronze prototype would have had the same little Amor, though not needing support; this dolphin rider complements the cuirass imagery to refer to victory by sea as well as by land and to refer also to Augustus' particular great sea victory, the battle of Actium.[74]

The Cherchel statue was not until lately so widely known, though its cuirass decoration is as singular and as finely executed as that of the Primaporta statue; the fact that the head is missing may have something to do with its past omission from the handbook canon. As on the Primaporta cuirass, the figure decoration is in three zones (fig. 5): (above) Mars Ultor in the heavens gazes upward; (middle) from our left, Amor as a youth holds his bow, Venus carrying the weapons of Mars gazes at the half-nude Caesar, who faces her with a Victory in his hand, as a full-size Victory moves to set a corona civica on his head; (below) two Tritons, one fish-


bodied with an akrostolion (part of a ship's prow), the other with fish tail turned to acanthus scrolls and holding a cornucopia.[75] The program in sum praises the vengeance vowed by Augustus to Mars Ultor on behalf of his murdered father, Julius, depicted here as divus, by means of the sea victory at Actium, which has had the effect of establishing civil peace by land and sea (fish Triton:vegetal Triton) under the aegis of Venus, presiding over the laying aside of arms.

This Augustan work can only have portrayed Augustus himself.[76] Particular points of comparison with the BR scene are, of course, the stressed line of descent from Venus by way of Caesar (himself shown as savior of Roman lives through military triumph; note, for example, the Victory with corona civica ); the fusion of peace and triumph imagery, focused about the person of Venus Genetrix/Victrix; and the depiction of the Julio-Claudian protagonist with Victory in his hand. (A fine glass signet in Florence of ca. 20 B.C. on which Augustus in a cuirass, laurel-crowned, holds in his left hand a trophy-bearing Victory, a portrait probably derived from a statue, should be mentioned in this context.)[77] The central composition on the Cherchel cuirass (Victory, standing imperial honorand, Venus) was current in Augustus' reign; witness its adaptation for an imperial cult altar at Tarentum where the honorand is the togate Augustus (fig. 31).[78] A Republican relief from Selinus made for a Roman imperator offers now a prototype (fig. 10) where the general is crowned by Victory, though here Venus has yet to turn to her protégé.[79]

One should address S. Weinstock's interpretation of the BR group of Venus-Victory-Augustus. Discussing the ways in which Caesar linked Venus and Victory, he postulated three sculptural prototypes created for Caesar, which were fused to constitute the BR group. "It is certain that there was a statue of Venus holding Victoria," "almost certain" that there was "one of Caesar" holding Victoria, "and in addition a group of Venus handing Victoria to Caesar."[80] This last hypothesis is based on the BR cup itself: "It makes better sense if it depends on a Caesarian composition; Venus handing over victory to Caesar is natural, to Augustus only if it follows Caesarian precedent." Weinstock's first hypothesis makes sense, particularly in conjunction with some of Caesar's coinage; there is, however, no Caesarian parallel whatsoever for his second hypothesis; and as for his third, it should be dismissed as illogical. The BR scene certainly evokes Caesarian ideology, specifically descent from the goddess, but we do not need to invent a pre-Augustan statue group to explain this—on these lines of reasoning the Aeneid 's picture of the relationship of Venus,


Caesar, Augustus, and their triumphs would have to be based on a Caesarian poem.

Weinstock did not know the Cherchel statue. Here indeed is Caesar with Victory in his hand (fig. 5), but this is the figure type for divus Julius and was created under the sponsorship of Augustus.[81] The BR composition is a purely Augustan creation; moreover, a cameo fragment shows that it was not created solely for this cup (which could hardly have gone on to inspire other works of art) but existed either as a template in the imperial ateliers or as a monumental prototype somewhere on public view. This early Julio-Claudian cameo (fig. 18) preserves the central part. of a scene where a mural-crowned goddess draped like Venus moves to hand Victory to an enthroned emperor (mostly broken away).[82] The goddess wears the crown of Oikoumene but is depicted after the exact figure type of the BR Venus, performing the same action toward the same protagonist, a seated emperor.

The BR composition belongs to monumental relief, not freestanding statuary, though it is Augustan statuary types that are slotted into the composition. The key is the Victory, who herself actively reaches to the emperor. Augustus' artists borrowed a stock composition from public, honorific relief, not from the minor arts; they adapted a classic theme of Athenian stelai of the fourth century B.C. (figs. 24–25), where Athena holds out a little Victory, who in turn reaches to crown or garland a mortal honorand (in fourth-century Athens shown much smaller than the state goddess), who himself raises a hand (in prayer).[83]

Héron de Villefosse, the last scholar who examined the cups closely at firsthand, thought that he recognized a portrait of Livia in the BR Venus.[84] This cannot be accepted without a chance to reexamine the cup, a chance now lost (this figure has been destroyed since 1899). The small mouth and delicate rounded chin could as easily result from an abstract classicizing standard of beauty, while the hint of Livia's distinctive aquiline profile visible in the existing plates could be a trick of light, a dent in the cup, or whatever. If this is taken as a portrait of Livia in the guise of Venus, it would not be very surprising, for there are several parallels for such representations in Augustus' own lifetime. A bronze plaque in Bonn from the Rhine (fig. 114), a piece of mass-produced (matrix-stamped) accoutrement for the Rhine armies, shows Livia/Venus with Drusus and Tiberius; the two princes are depicted as boys reaching to Venus' shoulder and are dressed as young imperatores . On a turquoise emblema in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (fig. 113) Livia/Venus Genetrix exchanges a doting


glance with the young general Tiberius, his head against her shoulder. The fine court gem and the crude bronze plaque from the government managed military workshops draw on the same composition, to the same ends of dynastic propaganda (see chapter 8, p. 173); hence the Livia/Venus on the later Ravenna relief (fig. 8), which honored Claudius' father, Drusus, her son. (Compare the Belvedere altar,[85] one of the altars set up by each vicus in Rome for imperially sponsored cult under Augustus, where Julia may appear as Venus with her sons Gaius and Lucius.) Livia on the BR cup would function within this one scene as consort, but since the other side of the cup celebrates her son Drusus, and the companion cup, BR II, celebrates Tiberius, her conflation with Venus Genetrix as mother to the imperial line would parallel the three examples cited above.

Such compositions inject specific imperial personalities into a more general political theology where Venus Genetrix/Victrix attends the generation of future Julio-Claudian conquerors and rulers, as on an Augustan cameo vase in Berlin that must have been commissioned for the birth of some member of the dynasty:[86] here, Venus sits with a Gorgoneion shield by a trophy with a captive at her feet, watching the lustration of a new-born princeling by a trio of birth goddesses (fig. 7). This vase with its "messianic" imagery should be compared to the fresco cycle of Room H in the Villa of P. Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale, where Venus Genetrix/Victrix (fig. 4) is the centerpiece of a room whose long sides adapt a Hellenistic palace painting cycle acclaiming the birth of a royal child in connection with the conquest of Asia. The ensemble, from the early 40s, is tied to Caesarian political ideology by its celebration of Venus Genetrix and its allusions to Eastern campaigns (cf. Caesar's planned Parthian campaign). The hopeful celebration of the Julio-Claudian boy-prince who will grow up to conquer resurfaces as one of the subthemes of the Grande Camée de France (boy imperator with his parents before Tiberius and Livia, with a Persian captive huddled by Livia's throne).[87]


Although the BR Mars (pl. 18) cannot be matched to Augustan monuments and works of art in the same specific way as the depiction of Venus, it does conform to a Julio-Claudian figure type extant both in freestanding sculpture and in relief. An early imperial torso in Copenhagen (fig. 14)[88] and the sacrificing officer/Romulus on a base from Falerii (Cività Castellana) of the late first century B.C. (figs. 29–30)[89] have the same cuirass


and display the same stance, the swinging stride with its marked displacement of the hips. The Copenhagen torso reproduces somewhat the disposition of the drapery folds about Mars' thighs; thus the sculptural quality and sophistication of the BR figure are no accident but reflect direct familiarity with a known monumental type, some Neo-Attic statue produced in the same artistic climate as the BR Venus type. The more complete (if esthetically inferior) Cività Castellana figure gives the BR pose in full, down to the positioning of the lance; it is at the same level of artistic dependence as the BR figure, deriving equally but separately from the freestanding Roman prototype and adapted to relief.

This prototype figure evidently combined a strong evocation of Late Classical style—Greek—with specific Italic overtones in the god's attributes: the BR and Cività Castellana figures together show that the winged helmet was part of the prototype (the Copenhagen torso is headless), and this winged helmet is an Italian type. A fourth-century Oscan helmet demonstrates that it was worn in Italy in the period of the early Republic; it crops up thereafter in southern Italian vases, on a Sullan metope fragment from Orvinio, on the Mars of the Altar of the Twelve Gods at Pompeii, and is used, significantly, for some images of Roma on Republican coinage.[90] If we grant that the prototype figure was a Mars commissioned in the late Republic, we then have an interesting example of the deliberate superimposition of Roman religious iconography on Greek forms.[91]

There were two Mars types in Augustan cult, the youthful god, unbearded as here, and the mature bearded type that was to be used in 2 B.C. for the cult statue of Mars Ultor in Augustus' Forum, as also for Mars on the Ara Pacis and on the Sorrento base (holding a Parthian [?] standard) (fig. 15b).[92] If the BR Mars depended on a Mars Ultor type established for ad hoc use before the definitive cult statue, it might still have overtones of Mars Ultor—but if this is so, then the artist has taken no pains to make it very clear. Augustus' Mars Ultor was associated with one particular foreign conquest above all; besides being linked to vengeance against Caesar's assassins, he was associated with the "submission" of Parthia, as the return of Crassus' standards in 19 B.C. was styled by Augustan propaganda, and thus with the redress of wrongs done to Rome by outsiders. The BR Mars certainly is connected with the domination of foreign peoples, but there is no personification answering to Parthia in the BR group. The BR Mars certainly embodies the military might that holds the Empire together and assures Roman superiority, but he is a guardian and not a conqueror in action, in keeping with the mood of the central group;


for the group of personifications represents peoples already firmly incorporated in the Empire, rather than captive peoples who have just been beaten.

As with Venus, strong personal and dynastic associations are implicit in Mars' presence. As armed guardian and special patron of the people and their urbs, he balances Roma and the Genius on the other side of the scene; the traditional gods and symbols of the state thus attend on Augustus' personal supremacy. (Note that the same four divinities figure in the Ara Pacis panels; see fig. 71.) The armed Mars and Roma form a protective bulwark within which the riches of the Roman people can overflow as the unarmed goddess of love consecrates the rule of the togate emperor. In the structure of the composition, it is Venus to whom Mars answers, not just as her mythical consort and fellow parent to Rome, but literally as her mirror image: his placement, motion, and pose mirror hers, as the inward-leaning diagonal of his lance meets the rising diagonal set up by the lines of Venus' figure, to frame and exalt the pyramidal figure elevated between them. A similar framing composition occurs on the Augustan (or early Tiberian) Sorrento base (fig. 15b): Romulus sits before Augustus' Palatine house facade under Augustus' corona civica, facing (three-quarters right) his parent Mars, framed in the diagonal of the standard elevated by Mars to touch the crown; the Venus to be restored opposite will have lifted something also to make a symmetrical group.[93] The most striking compositional aspect of the central BR triad is that Mars and Venus are both clearly subordinate in height to Augustus on his throne. Augustus would be no taller standing on their level, yet as he is enthroned, his head is over both of theirs, irresistibly evoking the image of Jupiter, who sits enthroned above the other gods. The next chapter must account for this image.


The Image of Augustus

What is most crucial to an assessment of the relation of BR I:1 to official and monumental art is its depiction of Augustus. It has recently been asserted, for instance, that the centralized focus on Augustus on BR I is a "late" Julio-Claudian feature.[1] (Like many, the author who makes this assertion inappropriately compares closed panels to long processional friezes—namely, those of the Ara Pacis.) Yet the multifigure composition centered on its protagonist is, if anything, typical of Republican narrative relief and sculpture, documented from the late second century B.C. to the early first century A.D. by the Via S. Gregorio pediment, the Paris census relief (fig. 27), the Castel Gandolfo Romulus relief,[2] and a whole class of grave reliefs decorating monumentalized bisellia (fig. 23).[3] On these a togate magistrate presides in the center of his lictors, pointing to late Republican monumental depictions of magistrates in action similar to BR I:2; equally centralized in H. Gabelmann's "unacceptable" sense[4] is the allegorical bisellium panel (fig. 3). In fact, the un centered composition, its protagonist emphatically displaced to one end or another, is what seems to develop from the Augustan period through the second century A.D. The careful off-axis placement of Augustus on the BR cups marks an early stage in this development, together with the compositional structure of the Gemma Augustea (upper zone; fig. 16). The end panels of the Ara Pacis (figs. 74, 99) show how for closed panel formats, as opposed to long procession friezes, Augustan designers preferred a strongly centered composition.

More remarkable here is that Augustus wears the formal dress of a high Republican magistrate, in the midst of an allegorical scene where he associates with divinities. True, his sella curulis is not quite the actual chair of office but rather a symbolically rusticated simulacrum (see p. 13,


fig. 19); still, it does partly signify a real chair of office. Roman visual allegory seems generally to have kept to the normal modes of literary and oratorical allegory, defined by Cicero as a style characterized by sustained metaphor; in other words, in a visual allegory it was far more common in both the Republic and Empire for the central human protagonist also to be apostrophized in high-flown metaphorical terms, instead of being shown as he would actually appear carrying out his duties and powers in the streets of Rome. This mix of literal observation with divinizing panegyric seems at first like a hybrid that would be analogous to splicing some of the more purple passages of Ovid or Horace into the reportage of Tacitus, into one continuous narrative.

Certainly, Augustus followed in the footsteps of the charismatic leaders of the late Republic in implying that he enjoyed a divine mandate for his achievements. In the visual arts, however, at least those explicitly designed for public consumption, many assume there to have been an unwritten law to the effect that literal images should be carefully demarcated from images of allegorical panegyric content: in allegories the emperor is himself depicted in allegorical terms, as on the Gemma Augustea; in images that are literal-minded documentaries of official acts, the emperor appears in the actual military or civil dress suitable to the occasion, as on the Ara Pacis. A togate emperor seated like a magistrate in a purely allegorical scene seems to transgress the line of demarcation between these two modes, to offend against what modern scholars think to have been Roman canons of appropriate depiction. But is the mixing of modes that occurs in the BR allegory truly as anomalous as it seems? A good "luxury" example is the Vienna cameo[5] for Octavian's Actian victory; a realistic triumphator, Octavian is pulled over the sea by four Tritons with symbolic attributes (fig. 19); but we see a similar mixed image in the arch statuary and its numismatic depictions, which showed Octavian as triumphator in an elephant biga, crowned by Victory.[6] "Mixed discourse" is after all paralleled in the repertoire of public images disseminated under Augustus.

This involves another problem. There is no difficulty in recognizing that the other three cup panels replicate monumental reliefs grouped in an assemblage in the city of Rome, and my analysis shows that these prototype reliefs must have been executed in Augustus' lifetime. The allegory BR I is problematic: many would deny that it could replicate a public, official monument put up in Rome while Augustus was still alive; instead they see BR I:1 as the silversmith's own invention, "private" and "minor" art created to supplement the three scenes reproduced from state reliefs. I see no a priori reason why the BR allegory's depiction of Augustus would


have been impossible in his lifetime, but I shall have to go to some trouble to make my case. I first show that, like other individual figures in this allegory, the figure type of Augustus seen here is tied to a public and/or monumental sculptural tradition—that is, that there was a recognizable imperial genre of seated togate portraits that would make it possible for such a representation to occur in monumental relief—indeed, such figures are often represented with groups of ethnic personifications. Second, I document the solid Republican and Augustan parallels for the public celebration of Roman leaders in company with gods and personifications.

The Seated Togate Emperor: An Augustan Honorific Portrait Type

It has sometimes seemed that in the imperial period freestanding portraits and relief sculpture avoid showing the emperor togate and enthroned, as in the case of Republican honorific portraiture.[7] This is noteworthy: consuls at least, and emperors certainly, exercised many of their ceremonial and administrative duties seated, but we do not seem to have corresponding images, as we do for high officials shown as orators, priests, generals, and so on. Perhaps such a portrait type was generally avoided because seated images were associated with images of the gods; this hypothesis would be borne out by the fact that seated emperor portraits, which do exist, usually portray their subject like a cult statue, half-naked and often on a colossal scale, like images of Jupiter.[8]

With regard to freestanding portraits and relief sculpture, we should perhaps consider that superbia (overweening pride) could be imputed to someone who receives fellow magistrates seated.[9] Since Roman portraits often meant to imply the real presence of the person portrayed (as implied by damnatio memoriae, legal strictures against lèse-majesté in the presence of imperial portraits, and so forth), then an image of a high magistrate seated would perpetually meet all spectators as such—that is, the subject would perpetually confront the viewer in a potentially arrogant mode. It may simply be the case that a seated statue was felt to be a rather difficult form for commemorative—inane atop a column, invisible upon an arch; suitable only for a group on a pedestal not above eye level, it needed more space than a standing figure and would not back so easily against a wall in an atrium, for example. There are no ancient explanations.

The figure type of a seated togate emperor does occur in the imperial period, though rarely. It is so uncommon that it figures as a separate category in no modern work on the typology of imperial portrait statues, nor


has it been studied for the Republic. As K. Fittschen observed in 1977, "Für die mit Toga bekleideten Sitzstatuen fehlen sowohl Materialsammlung wie Untersuchung."[10] When Mason Hammond in 1953 investigated seated emperor types (focusing on coinage) he was not interested in the distinction between togate and seminude portrayals.[11] Fittschen was interested in a Republican series of statues that occur from the first half of the first century B.C. Grave monuments for Romans of the senatorial class, these statues portrayed the deceased as a man of culture and letters (like the late imperial aner mousikos sarcophagus portraits), that is, in a portrait based on Greek seated philosopher types. The deceased was shown sitting on a Greek klismos with literary appurtenances like book scroll and/or scroll basket; the earliest example is togate, but others often wear the Greek chiton and himation. All, however, are distinguished as Romans, and as senators, by the fact that their senatorial shoes (calcei ) are carefully detailed;[12] a most telling example is a reworking of ca. 50 B.C. of a pair of fourth-century Greek seated literary portraits (one, inscribed, of the comedian Poseidippos) to be installed in a townhouse on the Viminal. The heads are recarved as Roman portraits with Roman coiffures, signet rings are added, tunics are decently indicated under their mantles, and the shoes are altered by carving and bronze additions into senatorial calcei .[13]

Seated togate statues also occurred as grave portraits by the first century A.D., depicting the deceased not as a homo Musarum but as a functioning magistrate and/or patronus . At Republican Pompeii a tomb at the Porta Nocera had grave statues of a man in the toga exigua and of his wife, both seated;[14] a statue with senatorial calcei in the KLM office in Rome is from Velletri;[15] in North Italy, at Aquileia, in the first century B.C. a local magistrate was depicted on his subsellium;[16] at Altinum fragments indicate a father and son sat as duumviri in a funerary aedicula,[ 17] as did a statue with senatorial calcei now in Este;[18] and there is a "senator" from Vigevano now in Milan.[19] Among later examples at Rome,[20] T. Schäfer highlights the Villa Massimo (Claudian)[21] and Palazzo Falconieri (Antonine) senators,[22] whose elaborate sellae curules stressed their magisterial cursus . There are comparable relief depictions, like the grave relief from Chieti (ca. A.D. 50) where Lucius Storax sits at the center of the municipal senate on a sella curulis, much larger than his fellow magistrates.[23] Less famous are the Republican and Augustan bisellia panels just cited (p. 35) and tomb decorations, where the deceased as magistrate receives petitioners.

By the later first century A.D. seated funerary statues were erected also in the provinces—in Gaul, for instance, as it became steadily more Romanized. Well known is the testament of a high-ranking Gaul of the Lin-


gones who received Roman citizenship under Domitian for aid against the rebellion of Civilis. The detailed instructions for his funeral and monument at Andematunum (CIL XIII.2.1.5708)[24] mix with Gallic burial customs a prescription for an Italian-style funerary cella to be built of Luna marble imported from Italy, and a statua sedens in (even more chic) exotic marble (ex lapide quam optumo transmarino ).[25] Compare a magistrate's tomb portrait (togate, on cushioned sella curulis ) in local limestone from near Langres.[26] These commissions by local nabobs outside the capital follow fashions set slightly earlier in Rome and its immediate neighborhood (cf. the Villa Massimo statue). Compare the parody of such a monument in the "testamentary" instructions given by the nouveau-riche Trimalchio in Petronius' Satyricon (chap. 71), roughly contemporary with the monument of Lucius Storax.[27]

Grave monuments, however, are something different from honorific monuments erected in the city of Rome, even if they reflect the conventions of such monuments. We do know of seated togate statues, which seem eventually to have been restricted to the emperors, from a handful of scattered references and depictions; no certain fragments of such a statue from before the late Empire are now extant.[28] The type seems to have been a specifically Julio-Claudian innovation, which influenced later imperial commissions. The only epigraphic evidence for Rome, an inscription from Lucus Feroniae, names in a list of nine honorific statues for L. Volusius Saturninus a togate statue residens on a sella curulis in the Porticus Lentuli at Pompey's theater.[29] The fourth-century Historia Augusta supplies the only literary reference: the Life of Macrinus, which offers at 6.8–9 a similar list of (four) honorific statue types in an imperial letter, including statuas sedentes civili habitu, or seated togate statues.[30]

Official letters in the Historia Augusta are generally considered inauthentic, that is, made up by the fourth-century author. The letter may be invented, but it might easily be based on surviving accounts of the acta of Macrinus and his Senate or on the record of the actual statues if they were made. The author certainly shows himself conversant with the standard types of imperial honorific portraiture from Rome, and it is also the case that Julio-Claudian coin depictions of seated togate imperial statues ascribe them to senatus consulta . The text, then, may or may not document a real commission by Macrinus, but it is still a solid Late Antique document of the statuary type in question.

The Historia Augusta passage has good fourth-century artistic parallels at Rome. The oratio panel carved for the Arch of Constantine (fig. 36) shows that emperor as an imperator on the rostra in the Forum.[31] Seen head-


on, he is flanked at either end of the rostra by a seated statue of a togate emperor holding a scroll and a globe, just like the BR Augustus. These statues depict Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius; the Constantinian panel is analogous to Macrinus' purported commission, in attempting to show Constantine as political successor in direct line from these exemplary second-century emperors by associating him with their statues. Contemporary with this image are the Tetrarchic/Constantinian fragments in Alexandria and Istanbul of togate porphyry colossi seated on ornate thrones;[32] contemporary with the subject is the colossal porphyry second-century emperor (probably Hadrian) from Caesarea.[33] The Antonine emperors' statues in the relief may have been erected in or near the lifetimes of their subjects, or they could be Constantinian commissions. They are certainly the kind of statue to which the Historia Augusta refers so elliptically; they show too the longevity in portrait sculpture of the BR figure type with its globe and scroll.[34]

It is time for Julio-Claudian evidence. The most famous example is the Divus Augustus depicted on Tiberian sestertii minted in Rome in A.D. 22–23 (fig. 46). On the obverse (DIVUS AUGUSTUS PATER) Angustus sits on a backless throne, footstool under his feet, wearing a radiate crown, grasping a scepter in his left hand and holding out in his right a branch of olive or laurel; behind is a large altar. This statue has rightly been identified as the "signum divo Augusto patri ad Theatrum Marcelli" noted by the Fasti as dedicated by Tiberius and Livia,[35] which Tacitus (Ann. 3.64) says was put up shortly before A.D. 22, and which the Arval Acts (A.D. 38) note as a locus for imperial cult ("[ad theatrum M]arcelli ante simulacrum Divi Augusti"). (It filled in for Augustus' worship while his divus temple—completed by Caligula—was under construction.)

This togate Augustus is posthumous; we still need evidence for images of living emperors instead of divi . In the same series of sestertii as the Divus Augustus commemorative, another type shows Tiberius himself togate and enthroned; the statue it must depict can be identified with a monument that stood in the Forum Julium. This group is the best example of a discrete class of Julio-Claudian monuments, with Augustan roots in the senatorial honorific tradition, described in the discussion of ethnic personifications.

In 17 B.C. fourteen cities of Asia Minor were devastated by a terrible earthquake, and Tiberius responded with major financial aid, which won compliment even from Tacitus and Suetonius. In gratitude, these cities erected a monument to Tiberius in the Forum Julium that included statues of themselves in personified form, grouped around a portrait of Tiberius


(Phlegon Mir. frag. = 13 FGrH 257, frag. 36.13). In A.D. 30 an imitation of this monument was erected in Puteoli (which had a large Greek population); extant today is its large base, on whose sides are carved the personifications of the relevant cities (fig. 62). On top of the base once sat an honorific statue of Tiberius;[36] the form of this statue is given by the sestertius of A.D. 22–23 with its legend CIVITATIBUS ASIAE RESTITUTIS (fig. 46).[37] The original in Rome will have had the form of a long base on which the city personifications stood, instead of being carved on its sides. The S(enatus) C(onsulto) reverse of the sestertius, shared by the Divus Augustus coin, indicates that the monument to Tiberius was sanctioned by the Senate, and its design was undoubtedly cleared by the emperor; like Augustus before him, Tiberius not infrequently turned down at Senate meetings honors that the Senate had just voted to him if he considered them too invidious or grandiloquent.

At some time between A.D. 17 and 22, therefore, Tiberius had a statue of himself erected in the public heart of Rome, which portrayed him as a seated togate magistrate in the presence of personifications. His statue differed from that of the Divus Augustus in that he wore a laurel wreath, held in his raised left hand a much shorter scepter reaching only to the top of his chair, had a patera in his right, and sat on a sella castrensis with fringed seat cover (fig. 47). This togate dress, with the "military" seat and laurel, shows that Tiberius appeared here as a high magistrate with a governor's consular powers over the province: of Asia—an exact parallel to the depiction of Augustus on BR I:2, in the same kind of position of authority over the territory of the people (Gauls) portrayed in that scene.

Together, this Tiberius portrait and its coin image show Tiberius' promulgation of an image of himself, holding a scepter and linked to personifications, which is no more or less "extreme" than the image of Augustus on BR I. Such images could evidently be set in the heart of official Rome, in the old Forum or in the new imperial fora, and could be sanctioned by the Senate. In his acceptance of honors and his choice of images, Tiberius was, if anything, generally more conservative than Augustus, following Augustan precedent as much as possible and even rejecting honors that Augustus had accepted (titles like Pater Patriae, cult temples in the East such as at Gytheion, etc.). Any honor that Tiberius was content to accept is extremely likely to have a good Augustan precedent, even where the evidence for this precedent is now lost.

Early Julio-Claudian monuments in the periphery of the capital document a type of honorific sculpture group where a benefactor to non-Roman polities under his control is shown seated, surrounded by person-


ifications of the entitles he has benefited; and in this sort of monument, the emperor can be shown togate upon a chair of office. W. Eck's recent work allows us to add to the Tiberian monument evidence for senatorial honorific sculpture groups put up in Rome under Augustus.

These monuments took the form of a long basis, in the center of which was placed a portrait of the Roman (pro)consul being honored; about it on either side were arranged the statues of the communities honoring their governor and benefactor. One such monument was put up ca. 22 B.C. to L. Aelius Lamia from the cities of Hispania Ulterior; another went up around the same time in the Campus Martius to a Rufus who had been proconsul in Bithynia from the peoples and cities there. These monuments are now known only from their inscribed bases, so that we do not know if the Roman magistrate was togate or not, standing or seated. However, as these monuments are analogous to the Forum Julium monument, because they commemorate the benevolent exercise of consular authority, their protagonists may very well have appeared, like Tiberius, as magistrates exercising this authority, togate and seated; compare the representation of Sulla seated, in the statue group that showed him receiving the surrender of Jugurtha by Bocchus (denarius of Faustus Sulla, 57 B.C.; fig. 50).[38]

So, the BR image of Augustus with personifications is bracketed temporally by Tiberius' seated imperial benefactor-and-personifications monuments at one end and at the other end by senatorial consular benefactor-and-personifications monuments of Augustus' own reign. I think that it is plain that in his own lifetime Augustus had monuments erected that equalled or excelled those he permitted to his magistrates, and that such a monument will have been the prototype for those of his successors, as it seems to have been for the Caere monument of 10 B.C. On this monument, one would expect him to have looked like the Forum Julium Tiberius, that is, togate upon a sella curulis / castrensis or symbolic simulacrum thereof, holding authentic or symbolic emblems of authority, in the company of personifications of peoples benefited by his rule. BR I:1 shows exactly such a monument in the process of being "put together": the togate emperor, enthroned on a symbolically modified sella curulis (rusticated to indicate fertility), holding a rotulus and symbolic globe, will shortly be confronted or flanked by personifications of the peoples he rules and benefits (as specified by the action of BR I:2). The cup image is identical in outline to the "missing link" postulated above, which could have been postulated just as well if the BR cup had never existed. Given this evidence, I think that it would be the height of illogic to say that a


depiction like BR I:1 would have been impossible in Augustus' lifetime in a public honorific monument, when such a significant portion of the cup panel can be demonstrated to depend on an observable genre of commemorative sculpture.

Thus far I have postulated at least one seated togate portrait of Augustus in Rome during Augustus' lifetime. Such a figure will have inspired Tiberius' portraits of Augustus and of himself as seated and togate and will, with the radiate-crowned Divus Augustus type, have continued to inspire Augustus' successors. The Roman statue type was used also in Augustus' lifetime for honorific statues of him in the East, as in a monument put up at Gortyna by the koinon kreton (probably their cult statue), which is documented by a Claudian coin issue showing Augustus (THEOS SEBASTOS) togate on a sella curulis, as on the BR cup, and holding an akrostolion instead of a globe (fig. 45).[39] (It may not be fortuitous that the seated togate type is associated here, as in the Roman monuments, with a confederation of communities.) Traces of Augustan seated togate types that vary from his posthumous statue can also be discerned in the coinage of Julio-Claudians besides Tiberius. (I omit post-Julio-Claudian coinage, as there is less likelihood of Augustan monumental prototypes for the later coinage.)

At the beginning of his reign Caligula issues dupondii whose reverse proclaims his titulature and whose obverse proclaims the consensus ordinum of Senate, equites, and plebs Romana;[40] This obverse (fig. 48) shows him togate on a sella curulis, bareheaded, both arms bent, as on the BR cup, and holding a branch in his right hand. Claudius has a set of commemorative types for his father, Drusus, with Drusus' portrait and titles on the obverse; on one reverse (fig. 49) Claudius togate sits facing left on a sella castrensis with fringed seat cover (different in form from Tiberius'), arms bent at his side, a branch in his right hand and a rotulus in his left. The sella is set on a pile of weapons, a globe between its feet.[41] Both these coins are likely to reproduce official statues and in any case constitute official images in themselves. The point is that they do not follow the seated emperor type seen under Tiberius, where the emperor has his left arm raised to clasp a scepter and wears something on his head. Instead they conform to the seated type seen on the BR cup (and on the Cretan League issue; see fig. 45): a seated emperor who is bareheaded, his left arm bent at his side, holding a symbolic object only in his right hand. The exact three-quarter figure type seen on these coins cannot derive directly from the cup, but the coins testify to a common monumental tradition, with pre-Caligulan roots. As this tradition is also pre-Tiberian, we end up with


some kind of official Augustan prototype; it is such a prototype that Claudius must be quoting, in any case, as he was hardly likely to use an image that had only Tiberian and Caligulan manifestations.

I mentioned above the famous statue group of Sulla, Bocchus, and Jugurtha known from coin depictions (fig. 50). This group used a seated portrait in an abbreviated historical narrative, not just a purely symbolic grouping. Such groups may have existed under Augustus also. It is possible that coins of 8/7 B.C. from Lugdunum (fig. 87) on which the togate enthroned emperor touches hands with a baby held up to him by a Gaul depict a freestanding statue group (on this type and BR I:2 see chapter 4). My speculative evidence for this is involved with my last documents for the seated togate statue type and the linked genre of emperor-and-personifications, the so-called Anaglypha Traiani and the Hadrianeum sculptures. I discuss these monuments not just because they afford simple iconographic parallels but because the monumental programs of these emperors were (as is well known) characterized to a high degree by paraphrase of Augustan prototypes. When both these would-be Novi Augusti in succession are demonstrated to have erected prominent sculpture groups that independently refer back to the same sort of early imperial genre, a case for an Augustan statuary prototype for the BR-type Augustus is strengthened, and an account of its influence more complete.

The "Anaglypha Traiani"

This is the traditional English sobriquet given to a set of reliefs found in the Roman Forum at its eastern end (now housed in the Curia; see figs. 37–40), whose dimensions and subsidiary cuttings have suggested to many that they were part of a balustrade (stone topped by metal grillwork) for a rectangular enclosure about some sacred spot or monument in the vicinity, such as, perhaps, the Marsyas or ficus Ruminalis depicted on the reliefs themselves. Two of the four reliefs show in mirror image the animal triad for a suovetaurilia sacrifice (bull-ram-pig);[42] the other two are documentary reliefs depicting the emperor at complementary tasks, in complementary roles, in analogous compositional frames. (Possibly these reliefs were amphiglypha, that is, an animal procession and a documentary scene on either side of one wall.) Unfortunately, the heads of all figures have been damaged, in particular that of the emperor in each scene, so that the pieces must be dated by style and historical inference; there is fierce controversy as to whether they are Trajanic or Hadrianic. The two documentary reliefs consist of an oratio to the plebs performed by a togate em-


peror (fig. 37) and a burning of records (e.g., remission of debts) initiated by an emperor in tunic and paludamentum (figs. 38, 40). Both scenes are set in the Forum Romanum against a backdrop of the actual buildings and monuments there visible—the imperial address is given from the rostrum before the Temple of Divus Julius; the record burning is carried out below the Rostra proper.[43]

My first interest is in the statues depicted in these reliefs. The records-burning panel shows at far right a statue of a female personification or divinity set at the corner of the Rostra, with some object against its near leg (fig. 40);[44] this is the same spot where imperial portraits are situated on the Arch of Constantine oratio panel (fig. 36), indicating that they replaced earlier seated figures. A cognate statue group appears in the oratio relief at the far right of that panel. These figures (like the Rostra statue) are on the same scale as the "living" actors (fig. 39): a togate emperor seated on a draped throne balances a scepter in his raised left hand, his right arm bent at the side and the forearm extended; at left, a standing female personification holds on her left hip a clothed baby that twists on the goddess's arm to reach out its little arms to the seated emperor; the personification rests her right hand on the head of a child standing pressed against her right thigh (broken away). The breaks on the relief ground show that the emperor and baby in fact touched hands. The point is obviously to stress symbolic identity between the emperor in the statue group and the later, living emperor making a speech at left; just so, the divinity represented on the tax-burning relief is signified to be the patron of the emperor there.[45]

Who is depicted in this statue group? The answer depends in large part on the date one assigns to the relief. The emperor shown cannot be the same person as the emperor orating from the Temple of Divus Julius—no work of Greek or Roman art seems to include in a single frame a depiction of an individual and a depiction of a depiction of that individual. The statue group must show an emperor who reigned prior to the emperor who is orating, and he must be an emperor exemplary for the imperial orator. If the protagonist is Trajan, this must mean a Julio-Claudian emperor, most likely Augustus; if the protagonist is Hadrian, as is more probable, then the group will represent Trajan as he is shown on alimenta coinage (fig. 41).[46]

The records-burning relief is key to dating the set. In one view, this record burning is that ordered by Hadrian in 118 (Hist. Aug. Vita Hadr. 7.6), which is said in CIL VI.967 to have been the first example of such forethought.[47] However, the Vita Hadriani says that the burning was car-


ried out in the Forum Traiani, where in fact CIL VI.967 was found. Also a Hadrianic relief (the Chatsworth relies does show a record burning, against the remains of an architectural backdrop that is different from any portion of the Anaglypha, and this has been taken to be the Forum of Trajan.[48] M. Torelli maintains that the relief shows a remission of debts by Trajan in 106, linking to a notice in the Chronicon Paschale for that year the fact that the statuary group of the oratio was shown by Mason Hammond to resemble the Trajanic coins of 108–110 commemorating the alimenta extended to Italy (BMCRE III, pl. 33.2 = 184, no. 871) (cf fig. 41).[49] This view has been criticized (by R. R. R. Smith, followed by M. T. Boatwright) because the evidence of CIL VI.967 should cancel the "dubious temporary remission of taxes" reported by the Chronicon;[50] these most recent authors find no evidence sufficient to convincingly resolve the problem of date and occasion.

We can begin by correctly identifying the emperor in the debt abolition scene. With one exception, all think that the statue placed on the Rostra (fig. 40) is the emperor "supervising" the occasion,[51] while the paludatus (misidentified as wearing the hooded paenula ) is a lictor. Yet it is plain that the enlarged paludatus immediately below the Rostra must be the emperor, who is setting the first flames to the record pile. Note his enlarged size, the way he is flanked and backed by two paludate lictors (a triad familiar from the Trajanic Column and Beneventum Arch panels), is further framed by a broadened foreground "niche" of lictor-togatus, and most especially is hallowed (when the head existed the effect would have been even more dramatic) by the arch between the two temples in the background. The paludatus perfectly complements the oratio imperial togatus, who also stands and gestures, hallowed by the architectural background (pediment of the Temple of Castor); the positions of ficus Ruminalis and emperor are neatly reversed, while on the other hand a seated draped statue is set at right on each panel.

By figure style, the reliefs certainly look as if they are at least late Flavian (compare the menorah relief, Arch of Titus; fig. 108) or Trajanic. Although most heads are battered or missing, enough remains to show that very few figures were bearded. On the other hand, the neck of the paludate emperor in the tax-burning scene seems to show traces of a beard, which makes the reliefs definitely Hadrianic. The careful pairing of deeds by an emperor togatus/paludatus, in compositions connected with imperial benefits, is extremely similar to the pairing that structures the choice of episodes for the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum, exemplified in


the facing passage reliefs (figs. 91–92). If the reliefs are Trajanic, the parallel is contemporary; if they are Hadrianic, then the Beneventum formula is a paradigm, as for the Arch of Constantine panels.[52]

Arguments based on CIL VI.967 are dubious at best. What that inscription actually says is that Hadrian is the first to really assure the security of present and future generations because he has remitted a truly significant amount of money; it does not claim that Hadrian was the first to remit debts to the treasury. How could it do so, when second-century authors like Appian (BCiv. 5.130) were fully aware that Augustus himself, for example, had remitted tax debts in his first big adventus to Rome, after the fall of Lepidus. The inscription is still significant, however, for it indicates that Hadrian had staged such a remission; also, the location of an official account of this act in the Forum Traiani may explain why the Historia Augusta puts the ceremony here. One would expect the records to be most easily disposed of near the Rostra in front of the Treasury (the Temple of Saturn), from which they had to be extracted, which is where the Anaglypha locates such a ceremony. The later Hadrianic Chatsworth relief is thought to depict the porticoes of the Forum of Trajan, but it could simply show the lower portions of some of the Forum porticoes, at an angle different from that used on the Anaglypha.

It is ordinarily a dubious proceeding to contradict textual evidence on the grounds of an artistic representation whose own date is not yet secure. However, the text in this case is the notoriously inaccurate Historia Augusta; the archeological record offers a reason why the Historia might have gotten its facts wrong; and the iconography of the Anaglypha tax-burning panel accords in other ways with official Hadrianic propaganda about this event, that is, with its numismatic commemoration. Hadrian commemorated his remission of taxes in A.D. 119–121 with several related types centered on the same figure, a standing male in tunic and paludamentum facing three-quarters left, putting a torch, lowered in his right arm, to a pile of records and cradling some long object in his left arm. One variant shows this figure alone; another shows him saluted by several citizens at left; a third reverses the scheme, with two citizens at right (figs. 42–43).[53]

The central figure of this issue has always been identified as a lictor, carrying fasces, and has been (rightly) identified with the figure who sets the first torch on the Anaglypha Traiani panel, on whose left shoulder have been noticed breaks attributed to a bunch of fasces . However, as I have shown, this so-called lictor is in fact the emperor himself, and the pattern of breaks from hand to arm to shoulder does not correspond to


the straight line of a bunch of fasces . If the emperor held anything at all in his left arm (the breaks could simply be dents in drapery), one would expect perhaps an unlit torch, possibly a sheathed sword. By the same token, the coin figure seems to be an emblematic representation of the emperor himself. On any other coin one would take an isolated three-quarter figure in the paludamentum, displayed upright and at ease as here, to be the emperor; he does correspond to the Anaglypha emperor; and in the multifigure compositions, the groups of citizens are noticeably smaller than this figure and raise their arms to salute him, like the crowd saluting in the Anaglypha oratio . These points seem to rule out the possibility that this figure can have been read as a mere lictor. If the figure on the coins is carrying the fasces, then I think this has to be taken as a symbolic attribute, like a cornucopia or scepter, for instance. A reidentification of the coin appears sound; whatever one feels, it remains the case that Hadrian's numismatic commemoration of his remission of taxes uses the key figure of the Anaglypha depiction as its prototype, and so strengthens the relief's claim to "official" authenticity as a document of Hadrian 's performance of the ceremony.[54]

Appian's passage is worth further comment, for it corresponds closely to the narrative structure of the Anaglypha. It has Octavian/Augustus' remission announced in orations (a ) to the Senate and (b ) to the plebs —the latter, exactly what is shown happening on the oratio panel; speech and remissions are associated with his triumphal entry into Rome in a pompe, some kind of military adventus probably in the form of an ovation, as well as with a kind of official accession. Speeches and remission are associated also with the restoration of civil pax and abundance to Italy (for Octavian had just broken Sextus Pompey's blockade of the grain fleets), and all this in turn is connected with the grant of an honorific statue of Octavian in the Forum.[55] The Anaglypha connects a remission of debts with a speech specifically addressed to the plebs, alludes to its protagonist's military, as well as civil, auctoritas, and associates the occasion with a monument in the Forum that is itself about imperial maintenance of the fertility of Italy. I think that Hadrian's ceremony, carried out so near in time to his accession to power, is likely to have been quite explicit about its Augustan antecedents—that it was carried out in the same way and that we see the same themes, as well as the procedure itself, worked into the Anaglypha depiction. This is borne out by the architectural setting of the two panels, which is made up of buildings associated with Augustus,[56] including details like the use of the Actian arch to help frame the imperial party in the oratio (fig. 37), for which "true" perspective had to be altered.[57]


The evidence so far points to a Hadrianic date for the reliefs, and so for an identification of the seated togate emperor group (fig. 39) in the oratio panel as an earlier emperor; the group appears on Trajans alimenta coinage (fig. 41). At left Italia holds a little girl in her left arm and rests her right hand on the head of a little boy at her side (broken away on the relief); Trajan sits at right on a throne, togate, with an eagle-tipped scepter in his left hand; the baby in Italia's arms reaches out to Trajan, who extends to her something in his right hand. The statue group is arranged so that Trajan's right hand meets that of the baby girl; on the coin the draftsman garbled this, so that the baby's outstretched hands go over, rather than meet, Trajan's. The composition shows a symbolic Italia with the puer alimentarius and puella alimentaria, who appear on their own on other Trajanic coinage and on an honorific statue base for Trajan from Terracina;[58] they appear also in the alimenta panel of the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum, where the personified cities of Italy hold infant children and where the little puella and her older brother are prominent among the human actors (fig. 91). The evidence of the coinage and the Terracina base permits Trajan's scepter on the Anaglypha to be restored with an eagle on its tip, the triumphator's scepter; this conforms to the military and triumphal associations of the alimenta on the arch, where in distinction to the togate emperor in the facing sacrifice panel, Trajan performs the alimenta in military dress.

So, the Anaglypha Traiani depicts a statue group put up for Trajan in the Forum Romanum, commemorating his benevolence to the communities of Italy in the form of an alimenta program for Italian children. It is extremely interesting that a seated togate emperor portrait, in type resembling the Forum Julium Tiberius with bare head and scepter, should make one of its rare appearances here under Trajan in an artistic and political context identical to that of the Julio-Claudian monuments discussed above: for imperial benefits to the cities of Italy, the seated togate emperor shares a pedestal with an ethnic personification of the entity benefited. The parallel to the Julio-Claudian monument type is obvious, and obviously deliberate (Tiberius' group, for instance, was on view only a short distance away). The only difference is that here, in the interests of a telling narrative, the multiple communities of Italy are condensed into a single personification rather than being shown as a band of personified communities, as on the Beneventum alimenta (fig. gi). It is no accident that Trajan located his allegory of imperial authorship of the well-being and fertility of the SPQR near the ficus Ruminalis and the statue of Marsyas (fig. 37), which stood next to each other in this part of the Forum, both notable


and emotion-laden landmarks from the Republican past. The political significance of these monuments was tied to the dignity and well-being of the Roman plebs, for whom they remained potent symbols.[59] The truth of this interpretation by Torelli is borne out by the Anaglypha, which selects from all the freestanding monuments in the Forum this trio (Trajan's alimenta group, Marsyas, and the ficus Ruminalis ) to comment on Hadrian's announcement of his benefice to the plebs .[60] Note that in the same series where the emperor/lictor coinage quotes one of the Anaglypha reliefs, the other is quoted on a coin where Trajan's Italia and her children now greet the living Hadrian, seated on a "real" tribunal, as symbols of LIBERTAS to the people.[61]

Above I showed that there must have been a group or groups of Augustus with personification(s) resembling the documented senatorial monuments of his reign and the imperial monuments of his own dynastic successors. Trajan's monument was certainly meant to show not just vague ties to the Julio-Claudian past but specific links to Augustus. (Hadrian, by showing himself orating in apposition to Trajan's group, manages to align himself with his adoptive father and with Augustus at one and the same time.) There are further ties between Trajan's group and Augustan art, however.

The composition used for Trajan's allegorical group is structured around a meeting between the seated emperor and a baby who is held out to him by a standing figure functioning as the infant's parent, and with whom he makes physical contact. In all of Roman art, this striking and emotional composition occurs only once with different actors: on the Gaul-and-baby coinage of 8/7 B.C. (fig. 87). Augustus, togate and seated, touches the hand of an infant held out to him by its standing parent (see chapter 4; BMCRE 1, pl. 12.13–14; CNR IV, cat. 129), symbolizing Augustus' extension to Gallia of the benefits of his pax . No other documentary or symbolic group in any medium depicts a baby in this way; the group seems to be an outright invention of the Augustan period (it may have some very vague antecedents in Attic grave stelai),[62] with no other future save here. An emphasis on children, especially very young children, is widely known to be an especial feature of Augustan art, which lapses after Augustus' reign; the sudden prominence of children in Trajan's alimenta propaganda, especially with female personifications, must have been part of his general program of "Augustanism."[63] The seated emperor-and-baby composition, I believe, must have been borrowed outright from the Augustan composition documented by the Lyons coinage, whose symbolic content is also very close to that of the Trajanic group.


One wonders, however, why a major statuary group would be based on a much older coin composition, as its sole Augustan reference; the unique reappearance of the Augustan composition under Trajan could best be explained by the hypothesis that the Lugdunum coinage depicts an Augustan statue group, in the same way that the group documented by the Anaglypha was depicted on contemporary coinage.

The Hadrianeum Seated Emperor and Personifications

When people think of Roman ethnic personifications, the sculptures that probably first come to mind are the set associated with the Hadrianeum, of which a portion are prominently displayed in the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori in Rome (fig. 70). Uncovered between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries in the area of the temple (part of whose colonnade is immured in the walls of the Borsa in the Piazza di Pietra), twenty-one panels are now known wholly or in part. Once brightly painted, they would have been identified by painted inscriptions. Associated with them are the remains of nine plaques showing decorative arrangements of military equipment; although these items are not mounted as trophies, but rather arranged in chiastic compositions of two elements each, the plaques are usually called trophy panels.[64] The findspot by the Hadrianeum and the fact that the set parallels the unique numismatic series of twenty-five province types issued under Hadrian have led scholars to the correct conclusion that the reliefs come from the Temple of Divus Hadrianus dedicated by Antoninus Pius in A.D. 145; architectural data and the fine condition of the reliefs' surfaces point to their placement in the interior of the temple cella (plan 125). The marble trophy panels and personification panels veneered the projecting and reentrant faces of a socle zone, consisting of plinths projecting from the cella wall to carry an interior colonnade, sumptuously articulating the temple interior around eye level.[65] The trophy panels are in low relief, but the provinces are so completely undercut as to seem persons/statues standing on ledges before the plinth face proper; in the dim light of the cella, the differences in relief height would have served to pull the provinces forward, while the dimmer niches would have seemed to recede even more deeply.

The province reliefs have always figured in Roman art surveys and have been the subject of a vast scholarly literature. Almost all of this devotes itself, following the still authoritative discourse by J. Toynbee, to identifying individual provinces on the basis of their attributes (cf. the introduction to chapter 3). Only A. M. Pais made an effort to keep before the


reader the setting of these reliefs and to reconstruct its effects, emphasizing that they were arranged to frame the major element of the temple, the colossal seated statue of the emperor Hadrian. Toward this figure the frontally disposed provinces all turned their heads, left/right/straight according to their placement on the side and end walls of the cella; the trophy plaques were also oriented left/right according to their placements.[66] When the spectator walked into this temple, he was immediately surrounded by the vivid, expressive figures of the peoples of empire, their gaze pulling the viewer's also toward the emperor as he moved up the cella toward the statue; and we know enough about imperial divus cult figures to assert that the emperor was seated. Standing before the plinths of the columns upholding the temple roof, these guardian figures seem to personify the edifice of Hadrian's empire.

Readers can see where this description tends. The interior of the Hadrianeum confronted a spectator with something very like the BR emperor and provinces group. It constitutes the Julio-Claudian emperor-and-personification monument type, as it were, with its ends bent forward, fitted into a rectangular space. The animation of a colonnaded facade lining a rectangular space by caryatid figures standing before niches with symbolic plaques had been developed for the Forum of Augustus, where the attic story thus articulated the idea of empire (figs. 68–69; plan 123); in the Forum of Trajan, the Forum Augustum caryatids had already become figures (male Dacians) standing before an architecturally supporting member, rather than caryatids proper.[67] A further crucial link is now supplied by the early imperial decoration of the Sebasteion precinct at Aphrodisias, which includes ethnic personifications carved also on plaques as if standing before them, on little garlanded plinths, in association with a colonnaded facade (though here in the intercolumniations). If the Aphrodisias precinct quotes decorations in the Forum Augustum itself, then this latter would constitute a more exact parallel for the articulation of the Hadrianeum cella.[68]

The Augustan references are indisputable. The building of such a complex for the newly dead Hadrian must have been meant explicitly to recall the parade of personifications at the funeral of Augustus;[69] it will have seemed to freeze eternally in stone not only this recorded moment but also Augustus' audience to the nations depicted on the Shield of Aeneas. It will certainly have echoed in its structure Augustus' Porticus ad Nationes, as in concept the provinces ringing the inner altar of the Ara Pacis (fig. 71).[70] (Chapter 3 discusses the Augustan prototypes for the visualization of empire as a group of personifications and for a "benevolent" view


of the Empire's subject peoples.)[71] And it will have recalled the kind of Augustan monument reconstructed in the preceding pages: the seated emperor flanked by personifications of the communities he has benefited by his rule, doing him perpetual homage. The Augustan model might have been followed also for the divus cult statue; if Hadrian's statue looked like the Divus Augustus worshipped in Rome by the Theater of Marcellus (fig. 46), then he will have been togate and seated in the midst of all the provinces. Finally, I think that one can be sure that the idea for this complex was Hadrian's, just as we know that Augustus' funeral was carried out after his own detailed specifications.[72]

Some of the monuments compared here to the Hadrianeum have been compared to it before, but seldom are the architectural and iconographic contexts of these comparanda fully visualized. This has been true most of all for the Hadrianeum itself, whose province panels cannot completely be appreciated except in apposition to the lost Divus Hadrianus statue in their midst. When they are visualized in their original, full context, as a pseudosculpture group framing this seated colossus, it can be seen that they deliberately evoke an image of Hadrian as Novus Augustus by means of their similarity to Augustan visual formulations of benevolent imperium, especially the kind of honorific group alluded to by BR I:1

Augustus' Actian Coinage

I have documented the existence of a genre type for seated imperial figures, shown togate and often in a chair of office, with recognizable origins in the Augustan period. We are now ready to consider such an image, disseminated publicly under Augustus' direct control, whose date is indisputable. It constitutes an exact and explicit parallel for the figure type of Augustus seen on the BR cup, broadcast in the most public of visual media available to him. This is one of the numismatic types issued by Octavian immediately after his victory at Actium, to celebrate his final "liberation" of the Republic (fig. 21). As many other of the reverse images of Octavian in this series seem to show honorific statues, it is quite possible (though unprovable) that this coin alludes also to a freestanding honorific statue, which would then join my series; the discussion has shown that this coin certainly does paraphrase a known Augustan type of statue. This aside, the coin shows that a two-dimensional rendering like that seen on the BR panel could figure prominently in Augustus' official propaganda.[73]

This denarius reverse, inscribed IMP. CAESAR (fig. 21a), shows Oc-


tavian exactly as on the cup, except that he sits in a formal sella curulis and holds Victory already in his hand, without a globe. The legend IMP. CAESAR was used for all the types of this series of 29–27 B.C. (ours is BMCRR type ix, vol. II, p. 16, pl. 60. 7; CNR V, no. 518); the association of the legend "imperator" with a togate figure makes in itself a strong statement about the bases of Octavian's self-proclaimed restoration of Republican government and civil concord.[74] In a sense, this image avoids the iconographic implications of the triumphal coin issues cited above, for Victory here is not a full-size goddess but a "statuette" in Octavian's hand. On the other hand, no consul ever gave audience grasping a statue of Victory (or the globe held by the BR Augustus). This is an image as striking as that on the cup, in fact more so: like the cup image, it conflates allegory and "reality" to show Augustus in a real chair of office literally with the spirit of Victory in his grasp, and it does so on a coin issued from the mint of Rome itself for the people of Italy and Rome. Obviously the public formulation and dissemination of such images were not shunned by Augustus.

This coin is worth further discussion, for in its full range of implications it stands as a condensed ideograph for the expanded narrative action of the cup scene. The discussion above proposed that, as a figure type, enthroned figures were meant to suggest some identification with divinity in general and with Jupiter in particulars;[75] it was also pointed out above that Augustus' place in the BR composition is itself that which Jupiter would hold in an assembly of the gods. On the coin, this assimilation or special relation to Jupiter is suggested in two ways. The reverse cited here does not at first sight look at all Greek, but it is in fact a clear paraphrase of one of the most common coin types used by the Eastern Hellenistic kingdoms, which show Zeus enthroned with Nike in his right hand.[76] This type, of course, quotes the famous Pheldian Zeus at Olympia, which may itself have been copied in Rome for the cult statue in the Capitolium in the Catulan restoration ca. 78 B.C. Any educated Roman would have known that Zeus (and Athena) regularly holds such a Nike in his hand; the Capitol's Jupiter may have been an exemplar for a wider Roman audience, and in any case they would have been made familiar with the iconography of Venus Victrix under Caesar.

To hold Nike/Victoria, then, naturally evokes divine iconography, especially that of the king of the gods; the assimilation of a Hellenistic regal type is an expression in stylistic language, for those who could read it, of the reality of Octavian's subjugation of the Eastern monarchies that had


flocked to Antony's banner, a triumph also of Roman culture. This is what an educated, well-traveled audience could have read; for the less sophisticated, the obverse of the same coin makes the message plain. Here (fig. 21b) we see the laureate bust of Augustus, as triumphant general, and next to it the thunderbolt of Jupiter,[77] the (implied) tool giving him victory. This bust is in fact the crowning member of a herm that is depicted in full on a companion issue (fig. 22). In other words, the obverse of the enthroned Augustus issue depicts a monument in Rome that portrayed a divinity (probably Jupiter Feretrius) with Octavian/Augustus' own features.[78] This makes it all the more probable that, as I speculated above, the seated Augustus is also based on an honorific statue or statue type, as is certainly the case with the standing figures of Octavian in this series.[79]

The figure type of Augustus broadcast in the East on the Actium coin had an immediate impact: we can see this in the fact that it was adapted for the cult statue of Augustus erected by the Cretan League at Gortyna (fig. 45) in the same period, shortly after the sea victory at Actium. The impact of the figure type becomes more obvious when we consider that the Cretans did not use the standing cuirassed figure honorific type employed for the most prestigious of the Eastern cults of Augustus, that of the Communis Asiae based at Pergamon (cf. BMCRE I, pl. 34.4). The Gortyna seated togate portrait type may have been inspired directly by the Actium coin type, but this is not very probable. The cult statue is far more likely to depend on another sculptural prototype, erected at Augustus' victory monument of Nikopolis and/or in Rome itself.

The Actium issue itself presents the victory of the Roman system by means of its military superiority and the superior virtue of its political system, accomplished through and summed up in the person of Octavian, at once sponsored by and in some sense identified with Jupiter. The same message is implied on the cup, where Augustus sits, supreme among divinities like Jupiter, receiving the acknowledgment of his world rule as initiated by his Actian triumph, sponsored by the divinities of Rome and the divinities who are Rome. The legend of the coin carries the same dynastic implications that on the cup are implied by the presence of Mars and Venus.

This extended comparison is meant to show two things: first, it indicates that the kind of imagery we see on the cup was embraced by Octavian/Augustus for his public propaganda near the very beginning of his reign; second, it demonstrates the ways in which the artists who formulated public images could convey a particular message either in narrative


or in emblematic form, according to the scope of a particular commission. Expanded narratives like the BR cup scene show us the kind of public monuments that would have educated a contemporary audience to read the terse, highly charged images of coins, gems, and other physically restricted images.

We are now ready to consider the Republican and Augustan evidence for public portraits incorporating references to divinity. In this kind of self-advertisement, Augustus was not making a radical innovation, something alien to a past tradition; rather, the tools he used to celebrate and legitimate his authority often evolved from visible late Republican modes of commemoration and propaganda. At the time there were, no doubt, objectors to Augustus' image making as well as to his actual position; however, for many, the familiarity of single elements in the new schemata would have gone far to obscure what was new, that is, the far-reaching nature of the integrated sum of those elements.

Men with Gods

There is firm evidence that by the beginning of the first century B.C. Republican notables were not at all shy about putting up public monuments that showed them in the presence of divinity. The corpus of extant Republican sculpture is practically nonexistent, even though we know from literary and epigraphic references that Rome was packed with honorific monuments put up for and by the aristocrats of the day. There are in fact only two monuments with relief decoration from purely honorific (i.e., not funerary) monuments: the massive San Omobono base[80] and the so-called Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, whose reliefs are in Paris and Munich.[81] Both were bases for honorific statuary. As the San Omobono base (ca. 75–75 B.C.) has allegorical and symbolic decoration only, it does not supply evidence to make my case; the Paris-Munich friezes are another matter.

Recovered from the area of the Circus Flaminius, near the temples of Mars and Neptune, the friezes were marble revetments for a four-sided rectangular statue base: three sides (Munich, Glyptothek 239) depict a sea thiasos, the wedding of Poseidon and Amphitrite; on the fourth side (Paris, Louvre inv. 975) a censor celebrates the sacrifice at the lustrum that officially closed a completed census (fig. 27).[82] This principal face honored the censor who commissioned the monument, whose statue would have stood directly above,[83] and the panel was cut in Rome of Italian stone; the


sea thiasos friezes, however, made of East Greek marble, once decorated something else, from which they were removed and recut to fit the Republican base.[84]

The Circus Flaminius, where the base stood, was from its building in the late third century B.C. a site for monuments erected from the manubiae (spoils) of Republican triumphatores . Up to Augustus' time the temples and porticoes ringing the Circus were all put up from such spoils to commemorate the personal victories of Republican aristocrats. The site was apt; the Circus was the arena where a triumphator assembled his booty, readied his exhibits, and then mustered the triumphal procession preparatory to crossing the pomerium into Rome. The sea thiasos frieze is primarily manubiae of a triumph, selected as the content fit for a naval triumph. Only one late Republican figure celebrated a sea triumph and conducted a censorship that closed in a lustrum, the orator Marcus Antonius, grandfather of the triumvir; he triumphed in 100 B.C. over East Mediterranean pirates and held his censorship in 97 B.C.[85] His statue base proclaimed that he had reached the pinnacles of achievement both as general and as civilian magistrate:[86] it showed him as censor, framed by spolia from the coasts that fell under the imperium of the sea command that brought him a triumph.

The monument is thus dated to the very early first century B.C. On the Louvre panel (fig. 27) Antonius (head, restored) exercises his duties as censor in mundane terms—except that the place that should be held by his fellow censor is held instead by Mars, who waits with Antonius as his comrade for the arrival of the sacrificial animals. This monument of the 90s B.C. predates any "excesses" of Sulla or Pompey, let alone of Caesar, Antony, or Augustus; in effect it gives censorial benediction to such self-glorification! Though Mars on the Louvre panel does not overtly interact with any of the "real" Romans around him, he acts by placement as a special companion to Antonius, with whom he seems to converse; he fills the place of a human, the other censor, in the rite narrated, and Antonius is on his scale.

Such monuments were probably common in Republican Rome; out of the two honorific monumental bases to survive from Republican Rome, one turns out to be a documentary relief incorporating a divine figure as "cocensor" and divine comes of the honorand (and its depiction of the census can be shown to go back to Latin images 200 years older).[87] The influence of such paradigms can be read in a monument in the same genre erected at Ostia (fig. 26) by a local priest who had given Pompey the happy omens for his sea campaign, which ended in victory in 62 B.C..[88]


On it are (left to right) a schematic representation of the miraculous finding in the sea of the cult statue of the Ostia Temple of Hercules, where this relief was found; next, the (togate) boy employed for the rite of sortition accepting the sortes from Hercules, facing him across an altar; last, Pompey (missing) or one of his generals taking a tablet holding this oracle from the priest who dedicated the monument, C. Fulvius Salvis, haruspex (Etruscan priest) of Hercules' Ostian oracle, who is accompanied by the small boy from the previous scene. At far left a little Victory moves to crown the missing general.

This Pentelic marble relief shows Neo-Attic influence in its figure style,[89] and it echoes Greek votive reliefs where worshippers approach a figure of a divinity. It is, however, quite different from the Greek votive genre, in that it presents an episodic narrative, moving from right to left, which is centered on the glorious deed of the dedicator as much as on the god himself; also, in this narrative the god is shown physically interacting with the human protagonists. The relief echoes, in a humbler extraurban setting in the immediate neighborhood of Rome, the kind of reliefs and paintings in the capital that displayed the deeds of triumphatores .[90] Pompey's own coinage referred to the oracle celebrated in this panel;[91] it is easy to imagine that the ingenuous donum of C. Fulvius echoed a relief or painting made for Pompey's own triumphal celebrations, as a result of which he struck a coin type about this oracle (boy with lot, inscr. SORS) and spent manubiae to dedicate a temple to Hercules in the Forum Boarium.

The transformation of Greek votive conventions to Roman commemorative art can be definitely set in the late second century B.C., documented by the oldest extant depiction of a Roman sacrifice, ca. 130-100 B.C. These pedimental sculptures, brightly painted terracotta in the old Republican Romano-Etruscan mode, were excavated on the Via S. Gregorio in a hollow between the Palatine and Caelian hills. Those of its hundreds of fragments that could be pieced back together make up seven figures (Rome, Pal. Cons.):[92] three large (life-size) divinities, a slightly smaller togatus, and three victimarii, smaller yet;[93] the animal victims were a steer/cow, a smaller steer or calf, and a sheep. At center a goddess (head restored) sat upon a profiled base set at a three-quarter angle (on its exposed face something heavy and round, such as a metal disc or clipeus, was once mounted). The goddess is oriented right, leaning upon her right arm, her head turned left back over her shoulder. At right a smaller goddess stood in an exaggerated contrapposto sway, left arm down, right arm bent at the elbow, looking also to our left; flanking the central goddess on our left was Mars, wearing a Hellenistic-style cuirass over a tunic,[94] oriented also


left, his weight on the right leg. The three victimarii all stand fronting the viewer, two at least looking to our left. Last, the togatus, in the toga exigua, faces three-quarters to our right, his right forearm extended, holding something or gesturing. This figure has been placed correctly at left of the divine group, looking toward them, the target of their attention and of the attention of the victimarii . It is not yet the moment of sacrifice, for the togatus 's head is still unveiled,[95] and the victimarii simply usher the victims along.[96] The togatus is in the act of saluting the three divinities, who all look at him to receive the salute.

It is a cliché that this pediment quotes the conventions of Hellenistic and fourth-century votives, in the characteristic Hellenistic terracotta style of mid-Republican Italy, strongly tinged by the Neo-Attic trends that start to work in the mid-second century B.C.[97] A good specific parallel for the core composition of this pediment is an Athenian monument of ca. 400, period and place relevant to the Roman pediment's figure style. This is one of the two main faces of the monumental votive amphiglyphon set up by Telemachos, founder of the Athenian Asklepieion, who shortly after commissioned a copy that at some unknown date was brought to Italy. On this panel, the center was held by a goddess (Hygieia) seated in three-quarter view upon a projecting orthogonal object (a trapeza? ) and looking back over her shoulder to a standing male divine companion (Asklepios). In the mirror image of the Roman, on the left in the togatus 's place was the similarly posed Telemachos, his right arm bent and the forearm raised in prayerful salute.[98]

Context, as well as composition, is likely echoed in the Roman version—that is, commemoration of the patron's construction of the sanctuary for which the piece was made. This votive composition has been fused with a very Roman theme, the sacrificial procession; it was slotted into a standard Italic pediment structure, where the center is taken up by a triad of divinities, but keeps the seated female and standing male group of the Greek votive. Adaptation is not just evidenced in the switch to Roman costume and the addition of Roman subsidiary figures; it can also be seen in the relation between worshipper and gods. Those on Telemachos' votive ignored their worshipper, but the Roman gods all direct their attention to the approaching togatus, just like his own attendants. While this interaction can be seen on some Greek votives, what is startling is the context of the Roman assemblage. This is not a votive stele; it is for a pediment, and thus for a shrine. The Roman builder of a sanctuary fused a standard Italic epiphany pediment with a Greek votive composition, to make a documentary image that showed his own achievements. This


seems shocking; if, alternatively, the protagonist is a patron's ancestor or a legendary figure, it still startles. Even if it were to show a safely legendary king like Numa, for instance, instituting the original rites of the deities shown, it would be striking in its use of contemporary visual terminology instead of the "mythicizing" depictions of, for example, Romulus (who was a god) in action upon the Temple of Quirinus or Temple of Mars Ultor pediments. The derivation from exemplary votive compositions, however, leads me to believe that very probably this pediment does present the living Roman who put up the structure. As the shrine went up in the Campus Martius, it is likely to have been erected ex manubiis as a personal monument of achievement.

The Via S. Gregorio pediment gives us then the background to the Paris census relief (fig. 27), as to the later, Augustan Sorrento base (fig. 15a). It shows the first steps in Roman assimilation of Greek votive compositions; it also demonstrates how a significant transformation was made at the initial contact, so that a Greek model was thoroughly Romanized in composition, setting, and content. It is a very short move from this pediment, where Roman aristocrat and gods commune on a monumental scale, to the calm assumption of divine comradeship on the slightly later honorific basis.

Even if the pediment shows not a contemporary but a legendary Roman, such a monument would have accustomed the Roman eye to seeing contemporarily clad figures acting on such a plane. Already on a signet of the mid- to late second century B.C., contemporary with the Via S. Gregorio group, a Republican imperator had himself portrayed with a divine entourage; on a large glass paste in Copenhagen, Roma follows as honor guard a knight (much larger than she!) leading along his horse on foot.[99] It is a very fair assumption that by the end of the second century at the latest contemporary triumphal paintings would have shown Roman victors in similar allegorical compositions; for such triumphal images, mixing documentary and panegyric motifs, were certainly executed in monumental relief in and around Rome in the first century B.C.[100]

On a damaged relief in the Vatican Museum, an assemblage of divinities gathered to celebrate the adventus of a sea commander, who may himself have figured in the missing portions of the panel; the piece may be for Pompey.[101] On a Republican relief from Selinus (fig. 10) a general in linen cuirass and fantastic boots is flanked by Venus and Victory and crowned by the latter;[102] this must have been executed by or for someone like one of the Aquillii, a Roman with an active Sicilian clientela . Undated, it is


well paralleled by one of the Pompeian issues from Spain of 46–45 B.C., on which a general facing outward (very rare in coinage) is crowned by one of two Spanish cities flanking him.[103] On a large exedra relief from a triumviral general's grave (P. Ventidius Bassus?) in the Campus Martius, fragments show that the victorious imperator stood in the "Alexander with lance" pose inherited from the victory iconography of Hellenistic kings, to receive the submission of Celtic and Oriental prisoners; he was backed not only by a Roman soldier but also by a seminude hero or personification carrying a lance.[104]

Most striking of all, as preserving a full composition, is the panel on a monumental sella curulis tomb monument from the Caelian (fig. 3) (now lost, known from drawings and engravings), datable to around the mid-first century B.C.[105] The panel shows the submission of a female personification evidently of a place or people to a victorious general, who is crowned by the Genius of the Roman People as Roma on his other side (holding out a globe?) seems to introduce the kneeling gens; the alien setting is delineated by a walled city at left and a river god at right under a hillock from which springs a lion.[106] (The triumphal motif is carried through in the Tritons who shoulder tropaea under the seat.)

Now, two of the three relief monuments described have an assured funerary context. A piece executed for a living imperator, the Antonian Aquileia dish (fig. 17), is based in part on this kind of triumphal panegyric.[107] Like the Roman sacrifice scenes, it also draws on and then transcends the conventions of Classical Greek votive reliefs. It conflates the sacrificant gazing on his goddess with Triptolemus, centers his figure and makes it the largest, and interjects the iconography of Roman sacrifice (taking incense from an Amor-camillus, across a garlanded altar). In its ponderation and its placement vis-à-vis the altar, this figure indeed resembles the censor of the Paris panel (fig. 27). On the other end of Augustus' reign is the main relief of the Sorrento base, which purports to document a procession of Vestals led by Augustus to the Temple of Vesta. At the exact center Augustus pours a libation over a flaming altar, as Vesta (flanked by attendant goddesses) reaches out a hand to him from her throne (fig. 15a). The goddesses are all indeed bigger than the humans, including the imperial pontifex —but he in turn is markedly bigger than all the other humans in the scene! The hierarchic scale of proportions, the location in real urban topography at Rome, and the centering of the composition on its pious and magisterial patron all recall strategies used on the Paris census. Augustus' relationship to divinity here might at first seem


more "modest" than on the BR cup; yet, on the other hand, the vividly realized architectural setting asserts the immanent reality of Augustus' rapprochement with Vesta where the BR tableau keeps to an idealized sphere of symbolic reality.

By 42 B.C., public coinage caught up with these trends to show a living human actively saluted by his divine comes . On an issue put out by Q. Cornuficius (fig. 32) to celebrate his augurship, he stands with his augur's lituus, togate and capite velato, crowned with a wreath by Juno Sospita.[108] A Roman magistrate and priest is actively saluted by a patron divinity, a definitive step in the direction of the BR cup panel, where Augustus is actively saluted by Venus and Mars. A single generation spans the audience for this coin image, Augustus' Actium coin, and the date close to that of the Ara Pacis (13–9 B.C.) and Tiberius' triumph of 8/7 B.C. that is proposed for the three documentary panels of the BR cup pair. Cornuficius' coin (fig. 32) does not celebrate one of the grand dynasts of the period like Caesar or Pompey, whose propaganda images are often dismissed as atypical examples of megalomania. This image was put out by a "run-of-the-mill" Roman noble on his own account and shows the acceptance of such imagery in a wider conceptual sphere. Just so, the "megalomaniac" innovation of Caesar that his coins should include his own portrait was casually repeated by his staunchly conservative opponents Brutus and Cassius after they assassinated Caesar in opposition to his "megalomania."

Of course, another class of public images from Republican Rome portrays a living subject in real terms in the presence of divinity: the coin images that show a given triumphator riding in a procession in his quadriga, attended by the goddess Victoria (figs. 104–5).[109] A triumph was an extraordinary event, but not a rare one, in Republican experience; a Roman senator or common citizen had a good chance of seeing one every few years in the first century B.C., before Octavian's accession. We know that during the actual celebration of his triumphal entry into Rome and procession to the Capitol the triumphator was felt to enjoy a special charisma, to be invested to some extent with the aura of Jove himself. It is in this belief, we must assume, that Republican nobles would show themselves in the presence of divinity while riding in the triumphal quadriga, even at a time when portrait busts of living Romans were still avoided on coinage as inappropriate to a Republican style of leadership.[110] As with the examples discussed above, we should associate such images with a time when in fact the individual power seeking endemic to the Roman aristocracy was beginning to undercut the Republican system; to an Augustan


audience, however, they would seem like artifacts of a genuinely Republican system. The decoration of triumphal arches and public places (e.g., his Forum) by Augustus with freestanding quadriga groups in which he was accompanied by Victory (fig. 105) would not have seemed at all alien;[111] the avoidance of this kind of triumphal iconography in the triumph scene on BR II:2 has its own peculiar implications. Once again it is evident that the BR allegory goes beyond its extant predecessor images in the sense of evolution rather than invention.

Finally, there is the depiction of contemporary human beings as divinities or as beings moving in the divine sphere. Two issues from the civil war period depict a historical individual as a divinity, one posthumous, the next a portrait from the individual's lifetime. Issues of Sextus Pompeius from Spain and Sicily (ca. 45 B.C.), which imitate early Roman Janus-and-ship asses, render "Janus" as a double portrait of Sextus' dead father, Pompey, crowned with the inscription MAGNUS (fig. 33).[112] Only a few years later, in 41 B.C., an aureus of C. Numonius Vaala portrays a contemporary female as Victoria (RRC 514/1; Rome mint; fig. 34). The winged bust has no inscription; her coiffure is an extremely detailed rendering of a contemporary nodus style, with braids wrapped about a chignon, and her features are highly particularized in a dry and "veristic" treatment—she even has a slight jowl. The wings signify that this is Victoria. I do not know other Republican or Augustan coin busts of a female divinity or abstraction with a contemporary Republican female coiffure. This seems a portrait, which would explain the omission of an inscription labeling this "Victoria"—perhaps it is Octavia.[113] (If one knew more about the political career of the otherwise obscure moneyer, one could more surely nominate a specific prominent woman of the period.)

These coin images of the 40s link up with another commemorative practice at Rome, the placing of self-portraits within the cella of a temple in the capital. This Hellenistic regal practice of making oneself a sunnaos theos with the temple's divine occupant, as did Demetrius Poliorketes, for example, at the Parthenon, was imitated already in the middle Republic by Scipio Africanus; he put his own portrait in the cella of Jupiter in the very Capitolium, where it remained well into the second century A.D. (App. Hist. Rom. 6.23). Caesar had his statue put in the Temple of Quirinus; in the Temple of Clementia his statue was intended to actually clasp hands (dextrarum iunctio ) with the divinized virtue (App. BCiv. 2. 106); and he had his own statue carried side by side with that of Victoria in procession (this goes back to pompe ceremonies of kings like Philip II of Macedon). Now, Augustus is known to have made a point of publicly forbid-


ding some similar honors to himself within the city of Rome, as when he rejected Agrippa's stagy proposal to put Augustus' portrait in the Pantheon (fig. 124) in the company of the divus Caesar, Venus, and Mars. He just as publicly, however, issued instructions that he could and indeed ought to be worshipped as a sunnaos theos throughout the East (it should be noted that already a temple of Caesar and Nike stood at Tralles before Pharsalos; Plut. Caes. 47.1) in temples that had Latin, as well as Greek, dedicatory inscriptions. From 36 B.C. his statues stood in temples all over Italy (App. BCiv. 5.132); he actively organized imperial cult associations in the West and even attended the dedication of his own cult at Lugdunum; and finally, temples to Augustus and Roma sprang up throughout Italy in his lifetime with his full approval.

The rejection of such cult or implied cult in Rome was in fact an ostentatious rejection of an existing Republican option. In Rome itself Augustus formally instigated and encouraged something with no Republican precedent, that the plebs Romana organized into city wards should worship his Genius and his Lares;[114] at least one cult altar from Italy (Tarentum) actually has a composition very similar to that of the cup (fig. 31), a Venus-Augustus-Victory triad.[115] And Augustus sidestepped, as it were, the mechanism of becoming a sunnaos theos (putting one's portrait into a cult temple, as he did for his doctor Musa)[116] by physically linking his own home on the Palatine with his temple of Apollo there, to make Apollo's and Augustus' houses wings of the same complex.[117]

It has been demonstrated that an observer of Augustus' own day would have been exposed to good Republican precedents in public art for the kind of visual panegyric seen on the cup panel. If our hypothetical observer noticed any difference, it would have been one of degree and not of kind. The presence of such monuments would have given the legitimacy of tradition to the public display of such an image by Augustus, even if he greatly expanded on the tradition by upping the number of divine participants in a given scene. Public images of the emperor enthroned and togate have been seen to have been erected in Augustus' own day in the city of Rome; statue groups where the emperor or another Roman noble was honored with a portrait surrounded by ethnic personifications have been shown to have an Augustan pedigree as well.

I have tried to make clear why the allegory BR I:1 is no less likely to replicate an officially sponsored and officially displayed image from the city of Rome than the other three cup panels. The Republican monuments described evidently arose in a climate in which men of superior achievement claimed a special relationship with divine powers; thus Sulla and


Pompey were precursors to Caesar and Augustus in claiming Venus as a special patron or divine comes (cf. also figs. 10, 28). This kind of thinking has obvious roots in the propaganda of Greek monarchs from Philip II of Macedon onward. Republican Romans may have picked up this kind of thinking from their exposure to the East, but in the late Republic such concepts had become part of the natural vocabulary of Roman thought.[118] Even the architectural building programs of Republican triumphatores can be seen to depend on such concepts, as it became traditional to spend a portion of one's manubiae on a temple to the divinity to whose special patronage one attributed one's victory.

This conceptual framework is explicitly delineated in late Republican political oratory as well, in Cicero's speeches. Cicero quite often applied the adjective divinus (godlike) to the persons, achievements, and qualities of individuals whom he praised to the Senate. He even went so far as to call a fellow noble a god, deus, expressing his gratitude to Lentulus: "parens ac dens nostrae vitae, fortunae" (Red. Sen. 8; cf. Red. Quir. 11, 18, 25; Sest. 144). Such language startles, in public oratory by a speaker of noted conservatism and staunch adherence to "old Republican" virtues. Particularly interesting are the Philippics; as these postdate Caesar's assassination, one might expect Cicero in his support for that blow against superbia to have avoided such language. Yet he salutes Brutus' "divina atque immortalis laus" (10.3.7) and "divina virtus" (10.5.11) and Sulpicius' "paene divina scientia" (9.5.10). The 1Vth and Martian legions are "caelestes divinasque," led by the "divinus adulescens" Octavian (5.11.28), who is a special agent of Jupiter with "divina mens" and "virtus" (3.2.3) (cf. 4.1.3, 2.4, 7.3. 10). Just so, Cicero's wish to divinize his dead daughter compares well with the spontaneous conferral of godhead on the dead Caesar by the plebs and soldiery. Though other oratory does not survive, it is plain that the kind of language I describe must go back to the late second century at least—such panegyric is already satirized by Plautus and Caecilius,[119] indicating that the Paris census (fig. 27), for example, was analogous to the public rhetoric of its day.

Once we recognize how even Cicero spoke in such terms in the heat of emotion or in the studied award of public praise, the origins of the political theologies of Caesar and of Augustus become more clear, as natural developments from past and present norms. The Republican background explains propaganda of Augustus' own day, and the message of the "minor" arts produced at his court. Horace acclaimed Augustus as a "praesens divus" commanding on earth just as Jupiter commands in heaven (Carm. 3.5.1); Ovid expanded on that formulation—Jupiter has Augustus rule


earth for him: "pater est et rector uterque" (Met. 15.858–60). Horace celebrated the worship of Augustus throughout Italy, which in fact existed. At the evening libation after meals Horace observed, "te mensis adhibet deum, / te multa prece, re prosequitur mero / defusa pateris" (Carm. 4.5.32f.); the people had made such demonstrations already for Marius a century earlier (Plut. Mar. 27.5).[120] Vergil built the entire proem of Georgic 3 around the conceit of a cult to Augustus with a grand temple and portico complex, with games in his honor. Compare Agrippa's proposal to worship Augustus in the Pantheon; Augustus carefully refused, and substituted Caesar for himself, but he certainly arranged for Agrippa to make the proposal before the Senate in the first place.

Such panegyric was translated into visual images like the Gemma Augustea (fig. 16) made at court. We often class such poetry and art as "private," distinct from publicly erected commemorative; we cannot compare public oratory because none survives from Augustus' day, but it is hard to believe that Ciceronian language did not continue in use to salute Augustus publicly. It should be remembered that panegyric poetry and luxury objects like gems and silver were not totally private in our sense of the word. Poetry was read aloud, and luxury objects displayed, in one's home, to an audience; and this audience consisted of one's peers as well as one's inferiors (see the Introduction on the function of the cups). The uppermost classes of Rome attended the supper parties and readings where such panegyric products were displayed; and these were the only classes about whose reaction to his "divinization" Augustus had to worry. It was out of deference to their feelings that he carefully modulated the chords of the symphony of adulation that he conducted so skillfully—but, to extend the metaphor, he never told the orchestra to stop playing. Indeed, this class joined in the music making itself: picture, for instance, a reading of Horace's ode to Augustus as Hermes, son of Maia (Carm. 1.2), staged in the Villa Farnesina house, whose ceiling stuccoes depict Octavian as Novus Mercurius with a caduceus (fig. 35);[121] Such domestic imagery[122] paraphrased monuments like the publicly displayed Jupiter-Octavian herm portrait (figs. 21–22) that was depicted on Octavian's Actian victory coinage.[123]

As for monumental commemorative relief or painting from Rome, the only extant Augustan example is the Ara Pacis. All talk of Augustus "avoiding" kinds of public images is in fact based on this one monument—already in 1955 Ryberg warned against this approach![124] Yes, there Augustus is in a set of procession friezes restricted to humans; and Mars,


Venus, Roma, and Aeneas are in separate panels (fig. 71). Yet their very association with the procession friezes proclaims Augustus' divine ancestry and uniquely favored position as the gods' agent, superior to that of any living mortal.[125] The multiplication and juxtaposition of pictorial zones on every available surface seem to be a basic esthetic structure in the entire altar complex; to infer from this compositional structure some unwritten law that in all public images Augustus was not to share a compositional frame with anyone but humans is as illogical as to infer that he was not to be shown in a frame with vegetation because it is confined here to the "myth" panels and to the socle zone under the procession frieze. "Special agency" defines Augustus' role on the BR panel, as on the altar: as Augustus is togate, he is an analogue to Jupiter, not his incarnation. Just so, on the Gemma Augustea (fig. 16) Augustus holds a lituus, which shows him to be a favored interpreter of Jupiter's commands, not their author. Altars[126] and dedications[127] for Augustus throughout Italy document the impact of the monuments[128] and poetry produced at court.[129]

In fact, Augustus did pose as Jupiter's chosen intermediary in public ritual in the city of Rome. At the celebration of his triumph of A.D. 8 in A.D. 12, Tiberius mounted to the Capitolium, as specified in triumphal rite, to lay his laurels on the lap of Jupiter Capitolinus: but first, he fell at the knees of Augustus and did him homage in a totally unprecedented public ceremony that made Augustus a kind of pseudo-Jupiter, giver of victories (Suet. Tib. 20), just as he appears on the Gemma Augustea (fig. 16).[130] Apposite here is Augustus' transfer of age-old rites of Jupiter to his own Forum Augustum and Temple of Mars Ultor, built on land he had purchased himself Since the legendary days of Romulus Romans had deposited the spolia opima in Romulus' Temple of Jupiter Feretrius on the Capitol; now spolia opima were to be put in Augustus' Temple of Mars Ultor. Since the foundation of the Republic, consuls setting out on campaign had sacrificed and announced their vows (nuncupatio votorum ) to Jupiter at the Capitolium; now those vows were to be announced in Augustus' Forum at the Temple of Mars Ultor, before the statue of Augustus sharing his triumphal quadriga with Victoria (Dio 54.8).

Given such evidence from the Republic, and the facts of Augustus' own public stance, I do not see how one can assert that Augustus would have shunned the public display of an image like the BR allegory panel in the city of Rome. Why worry about shocking by innovation, when even the traditional funerary monuments of magistrates and generals showed compositions and motifs so similar? As the other three panels of the BR cup


pair manifestly copy a group of monumental reliefs put up in the city of Rome, I believe that the allegory BR I:1 copies a relief from the same group of monumental prototypes. No solid evidence, in composition or iconography, exists to disprove this thesis; the artistic parallels for single figures and for groups derive overwhelmingly from the repertoire of "state" imagery and public commemorative rather than from the decorative arts traditions.


The Peoples of Empire

I know no sustained analysis of groups of personifications in Republican and Julio-Claudian art, nor any typological critique of the conceptual and formal contexts of ethnic personification iconography.[1] Most scholars have been interested only in identifying individual personifications, especially on coins and on the Hadrianeum reliefs (fig. 70; see chapter 2). Toynbee's pioneering analysis of these reliefs (basically a catalogue of attributes) is still useful as an iconographic lexicon. However, its typological analysis was limited to the observation—somewhat banal to a historian—that Hadrian's numismatic province series (twenty-five types) and the relief decoration of his temple reflect his attention to the subject peoples and administrative structures of the Empire. She saw this as a brand-new attitude, and the Hadrianeum series as a brand-new sort of depiction; her single paragraph on Julio-Claudian monuments lists rather than describes.[2] In 1934, as an introduction to a Hadrianic work of art, this was acceptable; over fifty years later, this point of view still holds sway. Now, spurred it seems by the discoveries at Aphrodisias, and in delayed reaction to historians' interest in the ideologies of the Republic and early Empire, brief lists of art-historical testimonia for the period have begun to accumulate. C. Nicolet recently supplied a full critique of Roman conceptions of their geographic and political universe, from a historian's point of view;[3] I see my efforts as parallel and supportive to that project.


The province group (pls. 2–3, 18) consists of seven females: a front rank of three and a back rank of four in a loose line behind them (see p. 215 n.


16 for damage after 1899). This forms a mass like a rough half-cylinder, tilted to present its flat face/front rank at a three-quarter angle. Formally, this is a typical Roman transformation of a linear Hellenistic composition into a three-dimensional construct possessing spatial logic; contrast the pack of personifications (virtues) who salute an enthroned person (Homer) on the Ptolemaic Archelaos relief (fig. 58), with varied gestures and costume very similar to the BR group, but arranged in two flat, overlapping ranks.[4]

The outermost figure of the front row is in very high relief. She wears the costume of the non-Romans on the other side of this cup (BR I:2): leggings/trousers, soft boots, a cloak with tufted fringe pinned on the right shoulder, a short tunic (the break in the reflected light on her leg represents the hemline). Her Greek-style chignon designates her as female in spite of the male costume. She stands with feet planted slightly apart, her right arm bent with the forearm raised, the hand held out flat with all four fingers together and the thumb apart.

Next in, the central figure is visible from the chest up, standing with head slightly bowed. Her gown has a distinctive neckline, a wide, shallow curve underlined by catenaries; some kind of mantle falls over the right shoulder (cf. the lower end of the swag, flattened, visible by Mars' cloak). Her thick tresses are bound by a fillet; on it there appears to be mounted a small crescent over the brow. Her right hand is raised before the face and curled around something: the mark just over the hand is the collar of the innermost figure, but there seems to be a little arc marked between hand and profile, probably part of the mantle (no sign of a veil).

The innermost figure in this row is visible as a head wearing an elephant exuvia (the stripped skin of the head)—tusks, raised trunk, and flared, wrinkled ear. She gazes over Mars' shoulder directly at the emperor.

In the back row only the outermost figure is depicted in any detail, but all have long, thick hair, bound and dressed in various ways. The outermost stands with her back partly toward the viewer, her head turned toward Augustus in profile; the face is slightly flattened by wear. Her long mantle (hem visible below) fits closely over an ankle-length gown. In her loose hair is a (crushed) wreath of narrow, pointed leaves.


Only four figures are given enough detail that one can see and name their attributes. The artist must have been concerned primarily to represent


these four peoples, adding several others to suggest a much larger group represented in essence by the four.[5]


The outermost province of the front row, the figure Gaul (now missing) wears generic Celtic dress; its "attribute" is its identification with the people doing homage to Augustus on the other side of the cup. The artist reinforces this natural visual association, indeed makes it possible, by singling out this figure for male dress. As chapter 4 shows, the aliens of BR I:2 belong to a complex of images that have to do with Augustus' return from Gaul and Spain in 13 B.C. (the Ara Pacis) and with Drusus' activities in the north (coins); as Drusus did no work in Spain, the common denominator of the complex of images is Gaul.


Immediately behind Gaul, Spain is the outermost figure in the back row. This identification would be natural, given the figure's general Celtic appearance, because the two provinces are so consistently paired in Augustan rhetoric and art—see the Primaporta Augustus (original, ca. 19 B.C.; fig. 64), the monument at Lugdunum Convenarum (25 B.C.),[6] the occasion of the Ara Pacis (13 B.C.), and the standard pairing of the two in Augustus' Res gestae (12.2: "Hispania Galliaque"; 25.2: "Galliae, Hispaniae"; 26.2: "Gallias et Hispanias provincias"; 29.1: "Hispania et Gallia"). Besides her dress and her placement next to Gaul (compare how Roma and the Genius help to identify each other by being next to each other), there is her wreath of leaves. The only province personification on record defined by a wreath of leaves is Hispania; she sometimes has an olive-leaf crown to denote the crop for which the peninsula was as famous as Egypt for grain. The parallel closest in time is a mid-first-century mosaic in the Square of the Guilds at Ostia,[7] a mediocre piece commissioned by relatively humble patrons (to portray their own sphere of trading activity), who are highly unlikely to have invented the iconography and should be understood as following an already established prototype formulated somewhat earlier in the century. Spain's loose hair, in contrast to Gallia's chignon, recalls the coiffure of Hispan[ia] on L. Postumius Albinus' coinage of 81 B.C. (RRC 372/2); compare the inscribed Hispania (25 B.C.) at Lugdunum Convenarum.[8]

The iconography of Spain varies in the Republic and Empire. She is


often an Amazon figure with distinctively Spanish weapons (especially the round Celtiberian shield);[9] examples on Republican coinage have military connotations, of conquest or recruitment (Pompeians) (figs. 55–57). In a similar context on the Primaporta Augustus (figs. 64a, d), namely, conquest, she also has distinctive weaponry (an eagle-headed sword) as her attribute, as does Gallia (boar standard) (fig. 64d).[10] The olive wreath refers rather to the fruits Spain could give Rome. This iconography prevails later when the emphasis is on Spain's peaceful existence and contribution to the Empire (the negotiatores mosaic, which represents their spheres of trade, Spain and Africa/Egypt; the coin image of Hadrian, sponsored, it should be noted, by a Spanish emperor). The choice of a "peaceful" symbol of fecundity for the BR cup has the same connotations, especially as it stands in distinct contrast to a Republican option of a warlike Spain.


The innermost figure, with the elephant headdress, is Africa. This headdress first occurs in Ptolemaic royal iconography, on Alexander the Great or the Ptolemies themselves; it then passes to Sicilian coinage, which first uses it for personifications; from there it passes to Roman coinage.[11] During the Republic this type appears as Africa, starting in 71 B.C. (RRC 402); thus Africa should be the bust trodden by a heroized Augustus on a Vienna gem.[12] This headdress can later denote Egypt, and many so name the spectacular emblema dish in the BR hoard,[13] but a contemporary, similar bust definitely has Africa's attributes.[14] As Africa, the BR cup figure is (unlike Egypt) a Roman possession of longer standing, like Gaul or Spain; the Republican evidence and the nature of the other two personifications mandate the figure's identification as Africa.


The middle figure in the front row, a crescent moon possibly on its brow, could be Asia. As two peoples of northern and western Europe are clearly delineated, the middle figure ought to be an Eastern figure matching Africa to make up south and east, or to make up the three continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa.[15] Certainly, it is not represented as Celtic. The distinctive arrangement of the drapery at the neck, in wide catenary curves from the shoulders, does resemble the draping of the mantle given Arabia in the Trajanic period,[16] and although this does not mean the figure can be identified as Arabia, it shows that perhaps the drapery is itself to be read


as some kind of Eastern attribute. The small crescent that the figure may wear on its brow could suggest to a Roman viewer Asian cults (e.g., Men, or Diana of Ephesos). Perhaps this figure represents Commagene, by extension from the Ara Pacis, where the Gallic baby of BR I:2 is paired with a child representing Agrippa's activities there in Asia (figs. 71, 78–80). As the continents Europe and Africa are clearly represented, a reference to Asia seems desirable.

The Peoples of Empire

In order to say what the BR personifications stand for as a group, one must know how they resemble or differ from contemporary Augustan and earlier ethnic personifications. In particular one ought to discuss the tradition of groups of such personifications. How and why were ethnic personifications used in the arts that would have been the heritage of the audience of the BR group? The only comprehensive study published on ethnic personifications is Toynbee's, on the Hadrianic province reliefs, but she only reviewed the Republican and early imperial evidence to find parallels for the attributes of individual Hadrianic personifications. Therefore I seek to explain Greek and Roman traditions up through Augustus, to show how groups of personifications—corporate images or assemblages—were used in the late Republic and early Empire to express a newly self-conscious Roman imperialism. The BR group and the Ara Pacis personification group mark a further development, which I treat in the section, entitled "Benevolent Imperium, " on the tone and message of Augustan corporate assemblages.

The presence of ethnic/national personifications is not a particularly surprising feature of this scene. Romans had already learned the mode of ethnic personification from the Greeks, including the convention of making such personifications female, as here. Consider, after all, the experience of Roman soldiers, generals, diplomats, and tourists visiting the hot tourist spots of Greece. At Delphi, for instance, they could see the following monuments: a group put up by the Cyrenaians of their "founder," Battos, standing in a chariot being crowned by Cyrene, his horses led by Libya (Paus. 10.15.6); an Aitolian trophy for victory over the Gauls, showing Aitolia decking a trophy with arms (Paus. 10.18.7); a trophy put up by the Phliasians portraying a defeated Aegina (Paus. 10.13.6); a Tarentine trophy (commemorating the defeat of the Messapians), which included chained captive women (Paus. 10.10.6); and one might compare


the Tarentine trophy showing the heroes Taros and Phalanthos standing on the body of Opis, king of the Iapygi (Paus. 10.13.10).[17] These Tarentine pieces, in turn, would have had echoes in Tarentum itself—that is, well within the Roman sphere after the conquest of Italy.

In the long and continuous record of Roman coinage such personifications start to be used in the first century B.C., although Romans would have met with such images already in the previous century in their expansion into the Eastern Mediterranean. Good testimony to this process of assimilation is the fresco cycle of the Villa of P. Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale, a replica of the mid-first century B.C. of paintings in a Hellenistic palace of the third century B.C. (fig. 61):[18] in one panel an armed Macedonia lords it over a personification of Asia/Persia, probably read by the Roman patron as Parthia.[19] Hellenistic royal dominion is also evoked in the Neo-Attic Chigi relief (fig. 59),[20] produced for a Roman client in the late Republic or early Empire;[21] here, Europe and Asia (labeled korai in mural crowns)[22] hold up a shield that depicts Alexander's battle with Darios at Arbela (he epi pasi mache ).[23] Compare a relief from the same workshop in the Villa Albani (fig. 60): Hercules drinks with satyrs and maenads named after the continents and lands traversed during the Labors (labels extant: "Europe," "Italos");[24] they toast this Stoic victor omnium terrarum . There may have been Roman depictions of this kind in the second century B.C. (especially paintings and models made for triumphal processions), but the evidence of the coins may not be so misleading: ethnic personifications on personal signets do not arise much before the coins.

Greek ethnic/national personifications were of various kinds, falling into two basic categories—the celebratory or friendly and the domineering or hostile. As in the Hellenistic paintings reproduced at Boscoreale, one might commemorate victory by personifying the people beaten, shown in a submissive posture, with the intent to celebrate that submission; in a satiric painting of the fourth century B.C. of Timotheos, son of Konon, Fortune cast a net about a number of personified cities to symbolize their conquest (Plut. Sull. 6). Greek cities and states might also personify themselves, in various ways. Besides celebrating the Tyche, the living spirit of one's own city, a Greek people would often make an image of its friendly relations with another Greek political entity by showing itself personified in some friendly attitude toward its ally: thus the panels crowning the stelai of Athenian treaty inscriptions from the fifth and fourth centuries[25] or the tableau of Corinth and Ptolemy in the procession staged by Ptolemy II Philadelphos ca. 276 B.C. (Ath. 201C).[26] Finally, a


corporate entity made up of a number of distinct city-states might be visualized as an assembly of personifications: the same Ptolemaic procession of 276 celebrated Alexander's liberation of the Greek states of Asia Minor with such an assembla e (Ath. 201C). Compare Ptolemy IV Philopator's Homereion, where he ringed Homer's statue with personifications of the cities that claimed Homer as a native son.[27]

The best-known "corporate assemblage" in the late Hellenistic Greek world is at Lagina. In the 120s, the symmachia of the autonomous cities of the League of Asia, which funded the Temple of Hekate there, had itself represented on the temple frieze by a series of personifications grouped with Roma.[28] This sanctuary had close ties to Rome—in return for benefactions by Sulla it instituted a cult of Roma with games in her honor, and the site will have been visited by Roman travelers thereafter.[29] That Romans picked up on this kind of "list" offered by a politico-religious organization is shown by two Augustan projects, the Altar of Rome and Augustus at Lugdunum and the Augustan arch at Susa in the Cottian Alps. The altar's inscription named all the Gallic tribes enrolled in 10 B.C. in the cult of Augustus;[30] the arch, set up to mark the passage of the Cottian Alps into Roman suzerainty under the client-king Cottos, was inscribed with the names of all the relevant Alpine tribes.[31] The inscriptions, as well as the architectural forms of the monuments themselves, must have been suggested to the native patrons by Roman military / diplomatic agents in place.

The kind of image seen at Lagina was also transmitted by the Greeks, through Greek placement of monuments in Rome honoring Roman patrons. Augustus' governor of Hispania Ulterior in 22–24 B.C., P. Aelius Lamia, was honored by a monument set up among the temples of the Largo Argentina, a long basis with personifications of the cities of Hispania Ulterior standing over their inscribed titles; the model for this will have included the early Augustan dedication for a Rufus, proconsul of Bithynia, honored as patron and euergetes by eight cities of Bithynia. At some time between A.D. 17 and 22, fourteen cities of Asia Minor put up a similar monument to Tiberius in the Forum Julium for aid received after an earthquake (fig. 47). A decade later a copy was made of Tiberius' monument in Puteoli (extant today), where the personified cities were transferred to a frieze running around the base of a statue of Tiberius (fig. 62).[32] A similar Italian commission is documented by the "Throne of Claudius," fragments of an Augustan statue basis from the imperial honorific series at Caere (fig. 63).[33]


This monument used to be assigned to the emperor Claudius, who we know to have been to the Etruscans a devoted benefactor knowledgeable about (not to say enamored of) their culture; this "Throne of Claudius" has now been convincingly redated to ca. 10 B.C., one of several menuments put up in the theater at Caere by the local magistrate Manlius.[34] The exact occasion is not specifically commemorated on coinage, but the monument can, like Tiberius', be reconstructed from a reduced version erected by an interested community, in this case one of the twelve cities itself, Cerveteri/Caere, funded by the head of the chief local clan (gens Manlia ). Its reliefs do not seem to have actually ornamented a "throne," or for that matter an altar;[35] they seem rather to have decorated some kind of elaborate ornamental base[36] for an honorific imperial statue of Augustus.[37] Statues of the twelve cities were carved each upon a pedestal,[38] under garlands. There can be no doubt, given the wealth of comparable material, that they quote like the later Puteoli basis (fig. 62) from a full-scale group that was arranged about a monumental emperor portrait in Rome,[39] and perhaps in one or more of the cities represented.[40] (The Augustan Lares cult altar of Manlius draws similarly on official prototypes established at the capital.)[41]

The same tradition, in which a favored foreign group put up a personification to honor its Roman patron, was probably embodied in the monument set up in Augustus' Forum by Hispania Ulterior Baetica (ILS 103 = Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, 42), a gold statue of Augustus probably accompanied by personifications, like the coins showing Pompey or his son between personifications of Tarraco and Baetica (fig. 57; CRR 1037a, 1038a). The monument given Aelius by his province would have been for general patronage similar to that attributed to Augustus by the Spanish, "quod beneficio eius et perpetua cura provincia pacata est"; the two monuments were probably contemporary.[42] The Boscoreale cup is not the only Julio-Claudian relief to translate such groups into narrative two-dimensional tableaux; on a Julio-Claudian monument on the Via Appia, a relief showed the cities of Italy in procession with laurel in a supplicatio to the emperor,[43] conceived (as later on the Arch of Beneventum; see fig. 91) as a group of gracious, classically draped females with mural crowns.[44]

To go back in time, the Romans of the Republic reacted to Greek formulations in various ways. Most obviously honors received from Greek cities taught them to personify their own state, "Roma," as a goddess. They also took up the Greek formula for visualizing friendly relations between political/national entities to commemorate amicitia and fides: an


issue of 70 B.C. shows Italia and Roma clasping hands (fig. 51; RRC 403) to demonstrate the reconciliation following the Social Wars; the aid rendered to the Pompeians in the 40s by Spain is suggested by coins showing Hispania welcoming representatives of the Pompeian forces (fig. 55; RRC 469).

Basically friendly also are coins on which personifications designate the sphere of authority held by a given official—"my province"[45] —into which category the Pompeian Spanish coinage falls (see also p. 79). Personifications here, as it were, delimit a career.[46] Cn. Plancius' coin of 55 B.C. paired Macedonia, a jeweled female bust in a kausia, with a reverse whose symbols (goat and weaponry) referred to Crete, the other locus of his activities (fig. 54; RRC 432/1). Aurei and denarii of Q. Cornuficius in 42 B.C. have a bust of Africa backed by two spears (a variant has the goddess Tanit; obverse, appropriately, Jupiter Ammon; RRC 509/1); C. Antonius made similar reference to Macedon on an issue of 43 B.C. (RRC 484). Another Pompeian issue, ca. 46 B.C., showed Pompey or his son between personifications of Tarraco and Baetica (fig. 57; CRR 1037a, 1038a). Early imperial texts describe how Romans could visualize in personified form an area bound up with an individual career: Drusus the Elder was said to have been visited by Germania, personified as a giant woman in native dress, who addressed him in Latin to tell him how far his conquest of Germany could extend (Suet. Claud. 1.2; Dio 55.1.3); Curtius Rufus claimed to have been visited as a young man (early first century A.D.) by "Africa," who prophesied his future proconsulship over her province (Tac. Ann. 11.21).

The earliest "career coin" is L. Postumius Albinus' denarius of 81 B.C. (RRC 372/2), which celebrates A. Postumius Albinus' praetorian imperium in Spain (pr. 180); a dignified veiled bust of Hispan [ia ] localizes the reverse tableau of the togate Albinus standing between a legionary eagle and a magistrate's fasces with axe.[47] Next is Mn. Aquillius' denarius of 71 B.C. (fig. 52; RRC 401/1); it depicts the consul of 101 B.C. extremely dramatically as a warrior succoring a wounded Sicilia. The composition is strongly reminiscent of Hellenistic sculpture groups narrating epic themes (e.g., the "Pasquino" type); this coin has a very good chance of referring to an actual sculptural monument erected in Rome.[48] The concept of succoring one's province is probably expressed also on L. Staius Murcus' issues of 42-41 B.C., where a heroic male figure with a sword raises up a female personification before a trophy (MURCUS IMP.; RRC 510; fig. 56). These "succoring" compositions are repeated under Augustus


when L. Aquillius (18/14 B.C.) to honor his ancestry[49] reissues Mn. Aquillius' type (fig. 53).[50] Such imagery is passed back in turn to the Greek cities,[51] a process paralleled elsewhere:[52] on an aes from Sardis,[53] Tiberius reaches out to the kneeling city.[54]

In all of these Roman formulations, of course, Rome and its representatives are dominant, although friendly, in the historical situation commemorated. For a real treaty between equals,[55] one must look to a denarius minted ca. 90/88 B.C. by the Marsian Confederation, which shows itself as a male personification with its ally Mithridates VI. There is also the curious phenomenon of Romans extending one of their own religious concepts, that of the genius of a people or place: a coin of Q. Metellus Scipio of 47-46 B.C. depicts the Genius terrae Africae (RRC 460/4; lionheaded female with disk headdress and ankh scepter), and another coin of C. Antonius represents the Genius of Macedon (CRR 1286). This mode of personification seems not to develop further, but it is an interesting formulation in its own time. Akin to Greek ideas of the Tyche of a city-state, it ties in with the "personal" use of personifications described above.

By and large, though, most Republican references to other peoples and places in art commissioned by Romans are not only personal but triumphal in nature. Such references include depictions of trophies, captives, submissive kings, and so on, and personifications are but one aspect of the genre of references to foreigners. This is not particularly surprising, nor is it in itself evidence of a particularly brutal imperialistic mind-set. In the Republic, the state itself did not commission works of art, and this goes for the images on coins as well. Individuals enjoying or seeking public prominence commissioned those works, and they wanted to celebrate themselves or their ancestors or to compliment a fellow member of the elite. Contacts with foreigners that were of propaganda value in seeking public power consisted of victories over those foreigners. Even the images of friendship or support cited above describe the support of lesser entities, not of equals.

This is where Roman formulations of corporate entities differ from the Greek. The Romans were not, or at least never thought of themselves as, members of a body of equals: they dominated a corporate body of clients and possessions. They belonged to a corporate body as heads of empire, not as one of a number of states equal in a symmachia . And the occasion where Roman audiences of the Republic were most accustomed to seeing a collection of images depicting a number of peoples and places was the triumph: the procession celebrating one individual's victories, explaining and praising them by means of paintings of cities taken, images of cities


and rivers, strings of actual captives led to symbolize the defeat of their entire peoples.[56]

It is also to the ceremony of the triumph, with its documentary displays, that we generally attribute the characteristically Roman interest in precise variations in barbarian or foreign costume, jewelry, armor, coiffure, and physiognomy, which is observable in Roman panegyric literature and art as well as in the detailed records kept of so many triumphs. Such ethnographic precision, as seen in depictions of "typical" or historic foreign warriors and leaders (cf. the Parthian on the Primaporta cuirass), fuses with the Greek tradition of feminizing exemplary abstractions and thus produces a distinctively Roman type of individual ethnic personification: the female personification in male ethnic dress. This was a standard option by the Augustan period, as we know from cuirass statues (the Primaporta Augustus (fig. 64) and Turin statue), Arretine ware (the Puteoli cup; cf. figs. 65–66), and the BR group. It occurs earliest on Pompeian coinage by Minatius Sabinus; there an imperator receives a shield from a kneeling personification (right) in female dress and is saluted (left) by a female personification in male ethnic dress (fig. 57; RRC 470/1b). As other aspects of this coin composition are familiar from early imperial commemorative reliefs, it is likely that all aspects of the composition correspond to contemporary norms for (lost) monumental paintings and reliefs.[57] The coin and a companion type[58] also show what we see in the BR group, the combination of "male" and "female" personification types. The reasons for such combination seem to vary. In these examples of the first century B.C. it seems to be made for the sake of emphasis and variatio or to "couple" two personifications (e.g., the BR Gallia and Hispania); in the Hadrianeum province series, "male" dress has sometimes been seen as distinguishing provinces with embattled frontiers or those under imperial control, but in the early groups at any rate no automatic warlike/peaceful dichotomy can be meant.

All this is the background for the monuments of Pompey, and later those of Augustus, featuring long inscriptions naming as precisely as possible every tribe and nation beaten by that general. After defeating Sertorius in Spain, Pompey set up a great tropaeum in the Pyrenees inscribed with the names of the 876 (!) oppida that he had reduced in Hispania Ulterior (Pliny HN 7.96, 3.18; Sall. H. 3.89M); this seems now to have been a tower monument,[59] like the "stone towers decorated above with enemy arms" (Florus 1.37) set up already in 121 B.C. by Domitius Ahenobarbus and Fabius Maximus in Gaul.[60] For his third, Eastern triumph, he enumerated his deeds and conquests in a Latin inscription in Rome in the


Temple of Minerva (transcribed in Pliny HN 7.97); he also set up a longer inscription of the same sort in Greek in multiple copies at cult sites throughout the Greek East (Diod. 40.4.1). These are the Republican precedents evoked by Augustus' tropaea in the Alps that bore the names of conquered Alpine tribes—one of ca. 25 or 29 B.C. (Dio 43.26) and one of 14 B.C. for the campaigns of Drusus and Tiberius, the great tower monument at La Turbie (Pliny HN 3.136)[61] crowned with his portrait as Pompey's had been with Pompey's portrait (HN 37.15). Such inscribed lists depended directly on the paraphernalia of triumph—compare Pompey's inscriptions with the praefatio, or explanatory placard, borne before the procession in his third triumph (transcribed in Pliny HN 7.98). Pompey's inscriptions in the East parallel Augustus' Res gestae, also promulgated throughout the Greek East at cult sites: note that the early Augustan Diodoros calls Pompey's inscriptions tas idias praxeis, which is conceptually cognate with the Latin res gestae: hoti ho Pompeios tas idias praxeis has sunetelesen epi tes Asias anagraphas anetheken, hon estin antigraphon tode (40.4.1).[62]

Such triumphal texts have numerous visual analogues, in figured monuments like Pompey's images of the fourteen peoples over whom he triumphed,[63] placed in his theater complex, or Augustus' Porticus ad Nationes,[64] itself obviously meant to trump Pompey's monument. Compare on the contemporary tomb reliefs discussed in chapter 2 the defeated personification at an imperator's feet (fig. 3) or the shuffling captives led to his spear. I explore the Augustan evidence, citing Republican precedents where they exist.

A valid document of Augustus' own thinking is provided by the instructions left in his will for his funeral, formulated early in his reign and duly carried out in A.D. 14. He specified a parade of images of the peoples he had conquered, very like the images carried in a traditional triumph; if faithfully copied by Severus for Pertinax's funeral, then they were bronze statues of different peoples in ethnic dress.[65] Compare the funeral of the great Aemilius Paullus, whom Augustus may have had in mind as an example (Plut. Aem. 39.4.5); his bier was carried by representative clients from the peoples he had conquered—Iberians,[66] Macedonians, and Ligurians—while others followed in the funeral procession calling him euergetes and soter . Augustus' funeral procession may or may not have had a more domineering tone than Aemilius' procession; the triumphal mode dominates other Augustan funerary monuments, like the Campus Martius tomb that celebrates the deceased's "worldwide" triumph with Celtic and Oriental captives.[67] The spectacle of Augustus' funeral may have been previewed decades earlier in 12 B.C., at the funeral of Agrippa, which Dio


tells us was carried out in the same way in which Augustus' was later held: kai ten ekphoran autou [Agrippa] en to tropo en ho kai autos [Augustus] meta tauta exenechthe epoiesato (54.28.5). There is also good evidence, supplied by Velleius and by comparison with the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias, that when Augustus' Forum (plan 123) was dedicated in 2 B.C. it was decorated with a similar assemblage of visual references to the peoples conquered by Augustus.

Velleius tells us that the Forum was resplendent with the tituli of the peoples Augustus conquered: "Divus Augustus praeter Hispanias aliasque gentis, quarum titulis forum eius praenitet, paene idem facta Aegypto stipendiaria . . ." (2.39.2). The wording implies a sequence of discrete references rather than, say, the inscription under Augustus' quadriga in the middle of the Forum; and it is likely that Velleius is referring to a sequence of images and not just to a sequence of inscribed tablets. First of all, it is difficult to imagine inscriptions attached to no image; second, such shorthand, titulus for image plus inscription (titulus ), is common usage in the Republic and Empire for assemblages of images whose titles were of key importance, namely, the assembly of portraits to form a family stemma in the atria of Roman aristocrats.[68]

This hypothesis seems to be confirmed by the decorative program of the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias, a closed portico extending from the Temple of Aphrodite Prometor (i.e., Caesar's Venus Genetrix). The second story of the north portico carried in its intercolumniations depictions of peoples conquered by Augustus, each with the prominent title ethnous—on, a direct cognate with Velleius' gens—ae/i . The extant sequence is notable for its meticulous citation of individual tribal groups to refer to tribally organized peoples, reminiscent of the trophy inscriptions described above, and for its inclusion of territories that were conquered by Augustus only in the sense that they were taken away from his Roman rivals in the civil wars (Sicily, Crete, Cyprus),[69] as well as client kingdoms not administered directly as provinces by Augustus (the Bosphoros, Judaea). Even though the decoration as such seems to have been executed under Tiberius, it obviously replicates a series formulated for and by Augustus himself, some derive the series from (a description of) Augustus' funeral assemblage of personifications.[70]

The Sebasteion complex as a whole is very obviously based directly on the precedent of the new kind of forum built in Rome by Caesar and by Augustus,[71] noted patrons of Aphrodisias; both the Forum Julium and the Forum Augustum took the form of an extended closed portico stretching away from a large cult temple (plan 122). A cult epithet translating the


Latin Venus Genetrix is known from only one other Greek dedication, a Julio-Claudian imperial portrait statue;[72] it is a direct translation of the Latin Venus Genetrix, and the temple at Aphrodisias is obviously meant to quote the Temple of Venus Genetrix that dominated Caesar's Forum and that introduced a new cult aspect of Venus to the Romans themselves. This is confirmed by the extant inscription for the goddess's statue, which greeted visitors atop the propylon to the Sebasteion, calling her Aphrodite Prometor Theon Sebaston,[73] that is, genetrix of the Augustan house. As the Sebasteion itself, then, is so evidently inspired directly by the imperial fora in Rome, I think that in conjunction with the Velleius passage it confirms a sequence of images decorating the Forum of Augustus that enumerated the peoples and places Augustus had conquered up to 2 B.C.[74]

Vergil's proem to Georgic 3 hints at such a program—lines 13–70 consist of a fantastic ekphrasis clearly inspired by the early stages of Augustus' Forum (which had been planned since before Actium). Vergil says he is going to build a portico complex centered on a temple to Augustus himself; the portico will be decorated with statues of Augustus' Trojan ancestors, and its temple doors will be decorated with scenes of Augustus' triumphs—compare Ovid's ekphrasis on the completed Forum and the Temple of Mars Ultor (Fast. 5.550ff.); it will have a theater (like Pompey's theater plus Temple of Venus Victrix plus porticoes), whose curtain will be woven with figures of British captives posed so that when the curtain is up they will seem like caryatids.[75] The extant Jupiter clipei of the Forum arcades preserve at least two distinct types (Jupiter Ammon and a Celtic torqued Jupiter; figs. 68–69)[76] that at present supply at least an East-West metaphor for empire; perhaps the series included more, which could have been labeled.[77] The architrave over the clipeus and caryatid zone in fact carried a row of standing decorative elements in alternating projection (over the caryatids) and recessions,[78] and this is the most logical place to hypothesize a series of statues and/or symbolic (trophy) elements. A series of images in this location would constitute an excellent formal parallel for the siting of the Aphrodisias "forum" series, as well as for the trophies lining Trajan's Forum.[79]

Vergil's formulations are closely linked to Augustus' own thinking, whether dependent on it or reinforcing it. Thus we should look also at the well-known fanfare to Augustus that ends the ekphrasis on the Shield of Aeneas in the Aeneid at 8.722f.: after the battle of Actium, Augustus in triumphal epiphany is attended by a string of captives from all over the known world, sitting to receive their submissio on a sella curulis before


the Temple of Apollo (and in front of his own house!) on the Palatine.[80] (The "Sheath of Tiberius" is an actual piece of armor decorated with an allegory of world rule and an ethnic personification; figs. 117–18). It is in reference to this very passage that Servius describes Augustus' Porticus ad Nationes, which leads to the conclusion that the peoples portrayed on that monument were representative in sum of Augustus' world rule.

This Portico of the Nations must have incorporated statues of various gentes, like the assemblage that Pompey placed in his theater complex. There is a good chance that one should visualize it as some kind of caryatid porch.[81] Augustus is known to have employed such a conceit in his restoration of 14 B.C. of the Basilica Aemilia fronting the Forum (plan 122), lining its interior with a series of Parthian captives in colored marbles as' caryatids; these figures, which look forward to the Erechtheion caryatids of Augustus' Forum, whose clipei echo the Basilica Aemilia's facade, were given a particular Augustan twist by being stood on bases carved with luxuriant garlands, equating the new Golden Age of pax with the humiliation of the ancient foreign enemy.[82] The deployment of Parthians as caryatids was a recognizable quotation of the "Persian Porch" at Sparta, which commemorated Sparta's part in the fifth-century Persian Wars with a caryatid porch carried by emblematic Persians.[83] Brutus may already have copied the Classical monument for one of his country villas, as Hadrian was to copy the Erechtheion caryatids for his Tibur villa (Cic. Att. 15.91; cf. 13.40: "Parthenon"); a cinerary urn from Volterra shows that the Greek concept of ethnic caryatids had certainly passed to Italy by the first half of the first century B.C.[84] Vergil's highly decorative caryatid Britons, a motif partly frivolous, partly serious, are well matched by the Augustan decoration of Room E at the Villa Farnesina; its central aedicula incorporates dancing Persian caryatids into a fantastic structure about Apolline rule and Dionysiac conquest of the East.[85] Compare a Greco-Roman grave stele (Munich inv. 509) of the early first century B.C. from Erythrai, an "illusionistisch und phantasievoll" heröon whose pediment is supported by winged Persian caryatids kneeling in the frieze zone.[86]

Thus it is probable that what Augustus built was a kind of caryatid porch borne by diverse ethnic personifications representing the peoples of the Empire, as defeated subjects. This is the kind of Augustan assemblage behind such later Julio-Claudian monuments as the imperial cuirass statue from Tusculum (now Turin, Castello d'Aglie),[87] whose front pteryges (cuirass lappets) are decorated with individual ethnic personifications crouched in dejection—the emperor portrayed is literally girdled in his


victories.[88] The contemporary impact of Augustus' commissions is documented[89] by the decoration that the citizens of Pisa planned for their arch to honor the recently dead Gaius and Lucius:[90] the attic was to bear statues of Gaius, Lucius, and probably Augustus, flanked by images referring to all the peoples conquered[91] or received into fides by Gaius/Augustus.[92]

All these Augustan assemblages of personifications glorify the act and attitude of dominance, in the triumphal mode typical of so many inscriptions and texts. The same tone governs the use of personifications in many other media. Court luxury objects include the Berlin cameo vase, on which Venus Genetrix sits by a slumped Parthian captive at the birth of an Augustan prince (fig. 7); compare the "real" captives in the exergue of the Gemma Augustea (fig. 16). There are the victory monuments in the provinces, which reflect the iconography of the capital[93] —the trophy group at Lugdunum Convenarum with captives and personifications of Gaul and Spain,[94] the trophies and captives on the arch at Glanum,[95] Armenia and Germania on the arch at Carpentras,[96] the male and female captives flanking the inscription at La Turbie,[97] and the arch at Pisidian Antioch, whose central spandrels show emblematic bound Pisidians.[98] The same taste is shown by a series of Campana plaques made for the private homes of central Italy, beginning in the Augustan period, which excerpt that portion of a triumph where captives are paraded on wagons and litters, or else show emblematic Gallic captives on either side of a battlefield trophy.[99] These mass-produced plaques imitate for domestic installation such monuments as the Temple of Apollo Sosianus, whose interior frieze (ca. 19 B.C.) depicted Octavian/Augustus' great triple triumph.[100]

Imperial portraits showing the emperor as a general in a cuirass are obviously about military domination, and several early imperial examples incorporate personifications as well as emblematic captives. Best known are the personifications on the cuirass front of the Primaporta Augustus (fig. 64).[101] There Gallia (fig. 64d) and Hispania (fig. 64c),[102] slumped in dejection, flank (a group with) an emblematic Parthian, to celebrate Augustus' recovery of standards from Parthia, Spain, and Gaul—a visual paraphrase of the boast in Res gestae 28–29.[103] This assemblage, of course, delineates the East-West worldwide reach of Augustus' vengeance and hegemony.[104] With this can be compared a fragmentary, but superb, early imperial cuirass statue from Amphipolis, whose central device is a captive paired with a seated personification.[105] The Julio-Claudian figure in Turin, whose pteryges have each a dejected personification, has already been mentioned; the pteryges of a fragmentary Augustan cuirass statue from Gaul have emblematic Gallic captives (fig. 82).[106] Comparable is an Augustan


relief in Rome (Pal. Beletti), where a cuirassed Augustus brandishes an aplustre at a seated, dejected Egypt/Africa.[107]

Last, there is the testimony of some Arretine pottery. This fine molded ware was manufactured primarily in the Augustan period in central Italy, for use there and for export especially to the north. Its devices often copy fine silver and/or famous monuments from the capital.[108] As in silverwork, most of the surviving corpus has mythological, Dionysiac, erotic, idyllic, or other nonpolitical iconography; with three other fragments,[109] the types discussed here seem the only examples of explicitly political iconography. They are certainly Augustan. The scheme of a cup from Puteoli (now lost)[110] paired a seated mourning figure identified by the inscription GERMANIA, who, like the Primaporta provinces or the BR Gaul, was a female in male Celtic dress, with a chained pair of male captives labeled ARSACIDAE (the Armenian dynasty) and PARTHI; this fondness for inscribed labels also marks the Dresden handle, on which an armed female is labeled GERMANIAS (fig. 67).[111] A scheme known best on a cup from Orbetello has, like the BR Augustus cup, an identical composition on each side (fig. 65).[112] A naked imperial hero with mantle, scabbard, and downturned spear stands by a tropaeum, which is decorated with the arms appropriate to the grieving ethnic personification who approaches the hero; on one side this is Germania, on the other Armenia, both in female dress. The same workshop (L. Avillius Sura) adapted from these stamps a different scheme, where the nude imperator twice faced Armenia across a backdrop of garlands and bucrania (fig. 66).[113]

The prominently deployed inscriptions and figure types of the first cup scheme recall official triumphal commemorative. The second cup scheme has been viewed as copying a freestanding statuary group in the capital, especially as the imperial figure type strongly resembles that used for Octavian on a columna rostrata in Rome erected for Actium;[114] reliefs from the Aphrodisias Sebasteion now show that the entire group, nude imperator -trophy-personification, draws on a formula established for imperial statuary and/or monumental relief.[115] The trophy group set up ca. 25 B.C. at Lugdunum Convenarum by a team from Rome, to celebrate Augustus' triple triumph of 27 B.C., offers parallels for both schemes—twin figure groups of personification, trophy, and captive.[116] Both cup schemes allude to worldwide conquest by pairing the north and west and south and east frontiers of Augustan expansion, typical of Augustan monuments and programs;[117] the choice of Germany/Armenia to produce this antithesis recalls the Augustan city gate at Carpentras in Gaul, among other examples.


The imagery of these cups might have been formulated at almost any time after the events they allude to, Drusus' campaigns in Germany from ca. 10 B.C. on and the first Armenian settlement and the "humiliation" of Parthia in 19 B.C., when Tiberius won his spurs. The hero on each side of the Orbetello cup (fig. 65) might be Augustus, or perhaps brother princes are meant, such as Drusus the Elder (who conquered Germany) and Tiberius (who oversaw the "submission" of Armenia at the time of the return of the Parthian standards). H. P. Laubscher and others adduce events of A.D. 1 and 3—that is, Gaius in Armenia and M. Vinicius in Germany; this is possible, but I think it far more likely that all these western Germany/Armenia pairs refer to the activities of the Claudii Nerones, either Drusus and Tiberius or simply Tiberius.

Whatever their specific reference to events of Augustus' reign, both cup schemes are very important to our discussion. Simply because they are items of mass-produced pottery,[118] they show how the iconography of ethnic personifications could be disseminated at large.[119] As fine-quality Arretine ware, they reinforce and expand our knowledge of the imagery formulated for official, public statuary and relief. Finally, in the character of Arretine ware, they may reproduce models in silver that would be directly comparable to the BR cups. In this sense, they make the BR cups less unique, as examples of silverware alluding directly to Augustan conquests; on the other hand, their extremely limited compositions highlight by contrast the distinctive nature of the BR cups' decoration and its ties to the most sophisticated monumental narrative relief

Benevolent Imperium

Are the Boscoreale personifications to be classed with the images of pure dominance described above? There is an element of such a tone in their depiction, but it is not the only way in which one should interpret them. Key here is the fact that the peoples shown are all provinces already incorporated in the Empire, as far as one can tell from the three that can be named—Africa, Gaul, and Spain. The works of Augustan art, major and minor, that celebrate Augustus' personal victories almost always include or emphasize his victories in the East over Parthia and Armenia; the signal omission here of any figure in mitra, or Persian cap, means that this figure group is not an emblematic catalogue of major Augustan victories. Instead, they are an emblematic catalogue of peoples now administered by Rome under Augustus, which by including East and West and North and


South sum up the oikoumene governed by the emperor as symbolized by the globe in his hand. Also, there is a fairly standard iconography for full-length figures who symbolize domination itself as their primary function, used in the absence of an inscription: a provincia capta acknowledges its humiliation by sitting or standing head in hand, slumped in dejection. These provinces stand, showing some deference, but they do not make any of the standard signs of grief, compare and contrast the provinces on the Augustan cuirass statue from Primaporta and Amphipolis, or on the Arretine ware described above, all images celebrating military victories (figs. 64–67).[120]

It is also the case that this scene must be read as one of a pair of scenes on one cup—indeed, with reference also to the second cup. Within the cup group, the main visual emphasis is on the outermost province, Gaul, the one in highest relief. This is true when one focuses on the group by itself; also, when the cup is viewed head-on (pl. 2) to focus on Augustus, the scene is then framed in a peaceful confrontation between Roma and this province, who is thus the first explanatory figure visible as "comment" on the globe in Augustus' hand. This figure also wears the dress of the barbarians on the other side of the cup, where some kind of submissive audience between Augustus and a foreign people takes place; thus the personification and the entire group in which it holds pride of place have to be interpreted in light of the scene on the other side of the cup.

Second, the other cup, to which the first must somehow be appropriate, shows the triumph of Tiberius, whose triumphs were over peoples of western Europe. The linkage with the second cup fits the "dominance" view outlined above. The comparison with the other side of this cup, however, does not. There (BR I:2) the little children being handed over to Augustus are joyful, emblems of a benevolent imperialism in which those ruled are delighted at Roman guidance and are valued by their rulers. These overtones of joy accompanying rule are also present in the other half of this very scene: Roma tramples the weapons of war underfoot, fertility gushes from the Genius's cornucopia, Amor pours perfume with his bow laid aside, Venus herself brings a promise of peace and concord, and it is she rather than Mars who is given first place in the pair of processions converging on Augustus' throne. Augustus himself, finally, is not enthroned as a general but in the toga of peaceful civilian administration; he does not sit on a camp stool but on a fantastic symbolic seat that expresses the peaceful burgeoning of tamed nature, analogue and result of political harmony, for the scat is carved from tree branches as if in some rustic grove. This mode of illustrating the feats of Tiberius and Dru-


sus could hardly differ more from commemorations in the "triumphal" mode, like the city gate at Saepinum built under Tiberius' supervision from both brothers' German manubiae, that is, with the same historical reference as BR II: its great central inscription, which simply states the donation, is flanked by emblematic German captives stripped to the waist, bound, upon high pillars.[121]

What, then, is the answer? The answer is that two things at once are going on here. The submission of the oikoumene and prosperity for the oikoumene are celebrated at one and the same time. Romans can take pride in having subdued the world, as Jupiter can take pride in being mightiest of the gods, and Augustus can take pride in being the greatest of all imperatores; those parts of the world with any sense will realize that it is to their advantage to submit, and if they properly acknowledge Roman superiority in the persons of Augustus and his agents, they will be cared for as Jupiter cares for those who avoid hubris/superbia . Moreover, Roman triumphs over unregenerate foreigners actually protect those already under Rome's rule: consider, for example, Caesar's pretext for his wars against the Germans of the Rhine, that they were undertaken to protect the Gauls he had been busy subduing; and consider the Gemma Augustea, where the personification Oikoumene acknowledges Augustus' saving of lives with a corona civica at the occasion of a triumph of Tiberius, with bound captives shown in the exedra below the main scene (fig. 16).

In Roman eyes, there would be no contradiction between the two messages, no sense of schizophrenia.[122] War is wonderful because it assures pax, and pax is wonderful not only for the victors but, in the victors' eyes, for the pacati as well.[123] This is the message of the primary Augustan statement on pax, the Ara Pacis. There (as discussed below with reference to BR I:2), on the outer friezes, one of the BR infants is paired with an Oriental princeling to express at once the homage of East and West to Augustus' rule and the participation of East and West in the blessings of that rule (figs. 71, 76–80). On the inner altar of the Ara Pacis was a set of images that are the primary parallel to the BR province group, a frieze with personifications of all the peoples under Roman rule (fig. 72), the whole crowned by another frieze representing worship of pax /Pax sponsored by the emperor.[124] Exactly like the BR group, these females were variously in symbolic and in ethnically explicit dress, masculine and feminine.[125] Lined up in a long frieze, they stood frontally, turning their heads to one another, like paratactic figure series on the monumental Hellenistic altars whose form is quoted here. They even share generic figure types—the BR Gallia on the cup has an exact match in stance and costume in one


of the altar figures![126] The Ara Pacis seems to have been the model for the later Jullo-Claudian relief, also from the Campus Martius, that was reused on the Arcus Novus (fig. 12), a fragment of a similar paratactic frieze composition preserving a pair of females in male and female ethnic dress posed frontally in conversation.[127]

The altar complex and the cup both make explicit visually that the Augustan ideology of pax was physically manifest in Augustus' actual journeying to those provinces, as H. Halfmann interprets these progresses; for the BR allegory is paired with a scene of Augustus among his non-Roman subjects, and the Ara Pacis is primarily a commemoration of just such a successful trip (quite possibly the same one).[128] The peoples ruled by Rome are lesser, but without them there would be no Empire: they have their own place, and their own potential worth in the scheme of things. So Vergil coupled his paean to Augustus' world rule (Aen. 6.791–800), which was to bring the Golden Age back to Latium (792f.), with an exhortation to his own people to rule, but to rule justly and well: "tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento/—hae tibi erunt artes—pacisque inponere morem,/parcere subiectis et debellare superbos" (6.851–53).[129] Rome does a favor to her subjects in imposing the mos pacis on them.[130]

Of course, this formulation is all from the point of view of the rulers and not of the ruled. Images of submissive and grieving subject peoples are probably nearer the case as far as the feelings of the subjects themselves go. What we are interested in here, however, is the interpretation that the rulers put on their own rule. The kind of corporate image of empire that we see here and the comparanda for it are part of the evidence for the Romans' becoming self-conscious of their role as heads of an empire; one of the burning issues of modern scholarship on the Republican age of expansion revolves around this very point of whether/when the Romans deliberately set out to become an imperial power and thought of themselves not as simply fighting ad hoc individual campaigns. Whatever the original motive forces behind Roman expansion, it is certain that by the first century B.C. the Romans had learned to think of themselves as rulers of a diverse but unified world and to find images for that reality in their art. The significance of what I call corporate images can best be appreciated by contrast with the other sorts of images that Romans used to express the fact of empire, unitary or binary allegorical symbols.

To begin with, there is the personification of the oikoumene . This Hellenistic term signifies the known inhabited world; its Latin equivalent is orbis terrarum . For educated Romans the two would have been interchangeable terms, and so I also tend to use them as interchangeable. I


prefer to use oikoumene when describing a Roman perception of the Empire as a political unity of omnium gentium; orbis terrarum is a physical metaphor describing the globe of earth on which the peoples of the known world live. A personified oikoumene, like that seen on the Gemma Augustea, evolved as part of the vocabulary of Hellenistic royal panegyric and is documented already in the Diadoch period: a painting in Athens of Demetrios Poliorketes of ca. 290 B.C. showed him striding over a representation of the oikoumene (Duris, FGrH 76, frag. 14; Eust. Il. 5.449). Compare the famous "Apotheosis of Homer" panel, where the poet is crowned by Ptolemy IV Philopator as Chronos and by his wife Arsinoe as a mural-crowned Oikoumene, to symbolize their establishment of Homer's cult at a Homereion in Alexandria (fig. 58); the panel itself documents the physical transmission of imagery to Italy, for it was found near Bovillae.[131] The globe, as a symbol of the world, and so of world rule, was far more popular in Roman art than in Greek art,[132] and I think that this is partly to be explained by the fact that it is a visual translation of the Latin orbis terrarum .

Romans in the Republic would have seen such images in the Hellenistic East, and many of their artists were Greeks from that world. The educated class that commissioned works of art would also have been exposed to the kinds of panegyric poetry of which, for instance, the "Apotheosis of Homer" seems to be a visual translation (the poet who commissioned the panel figures in it at upper right as an honorific statue of himself, see fig. 58).[133] Images of the oikoumene in Rome may have already been formulated by Pompey; they are extant from the Augustan period, as on Augustan court cameos (a genre itself in the Ptolemaic court tradition) such as the Gemma Augustea (fig. 16), where Oikoumene crowns the emperor, and the Vienna cameo fragment (fig. 18), where Venus-Oikoumene in a mural crown brings a little Victoria to the emperor. The personification Oikoumene may have figured in the plan for a monument voted Caesar by the Senate on his return from Africa: Dio describes it as a statue of Caesar striding over an image of the oikoumene (43.4.6), though we do not know if he names the Hellenistic female personification or translates from the Latin terms of the commission the Latin orbis terrarum, which would have been figured as a globe. In any case, it is clear that this statue of Caesar quoted the monument of Demetrios Poliorketes, which would have been known to the educated class of Caesar's day from visual acquaintance or from literary references. Its inscription, calling Caesar hemitheos, also drew on the conventions of Hellenistic royal panegyric; thus Theocritus apostrophized Ptolemy II as world ruler in Idyll 17, a poem


that exercised much influence on later panegyric and that would have been read in Rome (especially given the fashion in the late first century B.C. for such Alexandrian works).[134] Sculptural images that show a deity or hero with one foot on the globe are extant from the early Empire; consider the Ostia cult statue of Roma (Augustan or early Tiberian) and the Mars at the center of the pediment of Augustus' Temple of Mars Ultor (2 B.C.) (fig. 9b), which is quoted in the figure of Augustus on the Claudian Ravenna relief (fig. 8).[135] The post-Social War coinage of 70 B.C. already shows Roma with her foot upon a globe (fig. 51a; RRC 403), and Mars on the Paris census (ca. 100-90 B.C.) has his foot on a globe also (fig. 27).

A globe or a personified Oikoumene differs in conception from a corporate image of empire. While such corporate images have roots in Greek descriptions of their own associations of cities, as metaphors for rule such corporate images seem to be very much a Roman device. Both Roman borrowings and creations document a rich ferment in the Roman iconographic tradition, as Romans looked for visual images to explicate their new self-consciousness of empire. A good parallel instance to the Roman transformation of corporate images is the varied visual translation of the common Latin periphrasis terra marique to denote worldwide sway: see, for example, the Gemma Augustea, where Okeanos and Ge sit behind Augustus (fig. 16); Venus on the Ara Pacis, flanked by nymphs of land and sea (fig. 74); the Augustan Cherchel cuirass decoration (fig. 5), where the Apotheosis of Caesar is set over a pair of Tritons whose attributes make them spirits of land and sea.[136]

The globe, the personification Oikoumene, and terra marique images have a simple unitary or binary allegorical structure. Corporate images take us deeper into Roman political thinking, because they try to describe a political as well as a physical reality. As documented in the description above of monuments like Pompey's and Augustus' porticoes, corporate images can be used as unambiguous symbols of domination. In this they are like the Republican and early imperial texts on the orbis terrarum, which hail Roman domination of that entity (e.g., Cic. Herenn. 4.13, Imp. Pomp. 53, Mur. 22, Cat. 4.11, Sull. 33; and Augustan poetry: Verg. Aen. 1.278–82; Hor. Carm. 4.15.13–16; and Ovid [see Bömer's commentary on Fast. 1.590–911). Even corporate images that stress domination, though, show at least some interest in the individual existence of the peoples ruled.

Images of domination bulk large in Roman political imagery, as in the arts of most imperial powers. But it is always interesting for a student of the history of ideas to find rulers trying to project an image of that rule


that describes something more than a purely exploitative link between themselves and their subjects, even if this is only an occasional theme. Hence the importance of personification groups like those on the BR cup or on the inner altar of the Ara Pacis, or the use as symbols of the ruled of "adopted" children, on BR I:2 and in the friezes of the Ara Pacis (see chapter 4). These Augustan images describe a benevolent imperium, a pax that includes non-Romans as something more than pacati in the shape of opponents forced by military defeat to make peace. The modern viewer might follow Tacitus ("They make a desolation and call it peace" Agr. 30.5) and classify such propaganda of benevolent imperium as hypocritical, but to dismiss it as such ignores the fact that an ideal does not have to be wholeheartedly espoused to influence the policies that affect conditions for an empire's subjects. For instance, we really do not know whether Cicero took the Sicilians' case against Verres out of anything more than a desire to score points in Roman political infighting, however much he professed sympathy for the exploited provincials and tried to win the jury to the same point of view; and when he did win his case, we have no idea whether or not his jury condemned Verres out of a sincere belief in such noble sentiments. The fact remains that it turned out a good thing for the Sicilians themselves that such an ideal should be espoused, and it signaled the growing political maturity of Rome as administrator of an empire.

It is in the late Republic that we begin to find extant the political formulations that are the background for the lines of book 6 of the Aeneid quoted above.[137] On pages 77–78 I described a small, but discrete, class of coin images that commemorate a Roman leader's defense and succor of peoples covered by his imperium, noting that at least one of these images (71 B.C.) undoubtedly reflects freestanding commemorative statuary (figs. 52–53, 56). Apposite texts are first supplied (as so often) by Cicero (Off. 2.26–27, Rep. 1.37), who speaks of Rome's rule as a patrocinium for the weak, an idea picked up in Livy (30.42.17), to cite one example.[138]Patrocinium, the exercise of the formal institution of patronage, implies the superiority of the patron, but it also implies that the patron has duties toward his clients, who are to be commended as good and worthy clients when they properly support their patron. Thus official art provides images like the Pompeian forces' coinage lauding their Spanish allies (figs. 55, 57); compare the parade of foreign clients for Aemillus Paullus' funeral procession, carrying his bier and hailing him as euergetes and soter (Plut. Aem. 39.4.5). Senatorial monuments in Rome, like those for Rufus and P. Aelius Lamia at the tail end of the Republic, could "freeze" such a


display of foreign clientela in stone in perpetuity; their typically bilingual inscriptions show that such monuments sought to address both the rulers and the ruled, on behalf of noble patron and loyal Greek city-state alike. The ways in which this ideal is stressed on the other side of the BR cup are discussed in chapter 4. In the allegory here it is not as strongly emphasized, but it is there: the way in which Augustan rule is formulated here is a far cry from the Primaporta Augustus (fig. 64) with its Gaul and Spain and from the depiction of Egypt/Africa on the gem that shows a heroized Octavian treading on her head—these are depictions whose sole message was domination.[139]

The BR province group gives us some hint of the lost Augustan monuments from which Hadrian must have derived inspiration for his province series (cf. chapter 2, p. 51f.), the numismatic sequence of individual personifications, and the great assemblage of personifications in monumental relief designed for his own temple (fig. 70; plan 125). In these works from the second century A.D., the intent to recognize the contribution of the constituent parts of empire is more obvious; we can now see that this intent has its roots in the propaganda of the first emperor, however we rate the strength of that connection. It was Augustus, because he was an individual triumphator on a new, worldwide scale, who was able to consummate the shift in Roman imperialistic thinking from provincia as a sphere of individual achievement to provincia as a well-administered province. The new conceptions of empire "required to be known and mentally represented";[140] Roman thinking demanded that these conceptions find a formulation in material culture as well. Under this impetus Augustus formulated from Republican visual discourse an enduring artistic rhetoric of imperialism, at once active and inclusive, aggressive and benevolent.


Drusus, Augustus, and Barbarian Babies


On BR I:2 (pls. 4–6, 14) Augustus is enthroned slightly right of center, surrounded by an entourage of seven lictors (see p. 215 n. 16 for damage after 1899). The lictors have axes in their fasces and wear tunics and paludamenta, not the toga. The figure of Augustus is nearly identical to that on the other side of the cup: enthroned, togate, facing three-quarters left, right arm bent and stretched slightly out, left arm flexed at the side with a rotulus in the left hand. The difference is that the emperor, slightly more in "narrative profile," now sits on a sella castrensis (hinged, flat-topped camp stool with fringed seat cover) on a low, two-stepped dais, here signifying a military tribunal. Behind the emperor at the far right are two soldiers, his guard. The outer one, in high relief, stands at ease in dress armor (Praetorian?)[1] and crested helmet; the other steps into the background, seen from behind,[2] a simple soldier in tunic and plain helmet with a trumpet(?) under his left arm.[3]

The left field is taken up by a party of foreigners to whom Augustus' gesture of greeting is directed (now missing). This party consists of three bearded adults with infant children, a youth, and an unaccompanied adult. The adult males have long beards that are trimmed to a point, curling hair growing down over the neck, high cheekbones, deep-set eyes, and domed skulls. Their costume consists of a long-sleeved tunic belted tight about the waist, hemmed with a tufted fringe; tight leggings; tight-fitting ankle-high boots or shoes; over all, a fringed mantle falling to mid-thigh, fastened at the right shoulder by a roundheaded pin. The children wear a modified version of this costume: a briefer tunic (also belted) that just covers the top of the buttocks, similar shoes, and (the foremost child) a cloak: it is not clear whether they wear leggings or are bare-legged.


The individual figures of this group of foreigners are as follows. At the edge of the scene, farthest back in the group, is a standing adult whose child rides on his shoulders. Next, an adult stoops forward, guiding his young son with his right hand; with his left he pulls forward the youth, an older son, by the right arm. Closest to the emperor, the leading foreigner has gone down on one knee in order to steady his baby son before him with both hands. This infant, like the one behind it, reaches out to Augustus, and turns up its face, smiling; both, like the child on its father's shoulders behind, are evidently too young to walk unaided. The last adult is represented by a face in shallow relief between the barbarian youth and the Roman officer, who stands in the middle of the barbarian party (pls. 20–22).

This party of foreigners is being presented to the emperor by a beardless officer standing among them—Drusus the Elder (now missing). His figure is fully frontal, his head turned in profile toward Augustus. He wears dress armor, a fitted cuirass of early imperial type, like that worn by Mars on the other side of the cup; he bears a sheathed sword under the left arm, the fingers of the left hand splayed round its hilt. A mantle is bunched on his left shoulder and wound from behind around his left arm. His right hand is caught down by the second barbarian infant, so that he steadies that child as it is ushered forward.

Commentary: The Nature of the Image

In contrast to BR I:1, an allegory whose only human participant is the emperor himself, BR I:2 is a classic example of Roman documentary historical relief. an image that presents itself as the literal transcription of an actual and singular event as it would have been visible to a real observer. The only concessions to the artistic limits of the relief panel are, first, the shorthand by which seven lictors, two soldiers, and three barbarian parents with children do duty for what will have been larger numbers in actuality and, second, the spreading out of the participants to afford a point of view that, though evocative of "real" perspective, would not in fact have been available to any single spectator of the actual audience.

Real space and time are indicated here, in contrast to the panel on the other side. In that allegory single figures predominate, isolated in space, spread out in paratactic disposition, exhibiting neoclassic conservatism in the illusionistic exploitation of relief planes to suggest penetration into the depths of the relief ground. These figures breathe some Olympian air that reaches far above their heads, as they stand frozen in gracefully static poses, even those meant to be in motion. Thus not only the subject and


iconography but the mode of depiction as well lift this event into some extratemporal realm of essential reality. The submission scene, on the other hand, has only human actors, who crowd all three dimensions, massed in complex groups deep into the background, cramming the width and height of the panel.[4] Here is no lofty, over-arching atmosphere: the full height of the relief is filled with heads and intersecting lictors' rods. The actors seem caught in the midst of spontaneous, rather than posed "balletic," movement. The interplay of their various gestures and poses implies an immediate past and future: the foremost infant has just thrust its arms out and smiled, the adult of the second pair has just started to stoop in moving forward toward the kneeling presentation of his child, as the father behind him waits still at rest to take his turn in line; the legionary at far right is caught moving with realistic lack of grace around the back of Augustus' dais.

Note how though the same figure type is used to depict Augustus in both scenes, the context gives that figure a very different flavor in either case. In the allegory, the emperor with his globe seems a serenely poised figure who has been waiting thus and will continue to pose thus for an undefinable extent of time. In the documentary narrative, his gesture seems a responsive motion toward the approach of the barbarians, especially toward the gesture of the child at his feet. In both compositions the lines of motion conform to a series of curves. While those in the allegory loop rhythmically across the field in a symmetrically balanced pattern, in the bustling crowd scene those curves make up a single dominant arc, curving down from the top left to swing up suddenly at a much sharper angle to the central figure of the emperor; the line of motion in the crowd scene is an individually modulated and asymmetrical curve in place of cool symmetry. If BR I:1 has its literary counterpart in the panegyric odes of Horace, then BR I:2 is artistic cousin to the prose of the Roman historians, the ostensibly "straight" narrative of historic achievement of Caesar's De bello Gallico or Augustus' Res gestae .

I have just been at pains to emphasize the differences between the two panel compositions of BR I; what most immediately strikes the viewer is, of course, the compositional similarities, principally anchored by the togate, seated figure of Augustus, who is approached by at least one infant figure, beyond whom stands a frontally posed young male with nude (or seemingly nude) torso. This chapter demonstrates how BR I:2 locates in real time and history, as we experience it, the transcendent reality explicated in the allegory BR I:1. It is as if the viewer looked at history as an annalist and as a poet at once, his shifting between the two panels a kind


of shifting between different sensations of temporality and modes of vision focused on the same central object, Augustus. In this realm, style becomes iconography. The meaning of the individual panels, and of the cup as a whole, is predicated not least on formal correspondence between specific figure types embedded in specific compositional structures.

Such graceful binary pairings can be recognized as characteristic of other works of Augustan art, major and minor. An Arretine ware matrix of ca. 30 B.C. preserves a comparable cup pattern:[5] on one side Hercules-Antony and on the other Cleopatra-Omphale are drawn in a triumphal centaur chariot led by a straining servant, followed by appropriate attendants—young men with Hercules' weapons, maidens with flowers, fan, and parasol. The compositions function in a mythic-allegorical mode to comment on Antony's self-proclaimed roles as New Dionysos and New Hercules, though whether the humor is meant to be gentle or savage is not clear. The Casa del Menandro skyphoi pair the couplings of Mars and Venus with the couplings of a human pair on the other side—the latter familiar from Arretine cups.[6] Such compositional pairing is just as characteristic of Augustan monumental art (to which Arretine ware was closely linked). The Ara Pacis (fig. 71), a staple of introductory slide lectures, furnishes the best example: a correctly angled view takes in Augustus and Aeneas as figures identical in pose and gesture, both capite velato, in an obvious equation of Augustus with his own ancestor. Here, as on the cup, Augustus' historical, real actions are depicted for the viewer as having a different temporal dimension, in this case an identity with events of the far past; and Augustus' own unique, semidivine persona is explicated by this pendant figure.

As the panel BR I:2 purports to narrate a historical event, it needs historical analysis. Reading an allegory, one looks for the concept conveyed by the sum of the elements present, adding up their individual significance, and the significance of their joint presence, as if setting up the equation for a chemical reaction. Historical time exists only as the setting for the making of the artifact itself. At what point in time could this idea have been formulated? At what time was it most likely to have been formulated? In a depiction of a historical event, however, historical time is part and parcel of the subject of the depiction. Whatever the extrahistorical significance of the themes located in the depiction, to read that image is to search for an individual historical moment. In a documentary scene, the identities of the participants are dependent one upon the other. We do not ask of the allegory, Given that this is Venus, when did she meet Augustus? Here we do ask, Given that this is Augustus, who are the barbarians, who


is this young general, and at what point could they all have participated in this event?

The first fixed point is the emperor. He is outside the city of Rome, as the lictors have axes bound into their rods; he is in a military encampment, for he is seated on a military commander's stool, and the participants are limited to his own lictors, and to foreigners and military figures. Augustus is abroad, then, in an encampment in the territory of the foreigners represented and must be commander in chief, as he sits in the commander's place on a tribunal/dais; however, as he is in civilian dress, he must be understood to be presiding in a sphere under the immediate supervision of the young commander who presents subjects for audience and acts under Augustus' consular auspicia . Once we identify the young general and the barbarians and explain what they do with the children we can discuss the implications of the event and its portrayal.

The Identification of Drusus the Elder: Agents and Heirs

It is curious that few have tried systematically to identify the young general in BR I:2; even if his features were destroyed like those of the sacrificant of BR II:1, the composition and figure type would lead an attentive observer to see in this young general a prince of the Julio-Claudian house.[7] To use only the frame of reference provided by the cup itself: this is a person of high-enough stature to sponsor a legation to the emperor and appear before him in dress armor with a sword. He is strongly linked by composition and iconography to two of the divinities on the other side of the cup. In dress and function, this prince is Mars' analogue: Mars, beardless and in the same smooth, fitted cuirass,[8] also sponsors foreign beings before the emperor. The young general's location in the composition points to the other young male in the allegory: the Genius of the Roman People also stands at the left, his body facing front, his head turned sharply in profile. Each has a very young child at his feet (Amor/foreign child); each has his lower legs hidden by figures in procession; and both supply the same visual note, the gleaming accent provided by the smooth and compact curves of their ideally modeled torsos—the Genius literally naked, the general in a fitted body cuirass that gives the same effect. In a scene focused on Augustus, a subordinate likened to the Genius of the Roman People and to Mars, youthful embodiments of the vis and virtus of the Roman people, must belong to the imperial family himself. And in relation to the other cup, this young general is the analogue to the cuirassed imperator Tiberius sacrificing to Jupiter.


Second, the young general's features (pl. 21) show that the artist did try to execute a distinctive portrait of an individual. Subsidiary and anonymous figures on these cups generally have regular oval heads and classicized features, like the young Doryphoros-type lictor in front of Angustus; this general has a much blockier head. His features are also quite different from those of Tiberius on BR II:2, who has a long, slim face with attenuated bony features and an aquiline, pointed nose; this prince has a broad, squared visage with a firm jaw and short, straight nose, hair cropped straight across his brow.

These features, together with the northern European setting indicated by the Celtic dress of the foreigners, suggest that this is Drusus the Elder. or his son Germanicus, either of whom could easily be associated with a triumphant Tiberius in the reign of Augustus. Since the depiction can be firmly tied to depictions of the Boscoreale children on the Ara Pacis (figs. 76–77; 13-9 B.C.) and on coins of 8-7 B.C. (fig. 87), this event took place when Germanicus was a child or yet unborn. That leaves Drusus the Elder as the only plausible candidate. What can be seen of his features (especially in contrast to the Tiberius of BR II:2) fits in;[9] compare the Capitoline Museum busts of Drusus (inv. 283) and Tiberius (inv. 355) from an Italian dynastic series (figs. 109–10).[10]

Barbarian Babies

This scene misleads many. What discussion it has received explains that it shows the leaders of a newly conquered tribe handing over their children as hostages for continued good behavior; it has been likened to the few extant depictions of similar scenes, which date from the second century A.D. on:[11] one of the panel reliefs of Marcus Aurelius (fig. 83)[12] and a genre of late imperial sarcophagus depictions (fig. 93).[13] On these, disheveled, cowering, anguished victims submit themselves with their offspring to a stern imperial general who is armored and victorious.[14] The barbarians are surrounded by Roman soldiers and abase themselves,[15] the armed emperor is aloof, and the barbarians' expressions when visible are anguished and dismayed. When the physical format permits, the emperor is put up on a very high tribunal so that the foreigners are physically distanced from him and humiliated.

To casually group the Boscoreale depiction with these submission scenes is wrong.[16] The foreigners here are sponsored by a Roman officer who physically cherishes their children, a motif not seen in the submission scenes;[17] the adults are composed and serene, not disheveled and an-


guished, and those who are not bending to hold their children stand at dignified ease; the posture of those who do have to bend is not proskynesis or a pure grovel but is explained by the fact that they assist their children; the young children themselves greet the emperor joyfully, for wide smiles are apparent on their faces, and when they reach out to Augustus they seem to wish to be taken up by him, not to be pleading with him in fright and terror; the emperor himself is in the toga of peaceful civil administration and not in the cuirass of a conquering general, and he greets them with an affable openhanded gesture of welcome.

These are not newly conquered, formerly hostile savages, Vergil's superbi debellati, but a friendly people, loyal to Rome. The infants depicted turn up elsewhere in Augustan art (see p. 101 below); they are being transferred to the authority of Rome and Augustus to be brought up in honor under the emperor's aegis, perhaps even at the imperial court, as future Romanized leaders of their people. I propose that this panel shows the primores Galliarum before Augustus in Gaul in 13 (or 10) B.C. at Lugdunum. Before covering the historical evidence, I review the visual comparanda, which, together with the cup and its prototype, show that this event was heavily, though briefly, publicized by Augustan state propaganda. This visual evidence is extremely important, for it documents an event to which we have no direct testimony in any surviving textual source. Both my parallels are from the corpus of state art—monumental commemorative relief in Rome and imperial coinage minted for Rome and Gaul.

The Ara Pacis

On the north procession frieze (fig. 76) a young foreigner (figs. 76–77) has been inserted into the Roman crowd at the head of the group belonging to the imperial domus ; he stands between the members of official priesthoods, who head the procession, and the matron (the emperor's daughter Julia), who leads the imperial household group. On the south wall (figs. 78–80), at the very same point, another young foreigner of a different type clutches the toga of Agrippa, immediately preceding the emperor's wife Livia, who heads the imperial household group. This manipulation of the altar's visual structure (fig. 71) makes plain that these two young foreigners have the same status and function, as is the case with groups (imperial family, priests) and individual figures (e.g., Livia and Julia) that are symmetrically placed elsewhere in the procession friezes. The expense of such care on their placement also indicates that they were


meant to be noticed; compare the so-called silentiarii, each a veiled woman facing the spectator with a finger to her lips, who on either side of the altar wall mark the point where the spectator passes the front of the holy altar hidden from view within.[18]

First, the child on the north wall (figs. 76–77): this is one of the Boscoreale children. This is a fat-checked toddler in an armless tunic[19] that leaves his lower buttocks bare, wearing a heavy torque with twisted ring and round finials, and a smooth bracelet above the right elbow; his wavy hair, braided along the parting at the back of the head,[20] lies flat along the skull, curling loosely to his shoulders behind. Tripping forward on one foot, he dangles by the left hand from the right hand of the togate Roman behind him; with his right hand he tugs at the toga of the Roman in front of him, his head craned back, smiling up at the giant whose attention he wishes to attract.

One has only to look at the two representations side by side to see that the Ara Pacis child belongs to the group of infants from the cup scene and that his figure is a conflation of the two toddling children in the foreground on the cup panel. His head is that of the foremost BR infant—coiffure, features and expression, and tilted-back angle (pl. 20); his gestures combine those of the child holding onto Drusus' hand (pl. 21) and those of the foremost child who reaches up and out; he is the same size and age and, like them, cannot walk unsupported; his tunic has the same distinctive short cut, which covers only the top of the buttocks. His tunic is fastened at the shoulders instead of having sleeves, but this is paralleled by Gallia's gown at Lugdunum Convenarum.[21] This sleeveless tunic (better suited to a hot climate?) is not Greco-Roman, and its length is still distinctive; the bare legs and feet appear on a Gallic toddler in a later Julio-Claudian grave relief at Nîmes for a Gallo-Roman patron.[22] His foreignness and his high status are both marked by the heavy jewelry on so young a child, the torque of foreign (Celtic) type,[23] the bracelet worn in Gallic fashion.[24] The fact that he is not a Roman is signaled immediately by the absence of the bulla (protective amulet) worn by all the Roman children on the altar just as it was worn by all Roman children in real life.

E. Simon was the first to point out that this child and his pendant on the south wall are not Romans, identifying them as foreign princelings. Because she did so quite briefly (and did not note the clinching parallel with the Boscoreale cup panel),[25] her views have often been ignored and even ridiculed.[26] Yet even without the cup parallel it should have been evident that this child is no Roman, let alone a Julio-Claudian prince (he is often identified with Lucius Caesar).[27] The Roman children on the altar


wear the bulla and are swaddled in adult-style drapery, the males with short hair; even the youngest, who clutch at their elders' hands and clothes, stand solidly on two feet with good Roman gravitas —no naked buttocks among these imperial offspring.[28] The fine 1990 article by C. B. Rose, whose researches have run parallel to mine, has already started to drive home acceptance of the proper identifications in literature on the Ara Pacis;[29] singing in chorus, perhaps such voices will finally prevail.

The child on the south wall (figs. 78–80) standing between Agrippa and Livia is somewhat older than his counterpart—seven or eight years old, perhaps. He presses close to Agrippa, clutching at the folds of Agrippa's tunic with one hand, looking back toward the figures in procession behind him. His dress is also distinctive: a knee-length tunic tied low on the hips (the two ends of the belt are visible beneath the overfold) and curious ankle-high shoes with a three-lobed flap falling from the top of the shoe, like the flap of a golf shoe. He too wears jewelry, and no bulla —rather a torque, different from that worn by the BR child, a smooth ring with bullet-shaped finials that meet and join. His long sausage curls, falling to the shoulder, are bound by what is either a thick headband or the thickened edge of a head cap (the latter would explain the smoothness of the hair over this band, which contrasts with the thick curls below it). His features are markedly different from those of any other child on the frieze, a pudgy and pear-shaped face with rather gross lips and a flat, bulgy nose; contrast the delicate face of the young camillus Gaius Caesar on the north wall (fig. 76). Behind this child is a woman marked as a non-Roman noble again by jewelry (earring) and also by the diadema (cloth band) that binds the hair pulled back under her laurel wreath.[30] She will be the child's mother from his native land; she places a hand on the boy's head and looks down at him. The general dress and appearance of this boy and the woman's diadema place him as coming from the Hellenized East; as his hair and clothing are Oriental, and the woman's diadema is in origin a Macedonian royal token, one thinks of a Greco-Oriental monarchy.

Who exactly are these two young foreigners? The Ara Pacis was voted to Augustus on the occasion of his return to Rome after having reorganized Gaul and Spain, as he himself tells us in his Res gestae (12.2), and the BR child on the altar is to be connected with this. The presence of Drusus on the cup indicates that the children being handed over there are Gauls, for Drusus never exercised any imperium in Spain. This BR child then must have come to Augustus from Gaul. The Eastern child is shown closely linked to Agrippa. We know that Agrippa returned to Rome at the


same time or shortly after from a complementary tour of organization in the kingdoms of the East, having most notably worked in the client kingdoms of Pontos,[31] Commagene, and the Bosphoros; the child with him must be a princeling of one of these Oriental dynasties.[32]

Can this Eastern prince be further identified? The torque could be worn by Asian dynasts[33] and hence figures in the contemporary iconography of Attis, as on the Hildesheim dish;[34] his mane of sausage curls and his facial physiognomy recall numismatic portraits of the kings of Pontos and the Bosphoros.[35] Key are this child's distinctive shoes, characterized by a three-lobed flap that falls over the floppy bowknot that secures the soft shoe. Shoes that have a floppy bow and some kind of flap over the top of the foot were recognizably Eastern, for they occur on Augustan images of Parthian captives.[36] But in none of these does the flap cover the bow in this way or take this distinctive outline (flared, scalloped in three convex lobes). This otherwise unique footwear turns up on a pair of late Republican decorative bronze lamp holders (ca. 40-20 B.C.) (fig. 81), epicene boys who wear a fantastic version of the royal costume of Commagene; their figured tiara,[37] sash, voluminous leggings and tunic, though draped in Roman Neo-Attic style (matching the dancing pose),[38] resemble chiefly Commagenian royal sculpture at Arsameia (Nimrud Dagh).[39] The distinctively draped mantle, pinned at the right shoulder and given an elegant flip over the left, also turns up at Arsameia; the best preserved royal likeness there, on the dexiosis relief of Antiochus and Hercules, has shoes tied with a similar bow; their upper flaps, though upright, are still decoratively marked, here by tooling.[40] The Ara Pacis boy, then, like his Gallic counterpart, can be seen to wear a child's version of an adult ethnic costume, adapted for Rome and its heat (his tunic is still unusually voluminous, though belted now in Greco-Roman fashion).

The bronze pair in New York and Baltimore shows that the iconography of the Ara Pacis boy was recognizable around the Mediterranean in the later first century B.C. Though the costume of the bronzes has some parallels in Roman depictions of Asia and Armenia,[41] it is closest to that of Commagene, and the diadem on the boy's princess-mother firmly locates the pair outside Armenia in such a Hellenized realm.[42] If the bronzes are indeed from Alexandria,[43] they should be connected with the court of Antony and Cleopatra, where royal children from around the East were (forcibly) assembled; the investiture ceremonies for Antony and Cleopatra's children (Plut. Ant. 54.7–9; Dio 49.41) document that court's knowledgeable interest in the historical range of Hellenistic royal panoplies.

Historical circumstances confirm what the visual evidence suggests,


that the Ara Pacis prince and his mother are from Commagene. There are but two queens with whom Agrippa involved himself on Augustus' behalf of northern Asia, Dynamis of Pontos[44] and Iotape I of Commagene. Dynamis of the Bosphoros, granddaughter of Mithridates Eupator, was married off in 14 B.C. to Polemo of Pontos to unify their kingdoms, and her ties of amicitia with Livia and Augustus are documented epigraphically;[45] however, she died shortly after 14 B.C.[46] and had no attested male issue. Iotape, on the other hand, is a candidate with documented offspring who was also bound by ties of friendship to the imperial house.[47]

Daughter of Artavasdes of Media Atropatene, Iotape as a very little girl (Plut. Ant. 53.6: eti mikran ousan ) was summoned to Antony's court in 34/33 B.C. to be betrothed to his son Alexander, then six years old; after Actium her father, who had taken refuge with Augustus, was given her back—she is one of the two Alexandrian hostages whom Dio singles out (54.9.3) by name, as an example of Augustus' benevolence. When she was married off to Mithridates III of Commagene, certainly at Augustus' and Agrippa's behest, she would have been perhaps fifteen to seventeen years old, as the marriage must have taken place at Mithridates' accession as a minor in 20 B.C.[48] Their son Antiochos III of Commagene died in A.D. 17 (Tac. Ann. 2.42.5), leaving a son and a daughter, who in A.D. 38 had a young son of her own. Antiochos must have been born very soon after Iotape's marriage, for even if aged thirty-six (20 B.C.–A.D. 17) he will have married, propagated, and died at a relatively young age. This Antiochos received Roman citizenship at Augustus' hands, not Agrippa's (his sons were entitled to the nomen Iulius ). If indeed his father's death and his own accession fell in 12 B.C.,[49] then we can see his inauguration as the culminating event of Agrippa's sojourn in the East. The historical and the visual evidence combined seem to prove that we see on the Ara Pacis Iotape I of Commagene (in the diadem that her granddaughter was represented as wearing)[50] with her son Antiochus III at Rome, where this prince was taken under Augustus' wing and given Roman citizenship. If Antiochus at this point was indeed fatherless, then Augustus' role as substitute pater will have been even more meaningful; that this "willing" obses was presented by the princess who as a little girl had been restored to her own father by Augustus will have deepened the resonance of the occasion. Indeed, Iotape's very presence suggests that Antiochus' father is now dead; for the BR cup scene suggests that the sponsor parent, if present at all, should be male.

Weinstock once questioned the identification of the remains we know as the Ara Pacis with the historical altar, asking rather acerbically where


one could see any reference to pax in the sculptured decoration.[51] With the identifications made immediately above, his question can now be fully answered—the foreign children on it are the pacati . Pax to Romans of the late Republic and early Empire had two distinct and complementary meanings. With reference to one's fellow Romans, it implied the absence of civil war, a wholly desirable antithesis to a wholly detestable exercise of arms, akin to the modern moral exaltation of peace. Indeed, this civil concord is implicit in the procession friezes as a whole, which show the harmonious rejoicing of the Roman aristocracy and priesthoods, together with and linked to the united imperial domus . Pax with reference to non-Romans meant undisputed acceptance of Roman authority with respect to subject and client peoples, as well as formal treaty-bound relations with total foreigners; in Roman terms, what Augustus and Agrippa had each been up to was pacification in its fullest sense (see the discussion of pax at pp. 105–6 in chapter 4 in reference to the Ara Pacis personification frieze). The two elite children on the altar are the visible emblems of the flourishing of pax due to Augustus and his agents at work in the Empire beyond the SPQR.[52]

The pair of children express the worldwide range of that pax, summing up in their persons the Eastern and Western poles of the oikoumene —all four cardinal points are there, in fact, in the apt setting of the Western child on the north wall and the Eastern child on the south wall (fig. 71). The artist's desire to set up this metaphor by means of antithetical placement was evidently strong enough to override other iconographic considerations: that is, with Agrippa and Drusus placed on the south wall for other reasons, the BR infant, whose presence would be more easily understood by the spectator if he accompanied Drusus, as the Eastern child accompanies Agrippa, is removed from his own sponsor as we know him from the BR cup and put on the other side of the complex.[53]

Pax in the imperialistic sense, it should be noted, did not imply as its antithesis armed violence as an absolute evil, in the same way as inter-Roman pax . Military virtus exercised by the Roman armies was what made pax possible for Rome's subjects, threatened by the regrettable but inevitable treacheries of barbarians outside the frontiers.[54] So it is that we see Drusus on the altar paludatus, as he is on the BR cup, itself a scene expressive of pax in a military setting; a Roman would find no discrepancy in such a collocation of peace and arms.

The altar and cup princelings, then, are emblems of imperial pax spread through the oikoumene . There are further parallels between the structuring of the Ara Pacis complex and the Boscoreale cup: both couple abstract and


particular references to peaceful imperium . In the altar complex, the children in the friezes are the particular examples that locate in real historical event the abstract reality of the lower frieze on the inner altar (figs. 71–72). This showed an assemblage of numerous provincial/ethnic personifications representing the peoples of empire, located on a frieze below the sacrificial relief frieze now visible on the altar block. The cup BR I is similar: the allegory also has a group of ethnic personifications, doing homage to a benevolent Augustus, in a timeless abstract statement of Roman world rule under Augustus' leadership, while the audience scene locates the operation of that rule in a particular historical context.

Also, both monuments emphasize the fruitfulness of imposed pax for the subject peoples themselves and tend to link the representation of children to the representation of Amor. The grouping of Amor and the Genius of the Roman People on BR I:1 is echoed in the group Drusus-alien child on BR I:2; this is brought out by the physical resemblance between the Gallic children and Amor, a chubby infant of the same age who also proceeds toward the emperor with an arm held up. In the altar complex, the foreign children are treated with the same inclusive affection as the Roman children in the frieze, and their very presence symbolizes present and future sharing by the peoples of the oikoumene in the blessings of pax symbolized by the burgeoning garden carpet encircling the walls of the complex; further, the BR child, like the very little Roman children in the frieze, is visually analogous to the baby Amores on the lap of Venus/Terra Mater on one of the four great entrance panels of the complex wall (fig. 74). Infants in a paradise garden including land and sea, nursed by the mother of all and the mother of the gens Julia, these twin Amores are a comment on the hopes and faith placed in the children who are such a key part of the Ara Pacis procession, themselves including the children of the gens Julia and the children "of all."[55]

This thematic emphasis on children, the younger the better, links the cup and altar programs, and in each case the theme is deliberately set. On the carefully planned altar this would seem obvious. On the cup, note that the BR group includes an adolescent youth (who may stand for more such youths); the artist has put his main emphasis on the foreign infants when he could have concentrated on a different age grouping (compare the grouping father/adolescent, though in a sadder vein, on the Antonine panel relief). Altar and cup obviously depend on a shared prototype for their depictions of the BR children; both partake in an observable and uniquely Augustan tendency toward the portrayal of babies and very little children.[56]


All these sophisticated and distinctive thematic links between the cup and the altar complex are too close to be entirely coincidental, and indicate a close temporal connection between the altar and the pairing of scenes on BR I. One last feature links BR I:2 to the Ara Pacis: the representation of Drusus on the altar. He is shown as a young general, the only armed figure in the entire procession, dressed in tunic, paludamentum, and caligae, instead of the toga and patrician sandals (fig. 78).[57] This not only enhances the theme of peace guarded by arms delineated above; it is also means that Drusus here is an agent for Augustus' military virtus at large in the world, complementing Tiberius' position as consul and Augustus' adoptive son Gaius' position as priest (camillus on the north wall with his mother Julia).[58] The combination of Drusus unexpectedly appearing as a young general alongside one of the BR children in the same procession strongly recalls the cup panel. In fact, the parallel extends beyond these two single figures. The compositional unit within the south altar frieze in which Drusus is framed is a mirror-image version of the sophisticated framing group seen on the cup, much as the niche wall of figures enclosing Angustus on the cup is paralleled by the group heading the south altar frieze. Drusus stands "between" a back wall of standing figures and a kind of front "parapet" of foreground figures of descending height, that is, made up largely of children; once recognized on the cup panel (see p. 161 in chapter 7), the more subdued (and reversed) version of this spatial construct on the Ara Pacis emerges to the attentive eye. This compositional unit is then indisputably a device of Augustan historical relief, firmly bound to the iconography of Drusus imperator as the patron of the Boscoreale children in connection with Augustus' projects for the pacification of Gaul.

Lugdunum Aurei

a. Aureus: obverse, bust of Augustus; reverse, bearded barbarian left, in a cloak fastened on the right shoulder, holding up a very small child stretching out its arms to Augustus at right, togate, seated on a sella castrensis on a high tribunal (CNR IV, cat. 129)

b. Aureus: obverse, laureate head of Augustus, inscribed AUGUSTUS DIVI F.; reverse, bearded barbarian left, in tunic and cloak, holding up a child, as before, to Augustus, as before, except on a low tribunal/dais, inscribed IMP. XIIII (fig. 87; BMCRE I, pl. 12.13–14)

Augustus' fourteenth acclamation as imperator dates these issues to 8/7 B.C. but the reference can only be to the event on the BR cup, which


predates these coin issues from the Lugdunum mint (Drusus died at the beginning of 9 B.C.). The date of issue means that they are part of a larger series that came out for Tiberius' triumph of 8/7 B.C., directly referred to on other types of the series. (Compare the apposition of the panel BR I:2 and the triumph of Tiberius on the companion cup BR II:2.)

The coin type represented in these two variants is unique in Roman coinage:[59] no other coin type from the Republic or the Empire shows a barbarian offering a child, or even shows the emperor togate receiving the submission of a non-Roman in a military setting. Given the closeness in time to the Ara Pacis (13–9 B.C.), a definite quotation of the BR scene in official art, I think that there is no doubt that this unique type is a deliberate abbreviation of the cup panel. This abbreviation boils down the composition to a confrontation between the emperor and the foreigner, keeping all the cup's essential elements: the emperor is togate on a sella castrensis and uses the same openhanded gesture of greeting and acceptance; the barbarian has a dignified posture (standing) and presents a child to the emperor; the child is extremely small and holds out its hands to the emperor. The better type is certainly (b ), which has the key inscriptions and gives Augustus his laurel; it is also more like the BR panel in showing the emperor on a very low dais, and so more approachable to the foreigner, who is thus allowed closer and given higher status. The foreigner's costume is also given in more detail (tunic and cloak) than on (a ) (cloak only).

For the less-perfect rendering of (a ) the artist turned without thought to earlier representational canons for victory images that put the Roman victor on a very high dais or tribunal, distanced from the suppliant, and to conventional images of beaten barbarians shown as half-naked. The basic composition of such canonical submissio scenes, where the suppliant generally kneels, accords with textual descriptions of the real-life stage management of such formal submissions, such as the surrender of the Cauchi to Tiberius in A.D. 4, narrated by Tiberius' officer Velleius Paterculus (2.104–3.106); the canonical submission type, available at least since the time of Sulla (fig. 50),[60] has been modified on this Lugdunum coinage in the same way and to the same thematic end as rex datus types, which give the foreigner being honored by Rome greater dignity, depicting him standing erect.[61]

This issue has been rightly compared to earlier triumphal issues commemorating Drusus' and Tiberius' victories for Augustus, issued from Lugdunum 15-12 B.C. (IMP. X) (figs. 115–16); for it is clear that the compositional structure or template of these earlier types in the Lug-


dunum IMP. (#) series was the direct inspiration for the structure of the later "baby" issues. In the coinage of 15-13 B.C., the standing figure(s) at left is (are) cloaked general(s), Drusus alone or with his brother, and he (they) offer not babies but laurel branches. While this parallel has been used to show that the type of 8/7 B.C. has something to do with victory and is therefore a submission,[62] it illustrates instead my interpretation. The non-Roman offering his baby is cognate with Augustus' honored stepsons offering their gifts of victory to an appreciative emperor; if one places any interpretive weight at all on the compositional borrowing, one must see the non-Roman also as a valued subject offering a gift to an appreciative emperor. This image certainly is connected to victory, but in the sense explored above in relation to the Ara Pacis, and with historical reference to Gaul's role in Drusus' and Tiberius' German campaigns, discussed below.

The Lugdunum coinage of 8/7 B.C., then, shows the BR event being advertised by means of the most wide-reaching organ of propaganda available to the state. The Ara Pacis is a parallel reference to this event, designed for an audience of the Senate and People of Rome; the coinage of the Lugdunum mint served Rome's money needs, but it also served the Roman armies and native inhabitants of Gaul and the Rhine frontier. The coin image, in other words, was made to be seen by the very armies who served with Drusus and Tiberius, in one of whose camps the cup shows this event to have taken place, and it was also designed for the Gauls, whose elite are depicted handing their children over to Augustus' protection.[63] A very good parallel is provided by the Augustan triumphal arch (ca. 20–10 B.C.) at the entrance to Glanum in southern Gaul: as P. Gros has shown,[64] on one main panel (fig. 85) a "good" Gaul in Romanized dress (his fringed sagum draped as a toga)[65] leads by a chain a "bad" savage Celt (German); on the facing panel Gallia Triumphans[66] supervises another captive. Here is the same association of Gallic support with Roman imperialism, designed for a Gallic audience as much as for a Roman one. An early imperial cuirass statue (Swiss priv. coll.)[67] uses similar imagery in what is obviously a Roman triumphal context: a "good" Celt in a sagum decorates a trophy, beside which stands a bound savage barbarian. All these images are meant to honor the real historical circumstance that Roman expansion into Germany depended in fact on the loyalty and active support of the Gauls, as dutiful taxpayers and fighting men; thus a Gallic officer walks in Tiberius' German triumph on BR I:2. This "good" and "bad" Celt imagery helps to document a broader Augustan context in which foreign contributions to Roman power were now honored by


Rome, and is the visual analogue to Claudius' famous paean to the Gauls in the Lugdunum bronze tablet; the Glanum arch must commemorate these very campaigns of the Claudii Nerones.

The visual comparanda for BR I:2 (cup, Ara Pacis, coinage) together form a complex describing a unique event by means of unique imagery. The complex offers us something like a perfectly controlled experimental group in which to observe how a given political event was singled out, on account of its contemporary political significance, to be commemorated and broadcast in a variety of artistic media, public (altar and coinage) and private (the silver cups themselves). In examining how Augustan propaganda is constructed here we can see two different phenomena or processes in operation. One is the invisible (to us) hand of some guiding organ of state (emperor and/or minister) directing and synchronizing the artistic propagation and dissemination of official imperial policy over a vast geographic expanse, aimed at every level of imperial society. The other is an artistic phenomenon, the process by which an image that narrates history can be established, expanded, abbreviated, quoted, according to the demands and limits of a given visual context. Abbreviation, as on the coins, and quotation, as on the Ara Pacis, indicate in their turn that the artists responsible thought that such allusions would work . That is, they depended on such symbols, in themselves containing incomplete information, to evoke, without recourse to verbal explanation, some pre-existing knowledge of image or event from an audience. The BR cup scene reproduces the original detailed and largely self-explanatory artistic narrative, produced to commemorate some event of major political significance. It was the knowledge both of this event and of its iconography that permitted figures isolated from the larger context to function as carriers of meaning on Augustus' altar; and where the altar invests most heavily in the figures of the children in themselves, the coins celebrate the transaction between the childrens' fathers and their ruler, appropriately enough for an image disseminated not least in the native territory of those represented.

Now, it is obvious that the imperial die cutters and sculptors did not borrow from a little silver cup. The kind of abbreviation we see on the altar in particular is evidence that the cup itself was not based directly on the altar depiction, for in borrowing, figure types tend to be conflated (as two BR children are into one Ara Pacis child) or moved out of direct informational context (as Drusus the general is separated on the altar from the child he sponsored), rather than the other way around. Rather, the cup panel, altar, and coin type all derive separately from a common source,


which they all use to different effect. This source can only have been a large-scale imperial monument with a relief (or possibly a painting) narrating the BR event, a monument that I think we can assume the BR panel reproduces faithfully. It is possible (see p. 51) that the Lugdunum coin image itself does not directly abbreviate a two-dimensional prototype but rather records a freestanding statue group related in context and chronology to the Ara Pacis and cup depictions. Like other public commemorative monuments in Rome, the prototype would have had an accompanying inscription giving further information. To hypothesize the occasion of its commission, we need to know more about the occasion it depicted.

Lost Episodes in Augustan History

I started above to explore the symbolic value of the complex of images made up by the BR cup, the Ara Pacis, the Lugdunum coinage, and the cup's prototype. To get at the full panegyric value of this propaganda, one needs to be as precise as possible about why the barbarians are handing over their children and what the event has to do both with Drusus' actual activities and with their acknowledgment by the emperor. The study of Augustan history will be well served if we can answer these questions, for we will supply historical information not available from any textual source. This event, so thoroughly proclaimed by Augustan propaganda in the years immediately before and after Drusus' death, has left none but artistic traces—a phenomenon that is itself worthy of note.

Why are the BR children being handed over? The easy solution, always taken before, has been to describe these children as hostages (obsides ), in the primary modern definition of the term. Their people have just been beaten in war by Drusus acting for Augustus, and so, lest this people offer any future military threat, their leaders have been coerced into handing over their children. The Roman state receives them as a cold and suspicious warden, to hold them prisoner against future misbehavior by their parents, and their presence in Rome or in Roman hands is simply an emblem of Roman military victory. This interpretation describes the opposite of what the BR cup in fact depicts. The alien adults are not shown as savage, disheveled, or humiliated, as they ought to be according to Greco-Roman standards for the depiction of beaten barbarians. Their young children are unafraid and joyful. Neither Drusus nor Augustus appears minatory. Drusus, the general who would have faced these people in battle had that in fact been the prelude to this scene, stands in their midst with


no other soldier near him, appearing as one of their party acting as its sponsor, physically assisting these children just as their fathers do. Angustus meets them affably, with a gesture of welcome in response to the eager outreach of the children, It is very important that this emperor, whose demeanor must set the tone of the event, is in the toga of a magistrate carrying out diplomatic and administrative duties, not in the armor of a commander in chief viewing the submission of just-humbled adversaries: of all the many true submissio scenes in Roman art, not one shows the Roman leader receiving foreigners in a toga instead of paludatus . The same general tone of benevolent patronage is maintained on the Ara Pacis (discussed above) and is manifest even on the coin types, which on their limited scale manage to keep the gestures that establish this tone, the reaching out of the trusting infant and the welcoming response of the emperor in his toga; I have just shown how, in terms of numismatic inconography, this coin image was meant to be read as one of free gift-giving by a valued donor.

These children are being welcomed to Rome's authority, then, rather than dragged there. Not only that, but they are being welcomed into the imperial domus . The visual language of the cup, and the coins, makes it quite clear that the fathers involved are handing their children out of their own patria potestas into Augustus' fatherly authority. This is not something distinct from the children's reception by the wider authority of the Roman state, for Augustus' unique position at the head of the state (in a few years he was to be formally saluted as pater patriae ) means that he receives them into his own tutela/clientela and into Rome's patronage at one and the same time. The Ara Pacis makes it quite clear that the infant shown there is to be understood as equal in status to the patently regal Oriental child behind Agrippa.[68]

Brought to Rome and reared at court, such children did still have the value of hostages, and naturally so. However, though Latin tends to use the same word, obses, to describe both a "real" hostage and a guest at court, that distinction was, and is, still meaningful. The BR children are not to be reckoned among the "ôtages barbares" catalogued by A. Aymard;[69] rather, like the children of Phraates of Parthia, like Cleopatra's daughter Cleopatra Selene, like the sons of Herod of Judea,[70] they are meant to be raised under direct imperial supervision until grown, then returned to take their parents' places of leadership to instill in their native people filial allegiance to Rome and to the imperial house.[71]

Suetonius attests that this was a notable and typical practice of Augustus, stating it as plain fact without bothering to enumerate the individuals


involved: "plurimorum [sc. regum] liberos et educavit simul cum suis et instituit ("he reared and educated the children of very many kings along with his own," Aug. 48). Suetonius describes the practice as an integral part of Augustus' general policy toward client-rulers, of simultaneously sanctioning and exploiting their authority for the governance of the empire. The emperor made it plain that such ruling elites were to be cherished (when loyal) by their Roman masters as vital to the maintenance of empire, making as necessary a contribution to that empire as the limbs make to the body: "nec aliter universos quam membra partesque imperii curae habuit" (Aug. 48).

Of course, on occasion such "hostages" could also be displayed as emblems of Roman triumph and superiority, and this could be done simultaneously with an effort to give them open honor. Augustus first displayed the children of Phraates in the arena, and then seated them in the row of seats immediately behind himself (Suet. Aug. 43.4); Gaius was to drive across the bay at Baiae in a triumphal chariot with the Parthian prince Darius at his side (Suet. Calig. 19.2), at once a trophy and an esteemed companion in a traditional place of honor (traditional, note, for the triumphator's children). There is no question that the same linked themes of imperium and cura are illustrated on the BR cup, celebrating Augustus' rule over foreigners, in his own right and exercised through his agents. Still, the attempt to give visual form to a benevolent image of Roman rule is worth noting, as a development of Roman imperialism in general and as part of Augustan ideology in particular. The phenomenon has recently been illuminated as a historical practice in D. Braund's study, Rome and the Friendly King . I will review his arguments and expand, where possible, on his observations.

From the second century B. C. , kings are known to have sent their sons to Rome for education; the first known to have done so is Ariarathes IV of Cappadocia (Braund 1984, 9), just before the Third Macedonian War. However, "only with Augustus did the phenomenon become anything like a custom" (Braund, 10); this distinctive phenomenon is the background for Augustan practice.

Before the Principate, such royal offspring were commanded to the paternal authority of the Senate, to receive a crucial portion of their paideia under the tutelage of the Roman state. This reflects Rome's growing dominance in the Hellenistic world: princes might now come to Rome, as well as to Athens or any other Hellenic center of culture, to receive their paideia, which was seen by their fathers in such cases as an education primarily political in nature (Braund, 11). As Livy says of Ariarathes, "re-


gem educandum filium Roman misisse ut iam inde a puero adsuesceret moribus Romanis hominibusque, petere ut eum non sub hospitum modo privatorum custodia sed publice etiam curae ac velut tutelae vellent esse" (43. 19). Later, one such royal scion (Demetrius I of Syria) himself declared in the Senate that Rome was his homeland and nurse, the sons of senators his brothers, and the senators—patres —themselves his fathers (patres ) (Polyb. 31.2.6f.). Under the Republic, these guests were in the care of the SPQR and housed in a dwelling of their own at public expense under the direction of the praetor urbanus (Braund, 9f.); Augustus took them under his own tutela and incorporated them into the imperial family (Suet. Aug. 48). The practice was of course but "one part of the increased integration of kings into the Roman sphere at just this time" (Braund, 11); when individual Romans began in the late Republic to enjoy extraordinary power in the state, this was a practice that they could turn to their own aggrandizement, a further refinement of the webs of patronage such aristocrats typically built up with individual foreigners and foreign political entities. This development culminated with Augustus, whom allied kings were wont to attend exactly like clients, removing their royal garb and donning the toga to appear in attendance at his morning audiences (Suet. Aug. 60).

Braund (12) notes as Augustus' Republican predecessors in this respect Sertorius and Antony in their respective spheres of influence outside Rome. Sertorius in Spain gathered together the children of the Spanish nobles to be educated in Roman fashion, in manners, language, and culture; Antony in Alexandria assembled a great number of the offspring of the Eastern dynasts to adorn his court and as hostages—for a direct transmission of example, note that when Augustus took Alexandria he did not return all of these children, who had been ordered to court, but kept a number of them (Plut. Sert. 14.2; Dio 51. 16.2). Certainly, it is the case that neither of these men operated from the city of Rome itself, and thus could not be said actually to usurp the functions of the Senate and the praetor urbanus as they operated with regard to hostages in Rome. However, Antony did hold his court as a consul and in other ways acted as if "Rome" was where he was—notably in his transfer of his triumph celebration to Alexandria, the first time a triumph had been staged in a foreign city and not in the capital. I think that Antony here simply assumed the role of the SPQR in demanding and hosting hostages, without paying any heed at all to traditional practice. Antony's behavior was the steppingstone, as it were, by which Augustus passed over to incorporating "hostages" into his own domus at the very capital; the first step will have been


his taking of the remnants of Antony's group of foreign princes under his own personal protection in "delivering" them from the hands of Antony and Cleopatra.

In regard to Sertorius, Braund notes the "central ambiguity" (12) explored above: that is, the children of the Spanish nobles, though sent ostensibly as students, were also seen as potential hostages for their people's good behavior. Ancient observers were well aware of this (Plut. Sert. 14.2; App. BCiv. 1.114; Dio 51.16).[72] Sertorius and Antony also demanded the presence of these children, breaking with the established ritual that royal parents sent their children into Roman hands on their own initiative; for Braund, Augustus rejected their example and returned to Republican convention: "Unlike Sertorius and Antony, Augustus is not known to have actively encouraged kings to send their sons to him at Rome."

The evidence seems to show that, originally, Hellenistic rulers set up this practice, themselves suggesting to their powerful neighbor the role of benevolent patron. The Romans quickly took to the practice and assimilated this role fully, to the point where the Roman plebs could be at least temporarily swayed by appeal to its role of patronage in this respect: Sallust in the Jugurthine Wars shows both the political capital to be made by foreign royals from the institution and the place it held in late Republican morality, in his partisan depiction of the urging of Adherbal's cause. Antony and Sertorius show Roman leaders indisputably self-conscious of the political and propagandistic gains to be made, in the same late Republican time frame.[73]

The institution of royal fosterage, then, was a recognized, if limited, facet of that ideology of benevolent and morally justifiable imperialism that begins to be openly formulated in the first century B.C.; the space given by Livy to the cases noted above is itself part of this phenomenon. That ideology achieves a special climax in the Augustan period, when love is injected into the relationship between Romans and non-Romans in Ovid's prayer to Pax that those lands that do not fear Rome should come to love her (Fast. 1.718). The ideology of benevolent imperialism had developed two distinct models by the Augustan period. One was the "organic" model, the empire as a body with its members governed by the head—namely, Rome. Augustus' own trumpeting of this model (documented by Suetonius) is immediately reminiscent of the use of the same model by his contemporary Livy to describe the interior structure of Rome as a city-state.[74] The other model is that of a familia or domus in which foreign leaders stand to Rome's leaders as children to their parents, or favored clients to their patrons. This is the model of imperialism whose


expression in the province group of the allegory BR I:1 I explored above; while the emphasis there was on a kind of clientship, on this side of the cup we see the model of child-parent, in very literal form. We can view the emphasis placed by both the cup and the Ara Pacis on the depiction of very young foreigners as expressing Augustus' attitude to the exploitation of the institution of fosterage; the linking of these children to amor /Amor on the monuments illuminates the climate of thought in which a prayer like Ovid's could be formulated.

Another historical phenomenon is to be noted when we place Braund's evidence next to the cup event: the deliberate imposition of this institution of fosterage on parts of the Empire that would not have generated it spontaneously. The practice developed as a "spontaneous" act in the Hellenized parts of the Mediterranean; Sertorius and then Augustus can now be seen to be imposing this practice on the Celtic peoples of the Western part of the Empire. It is moot whether Sertorius was a Romanizer for anything but his own advantages;[75] it is certainly the case, however, that he saw perfectly promising raw material for such Romanization in the Spanish elites.[76] In this he should remind us of Caesar, who saw equally promising material for Romanization in the elites of many of his Gallic allies. Augustus certainly can be said to have deliberately imposed this institution of "son-giving" on the peoples of Gaul, given the act itself and its documentation in the visual material assembled here; it fits a distinct new strain in triumphal art in his reign, which honors the contribution of non-Roman auxiliaries to Rome's empire, especially with regard to Gaul. Unfortunately, in his Res gestae Augustus drew attention only to the children sent him by elites totally outside the boundaries of Roman rule (does this show reticence to acknowledge his alteration of Republican custom?); he omitted thus not only instances for which we have alternative evidence, such as Herod's children, but also instances like that illustrated by the BR cup, for which there are no alternative texts. Even in this section (RG 32.1), however, he is careful to report sendings from the West as well as the East and to group his citations from these two halves of the Empire to underscore the point of a worldwide practice: Parthorum, Medorum, Adiabenorum [East], Britannorum, Sugambrorum, Marcomanorum, Sueborum [West].

The BR cup should be understood as showing Augustus at a stage-managed occasion, where a whole group of Gallic chieftains have been organized to present their children at the same time; in actual fact this is reminiscent of Sertorius' actions, but in presentation (as on the Ara Pacis) it is made out to be an exact replication of "spontaneous" Hellenistic mo-


narchical practice. Its organization then corresponds to the state-managed inauguration of organized imperial cults in the West, where corporate ruler-cults like that at Lugdunum were caused to be founded to replicate institutions of the Greek East,[77] like the cult of the Koinon of Asia. Roman statesmen had learned that such mechanisms could be useful, and so imported them into the West. It is also legitimate to see in such importations. the desire to standardize in and of itself, to replicate the mechanisms of Roman control throughout the oikoumene .[78]

This analysis contradicts Braund's statement (12) that "Augustus is not known to have actively encouraged kings to send their sons to him at Rome."[79] The BR children are not the children of kings, as such—they come from a tribal society, not a monarchic society on the Eastern model—but their position was felt at the time to be analogous. Not only is their coming to Rome to be seen as the result of imperial direction; the intensification of the custom in the East must also reflect a strong degree of imperial encouragement. When a practice consisting of an exchange between two parties solidifies into custom, both parties must somehow be involved. In the case of "son-giving," as in the analogous case of the granting of religious honors and cult to Roman leaders, the appearance of a free gift is itself part of the gift. Because of this, all that contemporary testimonia can be expected to show on the surface is an offer from low to high. Almost never are we privileged to look directly at the eliciting of honors by high from low. A process can continue in the same way that it originates, as a series of apparently free and spontaneous acts; in its continuation, however, it comes to be taken for granted, and its flourishing is as much a product of unwritten law imposed from above as it is a product of real emotions directed upward from below. Testimonia such as the BR cup and the ancient accounts of Sertorius, like the evidence on the organization of the Lugdunum imperial cult, are interesting not least because they give direct hints about the kinds of official direction that were usually hidden behind a veil of "spontaneous" gift.

Drusus and the Primores Galliarum, 13-10 B.C.

Having established what role the BR children play and "what" they are, we can now look more specifically for who they are. The evidence presented above makes it plain that they are Gauls. Their dress is generically Gallic; the identification is settled by the connection of the Ara Pacis (which mandates Gaul and Spain) with Drusus' activities (some of which


took place in Gaul, none in Spain). Compare the ethnic personifications on the other side of the cup: the most prominent figure is quite clearly meant to stand for the people of BR I:2 and on the other hand is paired with Spain, traditionally coupled with Gaul in Augustan art and rhetoric. We need now an occasion on which Drusus and Augustus were concerned with refining Roman administration of friendly Gallic peoples. The historical background is as follows.

In 13 B.C. Augustus returned to Rome from Spain and Gaul, more specifically, from Gaul as his last stop (RG 12: "ex Hispania Galliaque"); this is when he was voted the Ara Pacis, on which one of the BR children is depicted, which links the child(ren) with Augustus' encouragement of Gallic prosperity. He had gone to Gaul in the first place in 16 B.C. to deal with foreign incursion and native unrest (see below): the solving of both problems constituted the imposition or gift of pax in both its primary senses, the abolition of foreign threat and of civil discord, eminently suitable for commemoration by a monument to Augustan Pax. (The same was true of Agrippa's mission to Asia Minor, commemorated on the Ara Pacis by the Oriental child with Agrippa; see figs. 78–80.) Augustus' plans for re-forming Gaul did not terminate with his return to Rome in 13 B.C.; he left behind him in Gaul as legate of the tres Galliae his stepson Drusus.

Drusus' mandate was an important one, with three major parts. First, he was charged to initiate in 13 a full census of Gaul (Livy Per. 138); Augustus had carried out one in 27, but Drusus' census was to include for the first time property and class evaluation. This task was not only formidable in purely bureaucratic terms, it also required firm, but sensitive, political handling: the first-time imposition of such a census in the new German province by Varus some twenty years later was to provoke unrest so severe as to destroy Roman rule altogether, and the Gauls did not take kindly to the new ways either.[80] Second, he was charged to handle the preliminary organization of a new cult of Rome and Augustus at Lugdunum, a project brought to completion in 10 B.C. with the inauguration of the cult. It was to serve as a focus for Gallic loyalties to the Empire and to enhance a sense of solidarity among the tribes of three provinces:[81] in it the primores Galliarum gathered together headed by priests chosen on a rotating basis from their number, and with it was to be associated the administratively empowered assembly of these primores,[82] whose first recorded actions were connected, ironically, with funeral honors decreed for Drusus in 9.[83] Finally, the best-known portion of Drusus' mandate was


to organize for a campaign across the Rhine into Germany, to implement a plan of conquest designed to bring Germany into the empire as a province.[84]

The first two parts of Drusus' mandate are to be seen as intimately connected with this third, aggressive plan regarding Germany. Gaul had to be secured and organized as a solid base of support for the difficult program of the conquest of Germany, both for the logistical support of Drusus' own armies once they left Gaul and so that the province should not fall into unrest while the campaign was on;[85] the conquest of Germany in turn served to protect Rome's Gallic subjects (a justification for German wars already used by Caesar).[86] Census and cult were ready by 10, when Drusus launched his last campaigns after the inauguration of the altar; and, for this significant occasion, Augustus returned to Gaul and went up to Lugdunum to be present with Drusus[87] at the grand ceremonies in his own honor.[88]

Consequently, either 13 or 10 B.C. is the possible date for the BR event, when Drusus and Augustus were together—undoubtedly in Lugdunum—at an ingathering of the Gallic chieftains, at a native city at which was located a Roman military encampment and which was a major seat of Roman administration (cf. its mint). The cult itself was an affirmation of loyalty by the chiefs of Gaul to the emperor, just like the "son-giving" we see on the cup. In 10 B.C., the moment of celebration immediately prior to the German campaigns would have been appropriate for the BR event—useful, also, in putting into Augustus' hands children of the primores Galliarum before his legions crossed the Rhine.[89] Alternatively, one could set it in 13, just before Augustus' return to Rome, when he transferred power to Drusus; one can imagine an ingathering of the Gallic leaders for this occasion, as they would have to be given crucial instructions for the upcoming census, and the hostage value of their children would operate in this context as well. I discuss below the chronological problems posed by the visual evidence; the strong linkage between the cup and the Ara Pacis makes 13 B.C. more likely. In this scenario, Angustus returned from Gaul with one or more of the BR children, leaving Drusus behind; this would help explain why the BR child on the altar is separated from Drusus, as opposed to the Eastern prince clutching at Agrippa, who would have been taken to Rome by Agrippa personally in 12 B.C.

Further, the Gauls shown here seem to be from Gallia Comata, the particular region to which Augustus hastened in 16 B.C. when he went to


Gaul, from which the German campaigns were launched, and in which the altar cult was set up. Indeed, the BR adults have a very distinctive physiognomy, which seems meant to refer specifically to "long-haired" Gauls.[90]

The primary features of this physical type are smoothly waving hair trimmed halfway down the neck; a beard cut close to the line of the jaw almost to the chin, where it lengthens and is trimmed to a long, sharp point; a long, bony face with deep-set eyes and a noticeably high, domed forehead. This profile does not at all fit the generic Gaul types assumed into Roman art from Hellenistic (especially Pergamene) canons, particularly in regard to the shape of the beard and the brow.[91] No comparable depictions occur until the end of the second century A.D. (Sarmatians on the Column of Marcus Aurelius have similar beards). Unquestionably, the BR artist made an effort to render a particular ethnic type without much reference to preexisting stereotypes, Greek ones at least. Comparable efforts toward exact ethnic reference to Germans are known for the late Republic: a German head from a Marian victory monument is singled out also by its hair, having a very long braid twisted in a chignon beside the head, and a very short, fine mustache and beard. (In texts of the first century A.D. this coiffure marks various German tribes, including the Suebi and Sugambri.)[92] This sculptor in the early first century B.C. tried to execute for a Roman patron a German type based on observable reality, rather than the usual shaggy Greek Celt type.

A similar effort was made by Caesar's die cutter for a very fine obverse (fig. 86) for his Gallic victory serial of 48 B.C.,[93] which shows an emblematic Gaul of Gallia Comata. This superb bust had the same key features as the BR type: pointed beard cut close until the chin and high, domed forehead (also, neck-length hair, mantle, torque, deep-set eyes, etc.). This victory image seeks to portray a formidable, but beaten, adversary, to honor Caesar's achievement; so it is typical of victory iconography in portraying the foe as an uncontrolled savage, with lime-stiffened hair brushed back like a mane, open mouth, and especially craggy features. Under the deliberate veneer of barbarism, however, the correspondence to the BR Gaul is clear.

Our Gauls are Gauls of Gallia Comata, then; this keys in with what we know of Drusus' work before his campaign proper, when we are told that those Gauls gave him especial help. The emperor Claudius gave a speech in the Senate in A.D.48, asking for the right of Gauls of Gallia Comata to enter the Senate; a bronze copy was found in Lugdunum (CIL XIII.1668).[94] Claudius, to emphasize these Gauls' merits, discoursed on


the assistance they gave his father Drusus through their cooperation and loyalty in his taking the census, construing this cooperation (rightly) as essential to the success of Drusus' difficult forays into Germany: "patri meo Druso Germaniam subigenti tutam quiete sua securamque a tergo praestiterunt et quidem cum a(d) census novo rum opere, et inadsueto Gallis ad bellum advocatus esset" (CIL XIII. 1668, sec. 2, lines 35f.). This information, incidentally, is omitted in Tacitus' paraphrase of the same speech (Ann. 11.24–25)—it meant more to the local owner of the bronze transcript. Tacitus does give us context and outcome; the Aedui won the right to enter the Senate because they alone among the Gauls had enjoyed since the Republic the official title of brothers to the Roman people (11.25).

Augustus' own mission to Gaul, which terminated in I3 B.C., was especially linked to Gallia Comata. When he went to Gaul in 16 it was to respond to an invasion of German tribes led by the Sugambri across the Rhine, an invading force that routed the local commander Lollius (Dio 54.19.1, 20.5–6; Suet. Aug. 23).[95] This Sugambrian invasion of Gallia Comata was recalled in Horace Odes 4.2.2 in a poem written for Angustus' return in 13 B.C. (lines 51–52, "we will offer for your return tura benignis, " refer to the supplicatio on the Ara Pacis friezes). Augustus originally took with him Tiberius, then praetor, to act as his military agent (his functions transferred to Drusus; Dio 54.19.6). The serious military emergency was averted by Augustus' arrival, which frightened the invaders, who made peace and went home. Gallia Comata seems to have been the main focus of this invasion; Tiberius was put in charge of that region for just under a year to remedy the disturbances caused, says Suetonius (Tib. 9), by these German forays coupled with dissensions among the local principes ("Tiberius rexit Gallia Comata"). This record of dissension provides background for the institution of the Lugdunum altar cult, and for the special thanks given to the local chiefs for backing up Drusus. Finally, an inscription honoring a member of Augustus' official comitatus in Gaul during his trip of 16-13 B.C. cites not the "Hispania Galliaque" of Res gestae 12 but more specifically Gallia Comata and Aquitania as loci where Augustus held court.[96]

The tie between Augustus' visit to Gaul from 16 to 13 B.C. and Gallia Comata could have conditioned a spectator of the Ara Pacis to connect the BR child with Gallia Comata. It was to Gallia Comata that Augustus had given the gift of pax, protection of Rome's subjects from invasion and civil concord. (See p. 76 and p. 267 n. 54 for a monument to Augustus from Spanish regions grateful for having been so pacified.) This


sequence of events also helps explain the tie to Gallia Comata on Tiberius' 8/7 victory coinage, now that we see that he had been involved in a rehearsal of his brother's fuller mandate there.[97]

The BR Gauls may even be from the particular tribe benefited by Claudius' Senate, the Aedui.[98] They were especially honored by Drusus and Augustus at this time; as a contemporary Roman found worthy of note (Livy Per. 139), the first priest of the Lugdunum cult was the Aeduan C. Julius Vercundaridubnus, even though Lugdunum itself was the capital of a different tribe (the Segusiani, according to Strabo 4.3.2).[99] The Aedui named their new tribal capital Augustodunum sometime in Augustus' reign; probably under Augustus, Rome set up here a general school for young Gallic nobles, which existed to be seized by (the Aeduan!) Sacrovir in A.D. 21 (taking its noble students as hostages to enforce his Gallic rebellion; Tac. Ann. 3.43). It is Just possible that a Roman audience would see in children like those on the cup and altar offspring of the one tribe that they accounted uniquely close to Rome (the Augustan Strabo 4.3.2: sungeneis of the Roman people).

To sum up, the BR cup panel and the images associated with it show a party of Gauls, the primores of Gallia Comata (perhaps Aedui, perhaps from various tribes), who petition to have their young children educated under Augustus' authority, at his court. It might be interjected here that perhaps the BR depiction and its comparanda do not refer to any one specific event but symbolize a policy or series of actions. It can be answered that from the Republic through the late Empire Roman reliefs that purport to narrate the specific performance of a given ritual or the occurrence of a given political event seem uniformly to refer to an actual, historical fact, even when (as on the Ara Pacis) the visual forms of narration deliberately broaden the significance of this given event so that its political resonance will endure. I know no exceptions to this rule, which is a logical consequence of the fact that Roman political monuments were not commissioned in a vacuum but rather commemorated specific actions; it is because of this that the works of art engendered by political and military actions were to ancient authors part of the historical record, and so are recorded in biographical narratives. This is why BR I:2, and the more selective references on the Ara Pacis and the state coinage, can be taken to refer to a specific occurrence. This event or occasion must, on the evidence of the visual and historical record, have transpired either in 13 or (less likely) in 10 B.C. (Though the Ara Pacis was commissioned in 13, we do not know when before 9 B.C. amendments to its design ceased.)[100]

This event was orchestrated by Drusus and Augustus as part of the


strengthening of Gaul necessary both to its own development as a Roman province and to Augustus' plans for expansion beyond Gaul's eastern frontiers.[101] The BR depiction and the event behind it thus tie in to various significant historical phenomena: the fostering of elite children by the Empire's ruler, the Romanization of Gaul, and the career of Drusus. While Drusus was alive and shortly beyond his death this event seems to have been chosen to sum up Augustus' achievements in the West,[102] in a way similar to the use of the return of Crassus' standards to sum up Augustan sway in the East; compare the way in which the settlement of Armenia was attached first to Tiberius and then to Gaius under Augustus, and the grooming of Germanicus for power by Tiberius with a similar mandate in the East. The young Tiberius had already been put in a position by his stepfather to display his civil and military virtus as the special legate responsible for bestowing the kingship of Armenia on Rome's candidate for rule there; just so, we see Drusus being given, in fact and in propaganda, a chance to build his reputation as administrator, as well as general, acting as Augustus' legate in the West. The BR event was celebrated on his behalf to proclaim his virtues as a pacator and administrator; his military reputation, already well founded on his Rhaetian conquests, was to be further enhanced by his conquests in Germany. Chapter 8 returns to Drusus and the Augustan imagery of dynastic succession and to the problem of the prototype reliefs from which this and the other panels were copied.


The Sacrifice of Tiberius


This panel (pls. 7–9, 15) shows the sacrifice of a steer before the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline, elevated on a platform of masonry at far right (see pp. 215–16 n. 16 for damage after 1899). The sacrifice is celebrated by the imperator Tiberius, at left before a portable tripod-altar (foculus ), attended by a flute player, lictors, and others. At right two popae have wrestled the victim into position for the slaying; a third attendant swings an axe back for the fatal stroke as a fourth crouches by the steer's neck with a knife ready to stick the victim after it has been stunned.

The Sacrifice in Armor

F. Kleiner in 1983 used BR II:1 to launch an analysis of sacrifice scenes in armor in general, tying all such depictions to Aeneas iconography. His case needs to be addressed.

Kleiner held that a depiction of a sacrifice in armor would have evoked for the Roman spectator the image of Aeneas, because the only text reference is Vergil Aeneid 12.166–221, describing a sacrifice performed by Aeneas "sidereo flagrans clipeo et caelestibus armis."[1] However, Aeneid 8.639–41 describes another armed sacrifice, made by Romulus and Titus Tatius to conclude a foedus with one another: "Post idem inter se posito certamine reges / armati Iovis ante aram paterasque tenentes / stabant et caesa iungebant foedera porca" (Romulus and Tatius sacrificed in armor, holding paterae, at the altar of Jupiter, by sticking a pig simultaneously). This sacrifice is described as "depicted" on the very Shield of Aeneas, which we are told in book 12 he carried at his sacrifice in armor. The


context of Aeneid 12.166–221 is that Aeneas and Latinus sacrifice jointly to seal their alliance with one another, just as Romulus and Tatius do in the passage adduced here. The sacrifice in armor as described in the Aeneid, therefore, does not function as an attribute peculiar to Aeneas: rather, this iconography is mandated by a particular politico-religious rite, the foedus and/or coniuratio .[2]

The iconography of the armed sacrifice should be seen as broadly Italic, and Vergil's word pictures belong to his "Italicizing" strain. There was a freestanding sculpture group of the joint sacrifice by Romulus and Tatius that stood on the Sacra Via near the Temple of Jupiter Stator (itself reputedly founded by Romulus) toward the foot of the Capitoline Hill (Servius ad Aen. 8. 639–41); this or a similar group seems to have existed already in the Republican period, when it was the probable model for many coniuratio scenes: two warriors stick a pig with their swords as part of the religious ceremony by which military oaths of alliance were taken. Since this fetial rite included a sacrifice, not only of the pig but of other victims, it belongs to the category of sacrifices paludatus or "in armor."

Images of the rite first turn up on the gold staters of the Second Punic War (fig. 96); the type is used again in Rome in the later Republic (137 B.C.).[3] In the private sphere it occurs on gems and glass pastes up into the later first century B.C. (fig. 95).[4] We have a sure case of this rite being employed in the historical period of the late Republic, and being so depicted: the Italian forces of the Social War minted a type with a number of warriors on either side of the pig all sticking the unfortunate victim with their swords at once, signifying a pact of alliance between all the anti-Roman contingents.[5]

The armed sacrifice and its depictions were therefore not avoided in Republican Rome and Italy. The BR panel showed the imperator Tiberius performing another recognizably fetial rite involving military oath taking, though not the pig sticking associated with the foedus or coniuratio ; his is the taking of vows to Jupiter at the outset of a military campaign (see below).

The Imperator

The imperator is in extremely high relief (pls. 7–9). His head has been torn away, but as Tiberius is recognizably the triumphator on the other side of the cup, he can be identified in this companion panel with certainty—on BR I also each panel centers on the same person, Augustus. Tiberius wears


full Roman dress uniform: heavy boots (caligae ), greaves, a fitted body cuirass bordered with short tongues (pteryges ) over a tunic protected by a skirt of leather strips, a paludamentum draped from the shoulders. He balances a lance on his left shoulder; his right hand, now missing, would have held out a patera toward the foculus[6] to which he turns.

The figure type corresponds to that used for the cuirassed Octavian in the post-Actium CAESAR DIVI F. coin series: weight shift to the left, right foot trailing, lance on the left (weight-bearing) side, with a mantle draped from the shoulders to fall straight down behind the figure, leaving the right arm free for action—here a rhetorical gesture, on the cup a sacrificial act.[7] The coin type is acknowledged to depend on an actual cuirass statue (or statue series) erected for Octavian's Actian triumph;[8] it differs from the Primaporta Augustus (fig. 64), whose weight is on the right leg with an arm up on the "free" left side (and whose paludamentum is wrapped around the hips). The BR-Actian coin figure type surfaces again, for instance, for the (image of a) statue of Germanicus on a Caligulan dupondius commemorating his triumph of A.D. 17 (SIGNIS RECEPTIS DE VICTIS GERM),[9] a statue erected in connection with his triumph or with the triumphal monuments posthumously decreed him.

Kleiner felt that the BR sacrifice takes place outside of Rome, because Tiberius wears both "defensive" armor (lorica ) and "offensive" armor (spear) and would not have worn this particular combination in Rome.[10] No ancient evidence suggests that body armor was understood not to be a sign of aggressive power. In Roman art it seems to signify simply that someone is a man of war who can/did/will exert successful military force. Few cuirass statues survive from the capital to inform us of norms of accoutrement, but Augustus certainly placed cuirassed portrait statues in his Forum—spectacularly "offensive" was the armed Romulus carrying off the spolia opima, the focus of one of the two exedrae.[11] A statue erected in the Forum at Praeneste of M. Anicius, for events of 216 B.C. (siege of Casilinum), was cuirassed and togate (Livy 23.19.18); in this context, clearly, a cuirass simply designates a warrior (in contrast to the civilian toga).[12] Caesar must have been cuirassed in the portrait on the Rostra voted him in 46 B.C., showing him as a victorious siege breaker in a mural crown (Dio 44.4f.)—not a cuirass with defensive significance! There is rich documentation for cuirassed[13] and/or spear-bearing statues in Rome,[14] sometimes incorporated in battle groups.[15]

Kleiner also wished the BR II sacrifice to take lace in the field, to supply a pendant to BR I:2 (Drusus panel). Although the two scenes are palpably analogous, this analogy is structured by visual markers and by


basic iconographic and familial links. The cuirassed Tiberius corresponds to his brother imperator not only in status (general under Augustus' auspices ) but also visually. Each, in paludamentum and smooth cuirass, stands at the left of his panel and essentially makes an offering toward center right—Drusus offers the fruits of his success to Augustus; Tiberius makes a sacrificial offering to Jupiter Capitolinus. Augustus on BR I, in turn, is himself invested with the aura of Capitoline Jove, as in Ovid's grand climax to the Metamorphoses: "pater est et rector uterque" (15.860).

The Capitolium and Augustan Architectural Representation

The cup shows a tetrastyle temple with no side colonnade on a high substructure of ashlar masonry (pl. 9, 23). A long garland is suspended from the corners of the architrave, its ends hanging down on either side of the temple facade. In the pediment is an eagle upon a globe, which identifies the structure as the Capitolium, for the eagle of Jupiter commanding the orbis terrarum could designate no other god than Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Note the great care that has gone into the symbolism of this scene, rendering this tiny detail so as to be legible. It is fitting that this aspect of Jupiter should be stressed on a cup depicting triumph and the prayers connected with it; the symbolism matches the allegory of BR I:1, where Augustus holds a globe in his own hand; and the eagle, Jove's agent, as instrument of domination, is a metaphor for Augustus in relation to Jove and Augustus' stepsons in relation to himself. Though this detail is tiny, I do not think I read too much into it: since the artist could have put a laurel wreath here, much easier to carve and with its own triumphal associations, the choice of this particular symbol must have been deliberate. On the monumental relief postulated as prototype, such a detail, suitably picked out in paint/metal, would have been very noticeable.

The BR Capitolium is a simplified image of the monument, evocative of such sensory data as its dominance of the Capitoline hill, its massive foundations, and its basic form, rather than an exact rendering of the temple architecture; the Capitolium itself had a hexastyle porch with three rows of columns and side colonnades. This kind of abbreviation of architectural detail is typical of small-scale architectural representations in Roman art, as a legion of frustrated scholars of the numismatic corpus of architectural images could testify.[16]

Republican coin images of the Capitolium offer instructive parallels. M. Volteius' denarii of ca. 76 B.C. (fig. 97)[17] use the same scheme of a


tetrastyle facade and a symbolic attribute of Jupiter in the tympanon, here the lightning bolt. On the coin the temple's identity is further confirmed by the careful rendering of the three doors of the triple cella. This is actually a good, careful image; the next Capitolium type, on denarii of Petillius Capitolinus (37 B.C.), gives more "real" detail (six columns on the facade, attempt to show actual pedimental and akroterial sculpture), but it is a much worse image of the temple, very crudely cut and esthetically unappealing.[18] The BR artist has tried not only to show the temple but to convey its presence on the rocky eminence of the Capitoline hill; compare the denarii of C. Considius Nonianus of ca. 63/62 B.C. showing the Temple of Venus on the mountain of Eryx with its ring walls below (fig. 98).[19]

I do not affirm that the BR representation draws directly on numismatic conventions. Rather, the comparison shows how late Republican and early imperial artists in Rome found similar solutions to the problem of creating an evocative, recognizable architectural image on a very small physical scale. This brings up a point that helps to date the BR cup scene and its prototype: that is, the small scale on which the Capitolium is represented on the cup; for the artist, quite easily, could have enlarged the temple facade to use it as an architectural backdrop for his human figures; this is in fact how architecture is characteristically treated in Roman historical relief from the Villa Medici reliefs (fig. 9) (Tiberian/Claudian) into late antiquity. The same tendency is observable on imperial coinage beginning under Caligula with the first type to show human action (emperor and entourage) in an event (sacrifice) in front of a temple, here shown as a facade behind the figures, reaching slightly higher than the participants' heads.[20] The confident execution of this new numismatic convention indicates its derivation from monumental relief conventions, as illustrated by the late Augustan Sorrento base (fig. 15) and the Tiberian Villa Medici fragments (the Caligulan coin supports a pre-Claudian date for these).[21] Together, the coin and the extant sculpture point to a late Tiberian or Caligulan start to this distinctive way of combining human figures with an architectural representation. This argument means that the BR scene cannot be later than the Augustan or early Tiberian period.

In fact, there is a direct parallel to the BR compositional scheme in the field of monumental relief, and this parallel helps to fix the BR composition firmly in the Augustan period. The Aeneas panel of the Ara Pacis (fig. 99)[22] incorporates the Temple of the Dii Penates into the composition exactly the way the Capitolium is incorporated into the BR sacrifice: the


temple stands on a high stone outcrop at the far edge of the panel (here, left) to frame the action, so that the sacrificant faces toward the temple and its gods view his sacrifice to them; it is physically very small, set near the top of the relief field; it is shown in flattened three-quarter view, in contrast to the frontal representations of Republican and imperial coinage and of most imperial relief, and its side and front share a single horizontal ground line; its drafted ashlar masonry is carefully delineated on the side of the building, larger than to actual scale, with no side colonnade. The prevalence of this convention is apparent in the late Republican/Augustan "Grimani reliefs" from Praeneste, four panels that each show a particular animal curled up before a landscape outcrop; the barn in the sheep panel (fig. 101)[23] is rendered as if it were a temple, along the lines described.[24] Another Augustan "bucolic" relief employs the convention in a sacrificial context: the Munich "peasant panel" (fig. 100) shows an old man on his way to a sacrifice, with a chapel of Priapus on a crag at upper left, the statue of the god appearing in the doorway, much as the Dii Penates appear at their door in the Aeneas panel (the similarly rendered crags have already been remarked).[25] The Praeneste relief seems to reflect an earlier stage in the motif or convention where the building shown is not quite as small in proportion to the human figures, so "elevated" or "far," and in which it is not yet used so explicitly as a framing element. To this earlier phase belongs the Bern Dionysiac cock-sacrifice relief,[26] which locates a temple of our type in the background cityscape near the center, a temple of similar proportions to the Praeneste temple-barn; the convention survives in an early imperial decorative relief with dramatic masks from Pompeii.[27] The Ara Pacis, or perhaps more correctly its atelier, may in turn have influenced bucolic/sacro-idyllic decorative relief manufacture, if it is right to date the Munich panel by the evolution of its rock forms from those of the Aeneas panel.[28]

Such reliefs are echoed in the later first century B.C. and early first century A.D. on Dionysiac silver (amphora from Gaul,[29] Casa del Menandro skyphos[30] ) and on intaglios with idyllic and Bacchic subjects (usually worship).[31] Quite significant are two superb gems in Vienna that narrate monstrous mythic slayings, datable to the later first century B.C. On one (fig. 103) a temple of Diana hovers at left over the dying Actaeon as he is torn by a hound; the scene is ironic, for such little temples otherwise indicate a deity being worshipped by the human in the foreground—here Actaeon himself is the sacrifice to the image in the doorway. The substitution of a temple for the "living" goddess recalls the Ara Pacis panel, where the Penates are anachronistically indicated as cult statues in a


temple.[32] On a superb large sardonyx (fig. 102) (by Philon)[33] Theseus escapes from the Labyrinth, its mouth a masonry arch in a construction of Cyclopean blocks in three-quarter view, upon a rocky cliff, he looks back to where the dead Minotaur sprawls half out of the dark gate, having crawled in his death throes. The proportions, perspectival structure, and detailing of masonry are those of my architectural motif, and the artist's transposition of these conventions to a mythic "Dark Tower" is proof of their strength. Complex allegories on luxury vessels in silver and precious stones also utilized the motif. On the early Julio-Claudian Berlin cameo vase (fig. 7) from a court workshop, such a temple at left frames the symbolic narratives;[34] similarly, on an early imperial beaker from Berthouville an allegorical tableau about the Isthmian Games[35] is framed by the actual Temple of Aphrodite atop Acrocorinth.[36]

We have then an artistic convention of the late first century B.C./early first century A.D.: temples of those gods involved in the main event appear very small, in three-quarter view, elevated at one edge of the composition on a built or natural outcrop.[37] The especial narrative locus seems to be sacrifice and/or worship, being performed or about to be performed. This convention might be thought to have originated in landscape painting, especially sacro-idyllic landscapes, which typically incorporate shrines; but in fact there are few parallels in the surviving corpus of wall painting and none in the related stucco compositions. Several panel paintings in the first century B.C. show flattened three-quarter-view temples or pedimented buildings to one side, in either a mythical narrative (e.g., Boscotrecase),[38] a sacrificial tableau (e.g., Palatine house of Augustus),[39] or an epiphany (e.g., Boscoreale Venus) (fig. 4).[40] In these panels, however, the scale of the buildings relative to the human actors is more "correct"—they do not generally appose large foreground figures with small buildings, as does relief. The House of Augustus panel, significantly, is most similar; note an epigram by the contemporary Antipater of Thessalonika that describes a similar compositions.[41]

The tendency has been to attribute the origins of reliefs like the Grimani reliefs, and the bucolic genre characteristics of the Ara Pacis end panels, for example, to a lost school of Hellenistic landscape painting centered in Alexandria. Conveniently, no examples of such painting survive to disprove this thesis. If the Republican bucolic and sacro-idyllic reliefs indeed derived from a Hellenistic painting genre, one would expect their Greek craftsmen to have produced such work also in the Hellenistic East; however, there is not in fact anything comparable from the Eastern Mediterranean.[42]


It seems clear that by the Augustan period the framing temple on a crag is a convention of marble relief, not of any dominant mode of painting; its roots are in the architectural conventions of Republican sacro-idyllic decorative relief.[43] From this genre (with many other aspects of "domestic" decoration) the motif was assumed on the Ara Pacis into the sphere of monumental commemorative relief.[44] Indeed, it may have been its use on the Ara Pacis which transformed it into a consciously deployed framing device, set firmly to one side of a picture, rather than being located vaguely in the middle or slightly off center. Some such step was the necessary precondition for its use in narrative historical compositions like those of the BR cup and the Berlin vase. Already in the Augustan or Tiberian period, the Sorrento base (fig. 15)[45] has elements of the "stageset" background of the type described above on the Caligulan coin. This use of architecture as a backdrop screen, familiar from Hellenistic relief, painting, and engraving (e.g., Praenestine cists), was at some point in the Tiberian period to become the dominant mode.[46] The temple-on-a-crag motif had limited temporal parameters, from ca. 50 B.C. through the reign of Augustus (its Antonine revival does not concern us); its use in historical commemorative and the exact correspondences in scale and detailing between the BR sacrifice and the Ara Pacis Aeneas panel (fig. 99) are close enough to date the cup (prototype) very near the altar complex (13-9 B.C.). As I have already shown how BR I:2 is closely tied to the Ara Pacis in its content, iconography, compositions, and date, this further link between the Ara Pacis and the cups is not surprising. The artistic interdependence of the cup panels is highlighted by the fact that they have significant artistic parallels with the same major monument.

The Victim Group

The "Pausias motif" was the name ascribed to this particular victim group scheme (pls. 8–9) by O. Brendel in 1930, when he collected examples and pointed to its ultimate dependence on a prototype in (Greek) painting. Brendel suggested a bull sacrifice by the artist of the fourth century B.C. Pausias, which ended up in the porticoes of Pompey's theater. The example on the BR cup is the first known representation of the group, and it is also the best. Up until the Trajanic period, this victim-slaying composition was the only one used in official relief in the capital to document the moment in a sacrifice when a bull or ox was about to be killed; although alternative renderings were introduced into the Trajanic repertoire


(none of the many slayings on Trajan's Column use the motif), the "Pausias motif" continued to be employed through the Severan period.

The scheme is native to large-scale imperial commemorative relief: from the Valle Medici reliefs through the Severan arches in Rome and Leptis Magna, it appears in the relief friezes of state monuments either erected in the capital or put up elsewhere in the Empire by state commission and manifestly executed by, or under the direction of, artists from the court ateliers in Rome. The extant examples are a version in a newly reconstructed relief from Augusta Emerita/Merida,[47] which is probably Augustan;[48] an early Julio-Claudian relief fragment in Padua;[49] the early Julio-Claudian Temple of Mars Ultor relief (fig. 9a);[50] a Julio-Claudian relief at Rome (Antiquarium Forense);[51] a passage relief on the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum (fig. 92);[52] the Hadrianic Vota Publica relief in the Uffizi (fig. 94);[53] a late Antonine or early Severan panel in the Louvre, which is generally miscalled a triumph;[54] a relief of Antoninus Pius known from a 1644 drawing;[55] an attic relief (triumph) of the Arch of Septimius Severus at Leptis Magna;[56] the two mirror-image predellae of the passage reliefs of the Arch of the Argentarii erected for Septimius Severus in Rome;[57] a third-century Roman relief in the Villa Medici.[58] (A relief fragment from Antium is too battered to date; the sacrifice takes place before a temple facade.)[59] As one would expect, the motif eventually is used in the state coinage; appearing first in Domitian's ludi saeculares series of A.D. 88 (fig. 90),[60] it is consistently employed for vota publica emissions from Hadrian to Caracalla, making some last sporadic appearances under Gordian and Gallienus.[61]

Like other topoi of state art this victim group turns up on humbler monuments commissioned by local magistrates, indeed already on the Augustan "Altar of Manlius,"[62] dedicated by his clients to the deceased C. Manlius, censor perpetuus of Caere; at the same level of patronage is a Julio-Claudian limestone relief in the Palazzo Venezia.[63] Compare the version in a set of limestone documentary reliefs at Narbo made for local notables (sacrifices and civic audiences),[64] and an Algerian triumphal relief of the late third century A.D. from the Forum at Philippeville.[65] It is garbled on a Trajanic altar to Neptune in Turin[66] and on a marble relief in Padua.[67] Last, in accord with its prominence on imperial monuments and coins it enters the vocabulary of stock scenes that decorate the so-called imperator, or generals', sarcophagi of the late second and early third centuries (fig. 93), where it is employed in the nuncupatio votorum scene that is the central motif in this group of sarcophagi (see below).

In its appearances in the state arts (relief and coinage), and in private


monuments like the sarcophagi, the "Pausias motif" is associated with vows and/or triumph. The use of this motif on the BR cup is one of the surest indicators that this cup panel (and by implication the other cup panels) depends directly on monumental relief prototypes, for the cup gives the fullest and best rendering of this victim group incorporated into a scene of sacrifice. Since, obviously, none of the later state monuments were inspired by a silver skyphos, they and the cup share separate and parallel descent from an Augustan prototype. And this prototypical Angustan relief must have adorned a monument of considerable esthetic impact commemorative significance, and public prominence for it to have exerted such a strong influence on imperial monumental art for at least two centuries.

Having sketched the history of the motif, it is time to turn to the group itself. In its fullest form, that on the BR cup, the group consists of a steer, two victimarii at its head, and a popa swinging a mallet down on its brow. One victimarius kneels in front of the bull, facing left, and twists its head down, grasping its left horn in his right hand and catching at its muzzle with his left; the other victimarius kneels on the far side of the bull, facing the first attendant, with a triangular knife in his right hand ready to stick the animal in the throat as soon as it has been stunned by the popa's axe or mallet. On the cup, this is a group full of emotional and visual tension. The bull wrestles back on its hind legs, its forelegs splayed and braced against the forces pulling its head forward and down; the popa is at the height of his swing, just about to bring his malleolus crashing down; the two victimarii, crouched and coiled in tense expectation, look up for and shy away from the path of the impending stroke. The composition is characterized by dynamic tension in three dimensions: the bull projects diagonally out into the foreground, the arc of its muscular neck framed by the triangle of human figures, while to the plunging arc and bowed masses of the bull and victimarii is opposed the swinging countercurve of the upraised mallet and its implied downward rush.

Structurally, the group of figures can be mapped onto a tilted set of axes intersecting at right angles. This is a typical structure in Hellenistic painting, mosaic, and narrative relief, as is the expenditure of formal concern on a group of servants or assistants busying themselves in the vicinity of more important persons. Compare, for instance, the foreground group of boat builders in the tableau of the sorrowing Auge on the Telephos frieze, another artful arrangement of servitors around a large, cleverly foreshortened object.[68] (The fourth servant bending vaguely behind the BR bull belongs to such a Hellenistic group composition and was quickly


dropped as otiose in the Roman relief tradition.) Brendel was struck by the group's correspondence to Pliny's description of a fourth-century painting of an immolatio boum (bull sacrifice) in the Portico of Pompey, which had been transferred to Rome from Sicyon in 56 B.C. by M. Scaurus. Pliny (HN 35.126) focused his admiration on the way in which the artist, Pausias, had demonstrated his mastery of diagonal foreshortening in painting a very large bull that truly seemed enormous, plunging toward the spectator ("cum longitudinem bovis ostendi adversum eum pinxit, non traversum, et abunde intellegitur amplitudo"). Among contemporary wall paintings after Hellenistic compositions, compare the bull depicted in the version of the Punishment of Dirce from Pompeii VII 4,56[69] with the transversum beast looming over the Paris census panel. The manipulation of relief planes in order to convey mass and motion in depth that we see in the best renderings of the BR victim group does look very painterly; Pliny's admiration was undoubtedly founded on that of many others ("Eam primis invenit [sc. Pausias] picturam, quem postea imitati sunt multi, aequavit nemo"); the painting itself hung in a prominent and well-frequented spot; and it came to Rome at about the right time (56 B.C.) to be picked up in relief by an Augustan artist employing a bit of erudite quotation and showing off his own skill at equaling the potential of painting working in a different medium. A firm connection between Pausias' immolatio boum and the BR victim group is unprovable, but one can correlate the late Republican and early imperial taste that admired compositions like Pausias' (and the work of other Greek painters in a similar vein) with contemporary relief sculpture like the BR cup.[70]

As soon as, created, the BR group began to be quoted as the formula for victim sacrifice, and in the process of transmission it was often stylized, that is, radically flattened and abbreviated. The group may be switched from right to left; the knife bearer may be dropped; sometimes even the other victimarius is omitted, so that the bull seems to bow and stretch its neck of its own accord (auspicious, this); a figure may be interposed between the bull and the spectator (by moving the popa or inserting an onlooker), thus breaking up the line of the bull's back; and, as the scene gets pushed into massed crowd compositions, often only the very forepart of the animal is depicted, projecting from the crowd.[71] In other words, the tension and visual qualities that recommended the original relief composition tend increasingly to be ignored in later and mechanical reuse of the scene. It is ironic that if indeed the BR group depends on Pausias' painting as described by Pliny, images of Pliny's own day would have shown the group in a form that would have made Pausias shudder.


This process of stylization has already set in on the Temple of Mars Ultor relief (fig. 9a), where the composition has already been abridged to be slotted into a more crowded scene. The hind part of the bull is hidden by a togate flute player; other togate figures behind fill the relief ground over its back; the two crouching victimarii are in strict profile to either side of the bull's head. The whole group has been stilled and flattened. If Brendel had known only this version, I doubt that he would have jumped to the analogy with Pausias, yet this is one of the fuller and esthetically more satisfying of the later renderings. In the group's next official appearance, Domitian's ludi saeculares type (fig. 90), showing the sacrifice of 1 June at the Capitolium (BMCRE II, 393, no. 438), it has been further reduced to a single victimarius grabbing at the bull's head, the popa swinging his axe, and the bull's head and forelegs. Moreover, the group has been shifted over to the far right of the scene and has been miniaturized in scale, in order to accommodate the rendering of the emperor and his entourage taking up the center and right of the field. The victim group is on the same reduced scale in relation to more "important" figures the next time it is used; on a passage relief on the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum (fig. 92) it is set at the far right of a long, crowded composition focused on the emperor sacrificing at center left. The original full version must still have been visible to be copied directly, however, because after a century or so of "pictographic" versions, a fuller rendering resurfaced in the Severan Arch of the Argentarii passage reliefs. Here the victim-slaying group was relegated to a separate, tiny predella -like panel under each of the two main passage reliefs, repeated in mirror image under much larger panels showing an imperial family altar group.

The BR victim group, then, stands at the head of a long sequence of monumental commemorative relief images. The conditions of its reuse prove that a common prototype included the whole of the BR panel composition. That is, the "Pausias motif" has not been borrowed on its own from the monumental corpus for use on the cup, but rather the whole sacrifice scene, here a unified composition, was copied from a similarly unified composition. The readiest corroboration for this supposition is supplied by a series of late imperial sarcophagi.

The six sarcophagi extant in this series span the Antonine age.[72] They are now called Feldherr -, generals', or imperator sarcophagi (fig. 93). The front panel celebrates the life of the deceased in a strictly ordered triad of exemplary scenes, from left to right: the deceased as general receives the submission of beaten barbarians and makes a nuncupatio votorum before the Capitolium, and the deceased and his wife join hands in marriage (or per-


form a sacrifice together). As has long been recognized, the unvarying sequence of episodes does not describe an ideal life in strict chronological sequence, for to put marriage at the end of such a hypothetical cursus would be ridiculous. Instead, the scenes seem to be exemplary of cardinal virtues manifest in the subject's character and actions: clementia, pietas, and concordia, with military virtus evoked in the rendering of the first two.[73]

All five fully preserved sarcophagi of this group employ for the central scene both "halves" of the BR panel: in the central scene, at left a paludatus imperator sacrifices at an altar, at right is the BR victim-slaying group, and the Capitolium up on its rock is fitted in as well, behind and above the victim-slaying group and the altar of sacrifice. Gabelmann has shown how the submission scenes in these and other sarcophagi depend on monumental state relief, just as P. G. Hamberg proved the dependence of the battle scenes that characterize another group of "biographical" sarcophagi on monumental prototypes;[74] clearly, the nuncupatio composition entered the sarcophagus repertoire by the same route. What this motif depends on is the prototype of the BR cup panel, probably by way of a Trajanic or Antonine reuse of the whole scene in which the imperator was put into a typical late imperial version of field dress without cuirass and in which the Capitolium facade was slightly enlarged and its identifying pedimental decoration made into a corona triumphalis . These two details appear on all five of the sarcophagi of the group, even when they vary points such as the rendering of the central altar (solid vs. tripod).[75]

Nuncupatio Votorum

Three main questions concern the sacrifice scene on BR II:1. The points previously at issue[76] are the following: Is the sacrifice scene of BR I:1 part of the same triumphal ceremony as the procession on BR I:2, or is it a votive sacrifice separated in time from the triumphal procession? If so, where is the sacrifice to be understood as taking place, and with what official Roman ceremony should it be linked? And having settled these problems, how should one interpret the relationship between the two panels of this cup?

It is generally agreed that in fact the sacrifice scene is not supposed to be the sacrifice at the end of a triumphal procession, and this is easily proved. The triumphator did not change into armor at the end of the procession;[77] his lictors did not change from tunic and toga into tunic and paludamentum, nor did they discard their laurel branches and insert axes


into their rod bundles. These are the points at which the triumph and sacrifice panels vary, for in the sacrifice the celebrant is in armor, the lictors are in military costume and unlaureled, and one has an axe bound into his rods.

Why, then, do others call the two scenes episodes from one triumph ceremony? Confusion seems to have arisen for two reasons. One is a deliberate effort by the artist to connect his two scenes visually and thematically in some way, while the other is accidental: for many modern viewers of the photographs of the cup, the triumph scene seems to catch the eye first, and as the victim at the head of the triumph procession appears to move around the cup and the lictor at far left of the sacrifice looks over his shoulder, one is led to consider the sacrifice as the culmination of the triumph. Thematically, the two scenes are indeed connected: the sacrifice takes place in front of the Capitolium in honor of Jupiter Capitolinus, while the bull at the head of the triumph procession is going to be sacrificed to the same deity and in the same place, for the Capitolium was where every triumph ended up. The artist took pains to highlight this link, for at the far right of each scene is the same visual detail: the fastigium (head ornament) on the triumphal victim is identical to the Capitolium pediment, for it is triangular, has the same relief ornament of an eagle on a globe, and is garlanded in the same manner. Clearly, the artist tried to lead his patron's eye around the cup from left to right—but where is the starting point?

The sacrifice at Rome of a bull to Jupiter Capitolinus by an imperator in armor can only be a votive sacrifice performed at the outset of a campaign. This is the nuncupatio votorum, the announcement to Jupiter of vows to perform further sacrifices and give thanks to the god at the successful completion of the campaign in question; these preliminary vows themselves were sealed with a bull sacrifice. When generals returned to Rome they did indeed sacrifice on the Capitoline to Jupiter, but they did so in the toga they donned to reenter the city. This thesis about the nuncupatio votorum needs to be argued at some length; although some cursorily identify the BR sacrifice as I do,[78] others read the scene differently, as in the most recent literature in English on the BR cup.[79]

Two aspects of the sacrifice scene have proved problematic. One is the question of location. The Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus at right seems meant to localize the scene as well as to identify the recipient of the sacrifice; many assume, however, that magistrates with a military command (imperium ) had always to wear the toga instead of military costume (togatus instead of paludatus ) while they were inside the city pomerium, so that


this general cannot actually be sacrificing at the Capitolium.[80] A second problem was raised by Kleiner, who asserted that until ca. A.D. 200 representations of sacrifice in armor were avoided in Roman art; he knows no other pictorial or literary description until the Antonine period, excepting depictions of Aeneas and a single reference in the Aeneid .

As demonstrated above, it is not the case that sacrifices in armor were avoided, or rather, one should say the sacrifice paludatus, for this is the term used to designate appearance in military, as opposed to civilian, garb, and it means to wear tunic and paludamentum (military cloak) instead of tunic and toga. Whether or not a general puts on a cuirass under his splendid paludamentum purpurum is beside the point. We can see this in the canon of submissio scenes[81] where barbarians are judged by an imperator: reliefs and sarcophagi use a paludatus imperator with or without cuirass interchangeably. As Festus says, under the term paludati, "in libris auguralibus significat, ut ait Veranius, armati, ornati. Omnia enim militaria ornamenta paludamenta dici." Once we look for the sacrifice paludatus and not just for the sacrifice "in armor," it is easier to find comparanda for the BR depiction; the record gives no grounds for asserting that representations of the paludatus sacrifice were avoided in the Republic or early Empire.

If we accept that topographic references are put into Roman historical relief to be just that, signs precisely indicating the scene of action, then J. Pollini's solution might tempt: the sacrifice takes place outside the pomerium, but immediately outside it at the foot of the Capitoline hill. Kleiner thought that perhaps the sacrifice was meant to be taking place in the field in northern Europe, as a pendant to the "hostage" scene of BR I:2, this, however, would entail rejecting everything that we think we can infer from topographic references in Roman art as indicators of the scene of an action.[82]

The two problems are to be solved together by exploring the rite of nuncupatio votorum . What did that rite mean? It was part of the ancient and regular tradition that governed the actions of a high magistrate with imperium (a consul or a praetor) who was to set out from Rome to take up his provincial command and/or set out on campaign. For a consul, the regular sequence of actions was as follows.

At the beginning of his term of office the consul dons his toga praetexta at home ("apud penates suos"), then pays his respects at the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus; then he sees and consults the Senate, then proclaims the Latin Festival and offers to Jupiter Latiaris at the Alban Mount. Auspicatus by this last sacrifice, he then goes again to the Capitol: "profectus in Capitolium ad vota nuncupanda paludatus inde cum lictoribus in


provinciam iret" ("He should proceed paludatus with his lictors to take up his command, having gone to the Capitol to proclaim his vota, " Livy 21.63.7ff.). For any commander setting out on campaign, the mos maiorum is to set out from the city "properly, vows proclaimed on the Capitol, with paludate lictors" ("secundum vota in Capitolio nuncupata, lictoribus paludatis," Livy 41.10.7). Praetors leave for their provinces in the same way: "They depart paludati with their vows announced" ("paludatique votis nuncupatis exeunt," Caes. BCiv.iv. 1.6). To omit this ritual was a serious matter that brought down the wrath of the Senate and could provoke near mutiny in an army (Livy 21.63.7ff. and 22.1.6, to 217 B.C.; 41.10.5–13, to 177 B.C.). To "abrogate" the ritual by sneaking back into the city improperly the night after, as Verres did, was matter for grave censure (Cic. Verr. 5.13.34); to molest, let alone curse, a general proceeding out of the city in this rite was a terrible affront and portent (i.e., Crassus' profectio in 55 B.C.: Plut. Crass. 16.3–6; Dio 34.39.6).

It was natural that this ceremony should be taken very seriously, for in the nuncupatio the imperator sacrificed "pro imperio suo communique re publica" (Cic. Verr. 5.13.34), seeking to put the ruler of the gods under an obligatio to grant success in the exercise of his imperium to himself and to the Roman state. Livy provides an exemplary text at 45.39.10ff., a speech in which Servilius moves to award a triumph to L. Aemilius Paullus in 167 B.C.: it is to the gods, not only to men, that a triumph is due, for your ancestors in every magna res started with the gods at the beginning and came back to them at the finis : "consul proficiscens praetorve paludatis lictoribus in provinciam et ad bellum vota in Capitolio nuncupat; victor perpetrato bello eodem in Capitolium triumphans ad eosdem deos, quibus vota nuncupavit, merita dona portans redit."

Whether or not this text is exemplary of habits of thought and behavior in 167 B.C., it is a clear and dogmatic explication of the theology of war and triumph as seen by a writer of the Augustan period who was read and respected by the educated elite of his own time and who was in close touch with the imperial household, not least as a trusted educator of its younger members (tutor to the young Claudius: Suet. Claud. 5.41). Indeed, this text of Livy's reads like a program for the cup BR II: as we shall see in the discussion of the triumph panel, it could stand as a literary outline for that particular scene as well.

As scholars have noted, the extant sources are unclear as to the exact moment when a general changed his toga for the paludamentum, his dress uniform.[83] We do know that on a general's return he changed his armor for a toga before he entered the city boundary, and refusal to do so was seen


as a terrible moral affront to the SPQR at least to the end of the Julio-Claudian period. (Cf. Suet. Vit. 11: the sense of this episode is that Vitellius is about to treat Rome as if it were a captured city by entering with his forces under arms.) Texts on the civil conflicts of the Republic are full of references to the distaste, even terror, evoked by the presence or threatened presence of soldiery in arms within the city.

However, this has nothing to do with the ceremony of the nuncupatio votorum . First of all, to explain the revulsion at an armed adventus: a general came back to Rome and put down his imperium before entering the city, putting on the toga to mark his resumption of civilian status; to stay armed was thus an affront to law as well as to decency. The nuncupatio, on the other hand, was performed by one who had just been granted imperium while in Rome and was about to go off and exercise it—the armed dress that was the token of imperium was appropriate in this case. Second, the paludati in this ceremonial included only the general and his lictors; note that such a party, within the Forum Romanum, is depicted on the Anaglypha Traiani records-burning panel and the Arch of Constantine oratio relief (figs. 38, 36) (announcement of benefits). There is no indication in any source that the army was in the city with the general; in fact there is every indication to the contrary. The way that the texts speak of this ceremony is that the imperator performs this rite in Rome as the necessary prelude to leaving the city to go out and join his legions mustered somewhere else, often quite far away (e.g., Brundisium, the staging point for Eastern commands). Moreover, the Crassus episode proves that the general left alone, i.e. without any troops inside or near the pomerium: Crassus was totally defenseless before the angry crowd that menaced him, and had to call on the popular Pompey to escort him personally in order to calm the mob, while the tribunes who tried to lay hands on him were restrained only by other tribunes who were pro-Crassus. No one would have menaced Crassus in this way had his soldiers been present or nearby; they cannot even have been near the pomerium, or the tribune Ateius Capito would never have dared to stage his curse ceremony right at the city gate through which Crassus was to pass. This is one of the very occasions when we are told that the imperator joined his legions only at Brundisium, their embarkation point for the East.

The nuncupatio votorum, then, took place without any of the threatening aspects of an imperatorial adventus turned into a march into Rome. We are also told that a primary aspect of the proper profectio nuncupatis votis was that the general's lictors (and the general himself) had to be paludati . It is absurd to think that the little contingent trotted from the Capitolium to


the city gate and then stopped, pulled off their togas, and put on cloaks while the lictors took their rods apart to tie them back up again with axes inside, all this in the middle of the crowd drawn up to watch them go.[84]

To recapitulate, the proper way for a consul or a praetor with proconsular imperium to leave Rome to take up an army command was to sacrifice on the Capitolium in the nuncupatio votorum and march straight out of the city paludatus, accompanied by lictors who were also paludati . I think there can be no question that the party were dressed in military costume at the nuncupatio itself. The BR cup panel must be a nuncupatio votorum because that is the only ceremony that could possibly account for the depiction of a group consisting of an armed imperator and lictores paludati, but no soldiers, sacrificing at the Capitolium. The cup in turn becomes our first pictorial document from the Republic and early Empire for this particular ceremony. The seeming lacuna in the pictorial record, which bothered Kleiner, is not in itself proof of any historical facts, especially given the relative paucity of surviving Roman historical narrative; with all our precise knowledge about the conduct of the censorial registration of military classes at the lustrum, we have only two surviving pictorial records,[85] the Paris census panel (fig. 27) and a Praenestine cist lid![86]

It is very difficult to know in fact what subjects were or were not avoided in Republican historical relief or painting since so little is left.[87] For the early Empire the situation is similar: the monuments that we have do not show any profectio or adventus of an emperor commanding an army. In the first century many emperors left the work of command to other generals whom it would be difficult to imagine them having celebrated in state relief—Caligula for Cassius Chaerea? Nero for Corbulo? Domitian for Agricola? Emperors who did take the field as imperator, like Caligula at the Rhine, Claudius in Britain, or Domitian in Dacia, have left behind nothing but a few debated fragments of the monuments that once celebrated their campaigns. The only generals who got any triumphal monuments in Rome after Augustus were those who belonged to the nucleus of the imperial family: Drusus, Tiberius, Gaius, and Lucius under Angustus; Germanicus and Drusus the Younger under Tiberius; Titus and Domitian under Vespasian, and so on. And of these monuments, again, even when we have other evidence for them, almost nothing exists, certainly not their sculptural decoration. It is no accident that, as Kleiner observed solely as an iconographic fact, the sacrifice "in armor" (paludatus ) becomes a more common subject under the later, soldier emperors.

In any case there are pictorial records for the nuncupatio besides the Augustan BR version. On the Cività Castellana base (figs. 28–30) a Re-


publican general (or Romulus or Aeneas) performs some nuncupatio ceremony; the Temple of Mars Ultor relief (fig. 9a) seems a Julio-Claudian depiction. The Louvre extispicium relief once ornamented the Forum of Trajan: the emperor lacks in the surviving fragments, but a paludatus lictor stands by as the bull's entrails are examined after the slaying, and Victory arrives to mark the "future" success read in the omens as a group of togati (including Hadrian?) gesture before the doors of the Capitolium.[88] Also, two sacrifice scenes on the Column of Trajan show the imperator paludatus sacrificing by cities to mark individual stages of his Dacian campaign, making vota before attempting a particular military thrust.[89] The rite turns up again[90] on Tetrarchic monumental relief on the Arch of Galerius at Thessalonika, where prior to Galerius' Parthian campaign the cuirassed Galerius and Diocletian in a paludamentum sacrifice before Jupiter;[91] in this later age of multiple imperial capitals, the facade behind probably represents Antioch.[92] Finally, the private "generals'" sarcophagi discussed above deliberately echo the themes of monumental imperial art (fig. 93); here an imperator paludatus, sometimes with a spear, as on the BR cup, performs the nuncupatio votorum before the Capitolium as the victim is slain, in the BR slaying composition. The surviving pictorial evidence on the nuncupatio votorum thus ranges from the very beginning of the Empire through its last phase, with examples from both the monumental and private spheres. The relief depictions, finally, provide a context for certain isolated freestanding commemorative portraits. The so-called Mars of Todi, a votive portrait of ca. 400 B.C. of the Italian general Ahal Trutitis performing a libation barefoot, seems to be the earliest visual commemoration of the nuncupatio;[93] perhaps even the Primaporta Augustus (fig. 64) announces the omens at the end of a nuncupatio, solemnly inaugurating all present and future campaigns under his perpetual auspices .


The Triumph of Tiberius


The subject here is easily identified—Tiberius celebrates a triumph,[1] riding in the triumphal quadriga and preceded by the victim that he will offer to Jupiter Capitolinus in the culminating ceremony of the procession (pls. 10–12, 16; see p. 216 n. 16 for damage after 1899).

Tiberius' chariot is accompanied by a number of attendants walking behind the car and by the quadriga team. The horses are guided by a slave who strains forward at their head, the traces gathered in either hand; those leading to his right are in low relief, those to his left were added in wire (missing). Originally the four horse heads occupied the center of the composition, in such high relief as to be completely detached; they have been torn away (like the similarly projecting head and chest of the imperator on the other side), and the whole central portion of the scene is badly worn.

Tiberius' attendants fall into two distinct groups. The four behind his quadriga wear tunics and ankle-length boots, the two foremost bearing laurel branches in their right hands. These are officers, high-ranking or distinguished by special merit, and so privileged to follow immediately behind their general. The figure just behind the chariot wheel wears a smooth torque with swollen ends (pl. 24), a Celtic ornament. One more young officer walks between the reins looped up before Tiberius in a place of honor. He wears a tunic and a paludamentum whose folds fall down his back; his left leg is visible between the rear legs of the outermost horse (bare calf, tunic hem, caliga [military boot]). Four lictors walk on the far side of the horse team with their rods over their shoulders; remains of tunic and toga show between the horses' legs. The heads of the front three


lictors (in the middle of the cup) are badly abraded, and the rods over the shoulders of the first two are largely worn away.

The right-hand portion of the field is occupied by the victim group, a massive bull decked for sacrifice with two attendants. One slave walks at the bull's flank, an axe over his shoulder, drawing the bull's head up on a lead to display its ornaments properly; the other slave guides the bull forward in line with a hand clamped on its jaw. The bull wears a triangular head plaque (fastigium ) from which garlands depend; it is decorated with an eagle like that on the pediment of the Capitolium on the other side of the cup.[2]

The Pompa Triumphalis and Tiberius

The various elements of the pompa triumphalis are known from a variety of literary sources; standardized by the middle Republic, the ceremony was not appreciably altered thereafter. Omitted here are the booty, captives, and painted placards variously borne and carted in the procession; the focus is on the triumphator himself and his immediate entourage and the victim (standing in fact for a number of victims) to be offered in the sacrifice on the Capitoline at the end of the procession. For a Roman viewer the scene implies the physical geography of the city's core, laden with symbolic resonance; he would know that the triumph proceeds along the Sacred Way; he would know that its goal was the Capitoline hill, where sacrifice would be made to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the giver of victory, and this is highlighted by two means—the presence of the Capitolium on the other side of the cup, and the emphasis on the victim in the procession, whose ornaments visually echo that temple's pediment.

The steady, solemn movement of the procession is nicely conveyed within the constraints of the panel composition, which also manages to achieve its own balance as a composition in a rectangular field. The high note is the figure of Tiberius, elevated in his chariot with his head nearly touching the rim of the cup, standing figures massed solidly behind him. From his figure, the lines of the composition fall and rise again in regular cadence, with the two straining slaves before the quadriga and before the bull supplying accents of strong forward motion to punctuate the slow-moving beat of the parade. The attendants selected for rendering balance nicely, as distinct yet complementary groupings of military and civil escort. Paludati officers and togati lictors emblemize the joint strength of the institutions of the res publica, while the victim group stands for the exer-


cise of religion through the priestly office of the triumphator . As Livy says, "pars non minima triumphis est victimae praecedentes, ut appareat dis grates agentem imperatorem ob rem publicam bene gestam redire" (45.39.11).

Tiberius himself is easily recognizable, his profile carefully delineated (cf. figs. 110, 112–113, 120b, 117): the vertical forehead, the aquiline nose, the thin, rather compressed lips, the round chin, the long and muscular neck (cf. Suet. Tib. 68: "incedebat cervice rigida et obstipa"), and the characteristic growth of hair low on the nape of the neck, which Suetonius noted as a family trait (ibid.: "capillo pone occipitium summissiore ut cervicem etiam obtigeret, quod gentile in illo videbatur").

Tiberius' triumphal regalia is depicted in full: the toga picta and tunica palmata (whose embroidery is hinted at in low relief on the sleeve), the gold oak-leaf crown known as the corona Etrusca, the eagle-tipped scepter in the triumphator 's left hand and the laurel branch in his right. (It is because the celebrant traditionally has his hands thus occupied that the quadriga reins are looped up on the edge of the car and the horses thus have to be guided by a servant; on this figure see p. 148f. below.) As is traditional, all participants in the procession are crowned with laurel, some carrying branches of it in their hands;[3] the triumphator is closely escorted by favored officers and by the lictors who derive from the imperium with which he will have directed the campaigns leading to the triumph, now in civilian dress with no axes in their fasces . Finally, the triumphator is accompanied by the servus publicus, whose duty it was to suspend the corona Etrusca over the celebrant's head, as this solid gold crown was too heavy to be worn unsupported.

The Gallic Torquatus

The placement of a group of favored officers behind the triumphator 's chariot reflects actual practice. Its significance is easy to read; it corresponds not only to literary descriptions of triumph but to the practice of Roman generals whose dispatches and memoirs (for example, Caesar's Bellum Gallicum ) pointedly made special mention of valor on the part of the regular troops and in particular of centurions, at once commemorating extraordinary behavior and, by mentioning it regularly, making it ordinary: "just what my men typically do." Caesar's war memoirs are well known; compare Velleius' pride in the mention his brother received in Tiberius' dispatches and Augustus' reports to the Senate.[4] The literary topos makes


it legitimate to see similar meaning in the visual commemoration of military achievement; certainly this theme will later dominate in the friezes of Trajan's Column, which single out the ordinary round of legionaries on campaign as worthy of approval.

The torquatus immediately behind Tiberius' chariot is significant (pl. 24). If the torque is supposed to be read as an element of the wearer's normal costume, it identifies him as a Celt, a native commander of Gallic or German auxiliaries who had participated (as we know to have been standard) in Tiberius' campaigns, which took place in northern Europe. On the other hand, this torque may be a military decoration awarded to a Roman officer, rather than an ethnic marker, granted for special performance by this officer in the campaign for which Tiberius was celebrating a triumph.[5]

Contemporary texts confirm that decorated soldiers wore their decorations in their general's triumph; but did they put their torques around their necks? Velleius' description of his brother accompanying Tiberius' triumph of A.D. 8/13 (2.121.3: "adornatus") does not answer this question,[6] nor does the equally vague narration by Appian (Pun. 9; Hist. Rom. 8.66) of the paradigmatic triumph of Scipio Africanus (hoi de aristeis kai ta aristeia epikeintai ). Julio-Claudian grave reliefs from northwestern Europe, however, do show how military decorations were worn: corona on the head, armillae on the arms, phalerae on a leather webbing strapped across the chest to display them—like a scapular—and, finally, the torques, shown as a pair hung from the top of the leather phalera harness at the shoulder. Best known is the grave relief (Bonn) of the Angustan officer M. Caelius who fell with Varus in A.D. 9.[7] This and similar reliefs in Mainz (Cn. Musius)[8] and Verona (Q. Sertorius)[9] portray the officer himself with his decorations on; other reliefs symbolically show just the phalera harness, with a pair of torques attached or in apposition to it.[10] True, if an officer had only one torque,[11] he could not display it in this way; still, this visual evidence does suggest that Romans who received an honorific torque did not wear it as a necklace but hung it on their bodies.

This, and the emphasis of BR I on a cooperative Gallia, suggest that the torquatus of BR II:2 is not a Roman officer but a Gallic officer in the auxiliary troops, like the (Augustan) Gallic officer wearing torques from Vachères (Avignon, Mus. Calvet).[12] Compare the Gemma Angustea (fig. 16), which also commemorates a triumph of Tiberius: in the exergue below the allegory of triumph, auxiliaries in sleeved tunics and brimmed helmets,[13] as well as soldiers in standard Roman equipment, erect a trophy and assemble captives. The cup thus would, like the gem,


credit the part played by loyal non-Roman, but Romanized, allies in the spread of Rome's imperium; BR I:2 puts major emphasis on just this theme. Other early imperial sculptures in the West (Glanum arch, fig. 85; Swiss cuirass statue)[14] have groups similar to that in the Gemma Augustea exergue, that is, "good" non-Roman with "bad" non-Roman prisoner; this shows that the cameo's theme was not invented for this one gem but instead derives with the provincial examples from a convention of commemorative relief in the capital. Such groups are symbolic analogues to the group of officers behind Tiberius' chariot on BR II:2, which contains a prominent Celtic officer as well as (presumably) Roman officers.

The Quadriga

The artist took considerable pains to render the form and decoration of the currus triumphalis; note, for instance, the wheel with its lion-head hub and spokes shaped like Hercules' clubs (compare the wheels of Marcus Aurelius' quadriga in the triumph panel of the Conservatori reliefs). The car itself is of the "fast" type, with a shell of medium height and sloping side edges, typical of Republican and early Julio-Claudian images (coins especially), rather than the "slow" type, which is a high, cylindrical shell with straight side edges. This fast type is standard for monumental relief beginning with our first extant such depiction, the triumph panel of the Arch of Titus; the coin record shows it becoming standard for triumphal quadriga issues after the reign of Tiberius. From the left and central photo views of the cup, one can make out a little over half of what would have been a symmetrical composition decorating the quadriga shell (pl. 25): in the center, a trophy consisting of a suit of armor on a pole, crowned with a helmet and hung on either side with an oval shield, is flanked by winged Victories who move forward to add weapons to the trophy—the Victory visible here holds a sheathed sword—while at the outside of the composition a wingless female personification stands behind each Victory, right arm bent holding a laurel branch(?).[15]

What is interesting here is that the outlines of this same composition can be made out on the coins that depict the quadriga made for Octavian's triumph of 27 B.C. (fig. 106),[16] and that this decoration does not turn up on other imperial quadriga depictions in coinage and relief. We know that other emperors made a point of using the triumphal quadrigae of Augustus for their own celebrations; Nero, returning from Greece, entered Rome in "eo curru quo Augustus olim triumphaverat" (Suet. Ner. 25.1).


C. Vermeule traced the imitation of the decoration on Augustus' quadriga from his Parthian triumph (Victories bearing shields) on the coins and monuments of later emperors from Claudius to Marcus Aurelius.[17] Suetonius' text suggests that such reuse of Augustus' triumphal chariots was meant to be noted by the educated viewer.

It is a worthy hypothesis that Tiberius in this, his first, triumph, initiated later practice and triumphed in the quadriga in which Augustus had held his first, triple triumph, and that if this favor was granted by Augustus, it would have been noticed and suitably interpreted by a large segment of the public. Indeed, Tiberius' triumph of 8 B.C. was the first full triumph permitted to any Roman commander since 19 B.C.; that Augustus had it granted was not simply a tribute to Tiberius' military achievements, it was an acknowledgment by Augustus before the Roman people that Tiberius was to be considered to have acted under his own auspices and not under those of Augustus as ultimate commander in chief. It was thus one-half of the process by which Augustus now took steps to establish Tiberius as his prospective successor, replacing Agrippa; the "civilian" half of this process of acknowledgment was carried through in the following year when Augustus had Tiberius (like Agrippa before him) granted the tribunicia potestas . This was the legal construct that was the mainstay of Augustus' "office," and so made Tiberius Augustus' near-equal colleague. (On Tiberius' position under Augustus see also pp. 172ff. of Chapter 7.)

Use of Augustus' quadriga would have helped to drive home the point that Tiberius was at the start of an illustrious career that could culminate, as had Augustus' after his great triple triumph of 27 B.C., in the same special position at the head of the Roman state that Augustus now enjoyed.[18] I can only repeat that the artist has gone to great pains here to depict the decoration of Tiberius' quadriga shell as if its decoration were in fact a vital detail of the composition, which could not be left out of even a miniaturized rendering. If we are to read it as I have suggested might be the case, then we have yet another historical fact supplied by the visual record that has not come down to us in any text, a fact that is a small but significant addition to the body of evidence on Tiberius' role in Augustus' plans for the future, as those plans were formulated in the years before Tiberius' self-imposed exile.

The Servus Publicus and the Date of the Boscoreale Cups

The servus publicus was the state slave who traditionally stood behind the triumphator in the triumphal car, charged with two offices. His primary


duty was to uphold and take the weight of the triumphator 's gold oak-leaf crown (corona Etrusca; Pliny HN 33.4.11); his other, famous office was to whisper in the triumphator 's ear at this moment of temporary near apotheosis the following reminder of the triumphator 's mortality and dependence on other men: "respice post te, hominem te esse memento."[19] The servus publicus 's task was traditional and necessary; this depiction of the servus publicus is extraordinary and unique. Nowhere else in Republican or imperial art do we see this shadowy figure, who alone of all the participants (according to the cup) seems not to have worn the laurel crown.[20] His function on the monuments and coins is either omitted altogether or is taken by a winged Victory behind the triumphator, holding up the corona Etrusca —not a reminder of mortality or human limitation but rather the opposite, a further panegyric to the extrahuman status investing the triumphator accompanied in this epiphany by the goddess Victory herself (figs. 104, 106–7).

This iconographic possibility was already a standard option in late Republican commemoration, for the triumph coin types of Sulla and Pompey show them crowned by flying Victories (fig. 104). It is a good bet that the quadriga statuary groups that no doubt adorned at least some of their triumphal monuments were like the statuary groups that stood on various of Augustus' arches (fig. 105), where a winged Victory stood in for the servus publicus . These are known from architectural depictions on Augustus' own state coinage,[21] a further dissemination therefore of this image.[22] The central chariot group of Augustus in his Forum (2 B.C.) (plan 123) could hardly have been different. These groups and coin types may originally have been inspired, or sanctioned, by a monument (probably second century B.C.) that the Romans thought had been erected by Romulus. This bronze quadriga, a statue of Romulus in or by it, stood in the precinct of the Temple of Vulcan; supposedly erected from the booty of Romulus' second triumph over Camerina, it showed him being crowned by the goddess Victoria (Plut. Rom. 24.3: poiesamenos heauton hypo Nikes stephanoumenon; Dion. Hal. 2.54.2 mentions its Greek inscription). By the time we get to the Arch of Titus, the next surviving relief depiction of an emperor triumphing (fig. 107), not only does Victory crown the emperor; the slave leading the horses of the quadriga, a stock figure in the Augustan period,[23] has been replaced by the figure of Roma/Virtus, while crowding behind the car replacing the human escort of the BR cup are Honos, the Genius of the Roman People, and the Genius of the Roman Senate.[24]

The process of panegyric transformation that is visible in maturity on this Flavian paradigm, and is thereafter standard for imperial art, was


begun already by the time that Augustus took up rule, and the relevant artifacts of his reign confirm the absence or allegorical replacement of the servus publicus . With reference to the BR cup, note especially the Gemma Augustea (fig. 16), which was made in Augustus' lifetime to commemorate the later of Tiberius' two triumphs and on which the quadriga from which Tiberius alights to pay his respects to Augustus is manned by a winged Victory (and the now cut-away male holding the chariot at left, his arm preserved, is probably the Genius of the Roman People; cf. Roma in the center).

The presence of the state slave in triumph depictions, then, is evidently a feature that in visual panegyric, however historical, is generally omitted as not really "real," that is, not worth notice or mention in the formal commemoration of the event. What we have in the BR depiction is a triumph narrative that is "factual" beyond even the demands of strictly documentary narrative, where selective editing of facts was taken for granted because it was a necessity imposed by the limits of a constricted two-dimensional image. There is plenty of artful telescoping in the BR triumph depiction—how could there not be? A full depiction of the displays of captives and booty, of the full tally of sacrificial victims, the full complement of lictors and escorts, et cetera, could, if desirable, be extended to encircle a monumental arch or even an entire temple (e.g., the small frieze of the Temple of Apollo Sosianus, constructed in connection with Augustus' triple triumph osf 27 B.C.).

The servus publicus is omitted or replaced in all other official images of the Republic and Empire, and the Gemma Augustea shows that this was true too of small-scale pieces celebrating members of the imperial family not of Augustus' own rank. Why then is this slave depicted on the BR cup, on a minor arts piece where, as on the Augustan cameos in general or in the allegorical depiction of Augustus on BR I:1, one would expect all of the resources of visual panegyric to be called into play? It is the depiction of this figure, in fact, which I believe provides the key to a secure date not only for the cups' prototype but for the creation of the cups themselves; this image dates the cups to the reign of Augustus and rules out the reign of Tiberius altogether. Tiberius is given prime place in this composition, but the artist has used only the "facts"—that is, the natural elevation of the triumphator in his quadriga—to call our attention to Tiberius. He has also included details like the figure of the servus publicus, and for that matter the slave at the horse team's head who is generally omitted, details whose omission at least would have been a great deal more appropriate in a tribute to Tiberius;[25] such bare omission, even if


allegorical replacement was avoided, would have been in fine keeping with Republican tradition.[26]

The immediate answer seems to be that on the BR cups Augustus alone is granted direct association with divine figures, while it is made clear that the achievements of others (Drusus and Tiberius) are strictly the work of mortals who are not themselves in possession of divina virtus, at least not to the same degree as the emperor; the servus publicus behind Tiberius keeps him in his place one rung under Augustus, as the presence of the real slave in the real triumph kept the celebrant firmly ranked below the gods. Such caution, for lack of a better word, would not in the least be necessary in the minor arts; witness not only the Gemma Augustea (fig. 16) but also other pieces, like the Boston turquoise (fig. 113), showing Tiberius as a young warrior sprung of a goddess, Livia/Venus. Once Tiberius himself became emperor, it would in no way have conformed to his taste: on a piece of armor like the "Sheath of Tiberius" (fig. 117), mass-stamped in the military armories, Tiberius is even more patently a Jupiter substitute than Augustus on BR I:1; on the pillar monument from the forum of Noviomagus (Nijmegen) (fig. 119) Tiberius togate makes a libation while crowned by Victory, a representation clearly derivative from official statue groups and reliefs.[27] This "caution" is all the more paradoxical given the fact that the BR cups as a pair give him representational focus equal to Augustus'. Tiberius, like Augustus, enjoys two panels of one cup of the pair, a not inconsiderable paean to Tiberius' deeds; compare the much more thorough subordination of Tiberius' triumph, the ostensible occasion of the scene, to the glorification of Augustus on the Gemma Augustea.

The only answer that I find plausible is that the triumph of Tiberius was not a creation of the minor arts but was copied faithfully from some public monument made to commemorate the triumph erected during Augustus' reign; this public monument, erected immediately after the triumph, could, and would, logically have depressed any complete elevation of Tiberius to Augustus' own extraordinary status as chosen delegate of the gods, driving the point of avoidance home by the inclusion of the servus publicus . I also think it necessary to see the cups themselves as having been made in Augustus' reign before Tiberius came to the throne; given the panegyric language extended to Augustus' stepsons within that emperor's own lifetime in the panegyric media of court poetry and court minor arts, I find it impossible to believe that an artist executing a commission for a "Tiberius cup" while Tiberius was emperor would have failed to omit the sordid detail of the presence of the public slave, let alone


transform that uncrowned servant into a suitable allegorical figure. Even Augustus' own coinage of A.D. 13, just before his death and Tiberius' accession, shows Tiberius celebrating his Pannonian triumph alone in the quadriga, and no slaves are visible at all.

The Date of Tiberius' Triumph

The principal question that scholars have asked of the cup BR II is, Which of Tiberius' triumphs is depicted on this cup, his first triumph, awarded in 8 B.C. over Germany, or his Pannonian triumph, awarded in A.D. 8?[28] Those who opted for the date 8 B.C. could not make their hypothesis stick, as no one writing on the cups paid much attention to tracking down the historical event portrayed on BR I:1, nor looked at the triumph as one of four panels of a programmatically unified cup pair.

In the triumph panel itself, no details have been supplied that would inform a viewer who looked at this panel in isolation, details such as a suitably dressed barbarian captive or a ferculum (display litter) with recognizable spoils. It is true that, in the order of a triumphal pompa, the captives, spoils, trophies, paintings, et cetera, would come first in the long parade, with the triumphator in his car at the very end. So, in a sense, the BR panel is being more or less less faithful to the order of the event it portrays, even at the cost of information. This seems to be the case with other monumental triumph representations as well; compare the Arch of Titus, whose passage reliefs (figs. 107–8) celebrate Titus' Jewish triumph. Here the triumphator is in one panel, representing one section of the parade; it is the panel opposite that tells the viewer what triumph this is, by depicting the ferculum carrying the famous menorah from the Great Temple in Jerusalem, in a different section of the parade. The BR cup designer did not use the opportunity afforded by the other side of the cup to show such an informative segment of Tiberius' pompa; besides the fact that he evidently wished to play on the themes of profectio/adventus and pietas this might perhaps suggest that at the time the cups were made there was no opportunity for confusion because Tiberius had not yet celebrated more than one triumph.

However, the artist must certainly have relied on his viewer to use the information that the artist did supply—that is, to look at BR II in the light of BR I. BR I refers in a unique and (at the time) recognizable image to Drusus' activities shortly before his death in 9, when, having organized the tres Galliae to stand firm at his back, he had just begun to prosecute a


massive campaign in Germany. It was this campaign or project that Tiberius took up at his brother's death, and it was for successes in this task of completing his brother's work that he was awarded his first triumph. His own acts as triumphator underscored the fact that he believed himself to be completing the task and building on the accomplishments of his beloved brother, for he vowed the greater part of his manubiae to the restorations of major temples—those of Castor and Pollux and of Concord, highly symbolic of fraternal love—to be rededicated in Drusus' name jointly with his own. Similarly, the coins issued at Lugdunum for Tiberius' 8/7 B.C. triumph, which would have gone not least to pay the legions that had served his brother as well as himself, looked back to the BR I:2 event associated with Drusus. If the cups have any meaning at all as a pair, which is the only way to look at them, then Tiberius' triumph must be the one connected with Drusus' last accomplishments: Tiberius' first triumph, of 8/7 B.C., celebrated de Germanis . It was for this triumph that Augustus revived the old rite that a triumphator should retake auspices before entering the city (Dio 51.19.6); and if this was indeed the occasion of one of Augustus' pomerial extensions, ritual acknowledgment of permanent imperial expansions,[29] the imagery of BR I:1 of Augustus as world ruler would have specific political resonance.

The Narrative Structure of BR II

The nuncupatio votorum sacrifice and the triumph procession of Tiberius together form a unified narrative—not "continuous narrative," for that would imply that the later event is to be understood as following the earlier event in close chronological sequence. Instead, these two episodes function as temporal brackets, summing up the achievement of their protagonist in his successful campaign by showing the votive sacrifice performed in hope and trust at the campaign's outset and the triumph at its successful conclusion, stressing in the depiction of the triumph the pious thanks about to be paid to the god who was invoked to bring about Tiberius' success.

The state reliefs of the middle and late Empire typically couple profectio and adventus scenes in order to commemorate in symbolic form the martial successes intervening between the imperial protagonist's setting out from (profectio ) and return to (adventus ) his "permanent" seat in Rome. This formulation, like the BR II pair of scenes, represents a carefully thought-out solution to the problem of referring in a handful of static


images to the long temporal sequence of an imperial military campaign; the solution consists in showing the set ceremonies at the beginning and end of campaigns in order to evoke in the viewer the satisfied recollection of a task well done over a period of time. The profectio/adventus theme has been much studied and does not need much more comment here,[30] for the BR cup does not use this particular scheme; the first extant exemplar of profectio/adventus is Flavian, and there may not have been any conscious Augustan manipulation of this formula. The BR cup focuses instead not on the protagonist's leaving and returning to Rome as such but rather on the exercise of pietas at the beginning and end of a campaign as intimately linked to success in warfare.

It is interesting, in a long view of Roman imperial art, to see that this Augustan coupling of scenes points to the structure of the later commemorative formula, in its evocation of temporal sequence by the choice of "beginning" and "end" as they would in fact have appeared to the population of the capital—you see the imperial general sacrifice/leave in procession, over the months dispatches describing victories trickle back, and then one day you hear the war is over, "we won," and the imperial general comes home to reappear to your excited eyes, rolling home in procession, celebrating his triumph. This is a formulation that selects particular moments of the temporal flow as particularly meaningful, "privileging" them over less meaningful incidents, thus interpreting and structuring everyday experience to make it seem a comprehensible sequence of significant episodes.

The BR scheme is more than just an evocative sequence, in the style of the profectio/adventus scheme: it is also an explanatory sequence, which gives a logic of cause and effect to the fact of military success. In so doing it follows the underlying logic of all Roman religious, and especially fetial, rite, where proper performance of ritual ensures success and conversely defeat can always be blamed on improper performance of rite (ignoring the sacred chickens, etc.); it is also peculiarly Augustan in using the logic of pietas as a framework for the expository commemoration of achievement. We are breathing the air of Livy's histories and of Vergil's Aeneid, where pietas fogs the atmosphere at every turn; this is not the dominant logic of Sallust and Caesar, nor of Tacitus.


Echoes of the Boscoreale Cup Panels in Later Historical Relief

Certain examples of Roman historical relief that postdate the Boscoreale Cups can be shown to echo their scenes. The points of correspondence vary: compositional structure, figure types and figure groups, iconography and iconographic context. The pieces I will discuss span the imperial period—Trajanic, mid-third and early fourth century A.D.—and are treated in the following sections: the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum (figs. 91–92), bearing on the "son-giving" scene BR I:2 and the nuncupatio sacrifice scene BR II:1; the Ludovisi sarcophagus (fig. 88), bearing on the "son-giving" scene BR I:2.

I do not trace later parallels just for their own sake. Rather, these investigations are crucial to the thesis that the cup panels reproduce a set of monumental reliefs erected for or by the Augustan house in the city of Rome. If this thesis is valid, then one would naturally hope to find traces of the influence of this prototype in later imperial sculpture. It is more than simply gratifying to find such traces: these echoes provide the final necessary element of verification for the primary thesis just described. For one cannot attribute such echoes to inspiration from the cups themselves, even in the Julio-Claudian period;[1] and these two little skyphoi were buried under the mud of Vesuvius by the time that the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum and the Ludovisi sarcophagus were made. Influence must derive from my postulated prototype, to the cups on the one hand and to the later monuments on the other hand. It is logically satisfying, if fortuitous, that the parallels that have come to my attention bear on all three cup panels for which recognizable, derivative quotation can legitimately be sought (BR I:1 and 2, BR II:1); the triumph BR II:2 has too many stock elements observable from the Republic on for such direct inspiration to be traceable. This group of "later echoes" firmly situates the


Boscoreale Cup panels in the realm of imperial monumental relief sculpture, demonstrating that the original reliefs copied on the cups remained on public view at least into the middle of the third century.

The Arch of Trajan at Beneventum

This section treats the passage reliefs of the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum, which depict respectively an alimenta distribution by the emperor and some kind of inaugural imperial sacrifice (figs. 91–92). The panel that truly parallels the cups is the alimenta panel.[2]

The arch can be dated from the terms of the dedicatory inscription;[3] it was dedicated in A.D. 114, between 19 August and 9 December. W. Gauer observed that the earliest date for the arch's inception is immediately after Trajan's Dacian triumph of 107,[4] which is portrayed in the "small frieze" just under the attic story; he suggested, sensibly, that the arch's decorative program might well depend from the theology of imperial worth and legitimacy worked out for Trajan's anniversary celebration of decennalia in A.D. 108. Thus the arch was begun between ca. A.D. 108 and ca. A.D. 110/111 and finally dedicated in A.D. 114.

The arch marks one end of the Via Traiana, the new stretch of road laid by Trajan to extend the old Via Appia to Brindisi to connect that great port directly with Rome and west-central Italy. Brindisi was the traditional port of embarkation for Western legions moving to Greece and Asia; the road itself was made ready by A.D. 109 to transport Trajan's troops to war with Armenia and Parthia. The choice of Beneventum as a site for this arch, voted to Trajan by the Senate, clearly points to a connection between its erection and the dedication of the great new highway. Thus the sacrifice in the arch passage (fig. 92) is often identified with the dedicatory sacrifice of the Via Traiana. Certainly it shows neither a profectio from Rome (in the same narrow sense as the nuncupatio depictions discussed in chapter 5) nor the conventional sacrifice ending a triumph.[5] Most likely it is a sacrifice at Beneventum itself to open the Via Traiana, in connection with Trajans profectio to Parthia; or it may be connected with Trajan's decennalia celebrations.[6]

An obvious point of correspondence between these passage reliefs and the BR cups occurs in this very sacrifice or profectio panel: the use of the BR victim group (pl. 9), the "Pausias motif," for the victim slaying.[7] However, this is not the point on which I will build my case; the way in


which this victim group is incorporated into the composition depends on Domitianic workshop stylization. The evidence is worth presenting, as this particular point will be of use later on (see chapter 5 for individual monuments cited).

I refer to the coin (fig. 90) issued for Domitian's ludi saeculares ; it is likely itself to depend on a monumental painting or relief. The points of resemblance between the arch passage panel and the Domitianic coin type are: the group now consists only of the axe-swinging popa and the victimarius who kneels at left to twist the bull's head down, while only the forepart of the bull projects from the massed figures immediately right of the victim group; these in turn consist of two tall figures oriented toward the right and overlapping very slightly (the left behind the right), and from between them, as if flattened to paper-thinness, projects the bull; finally, the group is set at left of the main imperial sacrifice scene, so that its lines of force diverge instead of converging on the sacrificial altar; the group as a whole is reduced in size relative to the other figures, and the bull itself is now very small in relation to its slayers, and so even smaller compared to the altar group celebrants.

The onset of this process of "insertion" is observable on the Temple of Mars Ultor relief (fig. 9a). Here, however, the victim group is still to the right, and part of a unified and centralized composition; the bull slayers are still three in number and of the same size as the other figures in the relief, and the victim is still, realistically, of massive size. The Beneventum relief, on the other hand, goes even farther than the Domitianic coin in treating the victim group as a kind of pictograph whose physical "realism" is a matter of indifference—the left of the two figures who cut off the bull actually stands with his forearm loosely resting on the animal's back (at his waist level) as if the bull were an inert lump of balustrade and not a heaving animal maddened by fear under violent restraint!

The victim group on the arch, then, follows a line of adaptation of the BR victim group that passes through a Domitianic reworking documented by the coinage. This dependence on Domitianic workshop tradition is not surprising; mere common sense predicates a good deal of continuity between the workshop staffs employed first by Domitian and then, after the single of year of Nerva's reign, by Nerva's successor, Trajan. Such continuity has already been established for the purely architectural decoration of the arch, linked now to the Domitianic Arch of Titus.[8] The autonomy of this line of transmission for the victim group is confirmed by the contrast with the so-called Uffizi relief (fig. 94). This


Trajanic or Hadrianic relief returned to a fuller and more "classical" rendering, which is much closer to the line of adaptation seen on the Julio-Claudian Temple of Mars Ultor relief (fig. 9a).

This brings us to the real focus of this section. Given the pictographic condensation of the BR victim group on the arch's sacrifice passage relief, it is especially noteworthy that the facing panel in the arch passage does borrow from the BR sacrifice panel composition, directly and in a far more sophisticated fashion. This other passage panel, the alimenta relief (fig. 91),[9] borrows as well from the "son-giving" composition of BR I:2. In both cases, the borrowing seems to be the product of a search for formal inspiration, that is, for guidance in the composition of massed figure groups, rather than an effort to evoke the kind of historical events celebrated on the cup panels and their original prototype.

The alimenta passage relief divides formally into two halves, left and right; I discuss the left section first. This portion of the relief is dominated by a triad of paludate figures (heads now missing), whose placement can be compared to that of the figures of a carousel as it revolves before a spectator. Each figure steps forward with one leg trailing on a circular path, first coming toward and then receding from the spectator: at left fully frontal; in the center in a higher, "nearer" plane of relief in three-quarter profile; at right in lower relief, again seen from behind and moving back into the relief ground. Each figure extends one or both arms forward to a greater or lesser degree, thus enhancing the sense of forward motion along the circular path established by the grouping of the triad. They circle toward and past a low tripod table on which stand two vaguely triangular lumps, which represent food or money to be handed out as alimenta to the children to the right of the table. The right-hand triad figure, moving past the table, still has an arm out over it and presumably has just handed out largess to the child now moving away with loaded cloak at right center; the central figure, who can only be Trajan, is moving toward the table in his turn, awaited by the child who right of the table holds out his cloak to pocket the expected dole.

The rite of distribution, then, seems to have been introduced by the right-hand triad personage, plausibly identified as the curator viarum; not only would he have been responsible for the construction of the Via Traiana, but by virtue of his office he was also in charge of the distribution of alimenta[10] (sensible, as he controlled the road network on which this distribution depended). The emperor is about to take over the presiding office, awaited by the expectant child and the equally expectant figures of city personifications behind and to the right of the table.


Note, finally, the distinctive shape of the tripod table (the front support of which and its braces are now missing): its legs are solid and straight, flat extensions, rectangular in section; they support a very wide, round flat-bottomed tray with high, straight sides. This tray table is very different in form and proportions from the tripod altar on the facing passage panel, which is the table's compositional pendant as one passes through the arch.

Turn to the left-hand portion of the sacrifice panel BR II:1. Here is the same "carousel" of three paludate figures, in this case a lictor and two officers. Corresponding to the right-hand Beneventum triad figure is a lictor three-quarters front, right arm similarly flexed at the elbow and brought slightly forward, left arm hidden under his cloak balancing the fasces on the left shoulder; corresponding to the Beneventum Trajan is a figure in high relief in the nearest foreground plane, in three-quarter profile, left arm bent and brought forward and grasping something small, the right arm brought forward from the shoulder and bent sharply up; corresponding to the Beneventum curator is a third figure, in lower relief, seen from behind with his head turned, so that we see it in profile, his cloak similarly draped from a point on each shoulder so that catenary arcs fall down his back in succession between a cluster of vertical folds on either side. These three figures circle just behind Tiberius, immediately before whom stands a tripod altar of exactly the same shape and proportions as the Beneventum tripod table.

This "carousel" group serves to frame the action and lead the viewer into the narrative, at the same time enhancing the viewer's perception of deep "real" space. It is a clearly demarcated and highly sophisticated compositional group that functions as a dynamic visual device—what can be called a compositional unit. I have not seen this particular device used elsewhere in Roman relief (one is hampered by the fact that figure groupings and precise spatial devices are seldom discussed); note the identity of structure and placement, with the basic iconographic elements that the triad is paludate near the shared element of the distinctive tray table. In his rendition, the arch designer has used "carousel" and altar conflated, omitting the sacrificant Tiberius, who on the cup intervenes between these two compositional elements; retaining the placement and gestures of the BR figures, he has made the central triad figure in the foreground in high relief serve as protagonist of the panel and has put an enveloping fringed cloak on the back right triad member, who seems here, as on the cup, to be a bearer of something, probably a standard or vexillum. Also, the "carousel" has been rotated back a notch, so that the right-hand figure is


buried less deeply in the relief ground and is on the same plane as the bearer at left, while the central figure is more fully displayed in three-quarter view. This kind of quotation and adaptation of compositional units occurs in Greek battle friezes, Roman sacro-idyllic landscape paintings, and Late Antique/Early Byzantine manuscript illustrations, among other examples; the reuse of such units, which serve both an iconographic and a formal function, is the hallmark in antiquity of a continuous artistic tradition in a given medium.

Now for the right-hand portion of the arch panel. At farthest right a man moves away with a (female) child on his shoulders whose arm curves down to lead away an older (male) child on foot;[11] beyond the older child a slightly shorter child comes up to the central tripod table; this child holds his arms up and looks upward at the emperor/attendant, who is making a gesture of reception and bestowal. The descending curve formed by the linked arms of the father and his son, highlighted by the curving gesture of the girl child on his back, is continued in the next plane of relief back by the curved body of a child in the arms of the leftmost female personification, and by the outstretched arms of this female and the personification immediately next to her. The father and two children on foot form, as it were, the front plane of highest relief, as shown below.


Behind them is a second plane constituted by the massed curtain of female figures, three personifications with turreted crowns who stand frontally with their heads turned toward the center; beyond this basic group are, behind the altar table from right to left, another father with his child on his shoulders (the father of the child at the table, presumably) and a larger female personification (probably Beneventum herself). This second plane is illustrated below.


The group as a whole consists of fathers with children who move in procession in stages to the center, taking their turns, to supplicate a benefit


that state personages benevolently aquiesce in extending, meeting the supplicants with an answering gesture.

Significantly, this group, at least up to the altar table and the third female personification from the right, is a mirror image of the left-hand portion of the hostage scene BR I:2. There, a group of fathers usher their children forward in turn, two children on foot, framed at far left by a father with his child on his shoulders and in their movement highlighted by the stretching out of arms forming a descending arc. This descending arc is met by the answering curve of the gesture with which Augustus acquiesces in the children's supplication for protection and sponsorship. This curving sequence of foreground figures, highlighted by curving accents in the relief plane behind, is set against a backwall of massed figures of Romans and barbarians.

The Roman (Drusus) physically succors the children, as do the Beneventum personifications (the cities from which the children come). Above. (p. 107) I showed how the BR "flap" composition turned up on the Ara Pacis, used in either case to frame the young general Drusus set in its midst (fig. 78). At Beneventum (fig. 91) it occurs in its own right, facing, not enclosing, a standing imperator and benefactor. It is plain, too, that the Beneventum panel derives not from the Ara Pacis version but from the BR version of this compositional structure, in figure types, narrative context, and formal location (framing one end of a centralized panel narrative composition). This is what occurred with the left-hand section of the Beneventum panel and BR II:1 (carousel group + table unit); a triad of paludate figures was involved in an imperial offering from a special table (to the gods on the cup, to men on the arch). In the unit described here, young children are brought by their fathers as loyal subjects/citizens to ask for and receive imperial sponsorship in the form of the extension of a father's nurturing role by the emperor (guardianship on the cup, material nourishment on the arch).

Compositional analysis thus establishes that the alimenta passage relief composition was constructed by combining two compositional units that each make up roughly one-half of two separate panels from the Boscoreale Cups. These formal compositional correspondences are indisputable; how is one to comment on them? It is true that very little panel relief survives from the years between the reigns of Augustus and Trajan; it is possible that these compositional units came down to the Trajanic artist mediated by separate lines of transmission, to converge in the arch by accident. However, it seems to me too much of a coincidence that the two


units quoted should stem from a single assemblage and be reused in a single assemblage and that in each case not only formal but contextual reference has been maintained to a significant degree. The arch panel is based on the observation of a single assemblage containing the originals of the two cup panels BR I:2 and II:1.

This still leaves the possibility that the arch designer was looking at an earlier imperial relief that did his work of quotation and combination for him, what I have termed a mediating work. We do have for comparison on the facing sacrifice panel a reuse of a BR cup compositional unit, which can be proved to have been transmitted by intermediate stages of reuse. That unit is the victim group discussed above. There it can be seen how the handling of what was once a formally rich and sophisticated figure group had turned flat and stale, after the group had passed through several stages of mediation. Evidently, the Beneventum master was quite willing to turn to the later and simpler reworking of a given compositional unit, if such a version was available, rather than attempt a more difficult presentation (contrast especially the work of the designer of the Uffizi relief, fig. 94, discussed on p. 158). The alimenta panel, too, when compared with the BR renderings echoed, manifests this tendency toward stylization and dimensional simplification on the part of the Beneventum master. Given this observable tendency, the remaining close correspondence between the alimenta panel groupings and the BR groupings (Gallic fatherson group, and altar group) seems to show that the Beneventum master worked here at only one remove from the BR panels' originals.

To conclude, the designer of the reliefs of the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum (the Beneventum master) belonged to a workshop from the capital known to have carried out other commissions in Rome.[12] In drafting the composition for the alimenta passage relief, he made notes for himself to carry to Beneventum, based on direct observation of the BR prototype reliefs. In doing so he marked down useful ideas on how to make a stimulating panel rendering of particular kinds of crowd scenes dictated by his commission at Beneventum: "paludate imperial party approaches offering table"; "children supplicate the emperor for his fatherly patronage." For these considerations of structure and content, he reworked for his own commission what seemed to him a useful guiding prototype, the pair of reliefs copied for BR I:2 and II:1. One is tempted to think that the Beneventum master thought that one useful element of his prototypes was that they were Augustan reliefs, that is, that some of his audience were meant to pick up on the Augustan reference as such; this kind of imitatio would fit nicely with Trajan's well-known tendency to portray himself as


a "new Augustus" by evoking Augustan political themes and imitating Augustan monuments (consider the Forum of Trajan vis-à-vis the Forum of Augustus). While it is possible that a reference to specific Augustan monuments was supposed to be legible in the alimenta panel, it cannot be proved, and it is rather unlikely given that the arch at Beneventum had to be viewed at such physical distance from its visual sources, which were located in Rome.

A few closing words on style are in order. The discussion of compositional units here should enlarge the reader's notion of what the lost Augustan monumental corpus was worth in artistic terms. As those who have waded through the literature on Roman relief know, the so-called achievements of Flavian illusionism have dominated discussions of the evolution of Roman relief style, especially as a dating criterion for unattached fragments, ever since F. Wickhoff waxed enthusiastic over the Arch of Titus panel reliefs and associated monuments, to the point of comparing the master of the Arch of Titus (figs. 107–8) to Velázquez. He was particularly struck by Flavian mastery in the manipulation of relief planes "die Wirklichkeit vorzutauschen,"[13] as other scholars have been ever since. We, like Wickhoff, cannot but respond to this Flavian mastery of the expressive possibilities of relief, which we can see beginning to crystallize into a more stylized deployment in much of the Trajanic corpus. What the BR cups show is that some at least of the most sophisticated visual devices available to the master carvers of the late first and early second centuries of the Empire had already been initiated and formulated at the beginning of the Empire. By sheer accident most of what Julio-Claudian relief is left to us is in the form of procession friezes, which exercise in decorous conformance to their genre a much more subdued style than the narrative historical panels that first surface on the Arch of Titus. The BR narrative panels show us that Augustan response to the demands of this genre can stand comparison with the weightiest of imperial compositions from the so-called Golden Age of Flavian and Trajanic narrative relief.

The Ludovisi Sarcophagus Lid

The previous section analyzed an instance of Trajanic dependence on the BR "son-giving" scene, or rather on its original prototype. This formal dependence occurred together with a rough similarity of context: "children supplicate the emperor." This section treats an instance of full depen-


dence on BR I:2—that is, the copying of the BR composition to depict an identical subject.

The afterlife of the Boscoreale composition is difficult to discern. Gabelmann put it at the very beginning of the long series of scenes of barbarian submission in imperial art.[14] He was partly right, because the cup does give us the earliest example of the basic composition "barbarians submissively approach an emperor." He saw the cup's monumental prototype, a post-Augustan Julio-Claudian monument, as the startling initial formulation from which all later iconographic variants derive. A first necessary qualification to this thesis is that the monumental original transmitted to us on the cup is the first extant variation on this compositional genre of barbarian submission scenes. Given the scanty surviving record of early imperial documentary art, one cannot assert that this particular example stands at the head of the series. Indeed, the indication is that is does not, that it is itself a variant of a convenient, already evolved genre composition.

This leads to a second qualification. As carefully explained in chapter 4, BR I:2 is not a canonical submission scene. It shows aliens friendly to Rome (the primores of Gaul) offering their children to be raised by Augustus; it does not show the leaders of a just-defeated people offering their children unwillingly as hostages. The emperor himself is togate, not armed: tribute to his abilities is paid here to his peaceful administration of the empire as a chief magistrate, not to his exercise of military virtus as a conquering general. As chapter 2 stresses, this representation is unique; excepting the piece treated in this section, Republican instances of submission scenes and all later imperial depictions that show foreigners with or without their children approaching a Roman official in a military setting portray groveling, beaten savages abasing themselves before a general to beg his clemency. The surviving Republican depictions of this theme are extremely abbreviated numismatic representations; this does not allow us to conclude with Gabelmann that more complex compositions on the same structural armature did not exist until the BR prototype was formulated, for abbreviation is in the nature of numismatic depiction. Compare, for example, the numismatic abbreviation of the BR depiction on the Lugdunum coinage of 8/7 B.C. (fig. 87) to the cup panel!

Instead, I think that the very resemblance of the BR composition to canonical submission scenes, among which modern scholarship has summarily placed the cup panel, testifies to the fact that it is a variant on an established (lost) genre of crowded triumphal representations; for if the artist had never seen such a submission scene, I do not think that it is likely


that he would have composed such an initially misleading rendering. In depicting an event peculiarly tied to Augustan practice and propaganda he used a compositional structure that he evidently took for granted, which he could, and had to, modify in details—toga, smiling babies, et cetera—to suit his unique commission. Prior to the BR representation must stand monumentally scaled panel depictions, in sculpture or painting, which we know only from the numismatic abbreviations that begin over half a century before the cup prototype with, for example, Faustus Sulla's coinage (fig. 50). It is this main line of evolution that is followed by the canonical submission scenes that come after the cup. No doubt, among the mass of Augustan monuments, there was at least one Augustan rendering of the typical theme of beaten barbarians. In the cup panel BR I:2, however, we do not have such a rendering, but a variant on the generic submission composition that has been altered to serve a different thematic purpose.

The Augustan composition reproduced by this BR cup panel did have a limited afterlife, limited not because the prototype was insignificant or badly made, but because there was no call to use it for an identical purpose. That is, the policy that stressed the rearing of the children of subject and nonsubject foreign elites was an Augustan one that was dropped by later emperors. Some kings continued to send their children, but policy as such consists not least in the placing of emphasis on actual practice, by means of the organs of state propaganda. This proclamation of policy ceased, as far as one can tell from the extant historical record, and the call for images celebrating the particular manifestations of such a policy ceased with the policy itself. To cite a parallel from a later era: when England and northern Europe broke from the Catholic church in the Reformation, Protestant Christians still erected crucifixes, but they ceased to erect representations of the Madonna, having abandoned the "Mariolatry" of Catholic Christianity.

The monument on which the cup is based, evidently a representation of some complexity and sophistication, did remain standing in Rome and did exert some influence on later relief: this we have seen above in the formal borrowing of some of its compositional devices in the passage panel of the arch at Beneventum. This postulated Augustan monument continued to stand well into the third century, when it inspired the representation of a "submission" on the lid of the Ludovisi sarcophagus.

I have explained why I think it wrong to see in the BR prototype the early imperial ancestor of later submission scenes in general, as represented by Antonine relief and by "generals'" sarcophagi of the second and third centuries A.D. (figs. 83, 89, 93). The BR panel may or may not be


behind the figure types used when these submission scenes include the defeated barbarians' children; we do not know if the small children on the cup were a new element in themselves when introduced, or whether the pathetic representation of a barbarian family suing for mercy after the males had been defeated in battle was already part of the Republican repertoire. The stock figure of a barbarian with his little child is used in a purely triumphal context as emblem of a beaten enemy; compare the child standing with two adult captives in a triumph, on the Julio-Claudian frieze from Rome in Naples (fig. 84). It is also a rare theme of Julio-Claudian cuirass statues, disappearing after from the extant corpus of cuirass portraits. One is an Augustan cuirass portrait (now headless) from southern Gaul in Copenhagen,[15] honoring a member of the imperial house; on one of the pteryges (embossed "bronze" lappets) fringing the bottom of the cuirass is a half-naked, disheveled, bearded Gaul with his child on his shoulders (identifiable because the adjacent lappet has a boar standard) (fig. 82). On a Julio-Claudian cuirass statue from Etruria (Rucellae) a barbarian advances along the "ground" (cuirass edge) toward a central trophy, carrying his child.[16] A Neronian statue in Rome shows a naked infant at its father's feet, where he is bound by a trophy.[17]

The only other commemorative representations, aside from Antonine panels showing a barbarian with an adolescent son (figs. 83, 89), are on late imperial sarcophagi (fig. 93). On these, a general on a tribunal sits back as anguished barbarians, of Celtic type, stumble forward from or before a crowd of soldiers. (Compare the childless submission on the lost base reliefs of the Column of Marcus Aurelius; see fig. 121.) Usually the barbarian nearest the general goes down on one knee, back bowed and hands held out in pleading submission; a crying child (sometimes with its mother) will, when included in such a group, grovel immediately in front of this leading figure, its father. This is the kind of genre scene with which Gabelmann identified the BR rendering.

The inclusion of children on the Julio-Claudian cuirass statues and on the late imperial sarcophagi may or may not derive from the BR prototype. The cuirass statues' abbreviated emblematic figure groups can very well be taken as testimony to some major early imperial prototype of the sarcophagus genre scene; compare the reflection of such lost major monuments in the exergue of the Tiberian Grande Camée de France, where barbarian men and women huddle with infants among captured arms.[18] The Antonine sarcophagus panels certainly copy set pieces of lost triumphal monuments. The depiction of an adolescent son with his father in a supplication was not restricted to the Aurelian panel relief (fig. 83) but


appeared elsewhere on less abbreviated second-century monumental reliefs, such as the Torlonia relief (pendant to an adventus in the Conservatori):[19] a barbarian embassy supplicates the standing togate emperor, a boy of approximately twelve years standing behind his kneeling father at the edge of the group, reaching out his hands like his elders (fig. 89).[20]

These compositions seem to be simple, brutal depictions of the utter dependence of a defeated foe for clemency on the conquering Roman emperor/general. Perhaps the children in these groups are to be handed over to the custody of the conqueror as hostages; more likely, they are brought by their fathers to try to stir Roman pity for the vanquished, as symbols of the total subjection of their race. Also missing from any of these scenes is a sponsoring figure like the young general Drusus on the BR cup; the only general is the conqueror himself, judging from the position of triumph in which his virtus has placed him. The curious third-century variant in this sarcophagus series was illustrated by Gabelmann, but as he did not go into the details of the BR panel (young general as sponsor, physically cherishing the children; smiling babies; etc.), he was not alert to its similarly variant status.

This variant scene is a panel on the front of the lid of the Ludovisi sarcophagus (fig. 88), much less well known than the battle panel on the sarcophagus face. At some modern date it became separated from the body of the sarcophagus and ended up in the state museum in Mainz, where it was severely damaged and broken in World War II. Recently, it was painstakingly put back together; older drawings supplement the many small gaps where pulverized stone could not be replaced.[21] The lid has a flat front edge, high enough to take figural decoration. At center is a (blank) tabula for a painted inscription; at right a female bust is set before a curtain (parapetasma ) held up by Victories; below the tabula a little group of four mourning barbarians flanks a trophy;[22] on the left is our panel, its tall, rectangular format comparable to that of the Antonine panel reliefs. The general/emperor in the battle scene on the main face must be the (headless) protagonist of this panel. He sits at right on a sella castrensis on a tribunal of moderate height, wearing tunic and paludamentum, in his left hand a spear or scepter; he lifts his right hand with palm open. At left a massed group attends him; the back row are soldiers with two legionary standards and a vexillum. In the front rank at far left stand two Celtic barbarians, in front of whom stand two children side by side, decorously upright, aged about ten (slightly over waist height to the parents). These children are being "introduced" to the emperor by a young, bearded officer, who stands full front between the children and the tribunal, his head


turned sharply in profile toward the emperor; his right hand rests on the head of the foremost child; his left hand is knotted around the hilt of his sword (compare the BR Drusus), though the carver omitted the baldric from which the sword should be suspended. This officer wears dress uniform, though not the cuirass of the BR Drusus; a paludamentum is pinned on his right shoulder and pushed back over his shoulders.

Two elements of this scene are immediately surprising to an observer of the other sarcophagi and interesting to a student of the BR panel: the presence of a sponsor for the barbarian party and the dignified way in which the barbarians are represented. The two barbarians at far left correspond to the standing barbarians at far left of the cup panel; except that their cloaks are not fringed, their costume is identical. Note that they stand at ease, looking toward the emperor, and do not assume any posture of humiliation, in contrast to the genre scenes discussed above; in this they also conform to the cup and coin representations of the BR event. Their two children also stand at ease; the left holds hands with his father and looks up at him; the right looks at the emperor on the dais as the young officer places his hand on the child's head.[23] The children's costume is not Celtic but Greco-Roman, a himation- or togalike garment; the different way it is draped on the two children may distinguish them as boy and girl.[24] Though older than the BR infants, they are shown in a similar posture of emotional ease and privileged dependence on Roman authority, in the person of the sponsoring officer. This officer himself is singled out as being of very high status: in this hierarchic composition the foreigners and soldiers are much smaller than the presiding figure on the dais, but the tall young officer is as large as his superior.

We have here the bones of the BR scene, in composition and in theme; dignified barbarians at an audience before the emperor, presenting their children to him as he responds with a welcoming gesture, sponsored by a young Roman officer of very high rank who is also in a privileged position—that is, probably a young relative—vis-à-vis that emperor. Whatever this is, it is not an image of beaten barbarian enemies groveling to sue for mercy. In no other sarcophagus group of barbarians-children-general does the presiding figure make this gesture of welcome. It echoes the gesture of the general in the battle scene below, where it expresses military superiority; here it is a gesture of just and peaceful rule over loyal foreigners, who themselves stand in contrast to the anguished superbi dying below and to the grieving captives at the lid's center.

This panel, so much at variance with the late imperial submission genre, must borrow from the BR composition. The vaguely Romanized


dress of the children is reminiscent of a similar alteration in the dress of the BR child on the Ara Pacis frieze (figs. 76–77); whether this detail on the lid is an invention of its sculptor or whether it has been picked up from some other monument, its purpose seems to be to mark the children out as favored and civilized recipients of Roman attention, in a period when small children upheld by stooping fathers would look too much like a (by-now) conventional submission scene.

As for other discrepancies between the sarcophagus lid and the cup depiction, when examined they turn out to be due to a garbling of real details in the BR composition. The curious armor of the "Drusus" figure, not like any other dress cuirass in this period or earlier, is in fact the armor of the soldier who stands at the far right of the BR panel, who is also a frontal figure; this explains why the sword has no baldric from which to hang so that its bearer can rest the weight of his arm on it—the BR soldier whose torso is copied here has no baldric either. The lid emperor's drapery is confusing and inexplicable as a representation of a simple tunic and cloak. Consider the large tongue of drapery massed on his left thigh: when we look at the BR cup we see that this tongue of drapery on the thigh is a notable element of Augustus' portrait, but on the cup it follows naturally from the disposition of a toga on the legs of a seated figure. Note also that the tunic of the seated emperor on the lid falls into the same prominent nest of catenary V folds as does the tunic of the enthroned BR Augustus.

There remains the fact that the emperor on the sarcophagus lid wears tunic and paludamentum instead of tunic and toga. I pointed out in chapter 5 that in the late Empire a subject can still be accounted paludatus even if he is not wearing a cuirass, as in the nuncupatio votorum sarcophagus scenes (fig. 93), which omit or include the cuirass indifferently. It is worth pointing out, however, that this protagonist differs from all the other sarcophagus submissio protagonists in not wearing a cuirass, a detail that seems a true deliberate variant from the sarcophagus submission genre, and that with the resemblances to the BR Augustus' drapery type is grounds for identifying deliberate (if confused) dependence on the BR imperial figure. Since the third-century artist was carving a scene in a military setting, he thought that he ought to make his emperor paludatus; he looked, however, to the BR Augustus' "nonthreatening" costume and not to the seated cuirass figure of the by-now familiar submission iconography. Also altered is the height of the emperor's dais; but this, and the tall, narrow rectangular format of the panel itself, seems to reflect again the second-century evolution in monumental art.


This format is very unusual for a figure panel on a sarcophagus lid; it copies the kind of format for narrative documentary panels that is exemplified by the panel reliefs of Marcus Aurelius (fig. 83). On these too, the emperor's dais is very tall, in scenes with a military setting, and also in "friendly" scenes like the congiarium panel from the series where the emperor is passing out gifts to Roman citizens and their children (the sarcophagus's children's costume may be influenced by just such a late second-century congiarium representation).[25] The observable differences between the sarcophagus panel and the cup panel are nonessential, products of unthinking assumptions made by a third-century artist in the mainstream of contemporary imperial relief production. The Ludovisi sarcophagus can in fact be placed in a small, but discrete, class of third-century sarcophagi from Rome whose lids exhibit "documentary" scenes from the public career of the deceased;[26] the rarity of this narrative format highlights its derivation from large-scale relief-ornamented facades, rather than from any sarcophagus workshop tradition, even if certain types of scene (e.g., magistrates' processions) later developed observable formulae within that tradition.[27] The Ludovisi sarcophagus itself is almost certainly an imperial commission,[28] or at least made for a very high-ranking general in the imperial service; we know that in the third century such sarcophagi made in Rome could be executed by artisans from the same workshops that got monumental imperial commissions (e.g., the Constantinian panels on the Arch of Constantine and some contemporary sarcophagi). Its decoration is so far unique even within the limited class just described, as it is the only lid to illustrate a scene from an imperatorial career; the type seems originally to have been worked out for magistrates at Rome who were restricted to civilian careers, not for those who commissioned the "generals'" sarcophagi. Its clearly delimited oblong panel format also points to its immediate dependence on official monuments,[29] for other lids in the class tend more to a longer, loosely processional or crowd format, even when (as here) the consular protagonist gives audience from a tribunal.[30]

To conclude, the Ludovisi sarcophagus lid has a panel that is a second echo of the BR I:2 "son-giving" scene, to set next to the alimenta panel from the Trajanic arch at Beneventum. That was a borrowing in formal terms, tied to the representation of children before an emperor in a context of alimenta; this is a borrowing of some of the compositional structure of the BR panel, with confused echoes of its figure types, in a similar context involving non-Romans before the emperor. Such borrowing is not at all out of place on this sarcophagus, whose main battle scene, justly


famous, depends on the monumental relief tradition exemplified by the battle frieze from the Forum of Trajan. Even if the sarcophagus is not an emperor's commission, nonimperial generals were celebrated on such sarcophagi with imperial artistic formulae in any case.

One cannot say exactly why the BR theme is being echoed here. Certainly in the context of the sarcophagus's entire decorative program such a depiction fits in as emblematic of peaceful rule, balancing the conquering virtues of the main face. Whether it is, thus, simply emblematic, not at all impossible in this late period, or whether it reflects particular historical circumstance, is also hard to say. This problem applies in particular to the figure of the young officer: perhaps, if this is an imperial sarcophagus, this "Drusus" is indeed an imperial heir; even if this is not an imperial sarcophagus, the female portrait on the other end of the lid shows that the patron wished to include his immediate family, and this might indeed be his son, prince or no prince. For all its clumsiness, the Ludovisi sarcophagus lid panel shows that the original of BR I:2 survived into the third century A.D. and could still be understood at that time for what it basically was, a depiction of benevolent imperial rule of loyal non-Roman dependents.


Tiberius and Drusus in Augustan Propaganda and the Prototype for the Boscoreale Cups

A Polemic for the Claudii Nerones

The position of Tiberius and Drusus in the years 12–9 has not always been properly estimated by scholars .
—Syme, History in Ovid

It is always pleasant to be backed by the magisterial authority of Ronald Syme in generalizing about scholarly trends. Indeed, the place of Tiberius and Drusus in Augustus' political projects and dynastic plans has seldom been properly estimated; the position of Drusus the Elder has hardly been considered at all. This has been a flaw in historical, literary, and art-historical scholarship, misdirection and omission in any one sphere tending to reinforce those faults in other spheres. Hence this chapter. For it is Drusus' and Tiberius' place in Augustus' plans and in Augustan propaganda that explains the decoration of the Boscoreale Cups on the one hand, while on the other hand the cups themselves are notable and illuminating documents of the historical phenomenon. I have reviewed already some portions of the brothers' careers, and the artistic forms and monuments implicated in their commemoration. I consider now some reasons for the neglect of Drusus and Tiberius, recount some of its side effects, and state my own position on the nature of Augustan "dynastic" policy.

Some of this presentation has a polemic character. If it provokes anyone to a more broadly founded analysis of the roles of Augustus' chosen assistants and relatives, and of the artistic evidence for this, I will be delighted. I am not trying to make out that Drusus and the younger Tiberius were the heirs of Augustus, at the expense of Agrippa or Gaius and Lucius, for instance; rather, in a given period they were preeminent, as others neces-


sarily were at other times. The mechanisms by which Augustus delegated power, and tried by its orderly transmission to assure the continuation of pax after his own death, cannot be understood if the Claudii Nerones are ignored. Most of all, I wish here to say of historical interpretation what I maintain throughout of iconographic interpretation: hindsight is a dangerous, usually illegitimate tool for analysis of motive and intention. Failed projects, cropped-off careers, cannot be treated by the serious historian as if they had never been; yet this has overwhelmingly been the case with the career of Drusus the Elder up to his death in 9 B.C. and with that of his brother Tiberius up to his self-imposed exile in 4 B.C. On Augustus' predilections in these years, let Plutarch speak: first place in Augustus' estimation was held by Agrippa, but next after Agrippa he esteemed the sons of Livia.[1]

Such historical misunderstanding has directly affected Roman art history in general, not just the interpretation of the BR cups. Much Roman art must be dated by means of historical interpretation; historical misdatings then seriously affect our understanding of stylistic evolutions. The next few pages review some apposite examples, not to throw darts at their authors but to indicate the sort of widely held interpretative position that this analysis of the BR cups opposes. Such art-historical works can mislead historians in turn, by conveying unbalanced notions about the strength of the visual evidence for the status of important individual Julio-Claudians.

The debate on the Bonn scabbard plaque is illustrative (fig. 114). That molded (mass-produced) plaque made for the Rhine legions shows two young cuirassed princes on either side of a woman portrayed with aspects of Venus Genetrix and with a nodus coiffure—in other words, an imperial female as Venus. The workmanship is crude enough that it is difficult to distinguish just what the coiffures of the two princes are, except that the one on the left has short, close bangs, the one on the right a longer, more loosely combed fringe.

The plaque has been variously identified as showing Gaius and Lucius with Julia, or Tiberius and Drusus with Livia. Those who nominate Gaius and Lucius seem to feel that there is no reasonable alternative, and do not consider historical context. Historical plausibility mandates that the plaque princes should be a brother pair in command of the legions who were issued this portrait image, whose officers might carry fine cameos like the Bourges triumphal double portrait of Tiberius and Drusus (ca. 14 or 7 B.C.).[2] Compare the Augustan and Tiberian glass phalerae issued exclusively for the Rhine legions, showing Drusus, Tiberius, and Drusus


the Younger or Germanicus with their infant children (fig. 111).[3] The Bonn princes ought to be Tiberius and Drusus, for neither Lucius nor Gaius ever commanded in northern Europe. It is unsound to maintain[4] that the Rhine legionaries were meant to look at two young generals and realize that these were not the actual generals they knew, Drusus and Tiberius, but instead the young children Gaius and Lucius, who had little or nothing to do with themselves. What is visible of the princes' coiffures supports their identification as Drusus and Tiberius—such short, close, straightly trimmed bangs do appear on some portrait types of Drusus.[5]

One should also look for suitable parallels to back a given identification. Are there any parallels for Gaius and/or Lucius as general(s) with their mother as Venus Genetrix? No; nor is this surprising; by the time they enjoyed such careers, their mother was in disgrace.[6] There are, however, suitable parallels for Livia-Venus Genetrix with Drusus and Tiberius. The Boston Marlborough turquoise (fig. 113), which must have been made at court in Rome, shows Livia as Venus Genetrix with one of her sons (Tiberius) as a young cuirassed general; this is the sort of sophisticated luxury work imitated by the makers of the Bonn plaque die, including the disproportion between mother and grown son (borrowed from Venus-Amor iconography) that makes these imperatores seem boys. The iconography of the Bonn plaque persists in the West into Tiberius' reign, when Livia is still honored as Venus Genetrix, mother of Tiberius and Drusus.[7]

The historical iconography of the Boston turquoise itself has suffered Procrustean treatment. It is now generally dated Tiberian, though Tiberius is depicted as a boy—an image of himself after A.D. 14 as some three decades younger. The only premise for this very odd hypothesis is the presumption that the "unpopular" Tiberius would never have been so "flattered" before his accession in A.D. 14.[8] Most explicit is W.-R. Megow's new (1987) survey of imperial cameo production for the authoritative AMUGS series, which can be expected to serve as a reference for years to come. Its stylistic critique of the Julio-Claudian production is distorted when all portraits of the young Tiberius are, without exception, shifted into Tiberius' later Augustan floruit or into his own reign, dragging many Drusus depictions with them.[9] Take Megow's "Germanicus" C 20 Vienna 13, Vienna IX.a.61, for example. This glass cameo is very important because it is from Rome and presents a superb portrait of the young general Tiberius, lightly bearded, laureled, in cuirass and paludamentum (fig. 112). Megow did not arrange these cameos by style or imputed age: rather, the Boston turquoise is Tiberian because "offizielle Kinderporträts


kann es von Tiberius nicht gegeben haben"; and so also a family group of Augustus, Livia, and Tiberius as a young boy has to be after A.D. 4 because Tiberius assumed "seine Funktion als zukünftiger Herrscher erst 4 n. Chr. im Alter von 46 Jahren."[10] Nothing in the historical, literary, or material record supports these views.

Several other recent specialist studies, all admirable in their main thrust, are marred by certain historical statements. A 1984 study of the dedication of the Porticus Liviae in 7 B.C. dismisses those sources that include Tiberius as joint dedicator with his mother Livia as unlikely to be true because, "after the death of Drusus, Tiberius' position may well have been an awkward one" in comparison with that of Gaius and Lucius. But this is the very period when Augustus awarded Tiberius his triumph and was planning to give him tribunician potestas![11] Such inattention to the real historical sequence affects study of the Boscoreale Cups themselves: in 1984 a sophisticated survey of depictions of the exercise of military and political authority said that the BR cups could not have been made in connection with the 8/7 B.C. triumph of Tiberius because "unmittelbar nach den Ereignissen in Germanien 8 v. Chr. war Tiberius noch gar nicht zum Nachfolger ausersehen. In dieser Zeit wäre es viel wahrscheinlicher gewesen, dab Gaius oder Lucius auf dem Gegenstücke zum Augustusbecher gefeiert worden wären."[12] In 1985 a fine discussion of the coinage of 13-12 B.C. described Gaius' and Lucius' appearance there as a reference to the fact that Gaius and Lucius were going to grow up to inherit the throne because their father had been Augustus' heir until his death in 12—no mention of the mere existence of Tiberius or Drusus, fully grown adults currently commanding their stepfather's legions and coheirs with Gaius and Lucius.[13] The newest study of the artistic commemoration of Gaius and Lucius, published in 1987, manifests the same tunnel vision—Gaius, the principal focus of the book, exists living and dead as a historical hapax legomenon; real innovation cannot be appreciated because there is no discussion of actual derivation from modes of honoring any other "Julio-Claudian."[14] Also in 1987 the first iconographic sourcebook on imperial numismatics—along the lines of the classic epigraphic handbooks—not only omits the IMP. X coinage (figs. 115–16) but does not even mention Drusus' name once.[15]

Equally problematic are generalist studies. It is difficult to shake off the imprint of one's first handbooks; and those new to Roman art in general (and to Augustan art in particular), whether undergraduates, graduate students, or specialists in other Classical disciplines, will turn naturally first to general reference works to get their bearings. No general work at this


handbook or survey level has, until recently, even attempted the topic of "dynastic" works of art. It is therefore disappointing to find that in the two otherwise spectacular new handbooks on the art of the Augustan Age, brought out by two of the best Roman art historians of our day, mistaken notions about the Augustan succession continue to flourish. Both books make a sustained effort to organize the works reviewed in a meaningful way by means of thematically structured chapters (which should do much to enhance the level of conceptual analysis of Roman art); it is good to see that both authors consider as a distinct topic art affected by and documenting Augustus' succession policy. Both, however, convey the notion that "the succession" had a kind of institutional reality, that Augustus could will his power to his chosen successors, and that such succession was based on blood kinship to Augustus. Tiberius is not considered an "heir" until adopted by Augustus; Agrippa is not considered ever to have been in the running; the actual mechanisms of Augustan power sharing, especially the grant of tribunicia potestas, are not discussed or mentioned. In her handbook Simon considers the "Portraits of Designated Successors": these are Augustus' nephew Marcellus, then Gaius and Lucius; after Gaius dies Tiberius is adopted, and now he and Germanicus are designated successors.[16] There is no Agrippa, no Drusus the Elder, no preexile Tiberius, no Drusus the Younger, or Agrippa Postumus. P. Zanker has a more sophisticated, and so more troubling, text. He considers how Augustus' Nachfolger were presented in art in a section called "Shoots from Venus' Stem"—these turn out to be, from infancy, Gaius and Lucius. At least Tiberius and Drusus are discussed immediately following, but only as "Reichsfeldherrn," and the only images cited are the Lugdunum issues (figs. 115–16).[17] The section "Tiberius as Successor" is confined to the period when Tiberius returned from exile and, because Gaius and Lucius were dead, was considered a successor and so adopted, adopting in his turn Germanicus and Agrippa Postumus (there is no mention of Tiberius' son Drusus). Zanker holds that while Gaius and Lucius were presented as Nachfolger from boyhood, adducing the (post-Tiberian exile!) principes iuventutis coinage, Drusus and Tiberius were presented as successful generals with their glory properly subordinated to Augustus', but never as heirs.[18] The contradiction here is not realized—by now all forms of ultimate power in Rome were grounded upon demonstrated military capability, and no one knew this better than Augustus himself. The portraits of the children Gaius and Lucius on the Ara Pacis are mentioned (though misidentified with the foreign princelings) to show how they were being touted; there is no mention of the even more prominent


portraits of Tiberius and Drusus, nor of Agrippa, Augustus' near mirror image. Other images are squeezed into this preset structure: the Bonn plaque (fig. 114) must be Gaius and Lucius, the Boscoreale Cups must be associated with the postexile standing of Tiberius.

At this point it is incumbent on me to expose to criticism my own view of the nature of Augustan succession policy and to highlight the institutions and events that I feel are crucial to the interpretation of political art. I address some of these circumstances at length with regard to particular scenes on the cups, discussing in regard to BR I:2 Drusus' role in the Western provinces, more generally the status of such Augustan legati, and the iconography of "succession" narratives"; in regard to BR II:2 I discuss Tiberius' triumph and Augustus' manipulation of the traditional Republican forms of high military award to bolster his own power and single out his chosen assistants; relevant also are discussions of the program of the cup pair. What follows is my own assessment of the status of Tiberius and Drusus in the ancient sources and in modern scholarship, and my own views on the nature of the Augustan "succession." I end with a case demonstration of what I mean by a typological study of the role of Julio-Claudian princes in fact and in art, by analyzing the compositional skeleton of BR I:2, where Drusus appears before Augustus.

The frequent neglect of the brothers' role in the first part of Augustus' reign seems due to the nature of the extant historical sources, and to fashions in modern scholarship. These factors in turn seem conditioned by two historical catastrophes, the untimely death of Drusus in 9 B.C. while campaigning in Germany and Tiberius' self-exile to Rhodes in 4 B.C., an action for which modern and ancient observers alike have no unambiguous explanation, only the record of its primary effects. The result has often been to leave Drusus out of any comprehensive analysis of Augustan dynastic policy, as if his death canceled any prior significance, and to regard Tiberius' ultimate elevation to the throne as an unwelcome act forced on Augustus by the lack of any alternative due to the deaths of his grandsons and adopted sons Gaius and Lucius. This gap in scholarship is just beginning to be filled by a series of recent German investigations interested primarily in Drusus but also in the linked roles of the brothers as a pair; it has yet to be redressed in the English scholarly literature.[19]

First, the ancient sources. For substantial accounts of the Augustan period one generally depends on Suetonius, Tacitus, and Cassius Dio. Dio's is an admirable running survey of military and political events that tends to report rather than to explain; for the stated history of policy, modern writers turn rather to Suetonius and Tacitus. Suetonius' Life of Augustus,


written in the second century A.D., covers unevenly the significant events and participants in Augustus' rule; the relative importance of persons or events (e.g., that of Gaius and Lucius vis-à-vis other members of the imperial house) cannot be estimated by the weight assigned them by Suetonius. None of the significant actions and roles of any of Augustus' agents prior to the period that begins with Gaius' Eastern mission in 2 B.C. are well covered; for instance, from Suetonius alone we would drastically underestimate Agrippa's career. Suetonius' information on Drusus is mostly presented not for its own sake in Suetonius' direct account of the period in which Drusus lived but instead as a genealogical introduction to the Life of his son Claudius. Tacitus has left no direct coverage of the Angustan period at all. Interpretative "flashbacks" about Tiberius concern only his putative place in the affections of Augustus (for Tacitus, nil) and the stages in Tiberius' gradual degeneration into the pathological paradigmatic despot Tacitus makes him out to be; Drusus figures only as a one-time beneficial restraining influence on the incipient monster. When Tacitus notes that Augustus celebrated Tiberius and Drusus as imperatores upon assuming Agrippa as coheir, it puzzles him because he "knows" Augustus really meant to have the infant Gaius and Lucius as heirs (Ann. 1.3: "privignos imperatoriis nominibus auxit integra etiam rum domo sua"). Then there are the potentially informative accounts left by contemporaries, Augustus' Res gestae, the History of Velleius Paterculus, and the anecdotes from contemporary events woven into the divagations of Valerius Maximus. The factual content of Velleius' attentions to Tiberius' achievements as diplomatic and military agent is often dismissed as due to the partisan exaggeration of a naive, spellbound sycophant, though such an attitude has not prevented great reliance on the poetic hyperbole of Ovid for Gaius; Velleius cannot help on Drusus, though, for whom he gives only a one-page panegyric to his sterling character (2.97.2–3). The Res gestae do mention Tiberius as an heir; Augustus says little, however, about personages dead at the time of the release of the Res gestae, except where he himself did something in which their names were involved, and so Drusus is largely neglected.[20] Valerius Maximus tends to be ignored outright, even the splendid set piece (5.6.3) on the last hours of Drusus' life;[21] the same is true of Plutarch's interesting comments at the end of his Life of Antony (see p. 173 above). Similarly, modern response to ancient panegyric poetry tends to exaggerate the novelty of brief tributes to Gaius, for example, inserted into Ovid's longer works, and to overlook Horace's odes for Drusus and Tiberius, the relevant Greek panegyric epigrams, and the Consolatio ad Liviam . Yet at the end of the first cen-


tury A.D. Juvenal still held Drusus up as an exemplum virtutis (8.21) and called the last three Julio-Claudians "Drusi" (8.40)![22] If only one had Augustus' prose memoir of Drusus (Suet. Claud. 1.3), or Pliny the Elder's history of his German wars.

Next as a historical source, there is the material record of numismatic honorific portrait images.[23] Contemporary portraits of the younger Tiberius or of Drusus are relatively few, compared to the number made for Gaius and Lucius. Then again, there are relatively few extant portraits of any important member of the domus Augusta before Agrippa's Eastern tour that ended in 13 B.C., during which the Greek cities responded to the presence of Augustus' acknowledged colleague with a rash of honorific dedications to Agrippa, his wife Julia, and his sons Gaius and Lucius. Still, Tiberius and Drusus were honored in the East in the period I speak of. Herod's family was especially devoted to Antonia and to Drusus, who was honored in Herod's new port at Caesarea with a Druseum in its walls (the biggest of its towers); there was a substantial cult of Tiberius established at Nysa before his exile,[24] and he had had portraits decreed elsewhere that were removed by their fickle donors during the period of his disgrace; Drusus was honored by a portrait at Priene.[25] The two brothers, though, were politically and militarily active mainly or (Drusus) exclusively in the West, and so we do not find the Eastern cities decreeing statues to them connected with sojourns there, as we do for Gaius or, later, for Germanicus; portraits were put up in the West, but in this period not with anything like the frequency observable in the East, because of differences in culture and cultural development.

As for numismatic portrayals, much has been made of the fact that Gaius and Lucius figure with their mother in 13 B.C. and then together as young adolescents in 2 B.C. on the Augustan coinage.[26] Tiberius and Drusus, however, figure on the Augustan coinage already in 14 (figs. 115–16, IMP. X types); the numismatic commemoration of Gaius and Lucius as principes iuventutis, like their political elevation in itself, occurs in the years after Drusus' death and Tiberius' exile. Together the coins of 14 and 13 B.C. seem to mark a turning point in Augustus' numismatic display of the younger males of his house—hence no childhood portraits of Tiberius or Drusus or portraits of Marcellus in coinage. Gaius does appear as a potential leader on coinage already in 8 B.C., but this is as a boy of twelve years of age being groomed by Tiberius as well as by Augustus, presented to the troops of the Rhine under their joint auspices and therefore given one of the reverses in Tiberius' Lugdunum series.[27] Why Gaius, instead of Tiberius' own son Drusus? Because Gaius was twelve years old, while


Drusus would have been only eight or nine, which is why Gaius' younger brother Lucius was not paraded at the same occasion either. Gaius was obviously being groomed for power by Augustus, but in a position subordinate to his stepfather's, much like Germanicus in regard to Tiberius in the latter part of Augustus' reign.

Like the textual record, then, the material record is especially weak for the period relevant to the BR cups, for reasons unconnected with Tiberius' or Drusus' actual standing. These ancient historical sources are thus unsatisfactory documents for the period of Tiberius' and Drusus' joint predominance. Modern scholarship in its turn seems to have been often distracted from the topic by a fashion for reconstructing the factions that "must" have raged about the potential heirs to Augustus' (and then to Tiberius') power. The impetus to this fashion was given, I think, by Tacitus' own fascination with the subject and was furthered by a desire to explain Tiberius' exile in Rhodes. Suetonius and Tacitus interpreted this exile as a reprise of Agrippa's one-time retreat to Mytilene, both being ascribed to fear and jealousy of "more closely related" imperial males, Marcellus for Agrippa, Gaius and Lucius for Tiberius. The only certain facts about Tiberius' exile are that it occurred at a moment when Tiberius enjoyed all the outward signs of Augustus' full confidence and favor and that it provoked Augustus' black rage and resentment at what he evidently perceived as a betrayal of this confidence. The political tensions that erupted in 2 B.C. in the banishment of Julia and the death and exile of her "lovers" after Tiberius retreated to Rhodes should probably be weighed here: if Tiberius had any suspicions at all, how could he act against a daughter who was the apple of her father's eye? Enough—we neither know nor can know the reasons any more than the extant ancient authors did, and they are irrelevant to the discussion of Augustus' own intentions in any case. Because they obviously have nothing to do with Drusus, in fact, this kind of "factional" history neglects him altogether.[28]

Whatever the factions that may have grown up at court or elsewhere, whatever the sentiments that motivated the retreat of Agrippa or Tiberius, those phenomena should not be confused with Augustus' own intentions, expressed in policy and action. What role did Augustus give, and wish to be seen giving, to the stepsons to whom he granted imperium over his legions and provinces? No one, least of all Augustus, knew that Drusus was going to die when he did or that Tiberius would retreat to Rhodes: events prior to these catastrophes cannot be interpreted in the light of future and unforeseen events.

There has been to my knowledge no thorough study of Augustus'


agents as such, carefully comparing their cursus, spheres of activity, and honorific treatment—that is, of Marcellus, Agrippa, Tiberius, Drusus, Germanicus, Agrippa Postumus, Gaius, Lucius, Drusus the Younger; this means that there is no proper background for Germanicus' status under Tiberius nor for that of his sons Nero, Drusus Caesar, and Caligula, nor for that of Drusus the Younger and his children and Seianus. (I have touched on the subject where it intersects with the content and forms of the cups, regarding the compositional structure and historical references of BR I:2, showing Drusus the Elder and the Gauls before Augustus, and regarding the calibrations in panegyric commemoration of Tiberius' triumph on BR II.) In particular, the roles of Gaius and Lucius can be explained only with reference to previous agents of Augustus, not the other way around. It is they who at a dangerously young age (Gaius was originally not meant to hold even an extraordinary consulship until A.D. 1) are slotted into the roles defined by Agrippa, Tiberius, and Drusus, not the postexile Tiberius who is slotted into theirs.

What has confused our thinking is a mix of privileged hindsight (e.g., Tiberius did end up exercising supreme power upon Augustus' death) and semantics. We speak of dynasty, of succession, and of heirs—some even imply a kind of regency (Agrippa, or Tiberius and Drusus, for Agrippa's children);[29] I cannot help but use these terms myself, but I do not imply by them any of the institutional exactitude of medieval or modern private or royal inheritance, divine right of kings, absolute political fealty to biological bloodlines, et cetera.[30] Under Augustus it was not clear to anyone in Rome that there was an imperial office as such—the "office of emperor" was in fact never formally defined as a unitary institution in the entire imperial period. Augustus' position was that of a proven general and administrator claiming supremacy on the grounds of unequaled competence and divine favor, the latter manifested in his successes and connected to his claim of sonship (by adoption) to another charismatic leader who claimed divine descent. Augustus certainly intended to pass on his power to keep his family supreme and ensure the continuation of civil peace. Any successor would have to be able to command loyalty by a record of as much military and administrative achievement as possible conducted under mandate from Augustus, and ultimately to claim the same kind of kinship to Caesar with its implications of divine descent—though this could be left to posthumous adoption, from which Augustus himself had benefited. The emperor was, in addition, extremely thrilled when his only acknowledged child, his beloved daughter, Julia, had sons; like aristocrats throughout the Republic (cf. Julius Caesar) with no male


issue to carry on the family name, the gens, he remedied this lack by adoption, in his case of grandchildren.[31] His wishes for them did not (at least in his eyes) exclude affection for and political reliance on other males in the family circle.

Moreover, no Roman aristocrat ever counted on any single member of his family surviving to carry on the family's prestige; rates of successful reproduction were too low and mortality into the prime of life too frequent to base policy on any such supposition. In particular, Augustus himself and the Roman people at large knew that Augustus was especially vulnerable to sudden sickness and death: he had always to keep in mind the contingency that the near-fatal illnesses of his youth and early middle age might recur. The principle in any Roman clan, and quite evidently in Augustus', was to have as many arrows in the quiver as possible at any one time. Sons, stepsons, nephews, sons-in-law, were to be trained to ensure family dominance against the death of any one individual. Augustus did mark out single individuals to share the institutional bases of his power, especially the tribunicia potestas, and the holder of this at any one time can be regarded as the current "heir"; he must equally have expected that should he die, this "heir" would soon himself find a colleague. For Augustus, Agrippa was that colleague until his sudden death in 12 B.C.; once Tiberius had won a triumph, he was selected to be that colleague. I think it is certain also that any one potential successor or successors designated as a property inheritor in Augustus' will as formulated at any one point in time would have been granted posthumous adoption. In fact it is known that Augustus made sure that the Senate knew that Drusus and certainly his older brother Tiberius with him were designated coheirs with Gaius and Lucius in his will; see Suetonius' account of Drusus' death in the Life of Claudius (1.3). Gaius and Lucius, however, the children of Augustus' only child, Julia, by his friend and colleague Agrippa, were adopted by their loving grandfather. Why then were Marcellus, Drusus, Agrippa, and the preexile Tiberius never adopted?

Augustus' nephew Marcellus and his stepsons Tiberius and Drusus bore some of the most eminent Roman aristocratic names: Augustus would have lost much, and gained nothing, by an adoption in his own lifetime. Agrippa was too much his peer to be adopted, save in a will. There is only one known case of a Roman aristocrat in the period up to Augustus making in his lifetime an adoption of an age-mate or elder from among amici: the notorious case of P. Clodius, who in 59 B.C. had himself adopted by a younger plebeian friend so that he could run for the plebeian tribunate, an adoption that provoked great outrage, inter alia because of the age dif-


ference between the two (Cic. Att. 8.33, Dom. 37; Plut. Caes. 14, Cato min. 33; App. BCiv. 2.14; Dio 38.12, 39.11). Agrippa's personal charisma would have stood him in stead of the aristocratic ancestry of Marcellus and the Claudii Nerones; if Augustus was ready to have his own wife turned into his daughter by posthumous adoption, expecting this to be accepted without ridicule, he can have felt no qualms about a posthumous adoption for Agrippa. Gaius and Lucius, however, could only benefit by an adoption, being themselves the sons of a man with no stemma to speak of, and Augustus lost no accreted aristocratic prestige by removing them from their natural father's gens .

Augustus' one child of his own was female, and his grant of her in marriage would, in Republican terms, imply the closest political alliance to her husband; the bond between socer and gener was often as significant as that between parent and child. Thus she was married off in turn to Marcellus, then to Agrippa, then to Tiberius, in order to keep such a stepping-stone to power within Augustus' most intimate circle and to mark out potential successors; thus also the most serious threat to Augustus' reign came from a conspiracy led from within his family circle (Iullus Antonius, related as son of Antony to the Julii, was raised by Octavia and married to her daughter) by a man who not only planned to marry Julia but whom she was thought to have supported in this endeavor. No husband of Julia would have been adopted to cement such elevation, for that would have made the marriage, technically, incestuous. Not until over half a century had passed was such an adoption and marriage carried out, when Claudius adopted Nero, who then married Claudius' daughter Octavia.

The situation after Tiberius returned from his catastrophic exile was different. In Tiberius' absence Gaius and Lucius, young and untried though they were, were evidently seen as the only remaining prospective bearers of the family standard and so had to be entrusted with the position of legati with general military and diplomatic responsibilities that Agrippa, Tiberius, and Drusus had previously filled. Also in this interim, Julia had been disgraced, divorced, and banished, and so removed permanently from the marriage market. Tiberius on his return was now the oldest and most proven potential heir. As a condition of his return to power he was adopted, along with the remaining adolescent son of Agrippa and Julia (Agrippa Postumus), and was made in his turn to adopt his dead brother's son Germanicus to be a brother to his own son Drusus. As he aged Augustus had evidently decided that for a number of reasons it was better to organize the available male inheritors of his power into a "family" group. The reasons for this new policy of establishing by adoptions a hierarchy


of direct parental-filial lines, instead of using socer-gener lines, for instance,[32] are worth discussion; however, this is a new policy belonging to a period later than that relevant to the BR cups. The cups belong before Tiberius' exile, in the period including his marriage to Julia.

That Tiberius and Drusus remained Augustus' stepsons in this period says nothing about their position in his dynastic plans. Not adopting them made them, in fact, more useful agents; acting for their stepfather while remaining Claudii, they added the prestige of the patrician Claudii to the supremacy of the Julian house.[33] The panegyrics of Augustus' court poet Horace show that they were meant to be understood as inheriting, like sons, Augustus' abilities and claim to divine favor (see p. xx); popular feeling and court panegyric[34] were similarly to "adlect" Drusus' son Claudius into the house of Caesar.[35] As stepsons,[36] and for Tiberius as son-in-law, the brothers were certainly among those who, as Pliny the Elder would put it, were entitled to claim Augustus as father (cf. HN 7.13 [60], on Quintus Metellus Macedonicus). If the measure of Augustus' confidence in Tiberius can be estimated by the actual positions of trust he conferred on the older of his stepsons,[37] so can the measure of his confidence in Drusus;[38] I have described at length (especially in chapter 4) the responsibilities conferred on Drusus by his stepfather. Plutarch (Ant. 87) was quoted above on Augustus' reliance on Tiberius and Drusus next after Agrippa: in 13-9 B.C. the Ara Pacis is structured in such a way as to delineate this hierarchy visually, for on the south frieze Augustus capite velato is echoed by Agrippa similarly posed, after whom the next male portraits are the consul Tiberius and the imperator Drusus; Gaius (and probably his little brother) is on the other side of the altar (fig. 71).

Augustus' deep feeling for Drusus can best be measured by the surviving documentation on his overwhelming grief at Drusus' death, which was as marked as that recognized in Tiberius, Livia, and Drusus' wife Antonia; the testimonies to its gravity certainly match those to his grief at the deaths of Gaius and Lucius.[39] As this information is often ignored, it is worth outlining. The program of the BR cups cannot be understood except in the light of these observances.

Decades later, Seneca recalled in the Consolatio ad Marciam that Augustus had been unable to offer Livia reasoned consolation because he was as devastated as she; Livia had to turn to a philosopher rather than to Augustus "qui subducto altero adminiculo titubabat" (4.2). From Dio, Suetonius, and Tacitus we know that Augustus, as well as Tiberius, gave a funeral eulogy; Tiberius' took place in the Forum and Augustus' in the Circus Flaminius; that in the eulogy Augustus, weeping, prayed that


Gaius and Lucius might grow up to resemble their dead stepbrother and that he himself might be granted as honorable a death; that when he had Drusus buried in his own mausoleum he composed verses for the tomb epitaph himself and had them inscribed; and that he wrote a prose memoir of Drusus.[40] More testimony to Augustus' state of mind is given by the anonymous Consolatio ad Liviam, which I date with O. Skutsch (RE 4.1 [1970] 933–47, s.v.) and others as contemporary with Drusus' death.[41] In the Consolatio Tiberius and Drusus are described as a single opus of Augustus, who has now lost half that opus (39) (cf. p. 295 n. 38) and weeps giving Drusus' eulogy, praying for himself a like death (209–12); in Hades Drusus will be claimed by the shades of the Julii as well as the Claudii (331), for through Livia Drusus proclaims himself of the house of the Caesars as well as of the Nerones (451). These lines accord with the dynastic implications of Augustus' choice of burial site for his stepson, which implicitly adopted him in death into the Julii; the emphasis on his mother's heritage fits Tacitus' account of Drusus' bier, surrounded by ancestral images of Livii as well as of Claudii.

What Augustus did further to solace himself and to preserve Drusus' memory was to decree him all the paraphernalia of a real triumphator, the crown of military achievement that had so far been denied him. The Consolatio implies that while not announced such a triumph had in fact been in preparation, though this may be ex post facto reaction to Augustus' actions; the feeling of lost opportunity is what may have impelled Augustus to grant a full triumph to Tiberius in the following year. Augustus himself must have been the one to direct that Drusus' statue be placed in the Forum Augustum with the inscribed record that he had been proclaimed imperator, an acclamation that in fact Augustus had not allowed him to recognize officially;[42] he pointedly delivered Drusus' eulogy in the Circus Flaminius, mustering point for the triumphal procession, surrounded by the triumphal monuments of 200 years; the Senate at Augustus' direction gave Drusus a triumphator's heritable cognomen (Germanicus), a triumphal arch,[43] and statues, including one with a biographical elogium on the Rostra.[44] The extraordinary honors instituted for the anniversary of his death by the Rhine legions and the provincial council of Gaul and the cenotaph erected for him on the frontier[45] are thoroughly documented in recent German scholarship. With the cenotaph identified, Drusus' honors from the Roman army and "client" provinces explicated, and his cult worship described, it is plain that these observances were the model for the funeral honors of Gaius and Germanicus.[46]

Tiberius solaced his own grief, which was recognized by all the ancient


sources including Tacitus, with a similar attempt to memorialize Drusus' campaigns: he announced that the manubiae of his own triumph would be used to restore the temples of Concordia and of Castor and Pollux, symbolic of fraternal concord and devotion, in Drusus' name as well as in his own. These are the projects that, as involving major temples in the city of Rome, are mentioned in the sources; there will have been other such joint commissions outside Rome, like that still extant at Saepinum (2/1 B.C.).[47] By such acts Tiberius not only memorialized their fraternal bond; he also made plain that his own triumph was to be understood as won for completing Drusus' work, itself thus proclaimed to be worth a triumph.[48] Although this is not the place to review it, much evidence exists for Tiberius' continued attention to his brother's memory after his return from exile and into his own reign.

In his lifetime, Drusus had been one of Augustus' most trusted and brilliant generals; he had been commemorated on Augustus' coinage and portrayed with his mother and brother on armor decoration produced for the Rhine legions. On the Ara Pacis Drusus and his brother had been shown in apposition, immediately following their mother Livia: Tiberius as consul and Drusus as paludatus general, symbolizing Augustan achievement in peace and war as carried out by Augustus' stepsons acting as his agents (fig. 78). Drusus' specific achievements as a maker of peace as well as of war were also indirectly commemorated on the altar by the inclusion of the "BR" child on the north frieze (fig. 76). The BR cup panels themselves are to be understood in the context of the funeral honors outlined above, as well as in the light of lifetime achievement and recognition outlined in the discussion of the individual panels. Tiberius had been in Drusus' lifetime as brilliant a general as his brother and after his death had celebrated a real triumph, with the spoils of which he was allowed to dedicate major temples in his own name. Agrippa's death left Julia unmarried and Augustus without a colleague: Tiberius was made to marry Julia and made Augustus' colleague in the tribunicia potestas as well. There could be no clearer indication of his standing in the Empire—Tiberius was as much an "heir" at this point as in A.D. 14.

The Young General: Images of Agency and Inheritance

The primary reasons why the young officer on BR I:2 must be identified as the young general Drusus were outlined in chapter 4 (pp. 98–99). His features are carefully delineated to give the key details of Drusus' portrait


type; the viewer of the cup is keyed to look for these details by the metaphorical analogy made between Drusus on this panel and the figures of Mars and the Genius of the Roman People on the other, allegorical, panel of the cup. It is also the case that even if the features of this young general were destroyed and/or the allegorical panel had been obliterated, we would be able to tell that this is a young general of the Julio-Claudian house. Any scholar familiar with the canons of Julio-Claudian art should have been primed to make such an identification by the fact that the BR panel is composed to conform to a genre composition whose outlines are quite clear.

There are three other monuments that, in addition to the BR panel, exemplify this genre composition. It appears most plainly on a very well-known piece, the imitation-silver "Sheath of Tiberius" (fig. 117).[49] The figured rectangular panel at its top shows Tiberius with Germanicus and Mars Ultor:[50] Tiberius is enthroned at right, upper torso bare, stretching out his right hand with a globe in it, his left hand bracing against the throne a large, round shield inscribed FELICITAS TIBERII;[51] Germanicus, fully armed, wearing a smooth cuirass and paludamentum, advances from the left, holding out a little Victory that he is about to set on Tiberius' globe; Mars Ultor, bearded and armed, stands in the center of the scene behind Tiberius, looking at him and gesturing toward Germanicus; behind Tiberius a full-sized Victory floats to earth, crowning the emperor with laurel as she alights. The locus of victory is defined at the sheath tip (fig. 118) by the personified Germania, an Amazon with a double axe; similar German weaponry[52] appears on the Tiberian legionary signum from Niederbieber (fig. 120).[53]

The similarity of the sheath composition to the Venus-Augustus group on BR I:1 was discussed in chapter 1. Here I am interested in the group Tiberius-Germanicus: an emperor is enthroned at right, togate or else seminude and draped like a Jupiter statue, receiving some tangible emblem of victory and rule from a young general of his house, who stands/advances at left in full dress armor including always a smooth, fitted body cuirass and usually the paludamentum . The sheath was made in the early years of Tiberius' reign; for the next example we move back in time some thirty or forty years to the victory coinage issued for Tiberius' and Drusus' conquests in the Alps, 15-12 B.C., inscribed IMP. X for Augustus.

These aurei from the Lugdunum mint[54] consist of two linked types (figs. 115–16). On one, a young general at left presents a palm to a togate Augustus enthroned on a sella castrensis on a dais at right, holding out his hand to receive the palm; the other type shows two young generals hold-


ing up palms. The first must refer to Drusus, who initiated the Alpine campaigns, the second to Tiberius and Drusus and their joint fighting in the latter part of the Alpine campaign. These victory types show our genre composition in even more abbreviated form than the "Sheath of Tiberius" panel (fig. 117), with no allegorical figures or inscribed comment, in a mode that pretends to "realism"—all three individual figures are portrayed as they could have appeared in real life.

The third example is a cameo that comes in time somewhere between the Rhaetia/Vindelicia victory coinage and the "Sheath of Tiberius"—the Gemma Augustea (fig. 16). In its upper register, Augustus is enthroned next to Roma at right center, half-naked in Jupiter drapery like the Tiberius of the sheath, holding a lituus and a scepter; on the left, Tiberius descends from a triumphator's quadriga, and between him and the emperor the figure of the young general Germanicus stands with hand on hip. Germanicus' place is that really held by a favored subordinate and/or son in an actual triumphal procession, allowed to form part of the immediate chariot party; we are to imagine the chariot already wheeled up by the Victory driving it so that Tiberius can dismount, Germanicus waiting for him to finish getting out to move up with him to do homage to Augustus. In Germanicus' position vis-à-vis Augustus we have the core composition of the examples above; this would be even more obvious if Tiberius were armed, not in a triumphing general's toga picta . What Tiberius, and Germanicus with him, are going to do is salute the enthroned Augustus and give to him Tiberius' victory laurels, won over the barbarians in the lower exergue, who are being formed into a display group of captives around a trophy. The action of the upper register is a visual panegyric tied to an actual episode at Tiberius' triumph of A.D. 12, a stage-managed ceremonial in which Tiberius, before ascending to the Capitolium to salute Jupiter, stopped halfway and descended from his chariot to lay his laurels in the lap of Augustus, togate and seated. The message of this performance is what we see expressed in the composition of the coins just described (figs. 115–16). Compare these three examples to the BR cup panel: it too is built on a basic armature of emperor enthroned at right, holding out his hand to welcome the fruits of achievement of the young general Drusus, who stands at left in body cuirass and paludamentum to usher in the Gallic party whose gestures of loyalty are the result of Drusus' work on Angustus' behalf.

This core composition, which we have seen expressed in documentary and allegorical modes, both abbreviated and expanded, is then a composition in which sons and stepsons of the emperor, or to be more exact his


potential heirs, have achieved some notable deed, acting with imperium granted by Augustus. This feat is celebrated to the credit of the prince(s) portrayed, who, however, brings (bring) his (their) accomplishments to his (their) imperial father, shown as the ultimate source of the success that has been achieved by his agents, and to whom the prince(s) piously awards (award) credit in the sight of all.[55] The abbreviations of the coins and the sheath show that this genre composition was promulgated officially. The coins are obvious state images. The sheath panel as well was impressed from a matrix made for multiple production, to adorn the armament of the higher ranks of the Rhine legions who fought under the emperor and general portrayed. This armament was surely produced with official over-sight as well as sanction; such pieces were probably given in award to officers like the Aurelius of the Rhine legions who owned the sheath.

The naissance of this genre composition must be no later than the issue of the coins; it was undoubtedly used as the organizing structure for other large-scale depictions in addition to the prototype of the BR cup panel, which in any case testifies to its rapid assimilation. The cup qua domestic silver shows how such iconography could circulate in the population outside the channels of mass production. The cameo was undoubtedly made at court, commissioned by one of the two principals portrayed as a gift within the inner circle of the imperial family. In this sense one might call it a private piece, which shows artists working to imperial commission availing themselves of our genre composition; it should be remembered, however, that pieces like this cameo were shown off to the ruling elites of Rome, in the display of one's treasures to one's peers that constituted a fixed aspect of the domestic, private world of otium . To sum up, we have state numismatics produced for the SPQR of Rome and the armies and natives of the West (the coins), a large-scale monument in Rome displayed to the SPQR (cup prototype), and luxury art produced for the imperial family that ran the state designed for ostentatious "private" display (the cameo). All date to the Augustan period and are paralleled shortly after Augustus' death by armament produced semiofficially for the armies (the sheath); and all together delineate the same definite compositional genre. There can be no doubt that we should speak of this as a compositional genre belonging to official imperial art, devised and promulgated under imperial sponsorship.

This genre scene, constituting a political ideogram, is also noteworthy as being a creation of the Principate, having no real Republican precedent (compare the Venus/mother-and-prince motif; see pp. 173f. above). It is a good example of the response of the visual arts to new demands made by


a new political reality different from anything in the Republic. That new reality was the Principate itself, new in its aspects of unquestioned one-man rule of the state and of expected dynastic succession to that rule, however those aspects were glossed over or styled to make them palatable and to fit Augustus' tactful public representation of his position. These two realities were left always implicit but nonetheless obvious to the political classes of the day. Augustus' control was based on two foundations: the allegiance of the armies (steadily victorious under his leadership) to him personally and the allegiance of the magisterial classes of the state to his restoration of orderly civil governance with its panoply of familiar Republican forms.

The exercise of military virtus and its crown, the triumph, had always been essential to the personal and political auctoritas of Rome's governing classes; by the late Republic they were also inextricably bound in the popular consciousness to the kind of extraordinary individual genius that merited and validated positions of the highest leadership. This is the background to the sequence of late Republican dynastoi (including Octavian), to use Dio's terminology; this is the background that explains Augustus' practice in assuming firm and far-reaching control of the award of military commands, the background to his division of the Empire into senatorial and imperial provinces and to his control of the award of all forms of military commendation, including the triumph. Augustus himself led armies in the field for the last time in the Cantabrian campaigns of 29 B.C.; thereafter, Rome's armies were led by other generals. But from 19 B.C. onward no full triumph was permitted to any other general: Agrippa opened this new phase when in 19 B.C. he ostentatiously refused the triumph voted him by the Senate in favor of Augustus, whom he acknowledged as supreme commander.

Augustus also banned other generals from formally taking up the title of imperator; even if their troops so acclaimed them in the field, when the Senate took any notice of the acclamation at all it did so by awarding that acclamation directly to Augustus, thus building up his long series of numbered imperatorial acclamations.[56] Even when Augustus' younger relatives (i.e., Drusus and Tiberius) first led armies for him this policy was firmly applied—the IMP. X coinage (figs. 115–16)[57] illustrates this exactly.[58] Finally, as far as we can tell, Augustus tried whenever possible to use only members of his family as high-ranking generals who would lead armies in major campaigns and conduct major diplomatic settlements. When he did not use close relatives—Agrippa, Tiberius, Drusus, Gaius, Lucius, Germanicus—he used other men bound by marriage to his family.


This seems to have been the case especially on the Rhine and Danube frontiers, whose legions were closest to Rome in direct line of march; generals here from other aristocratic families are known to have been made imperial relatives by marriage (e.g., L. Domitius Ahenobarbus to Antonia Major, Varus to a daughter of Agrippa).

By means of all this Augustus enforced the reality and expressed the political platform that he as princeps stood to all in the state as commander in chief, in the same way that consuls and proconsuls in the Republic had held the auspices under which their subordinates were victorious. In doing this he kept firm hold on the allegiance of the armies (Tacitus' arcanum imperii ) and—to put it simply—laid claim to an exclusive position as the sole conduit for felicitas in war granted by the gods.

What made this palatable to his fellow aristocrats, we may reasonably guess, was not just Augustus' invention of a new kind of lesser triumph (the award of the triumphal regalia) to replace the full triumphs to which they could no longer aspire.[59] First of all, even the closest members of his own family were treated at first in the same way—hence the importance of Agrippa's ceremony of refusal, to start the new era. Second, one should note that in practice and in presentation this style of rule outwardly subordinated military command and military virtus to the civilian exercise of power by the princeps functioning as head of the Senate and chief magistrate of the SPQR with the maius imperium of a consul and the potestas of a tribune. The dignity of civil magistracy and its primacy were thus reaffirmed, after decades of power struggles among Roman aristocrats who presented themselves strongly or primarily as generals in their fight for leadership—Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Antony, the young Octavian himself. (Cf. Ovid Met. 15.832–33: "pace data terris animum ad civilia/vertet iura suum.") The princeps could leave the physical exercise of military power—once he had shown himself capable of it—to his agents, and instead keep a watchful control on the overall stable administration of Rome and the Empire. At least now the aristocracy, when it was thronging Forum and Senate in the toga, no longer had to feel that it was supposed to touch a respectful forelock to a grinning thug with a sword never far from his fist—if a man like Cicero could have stomached a secondary position to the princeps in the first place, he would have been quite gratified by the new tone in itself.

This new tone was promulgated by Octavian/Augustus at the very beginning of his accession to unquestioned rule, immediately after Actium—witness the one type of the Actium victory coinage that openly proclaims his world rule, showing him in a toga (fig. 21). This is also how he appears


on the Ara Pacis, a monument of which he was so proud as a definition of his ruling position that it was carefully noted in his Res gestae, when so many of the other commemorative monuments voted to him never made it into that "autobiography"; here it is Augustus' stepsons who appear as general and consul. The same tone is maintained in the genre of prince-and-emperor scenes discussed here, even when the emperor appears in Jupiter garb rather than in consul's toga. In the latter, panegyric formulation, the supreme lawgiver of the universe, who commands Mars, who oversees the actual exercise of warfare, is the metaphorical analogue to the emperor commanding his military agents—thus the iconography of the Gemma Augustea and "Sheath of Tiberius" (figs. 16, 117), and the pairing of the allegory BR I:1 and the Augustus-Drusus panel of I:2. This kind of iconography is replicated to form the structure also of the Grande Camée de France, where Tiberius/Jupiter is surrounded by a wild profusion of the armed princes of the Julio-Claudian house, living and in apotheosis.

To return to points made above, the emperor not only attributed all ultimate felicitas in war to his own auspices; he also tried to keep the exercise of high command (general or legate) within the family. The new Augustan theology of triumph, then, is very closely tied to the firm establishment of his dynasty. The sons, stepsons, and sons-in-law of his house may be only his agents, but they form the group singled out to serve as such agents. As long as he rules, celebration of their capability is carefully subordinated to the proclamation of his own preeminence, but care is also taken to give them scope to build the talents and reputation that enable them to act convincingly for him in his lifetime and to perpetuate his system after his inevitable death. This is a succession policy, in other words, formulated by a shrewd ruler who planned as if he could live indefinitely and at the same time as if he could die tomorrow—the latter event being one that, with Augustus' early propensity to serious illness, was always a real threat.

This partial summary of Augustan political practice has been brief and oversimplified, but it is necessary to lay out such political workings in simplified form to understand the significance and function of the genre composition with which I began. In that genre scene we should recognize the creative response of the visual imagination of Rome's artists to the expression of a new political reality, resulting in a beautifully simple ideogram whose resonances could be grasped instantly, conveying information that (poor reader!) takes pages to dissect in prose.

The Boscoreale panel I:2, then, belongs to this genre type; it is a pane-


gyric to both Augustus and Drusus and draws on the iconography of dynastic succession. This is also true of the cups as a pair: Tiberius as general and triumphator and Drusus as general are agents of their stepfather, who rules the world, as he is seen in the allegory of BR I:1 with Mars as his subordinate. (For the pairing of Augustus' potential heirs in court art, compare the Gemma Augustea's commemoration of Tiberius and Germanicus; see fig. 16.) The compositional skeleton of BR I:2 is based, as we have seen, in a genre of related compositions. This genre is an invention of Augustus' artists, answering to the new political structure invented by Augustus. Its precise genesis is unclear; perhaps it should be tied to Tiberius' and Drusus' initiation into military command, whose success demanded panegyric celebration. The first extant example of the motif, the Alpine campaign victory coinage (figs. 115–16), also happens to be contemporary with the first explication of that genre's message in extant poetic panegyric, in the odes of Horace for the Claudii Nerones (not, please note—at least in the extant record—with odes to Agrippa). Horace's work stands presently at the head of a long line of similar panegyric expressions, whether freestanding (including examples from the Greek Anthology ) or incorporated into longer works (e.g., Ovid on Gaius and Germanicus).[60] We could find no better summation of this section and this chapter than Horace's words in Odes 4.4.27–28, 37: "quid Augusti paternus / in pueros animus Nerones. . . . Quid debeas, o Roma, Neronibus."

The Prototype Monument


The BR cups and their monumental prototype are key to understanding Augustan propaganda about Augustus' own rule and about the status of his stepsons Tiberius and Drusus in upholding that rule. The monumental prototype for the cups, in turn, can be properly discussed only in the light of the historical events and artistic programs outlined above. Plainly, a monument in Rome carrying the four BR panels would be entirely appropriate to the period encompassing Drusus' campaigns and the triumph of Tiberius, when the brothers enjoyed a status high enough to earn the authorization of such commemorative from Augustus. The period immediately after Tiberius' triumph, when Drusus' death was still being mourned and his achievements celebrated by Tiberius, is the only appropriate time for the formulation of a program that celebrates Drusus and the triumph


of Tiberius, subordinate to Augustus' rule yet also given meaning by Augustus' imperium; the description of Augustus' and Tiberius' observances has made that plain.[61]

The cups copy two pairs of relief panels. As two of these (BR II) celebrate the triumph of Tiberius in 8/7 B.C., they were drafted and executed in late 8 B.C. at the earliest. BR I:2, though, refers to events in Drusus' lifetime, before 9 B.C.; this event is best placed in 13 B.C., as a send-off in Gaul for Augustus' return to Rome. If he took (at least one of) the BR children with him, this could explain why that child appears on the Ara Pacis separately from Drusus, whom the BR panel proves to have been the child's immediate sponsor; on the other hand, perhaps their physical separation on the altar is meant—as so often—to strengthen Augustus' credit for the pax the Ara Pacis celebrated. It has become plain that the same atelier was responsible for drafting the Ara Pacis reliefs (13-9 B.C.) and the BR panels—parallels keep cropping up, but the clearest sign is the way that elements of BR I:2 turn up: on the north frieze, a BR child; on the south frieze, Drusus imperator framed in the "flap" composition (figs. 71, 76, 78). Normally, one would say that the fully worked-out relief scene on BR I:2 had been excerpted and abbreviated for the Ara Pacis, just as it seems to have been abbreviated for Tiberius' triumph coinage; indeed, one would think that spectators could have understood the Ara Pacis references only if they had had something like BR I:2 available to tell the whole story.

This, however, leads to problems of date. The four panels do seem to go together; both cups, for instance, stress the friendly support of Gaul for the endeavors of Drusus (BR I:1, Gallia doing homage; and BR I:2, entire composition) and Tiberius (BR II:2, Gaul by quadriga). In its final shape, the prototype relief assemblage should be assigned to the celebrations for Tiberius' triumph. Yet the evidence of the Ara Pacis hints that before 9 B.C. Augustus' sculptors had at least drafted the scheme for BR I:2. There are two alternatives. One is that the panels seen on BR I went up before Drusus' death in 9 B.C. and that the Tiberius panels were added to them afterward; this kind of accretion is typical for imperial portrait groups. The other is that a monument was being planned for Drusus' projected return to Rome in 9 B.C.; he certainly would have been expecting an ovatio, if not a full triumph. These plans naturally were shelved; they came to fruition only for a joint monument put up by Tiberius, who had taken over his brother's campaigns and was to complete the votive disbursal of his manubiae .


The second scenario seems more plausible. One should then envision a set of reliefs put up in 8/7 B.C. Tiberius' "exile" in 4 B.C. is a terminus ante quem; there is no reason, political or art-historical, to move this monument to the period after his return. Certainly, the cups were made before his own accession in A.D. 14 (see chapter 5, pp. 150f.) and in fact are probably from the same era as the original monument. Their manufacture is best understood as a fervent (if esthetically dubious) response to the crises and triumphs of Drusus and Tiberius in these years.

What Kind?

I have classified the BR depictions as examples of documentary panel relief. (I cannot believe that their sculptural character, in format and in handling of relief, was the silversmith's transmutation of paintings.)[62] Such panel reliefs do not seem to have been employed on altar enclosures, and the Ara Pacis's reference preempts such commemoration on another altar enclosure. It has been suggested that they decorated an arch, specifically, the Arch of Tiberius of A.D. 16. That arch is out of the question, however, as it commemorated the deeds of Germanicus for Tiberius, not of Tiberius and/or Drusus for Augustus in 12–7 B.C. The only appropriate arch would be the triumphal arch on the Via Appia decreed posthumously to Drusus—but that arch should have been devoted to Drusus alone, not to Tiberius' triumph as well; Tiberius did not have a triumphal arch put up for himself until A.D. 16, and that celebrated his and Germanicus victories. Perhaps any arch should be ruled out; architectural literature assumes that narrative reliefs were not employed on arches in the capital until well after the early Julio-Claudian period. This is especially true for passage reliefs, the only arch format suitable to our long panels.[63] However, the heavily decorated early Julio-Claudian arches of Gaul show that panel compositions of some kind were being formulated in the capital, even if one cannot think where to place them. This is now proved by the base of the cenotaph of Gaius at Limyra of ca. A.D. 4,[64] decorated on all four faces with documentary panel reliefs planned and carried out by a team from the capital.[65] These were similar in proportion, in the use of documentary mode, and in style (crowded panel, Neo-Attic figure style "Romanized") to the BR documentary panels and show that the court workshops were adept at such scenes in addition to the processions and mythological tableaux of the Ara Pacis.[66]

One might think that the reliefs decorated a building, such as a temple


or imperial forum . Although the idea of a temple is appealing, I know no evidence for temple cellae in Rome decorated with narrative panel reliefs. Also, the only suitable temples would be the Tiberian reconstructions of the temples of Concord and of the Dioscuri in the Forum, which were carried out after Tiberius returned from exile, a bit late for the link to the Ara Pacis. The Fora of Trajan and Domitian were decorated or were meant to be decorated with narrative reliefs (the Cancelleria relief friezes, the Great Trajanic frieze, the Louvre extispicium, and others); perhaps the Fora of Augustus and Caesar were decorated also with documentary reliefs.

The best solution, to my mind, is the quadratic base of a monument, such as an honorific column bearing a portrait of Augustus, who takes prime "theological" place in the BR assemblage. Honorific column portraits were a common type by Augustus' day and remained so for the emperors. The earliest surviving example, the Monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi, had a subsidiary base supporting the statue proper ornamented by a documentary battle frieze; after this there is a hiatus in the record[67] until the columns of Trajan, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius, all of whose bases were decorated with relief. We do not know what the base of such an Augustan monumental column would have looked like, but it is perfectly reasonable to suspect that it would have been large enough to take four panel reliefs and that it would have been decorated with documentary and allegorical panels, just like the columns of Antoninus Pius[68] and Marcus Aurelius (fig. 121).[69] For the Augustan period one can adduce the structure of Gaius' cenotaph, whose massive quadratic base was decorated with documentary panel reliefs and carried a tower to display (undoubtedly) a statue of the dead general;[70] this example of the authentic "court art" tradition now validates the romanitas of the early Julio-Claudian Monument of the Julii at Glanum/St. Remy with its great base covered with narrative reliefs.[71] It is also the case that remains of Republican art show a distinct predilection for monument bases decorated with relief on all four sides, though we do not know whether statues or columns supporting statues stood on any given base; at least one, the so-called Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, had, like the BR set, three reliefs of one kind (here mythical) framing a commemorative panel (fig. 27) in another genre (documentary).[72] A column monument would provide good Augustan precedent for the column bases of the second century A.D.; a quadratic base for any large commemorative sculpture is not only historically plausible but also the best thing I can think of for a monument


needing four reliefs of equal dimensions. The only other option, the heightened attic of a quadrifrons arch (e.g., the attic panels of Severus' Arch at Leptis Magna), does not seem possible for the Augustan period.[73]

If this theory of a monumental basis were to be taken farther, I would suggest as a possible location the Forum of Caesar (plan 122), which was still being built and decorated in Augustus' reign. It is the case that the next two emperors had comparable monuments erected in the Forum Julium—here Tiberius had his seated portrait dedication with the personified cities of Asia Minor (figs. 47, 62), and Caligula put the posthumous cult statue of his beloved sister Drusilla (see Platner-Ashby, s.v. "Forum Iulium"). The Forum of Caesar, conqueror of Gaul and victor against the Germans, would be appropriate for historical as well as dynastic reasons for a monument honoring Tiberius' triumph of 8/7 B.C. Tiberius must certainly have received a statue-bearing monument of some kind for this triumph; as he does not seem to have been awarded an arch (which was still conceptually a magnificent statue base), then an honorific column portrait is extremely plausible. I think here especially of that decreed Octavian in 36 B.C.[74] This monument was supposed to show him as he was when he entered the city, that is, standing or (like the monument of Aemilius Paullus) riding in "real" costume, in contrast to the naked, heroized type of his later columna rostrata; a monument to Tiberius on the same lines would fit well the curious mode of his triumph and its depiction on BR II:2, which simultaneously compares him to Augustus and "depresses" him by excessive verisimilitude (the servus publicus ). Another possibility is to imagine the BR reliefs decorating the base of a quadriga or trophy group of some kind, but I find the column-monument hypothesis more appealing.

A triumphal monument base for Tiberius would not only suit the number and dimensions of the BR panels; it would also fit the inclusion of Drusus and exaltation of Augustus in the cycle of panels, given the circumstances of Tiberius' triumph and the posthumous triumphal honors awarded Drusus by Augustus and executed by Tiberius. It would be prominent enough to inspire the later reproduction and imitation traced in chapters 5 and 7. Would Augustus or Tiberius have been the main focus of the statuary on such a base? Augustus is perhaps more likely, given the way in which he took center stage in the commemoration of his sons' and stepsons' exploits in other recorded contexts,[75] as indeed he does in the BR program. This would also suit the fact that these reliefs were so much imitated, far better than a monument that would seem in later years


primarily Tiberian. In the context of the Augustan "succession," though, the BR prototype documents, as no other surviving work of art, Augustus' affection for and confidence in the Claudii Nerones, Tiberius and Drusus. The cups themselves, reproducing in the lifetime of Augustus this monumental relief assemblage, illustrate the strength of Augustan propaganda centered on his stepsons and testify to the real success that the grieving Augustus and Tiberius had in keeping alive the memory of Drusus' exploits.


The Boscoreale Cups and Roman Art

I should like to do two things here. One is to sum up the major art-historical findings of this study, as the last chapter commented on its historical findings. The other is to speak directly about my own methodology as a Roman art historian; this might seem to be more appropriate in an introduction to a study of this kind, but I feel that only the reader who has absorbed at least some of this work will be critically equipped to judge the efficacy and clarity of my approach. Its first principle is simply to ask of any period, What works of art existed, and what did they look like? So much has been lost, and lost permanently beyond all hope of retrieval; thus all fragments, hints, and indications become, like the BR cups, extremely valuable. Although it is difficult to keep always in mind an imaginative construct to supplement the poor reality of the tangible remains, the rewards of such effort are considerable. For instance, Eck stresses how the arrangement of inscriptions, often all we have left of ancient dedications, can indicate the basic structure of the lost statuary above; his point seems simple, but he was the first to consider in this light inscriptions known for over fifty years and to reconstruct from its base an actual monument of the kind long postulated as prototype for the famous Puteoli base of Tiberius (figs. 47, 62)[1]

The reader will have noted throughout a concern with the relationship of spectator to object, in terms of the intent of the original designer(s) and patron(s) who engendered Roman images, with regard to the audiences whom they wished to comprehend these images' didactic content and to appreciate their esthetic structures. In visual, as in verbal, communication, true comprehension depends on a shared language of forms and symbols; an iconographer must, like a historian, strive to the best of her necessarily limited powers to reconstruct the relevant prior experience and assump-


tions of the persons whose perceptions she investigates. This truism is very seldom made explicit. I stand here behind T. Hölscher's unparalleled 1984 essay on the question of the Publikum for the state monuments we seek to interpret today, though I am more optimistic that one can know something of audiences besides those of the elite "senatorial" level. This optimism—though austere and limited—is founded on the principle of the lowest common denominator, the value of badly made and/or mass-produced, relatively cheap artifacts. I believe that the basic symbolic language available to classes other than the elite can be discerned in the often drastically simplified elements of "high" ideology and iconography that make it onto the crude glass pastes that crowd the back pages of gem catalogues, onto matrix-stamped military armament decoration, onto Arretine ware pottery molds, and so forth. Obviously, I also believe that numismatic designs were very often intended to disseminate legible imagery for political purposes, that the state coinage did indeed function as a vehicle for political propaganda directed toward the uneducated, as well as educated, classes; I also think these messages were usually obvious and simple.

I have been speaking of audiences and messages in the plural. A natural consequence of the multiple stratifications of society in the Roman Empire was a differentiation of culture and a variation in cultural sophistication among different classes, peoples, and regions in the Empire. It is also plain that the most capable Roman patrons were (like Greeks before them) interested in creating monuments and images that spoke to more than one segment of society and that had more than one symbolic message. To describe this quality in a work of art, multi- or polyvalency is a common image usefully borrowed from the vocabulary of atomic structure. I find useful the notion of resonance, transferred from the realm of musical effects to the world of artifacts. As the striking of a piano key produces a sound with multiple tones, so the impact of the Gemma Augustea (fig. 16) or Arch of Constantine on thoughtful vision sets off not a unitary impression but a series of related multiple impressions; the proximity and/or prior existence of related monuments known to the spectator weaves a kind of web of associations comparable to the resonant effects produced by the proximity of other strings to the piano key actually struck.

The danger in reconstructing the original resonances of an extant monument is that one will read into the work messages not intended for the original Roman audience. One can so easily become oversubtle, assert too much rather than too little. There are two brakes on exegetical speed-


ing; first, to be explicit and knowledgeable about the historical audience postulated for an artifact; second, always to look for parallels to show that the reading one proposes was at least possible in a given context. Truisms again, but not always appreciated or observed. Only multiple occurrences of a given symbol or form justify the assertion of a pattern of action, whether formal (style) or symbolic (iconography). One needs also a plausible hypothesis to account for such patterns: one must try to document the means by which an artist or his audience could have seen the images by which they are held to have been influenced, and this takes one back to the question of a given audience and the imagery accessible to it. To cite a classic instance, it is often asserted that the architectural form of the Ara Pacis deliberately echoes that of the Athenian Altar of Pity. If true, the quote can have been expected to be legible only to the elite, who would have traveled to Athens, not to the Roman plebs; on the other hand all segments of the urban population can be expected to have recognized the parallel with the Januum, one of the oldest, most prestigious, and most central of all sanctuaries in the capital.

I have acknowledged my debt to the investigative approach formulated by Hölscher. I have gained much from the implicit and explicit definitions developed by many others of what evidence is relevant to interpreting Roman political art. It should be clear by now that often I find myself in the company of the contemporary German art historians Zanker, Simon, Fittschen, et al., asking similar questions of similar material; asked to assign myself to a "school," I should name also the Italians, F. Coarelli and M. Torelli. My real debt to Coarelli's efforts to understand artistic production in terms of patronage and the politically charged architectural geography of Rome is obscured here by the fact that this work explores mainly imperial, rather than Republican, art. Even where I disagree with Torelli's conclusions, I have tried to keep in mind the imperative heading his essays on Roman historical relief: Roman narrative and commemorative art can be illuminated by Roman texts, but they must be texts with a cognate function. Finally, in all projects I have ever undertaken with regard to Roman art, I am in debt to Otto Brendel's Prolegomena to the Study of Roman Art (New Haven, 1979): his definitions of the essential questions asked (and not asked) of Roman art and his vision of multiple lines of development separated by medium and genre have irrevocably marked my own perceptions of Roman images.

The consequences of holding to these tenets are evident in my readings of the Boscoreale Cups and of many other monuments besides. The Boscoreale Cups, and the monument from which they were copied, have been


demonstrated primarily on political grounds to be works of Augustus' reign, specifically of the period between Tiberius' triumph in 8/7 B.C. and his exile in 6 B.C. Now firmly dated, these panels are important to the stylistic history of Roman relief; they illuminate the early occurrence not only of stock figures common in the later canon but of experiments with complex figure groupings and the depiction of "space" that are not usually associated with Augustan art. No aspect of compositional structure in these panels is discordant with the date reached on iconographic grounds; the three-beat structure of the allegory BR I:1, for instance, is typical of classicizing Augustan work in many media. Indeed, if it were absolutely necessary, the pieces could be plausibly dated between the Ara Pacis (13-9 B.C.) and the Gemma Augustea (A.D. 10–14) purely by stylistic analysis. I have discussed at many points the formal congruence of the cups with the Ara Pacis; the Gemma Augustea's upper register has compositional structures very similar to the BR audience scenes and displays a different, but no less complex, exploration of the alignment of figures in space (fig. 16). The "dating" value of the Ara Pacis is as a public sculptural monument exemplifying the best work of the court ateliers; the Gemma Augustea indicates a familiarity on its artist's part with monuments on a similar scale, for radical stylistic (as opposed to iconographic) experimentation is not to be expected of any gem cutter's workshop.

This book has tried to explain, as completely as possible, the imagery of the Boscoreale Cups. The listing of parallels as a mode of scholarship is mere antiquarianism if it is seen as an end and not as a means; inevitably, some of my "lists" have remained at this level, but these investigations have always tried to ask the primary questions What does image X signify, why is it used, and what is it doing on the Boscoreale Cups? In the search for a compelling argument I have tried to cast my net as wide as possible, to bring forward all relevant available evidence from textual and visual sources; my lapses will, I hope, be corrected by others in the same benevolent spirit of argument in which I have critiqued the interpretations of the scholars whose work fed mine.

The effort to explain generated many tangents and thematic excursuses. The process of explanation works both ways: images adduced to explain the BR cups are themselves illuminated by the process of explanatory ordering. Thus the cups prove to be valuable points of comparison for understanding many other works, under two main headings: the modes of policy and propaganda that much Roman art was intended to serve, and the complex patterns of form, temporality, and causation with which Roman narrative and commemorative arts concerned themselves as pri-


mary objects of artistic endeavor. The purview of the book ranges from the earliest to the latest products of the Roman city-state, from terracotta pediments erected by nameless Republican nobiles to the monuments of the generals contesting and defending the late Empire; it takes in the Anaglypha Traiani and the Hadrianeum, the Ludovisi sarcophagus and the arches of Galerius and Constantine, the Beneventum Arch of Trajan, the Throne of Claudius and the Puteoli base, cuirass statues famous (Primaporta, Cherchel) and obscure (Castello d'Aglie, Amphipolis), famous and not-so-famous cameos, Arretine ware, military decoration, the imperial fora and the Aphrodisias Sebasteion, the cenotaph of Gaius at Limyra and of Drusus at Mainz . . .

The central contribution of this book to Roman art history is, I hope, a better understanding of Augustan artistic production, reached in the process of embedding the BR cup panels firmly in the high road of the Augustan monumental tradition. This enlarged understanding has two aspects. First, these investigations have radically enlarged and deepened our knowledge and comprehension of many individual works of art and coin images. The monument most significantly illuminated in this way is that marble microcosmos the Ara Pacis Augustae, especially in regard to its celebration of the worldwide Roman imperium and the imperial nature of Augustus' pax; for it is now clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that children of foreign rulers march in the processions of the Ara Pacis, and I have tried to stress the importance of others' findings that the peoples of empire were personified on the inner altar. Hardly another aspect of the Ara Pacis, whether of iconography, temporal or conceptual structure, landscape or relief style, cannot benefit from comparative analysis of the BR cups.[2]

Second, these investigations have significantly expanded our knowledge of specific Augustan artistic genres and themes. One can now be much more specific about that acknowledged phenomenon, the paradigmatic influence of Augustan monuments and imagery on later imperial artistic production. No longer will it be possible to contemplate Hadrianic ethnic personification groups in ignorance of the many Augustan examples, their Republican roots, and their Julio-Claudian "offspring"; the seated togate statue will not be a mysterious, ill-considered figure type; no longer will the great Flavian and second-century achievements in historical relief seem to have arisen from a near vacuum. At the same time, the book has tried to show how the Augustan production was itself grounded in Republican political and creative culture, even as Augustus' artists draw on all the resources of their Classical and Hellenistic heritage to put an Augustan stamp on this latest phase of Republican culture.


This widened perspective strengthens the appreciation of certain themes as peculiarly Augustan. For instance, the observable Augustan interest in images of children, especially very little children, is exemplified by BR I; this theme seems to be consciously evoked only and to a limited extent in Trajanic art, although the institution (alimenta ) with which it is there associated was important politically both under Trajan's predecessor Domitian and his successor Hadrian. Under both headings, individual monuments and genres, our understanding of the self-images that Augustus sought to promulgate has been enhanced. The parameters often ascribed to the terms of his self-glorification have been permanently broadened: the public Augustus must now include the Jupiter-consul of BR I:1, who joins the naked, heroized Augustus of (lost) commemorative statuary whom Zanker, Coarelli, and others have stubbornly brought to our attention in recent years.

Comprehensive stylistic comparison with the extant canon of Republican and Julio-Claudian art has not been my aim. Now that the BR cups are more firmly dated, such comparison becomes possible; one can hope to see them enter broader discussions of Roman relief style. In closing I would like to comment on an artistic aspect of BR I:1 not previously discussed that may illustrate the inherent possibilities of such comparative analysis for enlarging our appreciation of Augustan art in general.

On BR I:1 in the allegory of Augustus' world rule Venus is about to "make" the Curia Actium Victory group (cf. fig. 20). Mars too is about to "make" a sculpture group, of a type well documented in the Augustan and Julio-Claudian periods (see pp. 41f); a class of honorific monuments in Rome showed a Roman magistrate standing or seated in the midst of a group of personifications of peoples or communities whom he had benefited. In the implied narrative here, once Mars brings up his group and they range themselves before the emperor, such a grouping will come to pass. The viewer's full appreciation of the narrative is conditional upon his knowledge of such public monuments. It was by now commonplace in Greco-Roman art to show the performance of simple acts of construction such as the decking of a trophy or the inscribing of an honorific shield by a goddess. It seems, however, to be a mark of Augustan political art that narrative at all levels, physical and symbolic, should so often be structured by such visual puns.

This characteristic indicates a high level of sophistication on the part of the artist and the audience expected to appreciate and relish such an aspect; it also assumes a high degree of familiarity with prominent individual examples of official monuments. This kind of narrative-visual structure


can be observed on the Augustan Arcus Novus panel (fig. 12), where Amor floats through the air toward Venus' shoulder, intending to land there, as on the Ravenna relief (fig. 8), where his legs still kick in the air. It is also evident on the Belvedere altar's main panel (fig. 11); between the two laurel trees of Augustus' Palatine abode Victory floats to earth to place Augustus' clipeus virtutis on its pillar, as it appeared in the Curia.[3] And it structures the literal narrative of the bottom half of the Gemma Augustea (fig. 16), as well as the symbolic narrative of the entire cameo. In the lower exergue a trophy group is being put together—soldiers haul up the central wooden post, a captive barbarian couple are already positioned at its foot on the left, as another pair of soldiers haul over a man and woman meant to flank the post on the right, to build a Roman trophy group of classic type known from countless representations in art and probably enacted in actual triumphal parades. The soldiers at left heave the main tree toward Augustus as Tiberius overhead moves down toward him in the upper panel along a converging path; the strong sense of two dynamic lines of motion converging simultaneously on Augustus, in the two fields/worlds on the cameo, is conceptually very like the BR panel, where the two surges of motion occur within a single panel. (The lower exergue as an isolated unit has a structure parallel to the cup panel: motion from the sides toward the center.) This parallelism already sets up a symbolic narrative that is given more definite shape in the implied "future" when the trophy will be exactly between Augustus (note the position of its foot) and Tiberius, who will be immediately before him—emperor and heir aligned on a "real" historical axis of victory.

Presented with such compositions, the viewer gets double for his money: he gets the composition as it exists, a glimpse of figures in action aligned in a meaningful pattern, and he is also given an evocation of an alignment that is about to evolve out of the one that he sees. This implicit second alignment not only extends the symbolic message he can read but also anchors the artistic construct he sees to other artistic constructs he already knows; because the mind is tugged toward the familiar composition just over the temporal horizon, these tableaux are given a real temporal dynamism.

Self-conscious artistic reference to other works of art is a well-known hallmark of Hellenistic and Roman literary art. In the visual arts it operates at a basic level in all iconographic correspondence, as in the individual figures and pairings of the BR allegory. It has not, however, been noted before as operating at the narrative level and in a temporal dimension, as here in these Augustan pieces.[4] The Boscoreale Cups testify that even if


written discourse on art was mainly limited (as in Pliny) to "Old Masters," at least some Romans some of the time noticed and enjoyed the contemporary products of Augustus' sculptors. And the kind of visual game just outlined is further proof that we are not different from the Romans of 7 B.C. in giving serious attention to and finding pleasure in the world of Augustan art.


Appendix A—
The Cups as Silver Vessels

Each cup (MonPiot 5 [1899]: cat. 103, 104; see pp. 140, 146–47) is 10 cm high; the diameter at the mouth is 12 cm (20 cm with the handles), at the foot 9.5 cm. In worn condition at the time of discovery BR I weighed 964.2 g; BR II, 949.7 g; the original weights will also have been nearly equal. The silver has been recognized as "Italian" because it is "duller and denser" than East Mediterranean silver.[1] There are no inscriptions or weight marks. The type is a ring-handled skyphos, of a discrete class that has a low, flat foot and deep, straight sides.[2] The distinctive ring handles have a curved grip below and a flat thumb plate projecting from the rim whose lateral extensions along the rim are tipped with a stylized plant bud. As usual, the thumb plates (cast separately and attached) are engraved above, with a garlanded bucranium (MonPiot 5 [1899]: 147; pl. 26). The relief decoration was executed in repoussé technique (hammered out from behind with secondary chasing and engraving) on a thin shell fitted over a plain inner bowl.[3]

Skyphoi of this originally Hellenistic class, like other skyphos types, were very popular in Italy and the Roman West in the late Republic and early Empire[4] in a variety of other media: glass,[5] obsidian,[6] crystal,[7] molded ceramics.[8] They were depicted in Rome and the West in votive replicas[9] and relief,[10] decorative[11] and funerary[12] sculpture, triumphal and funerary relief,[13] still-life[14] and narrative[15] painting and mosaic,[16] decorative relief,[17] lamps,[18] relief silver,[19] Arretine ware[20] and gem vessels,[21] and gem seals,[22] sometimes in the context of an integrated contemporary drinking service.[23] These examples are mostly late Republican and early imperial. Some painting and sculpture groups derive from earlier Hellenistic compositions, but their garland skyphoi seem Roman interpolations;[24] as yet no such representation has a clearly Greek Hellenistic con-


text. Classification by shape, then, gives only a general Julio-Claudian date, just as with the vessels shown on BR I:1, Amor's shell-shaped dish and alabastron (chap. 1, p. 15; pl. 17). Shell dishes, modeled[25] or real,[26] were popular in the late Republic and early Empire, as they had been in Hellenistic South Italy and Asia Minor; alabastra of our general type were current in the Greco-Roman world for centuries.[27]

The Boscoreale skyphoi are in fact related to the class of "vegetal" silver popular from about the last quarter of the first century B.C. through the third quarter of the first century A.D.[28] This mode of decoration includes the rendering of vessel attachments, such as handles and their projections, in the form of vegetal elements, as in the rendering of the BR cups' lateral handle attachments in the form of budding twigs. Several other pieces from within the BR hoard itself have the same kind of secondary ornament, which is used at least by Augustus' reign.[29] The cups' links with the primary class of vegetal silver are less obvious but no less real.

The BR cups' decoration is worked in such high relief that many elements are almost completely detached from the ground from which they were hammered out; the thinness of the silver at the highest points of relief made the decoration vulnerable to being torn away, as seen at points on these cups. Many other Roman drinking vessels of this general period (late Republic and early Empire) are worked in much lower and flatter relief, even though they may still display subtle manipulation of the planes of low relief to evoke a sense of depth. There is also a distinct taste for a Neo-Attic figure style, linear and gracile, with figures silhouetted against an open ground (cf. the Hoby cup).[30] The perfected sculptural handling of repoussé seen on the BR cups does occur in some mythological or Dionysiac schemes and can be observed applied to such subjects already in the Augustan period. This sculptural repoussé technique is wedded most firmly, however, to the decoration of drinking vessels with simulated vegetation,[31] the primary class of vegetal silver, where its purpose is to create the illusion of a real garland on a plausible scale wreathed about the vessel, as actual garlands were often employed; Vergil has his shepherds imitate such silver with homemade wooden drinking cups (Ecl. 3.35–37).

The ornament of such vessels is typically worked in such high repoussé that organic elements such as leaves and berries are almost completely detached (fig. 1, BR olive skyphos); the exploitation of relief planes in the quest for convincing illusion runs the gamut from such modeling in the round to the most delicate low relief possible. It is exactly this kind of handling of relief that characterizes the BR cups. The link is not just tech-


nical, for the kind of rusticating taste that gives rise to the vegetal genre evinces itself in the rendering of the legs of Augustus' sella curulis (pl. 2, BR I:1) as tree branches bearing the swollen scars of lopped shoots. Although the class of vegetal silver is popular too widely (late Republic and early Empire) to date the cups exactly and is imitated in other media over an equally long span, it is worth pointing out the BR cups' link in technique and taste to this genre. Such metalwork had close ties to relief in stone,[32] the medium that inspired the BR cups' figured decoration. Compare the Ara Pacis (13-9 B.C.)—a stylized acanthus[33] frieze hems the outer enclosure walls; "real" garlands hang inside the enclosure. By the early first century B.C. there were artists at Rome like Pasiteles, distinguished for skill in both sculpture and luxury metalwork (Pliny HN 38.156; cf. Cic. Div. 1.36).[34]

Precisely because the cups use very high relief, some date them as late as Claudius' reign, and this is sometimes used to justify a post-Augustan date reached on iconographic grounds.[35] Silver executed in very high relief was, however, made already in the Augustan period, both with vegetal and with figural decoration.[36] The choice between baroque or illusionistic high relief on the one hand and low, flat "painterly" relief on the other hand was just that—a choice from available modes. One did not succeed the other in time in strict organic evolution; either mode could be employed at will, with good Hellenistic models for both modes. Those elements of the Ara Pacis described immediately above provide a good example of the synchronous employment of the two modes.


Appendix B—
Communications Theory and the Boscoreale Cups

The dissertation of Katherina Schönberger-Münch, "Die Silberbecher von Boscoreale: Ein interpretatorischer Versuch" (Technische Universität Berlin, 1988), examines the iconography of the cups in ninety text pages.[1] Schönberger-Münch was a doctoral student not in art history but in communications theory. She was interested to attempt a case study of hermeneutic analysis of a complex of self-referential images (i.e., what I and others call programmatic analysis), in particular of examples of "historical" art. She picked the cups because they offered such a complex series (5) and because she thought her exercise might be of some value to art historians, since there was no monograph even synthesizing previous literature as she planned to do (If.).[2] Her aim was to demonstrate the validity of a working method that accepts compositional structure (which includes not only outline but varied emphasis in relief height) as a carrier of meaning, in addition to the individual objects and figures depicted; sees meaning as a sum of the individual meanings carried by details and also by their arrangement in relation to one another in a comprehensible structure; distinguishes the "self-evident" historical facts that "journalistic" images contain from those to which the spectator is expected to bring prior knowledge (reception and spectator theory); distinguishes "historical" from "ideological" information (23f.); and shows that these particular images do fit the historical context of their period of reference (i.e., the German frontier played a major role in Augustan policy).

These are the basic tools of any sound iconographic investigation. It is interesting to see them employed by a student of communications theory rather than by a scholar with historical and art-historical analysis as primary goal; Schönberger-Münch's thesis is like an articulation of Simon's (or my) working methods, for example. I am intrigued to see that the


formal structure of Schönberger-Münch's dissertation echoes that of certain of my chapters, in essaying first an analytic physical description, then an inventory of significant details, and then a historical, programmatic analysis.[3] I am also fascinated to see someone else working with the interplay of the meaningful visual detail, the "sign," with its structural context, understanding how the potential meanings of a given sign are fixed in any one image by its specific location in a narrative and compositional structure.

Schönberger-Münch's analysis is based on published accounts and interpretations, comparing the words of individual critics to one another rather than comparing any other visual material. No artifacts but the cups themselves are discussed, or illustrated.[4] There are no facts or interpretative remarks about the cups that would strike a Romanist as new; indeed, to a Romanist the study's chief interest would be its references to modern semiotic and communications theory, though German-speaking art-history students would find it a good model of reasoning from observed details and structures. While the thesis is a competent synthesis of existing literature, its author is not concerned at any point to justify her choice of a given opinion (as, for instance, when taking over a Genius-Roma identification for the allegory scene). Details that interest her as indicative of the nature of the mind-set of an Augustan spectator would not be so revealing to a Romanist, since they generally restate the basic elements of all Roman commemorative art (sacrifice, barbarian submission, etc.).[5] Her conclusion really amounts to the simple observation that the cups (and, by unvoiced extension, Roman historical art) through attention to detail legibly communicate something—an assumption that I, as a Roman art historian, most certainly, and my readers most probably, take for granted. It seems in any case a somewhat banal answer to her original query: "Can we elicit the question to which the cups were the answer?"(5). To a semiotician Schönberger-Münch's book would, I imagine, be more interesting as a case study of a visual communication concerned to partially inform and wholly persuade and as a report on art historians like E. Panofsky and K. Gombrich.




1. This is still the case in Künzl 1989, a relatively brief overview of the cups' program.

2. For color plates, details, and montages of three sides (BR I:1, BR II:1 and 2), see Baratte 1991, 25-33. The only complete set of views available outside MonPiot 5 (1899) is Andreae 1978, fig. at p. 381; the usefulness of this record is limited by the tiny size of the plates. S. Reinach published sketches after each photo, and a montage of each cup, in Répertoire de réliefs grecs et romaine (Paris, 1909), 1: 92-97. For those trying to teach the cups to English-speaking undergraduates, some plates occur in Vermeule 1968. Zanker (1988, figs. 93, 181) gives Tiberius triumphator and the victim group from the panels of BR II, as well as the center shots from BR I (figs. 180a-b). The new Augustan handbook by Simon (1986) gives only the left end of BR I:1 (fig. 187), though this is useful since rare; Simon (pp. 143-44) describes only the allegory BR I:1; the sole datum given about BR II is that Tiberius is prominent on it. Henig (1983, 143) notes Tiberius' triumph, and figure 108 there gives the central shot of BR I:2, but the only bibliography is the MonPiot publication. Bianchi Bandinelli (1970, fig. 223) gives an enlarged detail of Augustus from the allegory scene; figure 208 in Bianchi Bandinelli notes only that Boscoreale was a source of precious objects. Hannestad (1986, 95, fig. 58) illustrates only Tiberius in his chariot in his chapter on Tiberian monuments, without informing the reader about the Augustus cup. Typical is Strong 1988; the complete text in Strong on the two center shots of BR I (figs. 43-44) consists of the following: "The silver cups with imperial scenes found in the villa at Boscoreale . . . reflect major paintings and sculptures of the time" (89); "Some of the best silversmiths worked for the imperial Court, producing such works as the historical cups found in the Boscoreale Treasure" (92-93). Ling's 1988 annotations to Strong's Roman Art (p. 344) cite only MonPiot and a plate in Rostovtzeff's Social and Economic History of the Ancient World . As for the great scholarly exposition at Berlin in 1988, the Kaiser Augustus show and its scholarly essays left out the cups altogether.

3. Hardie (1986, 368), for example, invents women in the "child-giving" scene BR I:2; for correction of published descriptions of the triumph BR I:2, see p. 284 n. 2 below. More common is omission of detail, such as Roma's weapon pile, Augustus' "rusticated" sella curulis, Hispania's wreath, the portrait figure of Drusus, etc.

4. For literature see Künzl 1989, 78-79; Kleiner 1983; Zanker 1988, 229-32; Hölscher 1967, 181f.; Hölscher 1980, 281-86, at 281 n. 58; Pollini 1978, 285-92; Küthmann 1959, 76f.; Gabelmann 1984, cat. 41 at pp. 127-31, 133; Ryberg 1955, 78f., 141-43, 197, 201; Byvanck van Ufford 1974, 203-4. The original description and analysis by Héron de Villefosse in MonPiot 5 (1899) is still one of the best available, though more often cited than read.

5. See chap. 1, n. 107. Its structure is related to Julio-Claudian cuirass compositions on the one hand (earth goddess below, sky god above, symbolic figure in center), its framing devices (divinities on rocks flanking sacrificant) to High Classical and classicizing votives; its overload of religious "statement," and some of its figure types, recall Hellenistic court pieces like the Tazza Farnese and the Apotheosis of Homer (fig. 58). It is variously assigned to the first century B.C. or A.D.; identifications with panegyric for Antony seem most plausible.

6. No one has surveyed Arretine ware with political iconography; I hope others expand my list. There is a handle with "Germania," and two cups with nude imperatores and personifications (figs. 65-67; chap. 14, pp. 85-86). A matrix of M. Perennius Tigranus (chap. 3, p. 97) portrays Antony and Cleopatra, either in compliment or caricature. A fragment shows a bust of Augustus holding a globe (left) and a lituus (right); behind him is a laurel tree or branch (Hölscher 1967, 23 n. 121); compare, among other examples, a mid-Augustan issue (see p. 242 n. 129 below) in which Victoria crowns a laureled bust of Augustus on a globe (Hölscher, 10f., 23 n. 121, pl. 1.6). An emblema in Tübingen (two examples, inv. 1928, 2349) has a Hellenistic silver-style composition of a seated goddess—here, Roma syncretized with Venus and Fortuna. Roma (helmeted) holds cornucopia and wreath and is saluted by Amor with a palm; behind her arm, a pedestal for a winged globe; left, unidentified objects; between the throne legs, more blobs (armor?). Dragendorff 1948, nos. 652.a-b, pl. 32.

7. E.g., Gabelmann 1984 and Byvanck van Ufford 1974.

8. So Künzl 1969, 364: the relief style of the BR cups cannot be used to date other silver (which implies also the reverse), as they are simply too different, in the crowding of the relief ground, handling of drapery, deep undercutting of relief, etc. (but in "L'argenterie," Pompeii 79 [1979]: 220-23, he says Claudian-Neronian); followed by Zanker 1988, 392; contra Gabelmann 1984. For Küthmann (1959, 79) the relief style comfortably fits the last quarter of the first century B.C.

9. Contra, for example, Gabelmann (1984, 130 n. 537), who exploits Künzl's statement (see n. 8) that the cups can hardly be paralleled even in monumental relief.

10. As recognized by Sahin (1972, 43, 73, fig. 17). Note that its paratactic figure friezes (chap. 3, pp. 88-89) correspond also to the decoration of such monumental complexes. The rich evidence for miniaturization of major public monuments, in the late Hellenistic and Roman world, deserves exploration.

11. A good account of the major Roman hoards through the first century A.D. is Barr Sharrar 1987, chap. 4 (pp. 29-30 Boscoreale).

12. PAMPHILI CAES L.; Küthmann 1959, 62 n. 34; Oliver and Luckner 1977, cat. 87-88. The hoard is clearly a ministerium; Oliver and Luckner, cat. 97: "In a complete set of Roman silver tableware (a ministerium ) there was eating silver ( argentum escarium ) and drinking silver ( argentum potorium )." The importance of displaying silver is attested by depictions of such displays; see Oliver and Luckner, s.v. cat. 95.

13. Küthmann 1959, 72f.; the male emblema, MonPiot 5 (1899): pl. ii. Other possible owners' graffiti on the BR silver: Oliver and Luckner 1977, cat. 87-90.

14. MonPiot 5 (1899): pls. v-vi, skyphoi, in each panel Amor on a beast (elephant, lion, ass, panther); pls. vii-viii, the skeleton cups discussed below; pls. ix-x, large ring-handled, stem-footed cup; pls. xi-xii, kantharos pair, storks in a marsh; pls. xiii-xiv, matching pair; pls. xv-xvi, low-footed "seasons" skyphoi, see p. 217 n. 25; pl. xvii (here fig. 1), ring-handled skyphos, olive garland; pl. xviii, ring-handled kantharos, oak garland.

15. Héron de Villefosse 1899, pls. xxxi-xxxv (three shots of each cup panel: left, right, center); pp. 134-40, cat. 103 (BR I); 141-47, cat. 104 (BR II); 150ff. (discussion).

16. For details of physical damage (tear outlines, cracking, etc.) see the photographs in Baratte 1991. I outline here the "iconographic" losses.

BR I:1 (Augustus cup, allegory) (pl. 28): From the right of Roma's body up to the left edge of Mars' body, all repoussé decoration is missing except for Augustus' right forearm holding a globe, and one wing and a palm branch of the Victoriola engraved onto a bit of the background. The destroyed figures include Augustus and his throne, Venus, Amor, the Genius of the Roman People, and Roma's weapon pile. Roma is missing her right leg, left foot, and left arm; Mars has lost both legs. In the province behind Mars, the high-relief figure of Gallia is totally gone, as is the body of the figure following her.

BR I:2 (Augustus cup, Gallic audience) (pl. 27): A great diagonal tear from upper left has removed from the crowd before Augustus all the Gauls and their children and the figure of Drusus with them. One detail remains, of the Gaul farthest left: his upper face, and most of the child riding his shoulders. This tear arcs under the central group of Augustus and his lictors and continues across the lower bodies of the crowd behind the emperor, damaging their lower bodies; Augustus' military chair and dais are gone. The lictor in high relief behind the throne group has been scissored neatly away, leaving only his extended right forearm.

BR II:1 (Tiberius cup, sacrifice): The central figure of the sacrificing imperator had already been partly damaged. The right edge of this hole has widened, to include the table altar and the bodies of the attendants behind it (though not their heads). This widened hole has also taken the head of the left-hand servant in the bull slaying at right; the cranium of the right-hand servant is missing also.

BR II:2 (Tiberius cup, triumph): The necks and heads of the horses pulling Tiberius' quadriga had already been damaged. This hole has now widened slightly, and the associated corrosion visible on the silver shell above this zone has now worsened, obscuring the faces of the three foremost attendants standing behind the team.

17. See now Baratte 1988, and 1991, 24, with bibliography; the key publication is Il tesoro di Boscoreale: Gli argenti (1988), a documentary exhibition by the archeological superintendency of Pompeii.

18. The late Donald Strong, for instance, broke his usual practice of direct examination of material when he discussed the cups in his 1966 survey Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate . This is evident from the fact that he omitted description atop the thumb-plate decoration of these skyphoi (garlanded bucranium ), even though he elsewhere used such decoration as a dating criterion (133f., 139); this detail is of course invisible in the 1899 photographs.

19. For interim mention of the cups' fate, before the 1991 republication, see, for example, Oliver and Luckner 1977, 134; Hannestad 1986, 378 n. II; Baratte in Pompeii: Leben und Kunst (1973), 105; Simon 1986, 143, 245; Zanker 1988, 362. From various American-based sources, this author heard rumors in the 1980s that the Tiberius cup had, as it were, "resurfaced," but that the Augustus cup was unrecoverable.

20. Roman silver, esp. late Republican and Julio-Claudian: see most recently Baratte et al. 1989, 15ff., and the catalogue to individual pieces, and also Baratte 1986. See also Simon 1986, 137-52; Henig 1983, 140-48. Oliver and Luckner 1977 has valuable discussion and bibliography for individual pieces. See too Künzl, "Le argenterie," Pompeii 79 (1979): 211ff.; Strong 1966; the excellent survey of early Roman silver by Küthmann (1959) lacks index and plates but has a useful chronological table of pieces with their subjects indicated. The more famous early imperial pieces with figural decoration are shown by Vermeule (1968), 134f.); cf. his 1963 survey. Bühler 1973 gives fine cross-references to metalwork.

21. See, for instance, the table of hoard contents in Baratte et al. 1989, 16. Services displayed on a table were often depicted, especially in Dionysiac landscapes—for example, "Coupe des Ptolemées" or a mosaic from Daphne (Henig 1983, 141, 120). Berthouville centaur skyphos: Baratte et al. (1989, 82-84, cat. 17) cite Goudineau ( MEFR 79 [1967]) on this motif. It occurs in banquets painted in Etruscan and Roman tombs; T. Querciola, T. dell' Orco: Blanck and Lehmann 1987, figs. 134, 148, 159; T. of Vestorius Priscus: see p. 303 n. 23. Greek texts call drinking services ta ekpomata, often coupled with trapeza, the portable tables on which they were set.

22. So Kirchner on the early imperial category of emblema cups in Baratte et al. 1989, 19; 84, s.v. the Berthouville centaur skyphoi.

23. There is a tendency to spot portraits of the Julio-Claudian house in almost any gem or piece of silver extant. Typical are Vermeule 1963 and 1968, 134f.; H. Meyer 1983, 102-6. The mythological cups in question (the Hoby cup of Achilles and Priam [ Kais. Aug. 1988, cat. 396-97] and the Orestes cup, among others) are read as veiled satire on tensions in the Julio-Claudian house or as scurrilous libels (e.g., Vermeule 1963, 39, accepted in Henig 1983, 140, on a cup with homosexual and heterosexual copulating pairs). These readings see individual portraits in the idealized features of the subjects portrayed. I would recognize no such portraits, except possibly Augustus/Bocchoris on the Meroe cup (Gabelmann 1984, cat. 40 at pp. 126-27).

24. Künzl 1979, fig. 135; Simon 1986, s.v. fig. 194.

25. Linfert 1977, 22-25; cf. Baratte et al. 1989, 84, 87. On a BR skyphos pair whose still-lifes delineate the round of the seasons, see Schumacher 1979, pls. 58-59 ( MonPiot 5 [1899]: pls. xv-xvi); other BR cups listed on P. 215 n. 14. See Henig 1983, 147-48, on Sabinus who signed the seasons cups in Greek ( sabeinos ), and the artist M. Domitius Polygnotos, also known from our hoard. Greek or Italian, such artists worked in Italy for Roman masters; see Gabelmann 1974, 305, on the role of East Greek slaves imported to Italy in the formative stages of the Arretine ware factories.

26. See the masterly iconographic survey by Dunbabin (1986, 224f., figs. 37-42) ( MonPiot 5 [1899]: pls. vii-viii).

27. Baratte et al. 1989, 86-87 cat. 19; Baratte 1985, s.v. fig. 10; Vermeule 1968, 139.

28. Dunbabin 1986, 226, 230, 233.

29. Cf. the so-called Vicarello goblet series, decorated with a schematic itinerary of the route from Gades (Cadiz) to Rome, deposited from 7 B.C. (opening of the Cottian Alps) to ca. A.D. 47 at Aquae Apollinares (Vicarello) in thanks to Apollo for healthy passage on this trade route; see Dilke 1985, 122-23, figs. 9.5, 25. A contemporary patron's instruction to a silversmith: Cicero dedicated a silver piece on which he had the technites engrave his name in rebus form (a chickpea) (Plut. Mor. 204e, Cic. 1.4). (Add to the list of rebuses Brommer, AA 1988: 69-70.)

30. Only in the late Empire is Silver giving formalized in a largitio ceremony. The distribution of luxury goods to subordinates, practiced already in Hellenistic courts, is difficult to trace in the sources. "Gifts" of silver as a standard requital for service in the early Empire: Juv. 9.31.

31. Compare Cn. Pullius Pollio of Forum Clodii, comes Augusti in Gallia Comata et Aquitania, later Augustus' legate in Athens; ILS 916 = CIL XI.7553 = Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 198; Ehrenberg 1953, 943; Halfmann 1986, 152, 252 (92f. on the comites Augusti omits Pollio); Maurin 1986, 110 n. 7.

32. This family kept heirlooms: for example, a kylix of ca. 300 B.C.; Barr Sharrar 1987, 29-30. Her sources (145) for Roman collecting of antique silver refer to "famous name" Greek and late Republican decorative pieces. Certainly, the owners of the BR collection consciously valued a choice set of Augustan commemorative pieces. Wiseman (1987, 10) suggests that legionaries similarly treasured their Arretine ware; its iconography must sometimes have been relevant (cf. pp. 85f).

33. As regards time-damaged art, consider a Late Antique ekphrasis on an "antique" silver cup in high repoussé, worn by use, with thinned bits of relief torn off. See Theodulf of Orléans Contra iudices 195-96 (MGH Poetae, vol. 1, 499): "at pars exterior crebro usu rasa politur/effigiesque perit adtenuata vetus"; effigies means "figure," not ( contra Nees 1987, 443) ''scene." For a late imperial connoisseur, as for us, repoussé work signaled an early imperial origin. Consider also an equestrian bronze of an Aemilius in the vestibule of the family house, one eye missing and its spear bent (Neudecker 1988, 76 n. 754), and portraits missing shoulders, ears, noses, etc., in formal ancestor portrait assemblages: Juv. 8.1f.

1— Augustus' World Rule

1. The reference is to Hor. Carm. 3.5.1: "Caelo tonantem credidimus Iovem/ regnare, praesens divus habebitur/Augustus adiectis Britannis/imperio gravibusque Persis" (italics added). See below on the seated Augustus and men with gods. As for correspondence between art and literature, and the problem of iconographic and stylistic categories: although art historians typically review textual evidence, literary historians are rarely trained to address visual sources. Thus Hardie (1986), for example, does well to look at the visual evidence, even if one must qualify his statements (see the Introduction and chap. 4, nn. 3 and II). Hardie frets (89 and n. 12) over a lack of visual images corresponding to "the baroque imagery of Hellenistic ideology" found in Vergil and Ovid; there is more evidence than he knows, and also a "documentary mode" (as on the Ara Pacis) is not a rejection of panegyric but simply an alternative choice (as in literature).

2. They can also all wear the same shoes, high boots with a lion-skin liner; Goette 1988a, 405f.

3. On Honos and Virtus see most recently Schäfer 1989, 168.

4. Hölscher 1967, 181; Pollini 1978, 286; Ryberg 1955, 141; Simon (1986, 143, 241, 245) takes the Gemma Claudia to allude to Honos and Virtus because it has overlapped busts, but that motif is not so restricted.

5. Héron de Villefosse 1899, 136; Kaschnitz von Weinberg 1961, 92-93; Jucker 1978, 93, s.v. the Arch of Titus archivolts with Roma and the Genius; Baratte 1986, 69 (Genius and Roma/Virtus); Zanker 1988, 231; Schäfer 1989, 234 n. 12 (mistakenly called the Tiberius Cup).

6. On the definitive status of the patera cf. Bieber 1945, 31. See now Kunckel's 1974 book on the Genius; for the BR Genius, pp. 33-34, pl. 13.

7. Zwierlein-Diehl 1973, Vol. 2, s.v. cat. 1070, 1440; Boissac 1988, 318 n. 48. Vermeule (1959) omits Republican and early imperial types. Compare the Roma of the Augustan/early Tiberian Temple of Roma and Augustus at Ostia (Vermeule, pl. 9). Contra Richardson 1978, among others (Roma coinage begins only in the first century B.C.), her image is among the earliest Roman types. Strong 1988, 29, figs. 3.E-F (230-226 B.C.); cf. p. 31, fig. 3.Q (113/112 B.C.); bibl.: Classen 1986, 260.

8. Issue of Q. F. Calenus and M. Cordus. Bieber 1945, 31, fig. 12a; Torelli 1982, 38. Like Hannestad (1986, 372 n. 109), Richardson (1978) names Honos and Virtus; by error (e.g., Honos on Republican coins wears a fillet) and omission (e.g., of Roma coin types [cf. p. 218 nn. 6-7], gems, and sculpture) he sets up a spurious iconographic and religious stemma for Honos and Virtus, making them the source of cult and imagery for Roma and the GPR.

9. BMCRR 233-35, nos. 1704-24, pl. 32.9-11. Obv., bust of young Hercules; in exergue, ROMA. Grueber (i.234, 406; ii.359) notes that the gens Cornelia seems to have felt a special attachment to the Genius of the Roman People, as this and the two other Republican Genius representations were minted by that gens .

P. Corn. Lent. Spinther in 74 B.C. ( BMCRR nos. 3329-30; CRR 122) and Cn. Corn. Lent. Marcellinus in 76-72 B.C. ( BMCRR Spain nos. 52-60; CRR 130) observably depict the same special version of the GPR, at the same point in time. The first (fig. 44) shows a bearded Genius on a sella curulis with globe, scepter, etc.; obv., Hercules as in 89 B.C. The second excerpts the full figure, giving, obv., the Genius's bearded head (inscr. GPR); rev., his attributes (esp. globe and rudder). It is this version of the 70s B.C. that seems a Cornelian redaction of the GPR, transmuting the Genius in a special allegorical version. Such mutation itself argues that the divinity altered was firmly established. The Cornelian redaction might be tied to the allegorical celebration of some particular politician (Sulla ?), as the beard hints, for the full-figure type ( RRC 393) is paraphrased in the same year as a togate beardless figure (74 B.C.; RRC 397). CRR 86, 122, 130, dated to 96-94, 76-74, and 72 B.C.

10. These disprove Riemann 1987, 142, claiming as the first standing Amazon Roma the 70 B.C. reverse to the Honos and Virtus issue RRC 403.

11. Honos of 45 B.C. struck by Lollius Palicanus in a series with Libertas and Felicitas, inscr. HONORIS; Classen 1986, 273, pl. 126.9; Schäfer 1989, 94-95, pl. 10.8-9. I note that it commemorates the occasion reported by Cicero in De legibus 2.58: a temple of Honos was "rediscovered" when digging at the Porta Collina revealed an altar and a votive plate inscribed "Honoris," whereupon a shrine to Honos was built at the spot. The coin inscription, unique in identifying the divinity honored in the genitive, must refer to this event; it dates the event and the new shrine near the time of the coin and of De legibus, in the early 40s.

12. L. Aquillius Florus reissues other types also of Mn. Aquillius, see figs. 52-53 (Sicilia) and chap. 3, p. 77. According to Schneider (1986, 31, 35, pl. 17.5-6) the series to which they belong accompanies coinage referring to the return of the standards; Honos and Virtus here link up to the fact that the Ara of Fortuna Redux, with which the Senate rewarded Augustus' proud return in 19 B.C., fronted the Temple of Honos and Virtus at the Porta Capena, a location Augustus ( RG 11) took pains to point out. Kais. Aug. 1988, 516-17, cat. 345 (Trillmich).

13. Koeppel 1987, 113-15, cat. 4, figs. 4-7. Contra all but Hölscher ( Kais. Aug. 1988, 377, s.v. cat. 208d) the Sorrento base does not depict the Genius (fig. 15b) before Augustus' door. This mutilated seated male wears a Roman sleeved tunic, not a mantle. Seated between Mars and Amor on the right and (Venus) on the left, on the Palatine, he will be Romulus.

14. Simon 1967, 29-30, pl. 29; Simon in Helbig 4 II, 693. Roma on the Temple of Mars Ultor: Simon 1986, s.v. fig. 52; Zanker 1973, 13; Koeppel 1983a, 101, cat. 12, no. 15, figs. 14-51 Torelli (1982, 38-39), followed by Hannestad (1986, 73), identifies the BR Genius as Honos; his nn. 48-49 omit Kunckel and Bieber.

15. See below p. 22 and chap. 2, p. 61 nn. 105-6.

16. Vitr. De arch. praef. 17, 3.2, 5.7. See n. 11 for sources on the problematic temples of Honos and Virtus; Richardson 1978, 242-45; Richardson 1987, 123; Bieber 1945, 31; Platner-Ashby, s.v. Pompey's theater shrines: Hanson 1959, 52, citing the fasti ( CIL I.2, p. 324).

17. On the second-century revival of Honos' cult, principally by soldiers and officers, and its connection with the equites, see Reinsberg 1984, 294, 304-5.

18. See p. 219 n. 9. Weinstock (1971, 206) even claimed that the Cornelii Lentuli invented the GPR.

19. Fasti Anit. Arv., s.v. vii id. Oct.; CIL I.2, pp. 214-45, 323, 331; sharing also, Fausta Felicitas.

20. Ad hoc use: for Classen (1986, 276-77), a general principle in numismatic depiction of "abstractions" and "personifications" (e.g., Pax, Concordia, Salus, Libertas, Fortuna P.R., Bonus Eventus); these very limited representations tended to be one of a kind, converting preexisting numismatic iconographic conventions (e.g., the Virtus and Honos issues, 71 and 45 B.C., respectively, discussed above). Classen notes that abstractions can have temples (e.g., Caesar's Clementia, never shown on a coin) long before they turn up at the mint (e.g., Virtus, Pietas).

21. The Aphrodite from Epidauros, Athens, NM 262, and related copies: Brünn-Bruckmann, pl. 14; Einzelaufnahmen nos. 629, 630; a figure from the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos, EAA 352, s.v. "Halicarnassus." The Capuan Aphrodite type (mantled but with naked torso) was converted to Venus Genetrix with a slipped-strap chiton in the Brescia Victory (wings added later) according to Hölscher, followed by Zanker (1988, 200-202, 347, figs. 152-53). For the comparable case of the "Fréjus Aphrodite" type see Karanastassis 1986, passim, though she remains silent on the meanings of such reuse or the relation of the type to Rome and the West. Similarly, LIMC II (1984), s.v. "Aphrodite," sec. 4, discusses various figure types with chiton and mantle replicating or synthesizing High Classical sources, but does not address the circumstances of Roman transmission. As many of the Aphrodite types throughout the LIMC entry are Roman-era variants and creations, it is a pity that the catalogue did not thoroughly cover Roman Venus types, though Amor gets in under Eros, and Mars under Ares.

22. Statue: Weinstock 1971, 85-86; Gros 1976a, 141-42. Venus Victrix: Hölscher 1967, 26, 80f., 155, 163; Weinstock 1971, 83f., pointing out that the cult application of Lucretius' epithet is new; Galinsky 1969, chap. 5, esp. 233ff.; Hanson 1959, 50f.

23. Compare how the Augustan cult of Venus Victrix on the Capitol linked Venus to the Genius of the Roman People and to Fausta Felicitas—a programmatic celebration of victory, pax, and prosperity. See Purcell 1986, 89; Platner-Ashby, s.v. The arrangement recalls that in Pompey's theater and also the great triple cult dominating the hill.

24. In the Pantheon are "statues of many gods, including one of Ares and one of Aphrodite. . . . Agrippa wished to set up there a statue of Augustus and to name the building after him. But when Augustus would accept neither honor, he set up a statue of the former Caesar there and put statues of himself and Augustus in the pronaos." Dio must single out Mars and Venus because they were especially prominent in the "pantheon" within; the location meant for Augustus/Caesar must have been in their company; as the temple was to be dedicated to Augustus, his statue would have held central place, on the main axis through the doors. Thus, a cult group of Augustus/Caesar flanked by Mars and Venus.

Hänlein-Schäfer (1985, 19-20), noting Hellenistic use of pantheia as settings for ruler cult; cf. RE 18.3 (1949) 697ff., s.v. "Pantheion" (Ziegler); Zanker 1983, 25; Coarelli 1983a, 44; Gros 1976a, 146f., 160f.

25. Location of statues in a near plane to frame statues in a farther plane, for symbolic and esthetic effect: Bartmann 1988, 215, 219.

26. Hommel 1954, 22f; Zanker 1973, 13f., fig. 46; Zanker 1988, 199, fig. 150; Koeppel 1983a, cat. 12; LIMC II (1984), s.v. "Aphrodite," no. 591; Simon 1986, 49-50, fig. 51; Strong 1988, fig. 57.

27. Bibl.: Rose 1987, cat. Ravenna 01; Simon 1986, s.v. fig. 102; Strong 1988, 109, figs. 55-56. The disputed flanking figures I hold still to be Antonia, Drusus (cf. the Caere portrait), and their son Germanicus.

28. Langlotz 1954, 318f., pl. 66.3; Hölscher 1984c, 32, fig. 61; bibl.: Karanastassis 1986, 277 n. 312; Simon 1986, s.v. fig. 282; Picard 1982, 189; Zanker 1988, 199-200, 204, 347, fig. 151. Compare the Amor, Mars, and (Venus) on the Sorrento base; see fig. 15b.

29. The Cività Castellana base (figs. 28-30) has Venus in her genetrix mantle but with naked torso, Amor on her shoulder; LIMC II (1984), s.v. "Aphrodite," no. 598.

30. Andreae 1983, 54-56, 63, figs. 122-24, 126-30, showing the Ravenna relief (fig. 8) at fig. 132; Andreae 1982, 203-6, fig. at p. 205; identical crown, dress slightly modified to the diva type developed by Caligula for Drusilla (i.e., the triangular "apron"; see Rose 1987, s.v. Drusilla), but Amor here stands upon Antonia's hand at hip level, leaning on her left shoulder and looking up in her face.

31. See pp. 33, 228 n. 92. The Venus: Gros 1976a, 162, 168; the Mars: Gros 1976a, 166-68; Zanker 1988, 199, 201-3, 347.

32. The problematic Belvedere and Vicus Sandaliarius altars are sometimes held to depict Venus. Belvedere altar: Fullerton 1985, 482; Zanker 1988, 222, s.v. fig. 17. Vicus Sandaliarius altar: Zanker 1988, 129, fig. 101; Rose 1987, cat. Rome 03; Hölscher 1984c, 27f.; p. 242 n. 126 and p. 247 n. 38 below (epiphany compositions). On both also Pollini 1987, 30f, nn. 65f; Zanker 1969, 209-10. The Belvedere female who watches a chariot apotheosis may be Venus, but Rose has convinced me that the Vicus Sandaliarius female is a human priestess rather than Ceres, Vesta, etc.

33. Fittschen 1976, 175-21O; Zanker 1988, fig. 178.

34. Zanker alone in 1969 noted the BR Venus, grouping it with the Temple of Mars Ultor pediment (fig. 9b), the Ravenna relief (fig. 8), and the Belvedere altar "Venus," not distinguishing between chiton and tunic figures.

35. The list in LIMC II (1984), s.v. "Aphrodite," sec. 19.A.I.d, is too brief., like the rest of the Aphrodite section, it is arbitrary in citing Roman (Venus) types.

36. The tunicate Venus type was adapted on the Augustan "Actium relief" series now in Budapest for the figure of a goddess with cornucopia, baby, and slipped sleeve; Simon 1986, fig. 35.

37. Not adduced by Fittschen 1979. Fittschen's important article established that the half-naked hero seen here, on the Algiers relief (fig. 6), on Augustan coinage is Divus Julius, quoted for Germanicus on the Ravenna relief (fig. 8). This figure Fittschen and others attribute to the Temple of Divus Julius in the Forum; however, on coins of 37-34 B.C. that statue is visible in its temple as a figure capite velato holding up a lituus . RRC 540/1-2; Kais. Aug. 1988, cat. 308 (Trillmich); Kent 1978, cat. 118; Simon 1986, fig. 108.

38. Thus also the Venus to be restored on the Sorrento base cannot have had Amor on her shoulder, as he stands by Mars; see fig. 15b and p. 220 n. 13.

39. Zanker 1972, 9-10; Zanker 1988, 81, 97, 266, and figs. 62b (coin), 65 (terracotta antefix), 208 (lamp), 214 (bronze stand); Weinstock 1971, 50-51; Hölscher 1967, 9-17 (the BR cup at p. 9); Hölscher 1984a, 26; and Hölscher in Kais. Aug . 1988, 374 and figs. 170-72, s.v. cat. 207 (Campana plaque series from around Rome showing Augustus' Victoria with a standard and Capricorns). Hölscher (1984a, 9-10) notes: "Sie . . . müssen eher als Ausdruck loyaler Gesinnung gewisser Privatpersonen gedeutet werden"; cf. also Zanker 1988, 265-78.

40. See Hölscher 1967, 100f.

41. The animated kore, moving in procession with perfume jug and (lost) patera on an Augustan Neo-Attic relief in Atlanta, handles her vessels in identical fashion; Emory Mus. 1986.9.15; see the cover to The Fragrant Past (1989).

42. Kais. Aug . 1988, 276-82, cat. 130; Anderson 1987-88, 16-32; Smith 1988a, 10, 33 n. 35. Venus panel: Fittschen 1975, 98-99, fig. 63; Andreae 1975, 82-84, fig. 56; Anderson 1982-88, 26, fig. 32; Kais. Aug . 1988, figs. at pp. 276-77, 279. Fittschen (1975, 98-99) assigns the painted room's commission to a Caesarian; this is especially plausible since, as Weinstock showed, Caesar created Venus Genetrix's worship (see p. 221 n. 22 above). No one discusses this Venus' iconography. She is plainly a Roman creation, as opposed to the copies of Hellenistic royal painting on the side walls.

The goddess looms in the foreground between two buildings on rocky outcrops: left, a temple foreporch on whose column podia stand figures with cornucopiae; right, a round temple on whose porch stand Victories between two stripling Amores. Damage above obscures Venus' nude torso; she wears the heavy rolled mantle about the hips. From the way that the baby Amor on her right hip arches up with outstretched arms, and from Venus' stance, it is clear that she held something up in her left hand at which the baby grabbed, as she inclined her head toward him; cf. the Praxitelean Hermes and Dionysos type and Kephisodotos' Eirene and Ploutos. The panel's iconography and that of the rest of the cycle (see p. 245 n. 19) make plain that this is a genetrix type with strong Victory associations. The compelling figural reminiscence of the famous Eirene and Ploutos group must have been deliberate; compare the Ara Pacis Venus (Eirene = Pax).

43. A verbal reference is CIL II.3270 from Castulo/Cazlona; Hanson 1959, 52: "signa Veneris Genetricis et Cupidinis ad theatrum."

44. Erotes/Amores serving the "high" gods: Flory 1988, 355 n. 29.

45. Louvre S 2643; Besques 1986, D 3850, pl. 90a.

46. Flory 1988, 356f.; Slater 1974, 133-40.

47. The wearer would appear flanked by little flying Amor attendants, like the Aphrodite of traditional Greek mirror stands. Earring from a votive stipes to Mefis at Rocca S. Felice; Colucci Pescatori 1975, 38, pl. xiii. Many have certain or probable Tarentine provenance: from Bari, Ori di Taranto 1984, cat. 88 a-b (Taranto M.N.A. inv. 40.105 a-b), 125-100 B.C. from Tarentum, cat. 95 (inv. 12.021-022) and cat. 96 (inv. 12.013), late fourth/early third century; cat. 98 (inv. 40.183), third century; cat. 119a-b (inv. 119.352-53), early second century. In The Search for Alexander 1980 cat. 72 (Houston M.F.A. 37.42), Herrmann notes examples from Abdera, Amphipolis, and Pella; these may be Tarentine exports. Cf. below, the Tarentine Eros and shell-basin statue type. See also Athens, Benaki Mus. 1578 ( ex Antoniades Coll.); Gold of Greece 1990, pl. 24 (calls the object in hand a rabbit-hunting stick).

48. Reeder 1988, cat. 119 (Walters inv. 57.1498-99), gold and enamel (calls alabastron a "torch"), and the matching pair she cites ex Coll. Guilhou (R. Zahn, Festschr. Schumacher [1930], pl. 22.1-2); Athens, Benaki Mus. 163115; LIMC III (1986), s.v. "Eros," no. 309.

49. Cairo Mus. JE 38077 (CG 52093), gold, dia. 9.2 cm; ex Tuch el-Karamus treasure. Amor stands in a Hercules-knot; alabastron lost. Götter-Pharaonen 1978, cat. 79.

50. Simon 1986, s.v. color pls. 32-33.

51. See below p. 262 n. 6.

52. Baratte et al. 1989, 19; on shell dishes, see appendix A, p. 208.

53. Similarly the famous silver shell box from Canosa, Tomba degli Ori, bears nymphs riding sea monsters; Ori di Taranto 1984, 58-62, cat. 8, ca. 225-200 B.C.

54. Compare the bronze mirror-handle attachment Leningrad Hermit. 1868.23, ca. 400-350 B.C. of Eros seated with an alabastron; LIMC III (1986), s.v. "Eros," no. 542.

55. S. Fabing in The Gods Delight 1988, 258-62, cat. 48, winged female with alabastron (Cincinnati Mus. of Art, Fleischmann Coll.), and 263-66, cat. 49, wingless girl (Boston M.F.A. 98. 679). Attributed to workshops in the area Todi-Orvieto-Bolsena. Each has on her head the shell-hinge motif, into which fitted the patera bowl, thus turned symbolically to a shell. As neither bowl survives, perhaps real shells were slotted in. On Hellenistic shell dishes, simulated and real, see pp. 303-4 nn. 25-26. On the back of the BMFA bowl mount, a palmette motif "carved" into the shell, a practice attested in texts.

56. Compare the Italian engraved mirror Brit. Mus. 634, on which Venus is attended by two nymphs, one winged, one wingless with alabastron; LIMC II (1984), s.v. "Aphrodite/Turan," no. 38.

57. Garland sarcophagus, Louvre MA 459, from Rome (Torre Nuova; ex Coll. Borghese). Two Amores flank and bathe Diana (crouching Aphrodite type), right with a vase, left catching water from a jetting spring in a large fluted shell dish (cf. the Aldobrandini Wedding). Herdejürgen 1989, 23, pl. 8.1; p. 25 on possible prototypes; Baratte 1985, 49f., cat. 15, detail on p. 52.

58. Rome, Mus. Nuovo inv. 2101, Domitianic, scene set in shell held by Tritons; Boschung 1987a, cat. 763, pl. 31. Brit. Mus. 2360, late Flavian; Boschung, cat. 189, pl. 41.b; Herdejürgen 1989), pl. 8.2. Herdejürgen's n. 34 attests an example from Nazzano Romano. Scene: Venus bathes between two Amores, at left pouring from a vase, at right holding a shell dish. The garland sarcophagus seems to give the root composition, reversed here; the standing Amor echoes popular Roman garden figures of nymphs or Amores propping a shell basin. On these, J. Papadopoulos in MNR I.1 (1979): 87, s.v. cat. 68, inv. 113190, from Rome, citing Leningrad Hermit. inv. 855—the type is converted, perhaps at Tarentum ca. 300 B.C. from the Lysippan Eros Stringing a Bow; LIMC III (1986), s.v. "Eros," no. 303.

59. Cf. LIMC II (1986), s.v. "Aphrodite," nos. 1036-37; examples in Brussels ( ex Coll. Loeb) and London (Brit. Mus., ex Townley Coll.).

60. Terracotta baby with shell; Louvre CA 1270 from Boeotia, ca. 200-175 B.C.— LIMC III (1986), s.v. "Eros," no. 306. Terracotta Eros with alabastron: in a set of Erotes of the third century B.C. in Budapest, Mus. Beaux Arts 59.9, and Brussels, MR A 895— LIMC, s.v. no. 539; Louvre Myr. 86, early second century (Myrina)— LIMC, s.v. no. 540; Berlin, Staatl. Mus. TC 6808, fourth century B.C.— LIMC, s.v. no. 541 Cf. the painted Eros with alabastron on a lekanis lid from Ruvo, Lecce Mus. Prov. 802, late fourth century B.C.— LIMC, s.v. no. 538. Bronze Eros standing with shell and alabastron: Louvre BR 357 (Egypt); Cairo, Mus.Eg. CG 27661— LIMC, s.v. no. 308; Brit. Mus. 1128— LIMC, s.v. no. 543; Paris, Cab. Méd. 283 (Syria) Roman— LIMC, s.v. "Eros in per. or.," no. 16. Bronze Amorino with shell: Paris, Cab. Méd. 2990; Brit. Mus. 1129— LIMC, s.v. no. 308; Cairo, Mus.Eg. JE 88756— LIMC, s.v. no. 543. With alabastron: Brit. Mus. 1127— LIMC, s.v. no. 308; with alabastron and bird: Louvre BR 608— LIMC, s.v. no. 543.

61. So the relief Delos Mus. Arch. 4017, dated to the late second century B.C.; LIMC II (1984), s.v. "Aphrodite," no. 400, cited LIMC III (1986), s.v. "Eros," no. 301: Eros with shell dish and alabastron stands by a Capitoline-type Aphrodite, by a herm. Already an early fourth-century plastic Attic lekythos carries Eros alighting with shell dish and jewelry box, literally onto one's dressing table; Hamburg, Mus. KG 1899.95 (Methana); LIMC III (1986), s.v. "Eros," no. 305. On a superb Hellenistic gold pin-head ornament Aphrodite crouches to bathe on a finial over a base with four lounging baby Erotes, one certainly with an alabastron; Athens, Benaki Mus. 2062, said to be from Thessaly; LIMC II (1984), s.v. "Aphrodite," no. 1038 ("late 2nd c.'') = "Aphrodite in per. or.," no. 189 ("4-3rd c."); Gold of Greece 1990, pl. 28; cf Greek Gold 1965, cat. 72, on this and related pins. Roman is the bronze group from Syria, Paris, Cab Méd. 250, nude Venus with mirror on exedra basis, flanked by Amores, one with shell dish and alabastron; LIMC s.v. "Eros in per. or.," no. 81. The LIMC authors mislead in filing many of these images under "Eros and the marine world," lumped together under "Eros with shell" (nos. 301f.) with images of Eros in a shell boat, etc.

62. This, as Flory and others recognize, was the context for Livia's statue in her bedroom of her (adoptive) son Gaius as Amor.

63. Rome, Via Quattro Fontane 13-18; CIL VI.38916. Boschung (1987a, cat. 852) calls the alabastron a mappa, but its lip is clearly visible.

64. LIMC III (1986), s.v. "Eros/Amor," no. 698; Simon in Helbig 4 II, cat. 1672; Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, fig. 290. Luna marble. Frag., now Pal. Cons. (Br. Nuovo).

65. For the way Amor gazes openmouthed at Augustus, who stares ahead with mouth closed, see the divinities and Augustus on the Gemma Augustea (fig. 16).

66. His (much-disputed) bare feet with armor may indicate that he has just completed a nuncupatio votorum and is about to set off on campaign (metaphorically at least); see chap. 5, p. 142.

67. Ghedini 1986, bibl., 39 n. 1; 38, Antony's children; accepted by Künzl 1989, 73.

68. Villa Medici, Rome. Koeppel 1983a, cat. 28, fig. 32, p. 122. Ill. (by mistake for a relief in the Uffizi): Boatwright 1987, 234-35, fig. 57. Two fragments of a squarish panel, slightly wider than high; the shield, recut for Diocletian's vicennalia (inscr. = CIL VI.3138 and wreath border). Venus wears a chiton with slipped strap, over it a heavier mantle slung below the hips, falling from the left shoulder and arm; personifications: see p. 227 n. 82 and p. 250 n. 57.

This panel has always been associated (see Kleiner 1985b, 60-61) with a set of two reliefs found with it, also reused on the Arcus Novus: fragment with ethnic personifications (see p. 236 n. 70 and p. 250 n. 58 below); fragment of another scene that included soldiers and a military personification. Laubscher 1976, 68, 78-107, pl. 3.10; Koeppel 1983, cat. 26-27, fig. 31. Not convinced that the three reliefs formed a set originally, I discuss the Venus panel separately.

69. Cf. the Conclusion, p. 205. Koeppel, Laubscher, and Boatwright opt on stylistic grounds for a Julio-Claudian, specifically Claudian, date. Kleiner (1985b, 60-61) effectively disposes of Koeppel's attempt to assign these and other pieces to an Arch of Claudius postulated for the vicinity; his unexplained rejection of Koeppel's and Laubscher's redating for the older date of the second century A.D. (e.g., Vermeule 1968, 109, after Toynbee) is odd. It has Julio-Claudian iconography (Venus Genetrix/Victrix) and drapery; the implied Amor-on-shoulder motif is Julio-Claudian too. The entire composition (Venus manifests herself flanked by antithetic female personifications of geographic extent) recalls the Ara Pacis Venus panel (fig. 74). The shield on a squarish pillar with a Tuscan molding "capital" is Augustus' own shield in the Curia and its special support (fig. 11); cf. the Augustan coin types BMCRR pl. 60.18-19 (27-17 B.C.) and BMCRE I. 140, no. 141, pl. 1.1 (20-19 B.C.). Similar types were used by Tiberius at his accession. See Hölscher 1967, 103ff., pls. 11-12; Zanker 1988, fig. 80b.

70. The Forum Augustum portraits, for example, monumentalize a patrician atrium; the Ara Pacis enclosure interior monumentalizes domestic wall-painting schemes, and its acanthus frieze draws on silver patterns; see pp. 129-31 below on landscape conventions from decorative relief, on Augustan monuments.

71. Simon 1967, pls. 13, 15-17.

72. On Mars-Venus iconography: Zanker 1973, 18-20; Hölscher 1967, 100f; Fittschen 1976, 187-94; Meyer 1983, 144-48.

73. Koeppel 1987, cat. 1 (Mars), cat. 4 (Roma and Genius), cat. 3 ("Tellus"). I think this figure is Venus; most recently with this opinion, Rose 1990, 467.

74. Other metaphors of victory by land and sea: chap. 3, n. 136.

75. Fittschen 1976, 175-210; Simon 1986, s.v. color pl. 8. Found at Cherchel in North Africa within the ancient domains of one of Augustus' most devoted client-kings, the intensely cultivated philhellene King Juba. Simon sets the statue in the context of Juba II's artistic and architectural programs at Iol Caesarea (Cherchel); on these see also Picard 1982, 189-90, dating the cuirass statue (pl. 74.2) late Augustan at the outside; Pensabene in the same volume (1982, 116-18) delineates how Juba imported workers, models, and finished pieces from Rome.

76. Date: see now Goette 1988a, 411-13, comparing the boots to fragments (pre-2 B.C.) from Augustus' Forum. Stemmer (1978, 11-12, cat. I5, pls. 2.1-2, 3.1-5) critiqued Fittschen's date for the copy but accepted an Augustan bronze prototype. Meyer (1983, 141-50) developed Fittschen's arguments but did not address Stemmer; Zanker (1988, 192, 223) calls it an Augustan, posthumous Gaius portrait. Simon (1986, s.v. pl. 8, 223-25) sees it as a Mauritanian original, "probably Augustus," representing Mauritania's thanks to Rome; somewhat implausibly she takes the Tritons to refer to Cherchel/Caesarea's status as a port city with an agricultural hinterland.

77. Kais. Aug. 1988, 472, cat. 276 (cast in Würzburg), 463 (C. Maderna-Lauter).

78. Hesberg (1980, 353) correctly deduces (from the remains of the pulvinars on top of the altar) the original front: a standing togate figure, namely, Augustus, to whom Victory (left) brings her laurel and whom Venus (right) attends. On this altar a panel composition has been "wrapped around" the rectangular altar mass; cf. the circular wrapping of a similar composition on the Cività Castellana base (figs. 28-30). See p. 241 n. 115 and p. 248 n. 39 below.

79. Vermeule 1980b, 48, fig. 10; Vermeule 1959, 17, with bibl. Now in Palermo; one of two or more reliefs associated with a "throne," more likely with a paratactic frieze on a votive or a votive base. Compare also the Augustan marble ship's beak in Leipzig, on one side of which Victory crowns a general (Agrippa?), cited by Zanker 1988, 81 (fig. 63 is, alas, the other side).

80. Weinstock (1971, 98ff.) discusses how Caesar linked Venus and Victory (not a new concept for the late Republic), ending at p. 102 with the remarks quoted here.

81. See Fittschen 1976, 183-88. On his treatment of this Divus Julius type, which I would correlate with the Pantheon, see chap. 1, n. 37.

82. Eichler and Kris 1927, 65, pl. 7.25. Compare the mural-crowned goddesses who offer something to Venus on the Arcus Novus panel (fig. 12). This composition may find a late echo on a fourth-century gold issue where "Constantinople" brings Victory to the emperor, shown as a mural-crowned goddess adapting the Venus-with-hip-roll figure type; Hölscher 1967, pl. 14.9. I am preparing an article on Constantinople-Venus and other syncretic Venus types on Constantinian coinage.

83. Meyer 1989, pl. 23, cat. A 70 (Athens, NM 1474; 355/354 B.C.), A 75 (destr.; 360-350 B.C.); pl. 25, cat. A 93 (Athens, Acr. 2437-3001; ca. 340 B.C.); pl. 33, cat. A 129 (Berlin, Staatl. Mus. K 104; ca. 330-320 B.C.). In the earlier redaction of the composition, A 70 and 75, the tiny leaning Nike is held out toward the mortal; in the later variant, A 93 (superb!) and 129, the Nike is held so as to drape a garland right over the honorand's head.

84. Héron de Villefosse 1899, 128.

85. See Zanker 1988, fig. 17.

86. Sardonyx lekythos, Berlin, Staatl. Mus.: Bühler 1973, cat. 68 at pp. 59-63, pl. 20, drawing at p. 61; broken away above and below. This splendid piece is little known, possibly because it is so difficult to photograph. I agree with Bühler that this must have been made as a gift for an imperial princess at or near her time: compare Crinagoras' gift poem (Gow and Page 1968, 12) for his friend and patroness Antonia, the wife of Drusus, invoking Hera and Zeus on her behalf as she nears delivery. Ghedini (1987) proposes that the piece was made in A.D. 39 to celebrate the birth of Julia Drusilla to Caligula and Caesonia, but the theme of conquest foretold seems unapt to a female birth.

87. The Villa of P. Fannius Synistor: pp. 222-23 n. 42. Note that the captive on the Berlin sardonyx lekythos (p. 32; fig. 7) is also an Oriental. This kind of messianic composition seems tied to dreams of Eastern conquest; so interpreting the Grande Camée de France, Jucker 1976, 240-41.

88. Poulsen (1973, Pl. clxxxvii, cat. 112 [inv. 2580] at p. 132) calls it an "officier remain" but ties it to the BR Mars, the two together constituting a figure type based firmly on fifth-century Athenian (relief) prototypes—that is, his piece is a Neo-Attic creation for the Roman market, in (imported) Greek marble.

89. Kais. Aug. 1988, 382-83, cat. 213 (Hölscher); Felletti Maj 1977, fig. 66.a-b, pp. 190-91; Strong 1988, 50-51, fig. 18.

90. Compare the helmet with upright side feathers, also an old Italic type familiar from Lucanian tomb paintings, among other examples, worn by Mars with Venus in a late Augustan painting from Pompeii (Casa del Amore Punito; Simon 1986, fig. 261); by Roma in coinage of 113/112 B.C. ( RRC 292/91; Strong 1988, fig. 3.Q).

91. Compare Roccos 1989, 507, on Caesar's Venus Genetrix, and 582-85, on Augustus' Apollo Palatinus, discussing creation in this period of authentically Roman cult types from Classical sources.

92. The face is eroded, but the beard area is plain. On the Temple of Mars Ultor figure and Augustan Mars types, see Gros 1976a, 166-68; Pollini (1978, 22-23) adds a third type: an ideal youth in a Hellenistic (cavalry) cuirass, with a high-plumed Corinthian helmet, spear, and bare feet, represented by the Mars on the so-called Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus and by the Mars in the Cività Castellana scene (fig. 27f.). Add the Mars of the terracotta pediment from Via S. Gregorio, ca. 130-100 B.C.; see p. 58 and p. 238 n. 92 below. The BR Mars, however, differs from Pollini's third type in helmet and cuirass. Ara Pacis: Koeppel 1987, 108-10, cat. 1, fig. 1.

93. Kais. Aug. 1988, 376. Compare the framing composition on the late Republican tomb panel: Roma-General-Genius (fig. 3; chap. 2, p. 61).

2— The Image of Augustus

1. Gabelmann 1986, 285. To him this would also have in the Augustan period putative connotations of divinization and/or excessive glorification.

2. See p. 239 n. 100 below

3. I.e., magnified stone images of curule chairs, with the front bar carved in relief. Felletti Maj 1977, 214-15, figs. 84-85, three relief-carved bisellia (there are others differently decorated) from tombs on the major roads (Via Appia near Rome (fig. 23b); Via Cassia, Aquatraversa; Via Claudia, Pracerano). On the main panel on the seat front the deceased, with three lictors on each side, receives a togate petitioner who comes right up to him, once even bending the knee (Via Cassia) (fig. 23c). Cf. the Via Casilina limestone sella (fig. 23d) (Rome, MN 124483), where the enlarged magistrate stands at center, next to his giant chair: Kais. Aug. 1988, 436-37, pat. 234, discussed as cat. 6, pl. 28 by Schäfer in an essay expanded in his 1989 book; and see also Schäfer, cat. 7, pl. 27 (Aquino, Cathedral) (fig. 23e); cat. 8, pl. 30 (Rome, MN) (fig. 23c); cat. 11, pl. 31 (Rome, Pal. Colonna) (fig. 23a); cat. 12, pl. 29 (Manziana, Coll. Tittoni).

4. The Augustan Palazzo Colonna example (fig. 23a) is striking, as it incorporates the spatial devices used for the group around Augustus on the Ara Pacis for the depiction of the magistrate and his entourage; ill. now also in Carinci 1990, 258-60, cat. 39; DAI negs. 82.2375, 82.834-36.

5. Eichler and Kris 1927, 50, pl. 7.5; Laubscher 1974, 250; Zanker 1988, 102, fig. 81; bibl.: Kais. Aug. 1988, 466-67, cat. 246 (C. Maderna-Lauter). Contrast the purely allegorical BMFA cameo from Hadrumetum: divinely nude, Octavian/Neptune drives a sea quadriga as Antony/S. Pompeius founders in the waves. See Laubscher 1974, 248-50, fig. 9; Meyer 1983, 98; Zanker 1988, s.v. fig. 82; Kais. Aug. 1988, 467, cat. 247.

6. On these Spanish issues see Kleiner 1989, 244-45; ill.: Fuchs 1969, pl. 8.99-98; Sutherland 1987, 28, no. 11b; BMCRE I.75, nos. 432-36.

7. Smith (1988a, 33) remarks a similar absence of the seated type from Hellenistic royal portraits. No one at all has dealt with seated cuirassed statues! Besides the colossal Constantine from the Basilica of Maxentius, now on the Capitol, I know only the statue restored with an Augustus head, Villa Albani inv. 87; Vermeule 1980b, ill. on p. 73, cat. 108; Stemmer 1978, 572. Coins, however, indicate that there may have been more.

8. Niemeyer 1968, 59ff.; cf. Zanker 1988, 314, figs. 249-50.

9. This hypothesis is based on two things. First, in Republican ceremonial the consul rose after other magistrates, all of whom approached him standing, and it was a special privilege (voted, for example, to Caesar) to be allowed to remain seated in the presence of all other magistrates. Second, there is the anecdote that Caesar provoked outrage in 45 B.C. when he received while seated a delegation of senators bringing him honors, even though he enjoyed this privilege officially; Dio 44.8.1-4; App. BCiv. 2.107; Livy Per. 116; Suet. Iul. 78.1; Nic. Dam. frag. 130.78-79; Plut. Caes. 60. The anecdote may only echo contemporary slander, but those who first spread it must have thought they could damage Caesar by making an issue out of the event. Consider here Roman fixation on the chair of office itself, displayed in precious metals as an honor or carved in stone (enlarged and decorated) as a grave monument.

10. Fittschen 1977, 71 n. 7; echoed by Schäfer 1989, 139; Schäfer notes Macrinus' group (135) and the Andematunum inscription (139; see also below); Goette (1988a, 457) looks at funerary seated magistrates with senatorial/patrician calcei . Niemeyer (1968, 43) merely says that aside from two fragmentary Late Antique porphyry examples, only coins and reliefs (Arch of Constantine, Anaglypha Traiani) document such statues and that they can have attributes (the scepter) not seen in standing figures. Lahusen (1983, 43) gives one paragraph, adding the Gallic testamentary inscription and the Lucus Feroniae inscriptions and citing the Vita Macrini (50 n. 37). Pekáry (1985, 37, 148) omits the seated togate type.

11. Hammond (1953, 158-76) investigated coin portrayals of seated emperors, including goddesses as portraits of empresses, to derive lost statues. He adduces actual statues and reliefs, all of the seminude Jupiter type (173f.); otherwise he cites only (162-63) the Puteoli bases/Forum Julium monument of Tiberius (see p. 41).

12. Fittschen 1977, 69-72, n. 7, cat. 7, pls. 25-26; Heintze in Helbig 4 II, cat. 1255; cat. 1370 in Helbig is an early Augustan example of the philosopher statue types copied by Romans. Cf Cic. Fin. 1.39: "statua est in Ceramico Chrysippi sedentis porrecta manu." Compare the togatus on a klismos on a Flavian grave altar (Vat. Gall. d. Maschere); Boschung 1987a, fig./cat. 970. The importance of shoes to distinguish Romans in Greek guise from Greeks: Coarelli 1981, 240-43; cf. Goette 1988a, 452. Romans in Greek dress: Zanker 1988, 30, 346 (sources), figs. 23-24.

13. "Poseidippos": Zanker 1988, 30, 346, fig. 23; Heintze in Helbig 4 I, cat. 129, with cat. 130. Pentelic marble, from the Viminal within an ancient round structure. See Hafner 1967, 105-11 (bibl., 105; specifics of reworking, 105-6, 110), pl. 32.1-2. Hafner identifies the recut figures as Plautus and Terence. However, neither would ever be shown in senatorial calcei with a knight's or senator's seal ring; and why not show Plautus in the old-fashioned mode without tunic, to save carving it in? Scholars keep suggesting famous duos, literary or political (e.g., Marius and Sulla). This is unnecessary. Some Roman noble bought them in Greece or took them (probably from a much larger series) and brought them home to install in his gardens, carved to resemble himself and/or his ancestors, or perhaps himself and a friend: compare the transfer, alteration, and mass copies of Lysippos' Granikos group by the Metelli, Scipiones, Licinii, etc., to which Roman portrait heads and footwear were added (p. 276 n. 15). The point will have been, as in comparable grave statues, to proclaim himself a homo Musarum . To my mind this is confirmed by his playfully leaving intact the inscription "Poseidippos," which he could easily have had removed.

14. Richardson 1988, 185-86.

15. Goette 1988a, 457, with bibl.

16. Mus. Arch. (no inv.); .87 X .68 X .69 m; top of chair and draped lap. Local limestone, once painted; Scrinari 1972, fig./cat. 88 (ca. 100-50 B.C.).

17. Schäfer 1989, cat. 43, pl. 60.2, fragments of the base.

18. Frova 1956, 36-37, pl. 13.3. Este, MN. Local stone.

19. Frova 1956, 38f, pl. 14; Goette 1988a, 457. Local stone (breccia di Carrara). Milan, priv. coll.

20. Cf. Louvre MA 1267 ( ex Coll. Campana), found on the Aventine, now falsely restored with a head of Caligula. Kersauson 1986, cat. 83.

21. A superb figure on the Villa Massimo grounds; Schäfer 1989, 149f., pls. 16-17; Fittschen 1977, 71 n. 7. The elaborate chair of office alludes to provincial command (Victory caryatid legs; seat carved with kneeling barbarians); Schäfer takes the toga as the governor's uniform appropriate specifically to a senatorial province. Head and arms missing; left arm was bent at side, right arm up. Both this and the Palazzo Falconieri figure are in Luna marble.

22. Palazzo Falconieri; wears patrician calcei . Schäfer 1989, 168, 171, pls. 19-20; drapery dated Antonine by Goette.

23. Chieti, Mus. Naz.; Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 60, 401, figs. 62-63; Goette 1988a, 457, fig. 39; Schäfer 1989, 398-99, cat. C 53, pls. 106, 122. Compare the portrait of Vestorius Priscus as magistrate on a tribunal elevated above a crowd (a composition similar to the Concordia panel of the Manlius altar), painted on one side of his tomb, A.D. 75/76; Schäfer 1989, 389, cat. C 14, pl. 15.3 (modern drawing). (For the table setting painted inside, see p. 303, n. 23.)

24. Daut 1975, 38; Lahusen 1982, 102; Schäfer 1989, 139 n. 63. Compare the triumphal arch at Saintes (to Tiberius, Germanicus, Drusus II) decreed in the testament of the noble Gaul C. Julius Rufus, priest of Rome and Augustus.

25. One recognizes the force of this instruction when one notes that most Gallic funerary sculpture is of local stone, as are most of the seated statues from northern Italy named above.

26. Espérandieu 1911, 326, no. 3361 ("femme assise"!); headless, .65 m in height. Paris, Mus. Ste Germaine.

27. Trimalchio wants himself shown as a kind of super- eques: "me in tribunali sedentem praetextatum cum annulis aureis quinque et nummos in publico de sacculo effundentem." This resembles the Chieti relief; it is an interesting precursor to the pompous largitio self-portraits on ivory diptychs of fourth-century Roman consuls. Such monuments show influence from lost images of emperors presiding at state occasions and distributing largesse to the plebs Romana .

28. For example, only an arm holding a globe of the seated statue of Augustus in a shrine at the Pompeii macellum was found; Kockel 1986, 456, n. 75; we cannot know if it was togate or half-naked (Jupiter type).

29. The inscription specifies medium and placement for four other types: triumfalis (bronze, in the Forum Augustum and in the Templum Divi Augusti), consularis (marble, in the Templum Divi Julii, on the Palatine, before the Curia), auguralis (marble, at the Regia), equestres (marble, by Rostra). Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 367; Lahusen 1983, 43, 50; Eck 1972, 463. Eck (473) sees in the residens a praetor urbanus, thus the earliest evidence of city prefects' right to the curule chair. The location, near a site of Senate meetings, may mark a precise locus of this magistrate's audiences. The bisellia panels too (p. 228 n. 3; fig. 23) are held to depict a praetor and his six lictors.

30. Macrinus writes the Senate to ask them to confirm his decree of statues in Rome for Caracalla and Septimius Severus. The sorts of statues are equestres (equestrian), pedestres habitu militari (standing cuirass statues), triumphales (standing cuirass statues with a triumphal crown and tituli ), and, as if the type were as recognizable as the first three, statuas sedentes civili habitu (seated togate statues). To be erected in Rome and credited to a senatus consultum, they are emblems of Macrinus' legitimate succession to the Severans.

31. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, fig. 200; Kähler 1964, pl. I. 1-2; Torelli 1982, 98, parallel location to that of the (fragmentary) figure of a goddess on the old rostra depicted in the tax-burning panel of the Anaglypha Traiani (fig. 38).

32. Delbrück 1932, 96f., pls. 40-41 (Alexandria) = Niemeyer 1968, 43, 89, cat. 28, and 98f., fig. 36 (Istanbul).

33. Composite figure with exposed flesh in (lost) marble, 2.45 m in height, excavated in 1951. See Holum and Hohlfelder 1988, 125-26, color figs. 82 (statue) and 136 (setting, with pendant); earlier see M. Avi-Yonah, "The Caesarea Porphyry Statue," Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970): 203-8. Reused in the sixth to seventh century A.D. with a seated emperor in marble (Jupiter type) to frame the entrance at one end of a formal esplanade to some public building. This display is strikingly similar to the iconic structure (fig. 36) of the Arch of Constantine panel. The columnar entrance the figures framed must have led to an official hall for the local head of government; he would have appeared in state in the entrance at ceremonies, framed by these earlier emperors, who must have been rescued when Christians at some point tidied away the Hadrianeum shrine.

34. Kähler (1964, 17) describes the archeological evidence, remains of basis foundations at the corners of the Rostra. To him these indicate that the statues did not face a spectator before the Rostra but rather were turned toward the center of the platform; still, the Anaglypha Traiani Rostra statue (fig. 38) faces "front" also. Kähler notes that the commissions if contemporary would be appropriate for Septimius Severus, who claimed descent from the two emperors portrayed and who did much construction and restoration in this end of the Forum; Kähler continues by dilating on the difficult chronology of late imperial work on the Rostra.

35. Torelli 1982, 68, pl. II. 14; BMCRE I. 130, nos. 74-75, pl. 23.17. Tiberius' cult of divus Augustus: Schrömbges 1986, 95-111; its imagery: Zwierlein-Diehl 1980, 12-53.

36. Cf. the hypothesis that a seated statue of Augustus or Tiberius sat upon the so-called Sorrento base, which is decorated on four sides with commemorative reliefs (fig. 15); Roccos 1989, 573.

37. BMCRE I. 129, nos. 70-73, pl. 23.16. Puteoli monument: Eck 1984b, 148 and n. 156; 146-47 (the monument of Aelius Lamia); (1984a) 208 nn. 19-22; Liverani (1989, 147-48, figs. 146-52) has all sides; Pekáry 1985, 6-7; Hölscher 1984a, 32-33, fig. 55; Vermeule 1981a, 85-101 passim; Platner-Ashby, s.v. "Forum Iulium"; Strong 1988, 113, fig. 58; Brünn-Bruckmann, pl. 575.

38. Schäfer 1989, 74f., 130, pl. 9.8; Gabelmann 1986, 282-83; Kent et al. 1973, fig./cat. 69; RRC 426/1; persistently associated by Hölscher (most recently in Kais. Aug. 1988, 383-84, fig. 177) with the crowning statue group of the San Omobono reliefs. Obv., FAUSTUS, bust of Diana left with crescent on diadem, lituus behind; rev., FELIX. On the senatorial monuments see also chap. 3, p. 75.

39. Trillmich 1978, 146 n. 546, pl. 15.5. Issued for the retrospective celebrations of Augustus and Livia held throughout the East, under influence from celebrations in the capital when Claudius deified Livia. The akrostolion indicates that the statue was carved immediately after Augustus' naval victory at Actium, when the league initiated its cult of Rome and Augustus with a temple at Gortyna. For dates of this cult, see Kienast 1982, 203-4, 379. Gortyna temple, epistyle fragment with (Latin) inscription to Roma and Augustus: IGGR I, no. 960; listed in Vermeule 1968, 442. Most early Julio-Claudian dedications from Crete are from Gortyna; it has another dedication by the koinon kreton, to Hadrian (Vermeule, 442). Compare the nude akrostolion holders on coins of Sextus Pompey and Octavian against Sextus; ill.: Zanker 1988, fig. 31.

40. BMCRE I. 190, nos. 88-92, pl. 30.7-8; CONSENSU SENAT. ET EQ. ORDINUM P.Q.R., misidentified as Divus Augustus, as noted also by Emmons Levy and Bastien 1985, s.v. cat. 866.

41. BMCRE I. 186-87, nos. 157-59, pl. 35.7; 192, nos. 208-11a, pl. 36.8; see p. cli. Trillmich 1978, 64, pl. 11.16-17; Kaenel 1986, 241, s.v. no. 57.72. Images of the emperor upon a weapons pile begin at least with Tiberius; cf. the Niederbieber signum (fig. 120).

42. Kähler (1964, 6, 30, 39, 45) discusses the suovetaurilia's links to the ceremonial and iconography of "Regierungsfeier," the celebrations marking the onset or completion of significant spans of time (typically a decennium), here as on his Diocletianic monument; such monuments seem to cluster at this end of the Forum (Kähler, 29-30). Cf p. 48 on how the documentary panels fit patterns of "accession" behavior narrated by Appian for Octavian.

43. Torelli 1982, chap. 4, 89ff., pl. IV.1-15; Boatwright (1987, 182-90, figs. 40-42) judiciously reviews the scholarly controversies; see the plates on pp. 143 and 154 and the fold-outs at the back of Hammond 1953.

44. This statue is recognized only by Torelli (1982).

45. These reliefs stood in the Forum well into the late Empire; they seem to have been deliberately dismantled and carefully defaced by Christian iconoclasts, thus well after the Constantinian period. It seems to me that the draftsman for the complementary oratio (fig. 36) and largitio panels almost certainly used this monument as a prototype: he set similar themes (address, and benevolence connected with the Treasury), in similar frames (a long, friezelike panel) against a continuous architectural backdrop; in his single Forum scene he combined the topographic and statuary references of the two Anaglypha Forum panels, standing Constantine on the Rostra, flanking him with seated statues of bygone emperors, and showing him patronized by a benevolent deity (Jupiter, immediately above him, on the central column of Diocletian's five-column Tetrarch group). Note too that he uses the same togate/paludate pairing (see text below) as on the Anaglypha, though here it is in the address that the emperor is in military costume, and in the benevolent action scene that he is togate. Ill.: Bianchi Bandinelli 1971; both panels, L'Orange 1972, figs. 35-36; congiarium scene, Strong 1988, fig. 209.2.

46. Hammond 1953, 127ff.; detail: Boatwright 1987, 188. fig. 42; Torelli 1982. 91, nn. 18-19.

47. CIL VI.967 = ILS 309. 5-10: "qui [ sc . Hadrian] primus omnium principum et solus remittendo sestertium novies milies centena milia n. debitum fiscis non praesentes tantum cives suos sed et posteros eorum praestitit hac liberalitate securos."

48. Boatwright 1987, 189, fig. 43.

49. Smith 1985; Boatwright 1987, 189; Torelli 1982, 107.

50. Smith 1985, 227.

51. Boatwright 1987, 185-86, back to Hammond 1953, 132 and 143 (an enlarged illustration of the real emperor). Torelli notes the statue but does not look for the emperor.

52. See p. 233 n. 45 above.

53. Hammond 1953, 144-45, with figures; BMCRE III.417-18, nos. 1206-10, pl. 79.4-6; Torelli 1982, fig. IV.12 (crowd at left); Schäfer 1989, pl. 13.17 (lictor alone).

54. CIL VI.967, the inscription from the Forum of Trajan recounting this remission, must have accompanied an honorific statue. That statue is highly likely to have been represented on Hadrian's "lictor" sestertii (fig. 42).

55. App. BCiv . 5.130: Octavian arrives at Rome, and the Senate votes him timas ametrous, going out garlanded to meet and escort him into the city (to the temples, then to his house). The next day Octavian eboulegorese te kai edemegorese, reciting to Senate and people his erga and his politeia up to that date, which speeches he published as a biblion . In them he announced eirene and euthumia, proclaimed the civil wars ended, kai ton eisphoron tous eti opheilontas apelue kai phoron telonas te kai tous ta misthomata echontas hon eti opheloien, that is, remitted unpaid taxes and canceled the outstanding amounts due from tax farmers and holders of public leases. In association with this he celebrated an ovation and received an honorific image that showed him as when he entered the city, on a columna rostrata inscribed "He reestablished civil peace, long disturbed, by land and sea."

56. Identified by Torelli (1982, 92ff.); Maier (1985, refs. at p. 272) omits many buildings shown on the Anaglypha, esp. the Rostra; Kähler 1964, 31f., an evocative discourse on the Augustan and later Forum Romanum.

57. While the artist created a recognizable and persuasive simulacrum of the Forum, he had to be selective, both in his point of view, which would dictate his architectural backdrop, and in his choice of what smaller monuments to include out of the mass crowding the Forum. His chosen point of view included the upper Forum, from left of the Temple of Divus Julius. The emperor is thus seen completely surrounded by political and dynastic monuments built by or under Augustus: the rostra of the Temple of Divus Julius, both erected by Augustus; the Temple of Castor and Pollux, erected under Augustus de manubiis in the names of Tiberius and his brother Drusus; the Basilica Julia, completed by Augustus, then burnt in 12 B.C. and rebuilt by him in the names of his sons Gaius and Lucius. The artist even strained his otherwise veristic representation to fit in the Arch of Augustus, which spanned the Sacred Way between the Temple of Divus Julius and the Temple of Castor and Pollux. This arch was in fact at right angles to the two temples, touching corners with the Temple of the Dioscuri and running into the middle of the podium of the Temple of Divus Julius. Yet our artist, wishing to make use of its symbolic resonance, showed it in almost completely frontal view at a totally false angle to the temples that it linked.

58. Eck (1980, 266-70), discussing the alimenta coinage with boy and girl (270), notes the base's eagle scepter is paralleled on the coins, though ignoring the Anaglypha and Beneventum Arch (figs. 41, 37, 91).

59. See Torelli 1982, 102ff.

60. Contra Torelli 1982, 91: ''This group . . . appears in our relief just as one of the monuments of the Forum."

61. Sestertius of A.D. 118, titulature of emperor and SC LIBERTAS RESTITUTA; RIC 568.

62. It is just possible that Augustus' artists, such as the transplanted Athenians responsible for the Ara Pacis and Marcellus' portraits, derived the figure scheme of a baby held toward a seated person from a small class of fourth-century grave stelai that commemorate mothers who died in childbirth. On some a standing maidservant holds a baby toward the seated mother, who, however, does not respond to the baby's outstretched hands. Cf. Rühfel 1984, 151-52, fig. 62 (stele of Phylonoe, Athens NM).

63. The figure group of a goddess and baby derives ultimately from a Greek genre of the fourth century B.C. in which divinities or Dionysiac figures dandled infants. Very prominent would have been Kephisodotos' group of Eirene (Peace) with the baby Ploutos (Wealth; cf. the cornucopia) in the Athenian Agora; it is no accident that the bulk of Roman versions of this group are Augustan; cf. La Rocca 1974, 136; Jung 1976, 110, 131-32.

The Forum/Anaglypha group, goddess with baby on hip, conforms to the Eirene and Ploutos type; a very different effect is achieved in groupings that sound similar on paper, on the Beneventum alimenta panel where city goddesses hold children of four to five years rather than infants (fig. 91). The Greek prototype has been mediated through Caesarian and Augustan transformations, on which see chap. 1, p. 29f. Compare the syncretistic female divinity balancing baby and cornucopia on her hip, in the Budapest Actium relief series; Simon 1986, fig. 36. Neo-Attic also is the way the boy in the Anaglypha group is posed, pressing against the goddess's leg, as in the Acropolis Procne and Itylos group attributed to Alkamenes, for example.

64. Ill.: Nash 1968, 457-61, figs. 558-67; Toynbee 1934, 152-59; Simon in Helbig 4 II, 243-47, cat. 1437; I, 724, cat. 1009; Pais 1979, 33-35, cat. 41-82 (adds the twenty-first panel), 83-95 (trophies). The Conservatori set: Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, figs. 282-83; Strong 1988, figs. 116-17 (fig. 126a-g are Hadrianic province coin types).

65. Pais 1979, 35, 39.

66. Pais 1979, 101, 118-19.

67. Often compared is the placement of bronze figures of Athens' colonies ( apoikoi poleis ) before the facade columns of the Olympieion in Athens (Paus. 1.18.6, 8).

68. See chap. 3, p. 81. For a personification on a socle projection, cf. Naples, NM 6715; see pp. 253-54 n. 89.

69. It can be said of Augustan practice that while grouped personifications were not at all restricted to posthumous commemorative, they seem to have been felt especially appropriate for such recognition. See pp. 80-81 on Augustus' designs for his funeral (and probably for Agrippa's); compare the funerary arches decreed under Augustus to the dead Gaius and Lucius and under Tiberius to the dead Germanicus; see p. 254 nn. 90-92. The Hadrianeum's association of grouped personifications with a divus is imitated for an Antonine magistrate's sarcophagus; this Roman notable was evidently so taken with the arrangement of the Hadrianeum that he had his own funeral edifice, that is, his sarcophagus, decorated with that temple's province series, arranged in a row on its lid (see p. 290 n. 29).

70. For a Julio-Claudian personification series on a large-scale monumental relief: one of the Arcus Novus relief fragments (Parthia and Armenia; fig. 12) belonged to a row of paratactically disposed personifications, which accompanied a narrative panel with a military scene preserved in another fragment.

71. The influence of the Ara Pacis personifications can be seen elsewhere in Hadrianic/Antonine art; the Ara Pacis's apposition of province frieze and documentary relief seems to be the prototype for such juxtaposition on the Antonine altar at Ephesos. The latest reconstruction (Ganschow 1986, 216-17, 220, fig. 3) shows that two short sides of this altar complex were taken up with provincial and civic personifications, framing the great battle frieze in which the emperor could be seen fighting for the preservation of their peace; the long "adoption" frieze within, a static parade of togate figures linking Hadrian with Antoninus Pius and the young Verus and Marcus Aurelius, was cognate with the Ara Pacis's procession frieze (whose primary subject at this date would have seemed to be a display of dynastic continuity).

72. A late second-century wall-painting fragment from the Caelian may come from a room whose painted decor was inspired by the Hadrianeum: in an ornamental field under a garland is a province personification very like the Hadrianeum "Mauretania." If only one knew whether this was the sole personification in its room, or whether it belonged to a series! Rome, Pal. Cons. Br. Nuovo inv. 2692; Andreae in Helbig 4 II, 432, cat. 1639; Mielsch 1981, 226, pl. 19.27.

73. BMCRE I, pl. 15.16. Zanker 1988, 63-64, fig. 44; Pollini 1978, 266; Weinstock 1971, 101, Pl. 10.1.

74. So illustrated (fig. 202) for Schäfer's discussion of the symbolism of the sella curulis in Kais. Aug. 1988, 427ff., and in Schäfer 1989, 125-26, pl. 13.1. Compare his interpretation (1989) of the fine Julio-Claudian funerary portrait of a togate magistrate on a sella curulis whose front bar is carved at each end with bound barbarian captives (one nude, one in breeches) kneeling in submission. (The rest of the bar is obscured by the seated figure himself.) The sella curulis here seems at the side also to be covered with a fringed seat cover, like that used for the military stool. Schäfer notes that these reliefs excerpt from typical submission scenes, so that the observer would have filled in the "hidden" bits for himself; what has in fact happened is that the "hidden" seated consul is embodied in the actual statue, to whom the relief figures now kneel. This interplay between figures in an ornamental supporting zone with the full-scale portrait they carry provides an interesting early parallel to the conceit of the famous Hercules-Commodus in the Conservatori, whose bust was shouldered by little kneeling Amazons.

75. The Republican coin (74 B.C.; RRC 397), which depicts a seated togate figure, plainly shows some divine abstraction (fig. 44; see also chap. 1, n. 9); as it resembles the type RRC 393, which celebrates the Genius of the Roman People, it seems also some kind of genius . It refers to the fertile dominion of the Republican state over the inhabited world. If it should portray a particular individual (which is remotely possible), then the composition would be a forerunner of BR I:1.

76. Seleucid numismatic prototypes: Weinstock 1971, 100, pl. 9.19-21. Apollo types of L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, 90 B.C., have Seleucid prototypes; Boissac 1988, 330-31.

77. See Weinstock 1971, 101; Pollini 1978, 266.

78. On this herm see Zanker 1988, s.v. fig. 44.

79. Zanker 1988, s.v. fig. 42. See pp. 53, 85.

80. Rome, Pal. Cons. inv. 2749-52; Rome, Mus. Cap. inv. 3517; Vienna, K.h. Mus. inv. 1576; "Sullan": Hölscher 1967, 100-101, pl. 12.2; Hölscher 1984a, 17-18, pls. 14ff.; and Hölscher in Kais. Aug. 1988, 384-86, figs. 178f., cat. 214; Strong 1988, 48, figs. 16-17.

81. The arguments presented below are expanded in A. Kuttner, "Some New Grounds for Narrative: Marcus Antonius' Base (the 'Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus') and Republican Biographies," in Narrative and Event in Ancient Art, ed. P. Holliday 1993. See still Kähler 1966, passim; Torelli 1982, chap. 1; Hölscher 1984a, 16-17, fig. 20 (Hölscher thinks the thiasos Roman); Meyer 1983, 87-88; Zanker (1988, 22-24, fig. 10a-b) recognizes the thiasos as East Greek work reused but thinks (like Wiseman) that its purpose is to establish a mythological genealogy for the censor/patron.

82. Separated in 1816 by Klenze; on their nineteenth-century history, see Wünsche 1985, 45, 47, 49-51, figs. 30-31.

83. Torelli (1982, 8) and Zanker (1988, 22) briefly suggest a votive base. Traditionally seen as the base for a cult statue group (and so assigned to a group by Skopas known from Pliny to have stood in the Temple of Neptune), it is nothing of the sort. Neither Greeks nor Romans ever erected statues of their gods on bases portraying scenes from the life of the patron.

84. Thiasos marble: A. Stewart, in consultation with Wünsche, cited now by Meyer 1983, 87 n. 346. Zanker (1988, s.v. fig. 10) posits a Greek/Asia Minor workshop source without mentioning marble. Strong (1988, 51) calls both sections Pentelic.

85. Torelli (1982, 15) lists previous identifications. Coarelli and Kähler, followed by Hölscher and Meyer (see n. 81), propose M. Antonius, because of the triumphal associations of sea- thiasos iconography. M. Antonius fought the Cilician pirates as praetor and proconsul in 102 and 101-100 B.C. with imperium over the relevant seacoasts; he was censor in 97; he died in 87. He was known in his censorship to have spent his manubiae to proclaim his sea triumph, by adorning the rostra in the Forum out of his manubiae .

86. This is a standard biographical structure in Republican texts of all kinds: categorizing a career under the linked headings in toga et armis, in foro et belli, etc.; see Kuttner, cited above, n. 81. In the same genre, a base from the Sanctuary of Fortuna at Praeneste paraphrases the program of Alexander the Great's funeral car; Hölscher 1979, 342-45, figs. 1-2, in Kais. Aug. 1988, 363-64, cat. 198-99, assigned to Mark Antony.

87. See Kuttner 1991 on the lid of the Villa Giulia cist 13 133.

88. .71 m in height, 1.45 in width, .10 in diameter. Local stone (marble?). Simon in Helbig 4 IV, cat. 3103; Kähler 1954a, 124-25, pl. 79; Felletti Maj 1977, 168-70, fig. 58; Zevi 1976, 54-55, figs. 5-9; Meyer 1982, 268-71, fig. 13; Riemann 1987, 132-36, on sortes rite and imagery.

89. Cf. Zevi 1976, 55.

90. A similar extraurban paraphrase is the episodic painted narrative of Marius' adventures at Minturnae and its sacred grove, dedicated in the temple by Marius' point of embarkation by a local, Bebaeus, who supplied the ship on which Marius finally escaped; Plut. Mar. 40.1-2.

91. Felletti Maj (1977, 170) stresses the relief's links to Rome. Pompey's coinage: Meyer 1982, fig. 14; BMCRR I, 436; II, pls. 44.23-24.

92. Rome, Pal. Cons. inv. 1127, 1153, 1152, 2745, 1150. See the archeologically exact, authoritative analysis by T. Dohrn in 1966 in Helbig 4 II, 408-11, cat. 1605; Felletti Maj 1977, 140f., fig. 41, with additional bibliography; Coarelli 1968, 345, figs. 20-22; Bianchi Bandinelli and Torelli 1976, fig./cat. 48, still with the modern head on the central goddess. Temples in Rome Etrusco more with terracotta sculpture: Dohrn in Helbig 4 II, 411.

93. This gradation seems a characteristic option for temples in the Tuscan mode, and to have been picked up for at least some Augustan commissions, perhaps meant as a recognizably conservative feature. The pediment of the Tuscan Temple of Quirinus (restored 16-15 B.C.) has large divinities in the center, then slightly smaller "important" human and other figures, and in the corners smaller figures yet; Koeppel 1984, 52-53, cat. 21, figs. 30-31; Hommel 1954, 9-22. Similarly, the Temple of Mars Ultor, fig. 9b.

94. See the Mars type described above, pp. 32f and p. 228 n. 92.

95. Felletti Maj (1977, 141) interpreted this as a sacrifice ritu Graeco with uncovered head. But the gods depicted are not appropriate recipients of this rite, on which see now Reinsberg 1984, 291f.

96. Most authors (Felletti Maj 1977, 140 n. 14) take Mars' presence to mean that the pediment belonged to a temple of Mars in the Campus Martius near the Caelian or the Circus Flaminius (Coarelli); they call the sacrifice a suovetaurilia . The temple could equally well belong to the female divinity at center, namely, Venus, shown with Mars and, say, Fortuna. Dohrn identifies the victims, which are not a suovetaurilia (pig, ram, bull) but do fit the triad of large goddess and god, small goddess.

97. Thus, the literature specifically on this pediment, mostly Italian, concerned with the later stages of Etrusco-Italic art; outside of Italy it is mostly ignored in discussions of Republican art.

98. See Beschi 1982, 33, 40-41, fig. 8 (side A), which supersedes an intermediate 1975 reconstruction by Mitropulou, which formed the basis for the discussion by Ridgway 1983, 198. She based her fig. 13.7 on Beschi's earlier version (1968, 381ff.), which restored a two-figure relief.

99. Kais. Aug. 1988, 446, fig. 203; Vollenweider 1974, 14-15, pl. 7.8.

100. The Cività Castellana base (figs. 28-30) certainly exploits the votive composition of the Paris census, but it remains unclear whether it shows a living or legendary figure (e.g., Romulus or even Aeneas). Compare in this respect the Castel Gandolfo relief; see p. 239 n. 100. The Paris census composition (fig. 27) is also imitated for a patron of very low standing on the primitive, but interesting, Ara Borghese (Felleti Maj 1977, fig. 59).

101. Meyer 1982, 247ff., fig. 7 at p. 259.

102. Vermeule (1959, 17) says the Pergamene-style panther-skin boots give him a divus character.

103. RRC 470/1c-d, pl. lv; for flanking compositions see of course the others in the series, figs. 55-57. For the Selinus relief (fig. 10) see chap. 1, n. 79; compare the paratactic arrangement of patron divinities on the Cività Castellana base, figs. 28-30.

104. Sydow 1984, passim; Hölscher in Kais. Aug. 1988, 363-65, fig. 165, cat. 199.

105. Schäfer in Kais. Aug. 1988, 434-35, cat. 232 (drawing in Braunschweig), and Schäfer 1989, pls. 20 and 21 (the first an engraving by B. de Montfaucon, the second by G. B. Piranesi), 233-38, cat. 1. Known since the sixteenth century, formerly in the Villa Casali at Rome, it ended up in Munich and was lost in the 1920s. Schäfer believes it commemorates a Spanish or Gallic campaign, assigning it to Domitius Calvinus, procos. Spain 39-36 B.C. tr. 36 B.C. after the taking of Osca on the Ebro.

106. The centaur-archer in the left field is enigmatic. This zodiac figure might indicate a region, a time for the event, or signify the natal star of the dead general (in the manner of the zodiac figure over Augustus on the Gemma Augustea; fig. 16). The interest in astrological metaphor is typical of the late Republican and Julio-Claudian aristocracy.

107. A common motif is the draping of the mantle in a skirt about the hips, over armor or bare flesh, seen not only on the Aquileia Antony and the Caelian relief general (figs. 17, 3) but also on freestanding triumphal portraits like the Tivoli general (first century B.C.; Strong 1988, fig. 9) and the Primaporta Augustus (fig. 64). This must be an iconographic convention specific to triumphant general portraits of the later Republic.

108. Only noted by Pollini 1978, 264.

109. The triumph types begin with Marius in 101 B.C. and are continued by Sulla, who introduces Victory, and Pompey. Höscher (1967, 82-84) traces the composition's development from Sicilian coin types showing divine triumphs (75). See chap. 6, pp. 149f.

110. Pollini (1978, 263-64) notes the Republican triumph coins, discussing men with gods; he brings in (265) the issues of Mark Antony, which show him and his wife Octavia (Augustus' sister) as Neptune and Amphitrite in a hippocamp quadriga. This nice image falls into the category of outright symbolic allegory and not the mix of levels I am interested in here. CRR 1255, 1261, 1265; BMCRR II, 510, 515, 517, nos. 151-53, pls. 114.14, 115.1-2; parodied, to emphasize Octavian's superior claims to semidivine status on the Vienna and Hadrumetum gems. Just so the gem of Octavian-Dionysos and Livia for Actium, with crocodile exergue (Vollenweider 1984, 173, cat. 293), parodies the Antony-Octavia coinage of 39 B.C. ( BMCRE II, pl. 114.3).

111. Such victory groups (cf. chap. 6, pp. 149f) go back to what Romans thought of as their early Republican heritage, and ultimately to Greek forms of victory anathemata for victories in the Olympic games (e.g., the chariot group for Battus of Cyrene; see Paus. 10.15.6). Hellenistic kings would stage public displays where mechanically animated gold Victories came and crowned them (e.g., Mithridates at Pergamon; see Plut. Sull. 11.1). A contemporary Metellus could stage such a display in an ostensibly private context, holding banquets, where he sat in triumphal robes to be crowned by such automata; see Plut. Sert. 22.2; Sall. H. frag. ii.70; Coarelli 1983a, 214-16. On arch statuary see most recently Kleiner 1989 with bibl.

112. Pompey/Janus: BMCRR II, 371-72, nos. 95-96, 97-103, pl. 101. 13-14 (not understood); RRC 487, cat. 479.1; Zanker 1988, 55-56.

113. Compare Octavia's coiffure on an Antonian issue of 38 B.C., RRC 533/3, pl. 63 (rev., Antony).

114. Cf. the pointed remarks by Millar (1984, 56-58); Kienast (1982, 202ff.); Weinstock (1971, 287f.) on Caesarian precedents for association with Jupiter. Augustus' lifetime cult in Rome and its material aspects: Hölscher 1984c, 27-31; Hesberg 1980, 351f., on his cult altars in Italy and Rome.

115. Hesberg 1980, 353: Augustus togate on the main face, Victory bringing him laurel on one flank, Venus attending him on the other, and a togatus offering him sacrifice on the back. As Hesberg shows, it is a wraparound version of an epiphany composition seen in one field on other altar faces; compare also the Cherchel cuirass composition (Venus, Caesar, Amor; fig. 5). Cf. the Lares cult epiphany on the Mainz Jupiter Column (fourth drum): the togate emperor sacrifices between Lares, opposite Bacchus; Espérandieu 1918, cat. 5887 at pp. 386-87; 1928, 93ff. at p. 103.

116. Suet. Aug. 59: "Statuam aere conlato iuxta signum Aesculapi statuerunt."

117. Zanker 1983, 21-24; Zanker 1988, 59-60, plan fig. 40; Kais. Aug. 1988, fig. 154. Intriguing in this connection is the possibility that there may be an Augustan imperial residence associated similarly with the great sanctuary of Hercules at Tibur; cf Coarelli 1987, s.v.

118. A case in point is that of city foundations in one's name, which we think of as very Roman. Cf. Knapp 1977, 108 n. 15: this practice of Hellenistic monarchs was first picked up by the elder Gracchus, who founded Gracchuris in Spain in the early second century, though not as a citizen town. Names of those were reserved for gods (e.g., Narbo Martius) until Marius set up Mariana (Corsica) at the turn of the first century B.C. Such foundations became "natural" overnight for successful generals; Caesar's and Augustus' numerous foundations differ in quantity, not in kind.

119. Weinstock 1971, 287-305, at p. 292 and n. 9.

120. And cf. Cic. Off. 3.80: for his currency reforms (!) statuae of Gratidianus were erected in every street and received offerings of incense and candles ("ad eas tus, cerei").

121. Zanker 1988, s.v. fig. 227; Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, figs. 182, 195; Die Bildnisse des Augustus 1979, 15; MNR II. 1 (1982), pl. 200, inv. 1074. Contra Bragantini in MNR, 294 n. 14, I cannot see how the wealthy Romans who commissioned and displayed the many divinizing gems of Octavian/Augustus would have revolted at seeing such iconography on a ceiling. The corollary to this identification is that the pendant Ceres panel probably included a Livia-Ceres.

Compare the ceiling of Caius Caesar's reception room (stucco or paint) described by Antipater of Thessalonika to frame a propemptikon, ca. 1 B.C.; Gow and Page 1968, xlvi (= Anth.Pal. 9.59): the young general is compared to Athena, Aphrodite, Ares, and Heracles carried by Victories (cf. the Farnesina Victories). One imagines pairs, Venus-Mars (dynastic!) and Minerva-Hercules. Pace Gow and Page, bouphagos (1. 6) does fit Hercules, that is, Hercules Victor of the Forum Boarium.

122. Anderson suggests imperial portraiture at the "imperial" villa of Boscotrecase, where in the "Black Room" ( disiecta membra, New York, Met. Mus.) two (gem or blue-glass cameo) portraits of "imperial" females crown columns in a fantastic aedicula on the main wall; I believe these are cameos but am not sure he is right to identify them as historic persons (Anderson 1987, 127-35; Anderson 1987-88, 54-57, fig. 48).

123. Augustus-Jupiter: Schneider 1986, 37f. n. 156, 85f., on his identification in the East with Zeus Olympios.

124. Ryberg on the "divinization" of the emperor in official art from Augustus to the Flavians: "The remains of early imperial relief are perhaps too fragmentary to show fully or reliably how far the emperor's pretensions to divinity were reflected in monumental art. But it is noteworthy that in private works of art [ sc. the BR cups, Sheath of Tiberius, Vienna and Paris cameos] the expression of the Hellenistic concept of divine monarchy runs a fairly steady course, presenting the emperor with the full attributes of divinity even under the severely restrained Tiberius; and there is no indication of greater fluctuation in the policy followed by monumental relief" (1955, 208).

125. See p. 7 on Augustus' (visually stated) identity with Aeneas; if the Sorrento base (fig. 15) did carry a seated statue of the emperor, he would have been equated in comparable fashion with the seated Romulus enthroned at one end (fig. 15a).

126. Cf. the epiphany structure evident on altars of Augustus' cult in his lifetime: the emperor is frontal at center, and side figures turn to him as if to a divinity; the imperial figure's relationship to the viewer, as to the others in the scene, is that of an icon for reverence. However, in this epiphany the emperor is himself a priest, that is, a special intermediary hallowed by his privileged function and standing vis-à-vis the gods. Hesberg 1980, 351-53; see main faces on the Vicus Sandaliarius altar (Augustus as augur with lituus ); Zanker 1988, fig. 101; mutilated marble altar face, Canosa, of equally fine workmanship (Augustus as priest between priests of his own cult), which like the former has statuelike figures, each on a little "plinth"; Tarentum altar (fig. 31), on which see pp. 240-41 n. 115 above.

127. ILS I, 137 from Acerra (Campania), the verse dedication of a monument to Augustus and some princes by a primipilaris of Legio XVI: nam quom te, Caesar, tem[pus]/exposcet deum caeloque repetes sed[em, qua]/mundum reges, trans. Price 1987, 81. It clearly echoes poetry like that of Horace (cf. also Carm. 1) and Ovid.

128. On Augustan minor arts propaganda see now Maderna-Lauter in Kais. Aug. 1988, 441ff.

129. Relevant gems and coins: Vollenweider 1974, 211ff., pls. 152.12 (glass paste: Octavian with diadem holding Victory on a globe, who crowns him), 152.17 (bronze of M. Acilius Glabrio, 25 B.C.; Augustus' bust right, before Victory crowning him), 152.19 (mid-Augustan dupondius: Augustus' laureled bust on a globe "crowned" by Victory behind, who holds cornucopia), 156.1 (carnelian: Octavian with Pegasus shield shoulders a rudder), 156.2 (obv., my togate Augustus coin, see fig. 21, pp. 53f; rev., pl. 160.7), 156.6 (denarius, 29-27 B.C.: Octavian-Mercury = BMCRE I, pl. 14.15), 160.1 (gem cast: Octavian-Jupiter), 160.2 (denarius, post-Actium: Octavian nude with lance and parazonium (sword) on columna rostrata = BMCRE I, pl. 15.15), 160.4 (denarius for Actium: naked Octavian-Neptune with chlamys, right foot on a globe, holding right an aplustre (ship prow ornament), left, a scepter = BMCRE I, pl. 15.5), 160.5 (similar but globe in right hand). See chap. 3, p. 85 and n. 114 (discusses Octavian on columna rostrata type) for the derivation of such images from freestanding statuary; on which point see, for example, Zanker 1983, 25 n. 21.

130. Kienast 1982, 119-20, 201-2. The Gemma Augustea Augustus as augur: Pollini 1978, 189. The dissemination of the central composition of the Gemma Augustea: see a chalcedony cameo in Vienna, of which an ancient blue-glass cast exists at Dumbarton Oaks. Richter 1956, 66f., cat. 47, Pl. 47; Kyrieleis 1970, 492-98: the Vienna cameo "Augustus" is slightly recut to resemble Caligula, the glass cast even more touched up. Richter (67) says the glass cast is not actually taken from the Vienna cameo. The two then are independent but parallel Caligulan copies, undoubtedly part of the same commemorative project (accession gifts?).

3— The Peoples of Empire

1. Hölscher (1988, 523-31) essays a historical typology but does not distinguish between images put up by cities of themselves and ethnic personifications put up by Roman leaders, for example, and omits series like the Aphrodisias reliefs and the consular monuments of Augustan Rome (see p. 75 below). Hesberg (1988, 349f.) lumps landscape, polis, and nation personifications under the rubric "landscape" as merely topographic signs.

2. Toynbee 1934, 11-12.

3. L'inventaire du monde (1988). Thoroughly reviewed by Millar in JRA 1 (1988): 137-41. This work appeared too late for me to assimilate it completely; where Millar notes particular points, they receive notice here also. Nicolet (25ff.) looked over key aspects of the monumental record.

4. Brit. Mus. 2191. Pinkwart 1965, 55f., pls. 28-35, esp. pl. 31; Havelock 1970, 200-201, cat./fig. 170; Onians 1979, 105; Vermeule 1968, 47-48, fig. 16.

5. Hölscher (1988, 527) says only the figure with the elephant skin has a distinguishing attribute!

6. St. Bertrand de Comminges. Bedon et al. 1988, 1: 195-96; Picard 1957, 270f., pls. 9-11, fig. on p. 273; Espérandieu 1928, 147-48, cat. 7488-89, 7503; Espérandieu 1938, 5-11, cat. 7653-56, 7658; Wesenberg 1984, 178. Gaul and Spain wear sleeveless tunics fastened at the shoulder, undone to bare one breast; like the Primaporta pair they vary but slightly (Gallia, torque; Hispania, long, rough hair). Three bases in the Forum: center—Victories flank a trophy set on a prow, on which a Tritoness raises a globe bearing an eagle (cf. the Vienna gem; fig. 19); flanking groups—trophy, naked bound kneeling captive, personification.

7. Black and white mosaic: dolphins, heads of provinces and trade winds. Toynbee (1934, 103) cites Claud. Cons. Stil. 11.228f.; bibl.: Henig 1983, 122 and n. 52.

8. See n. 6 above. The Hispania head from Munigua in Baetica (Seville, Mus. Arq.), identified by long hair and earlocks, probably comes from a similar forum tableau. The excavator dates it Hadrianic or later; it is probably early imperial, connected with Augustan activity attested here—drill work in hair or eyes is lacking, and its mode of stylized classicism compares well with early imperial statues from Gaul. EAA 253, s.v. "Munigua," fig. 348; Grünhagen 1961, 53f., figs. 2-4, 9.

9. Toynbee 1934, 103.

10. Pollini 1978, chap. 1. See p. 255 n. 102 below.

11. Elephant-mask headdress: Sauer 1964; Boeselager 1983, 109-12, pl. xxv, fig. 68, on a mosaic of Africa from Catania (now Castello Ursino), comparing the Ostia mosaic (p. 243 n. 7 above) as a private use of province iconography to celebrate the patron's (presumably economic) activities in the region represented. Crawford ( RRC 459) thus interprets a pavement showing a boar at Pompeii commissioned by an L. Coelius Caldus as representing the patron's involvement with Gaul.

12. So Zwierlein-Diehl 1973, no. 1089, pl. 83, with comparanda . It was by now typically Roman to set an object under the foot of the figure portrayed to express that figure's mastery over the entity symbolized by the object underfoot. Depictions of Roma, the Genius of the Roman People, Caesar/Augustus with foot on a globe: Hölscher 1967, 43 (starts on coins of the mid-70s B.C.); Weinstock 1971, 41-43; see p. 19 n. 91 above. The type literally translates a poetic image: cf. Bömer, s.v. Ovid Fast . 4.857.

13. Egypt iconography: Toynbee 1934, 29f. BR emblema dish: MonPiot 5 (1899): pl. 1; Baratte 1986, 77-81 (Africa). Cf. n. 14 on later imperial Africa examples with the elephant headdress, often holding a tusk; cf. the Africa who watches Dido, Aeneas, and Ascanius on the Via Cassia sarcophagus, Terme 168186, MNR I.1 (1979) 318-24, cat. 190.

14. Barr Sharrar 1987, 73, cat. C 159 (Brit. Mus. inv. GR 1772.3-2.152); like the BR emblema it nestles attributes, a lion and elephant tusk—so, Africa. Barr Sharrar's disputed C 146 (Naples inv. 118192), early first century A.D., seems a beaten personification (disheveled hair, chin on hand).

15. An East-West metaphor for the oikoumene ruled by Rome is one of the "points" made by this grouping. The other is the special prominence in the context of these cups of the foremost figure, Gaul. Compare the apposition of Western and Eastern children on the Ara Pacis; cf. chap. 4, pp. 100-105. This East-West theme in Augustan arts is a fertile topic; the only specific address is Fittschen 1976, 205ff., and now Rose 1990, 461. See the Index. For other metaphors of the concept, see pp. 89-91 (globe, the personification Oikoumene, the metaphor terra marique, etc.).

16. Cf. Fleischer 1983, 539-41, fig. 1, on one of the Trajanic Ephesos ivories. These ivories await full publication by M. Dawid; for description, bibliography, and an overview of the assemblage see Jobst 1977, 77, fig. 137. I thank B. Rose for this reference. The ivories (from a chest?) seem, like the BR cups, to copy an official monument; they intersperse documentary panels (e.g., Trajan meeting with a barbarian leader) with figures of Victories and of provinces or peoples. One hopes that Dawid's final publication of the restoration (cited by Jobst) will not take ten more years.

17. Other major Greek cult sites exhibited similar monuments; their remarkable concentration at Delphi must reflect Delphi's special status as diplomatic center. At Olympia, Panainos' base for the Zeus, arguably the most famous cult statue in the Greco-Roman world, showed Hellas with Salamis, who held an akrostolion in reference to the battle that saved Greece from the Persians (Paus. 5.11.5); here also, Philip V of Macedon put up a group where Hellas crowned him and Antigonos Doson, while Elis crowned Demetrius Poliorketes and Ptolemy I (6.16.3). The Spartan sanctuary of Amyklai had a fifth-century (?) Sparta with a lyre by Aristander of Paros (3.18.8). At Messene, the local Hellenistic sculptor Damophon included Thebes in a group honoring Epaminondas (3.18.8).

18. Similarly quoting Hellenistic regal modes, the tomb paintings of the second century B.C. at Ashkelon for Apollophanes (who led a Sidonian colony at Marissa/Maresha) included a (destroyed) ''Ethiopia." Hadas 1959, 227-29, 126 n. 8 (bibl.); Vermeule 1981a, 32 n. 7.

19. See chap. 1, n. 42. LIMC II (1984), s.v. "Asia," I.4 (Balty); Fittschen 1975, 94-95, 99-100, pl. 71; Kais. Aug. 1988, 281 (Andreae); Anderson 1987-88, fig. 33. Left, Macedonia sits on a crag (Anderson, 26, says "standing"), holding a lance and balancing a gold shield that bears the Macedonian royal star burst, wearing a kausia (Macedonian military headgear) bound with a royal diadem, a long-sleeved chiton, and a mantle. She is twisted around to glare at Asia/Persia, seated at right much lower down, slumped with chin in hand (a sign of dejected submission). Like Macedonia, Asia has generic female dress (mantle, sleeveless chiton) and is "identified" by her headgear (a Persian tiara).

20. Rome, Pal. Chigi. Hardie 1985, 29-30, fig. 2 (drawing); Moreno 1981, 187, fig. 32 (detail: shield); LIMC II (1984), s.v. "Asia," I.2 (Balty). The personifications stand flanking a round altar, on which are carved the Muses. In their near hands are paterae; they hold up the shield with their far hands. In the space over the altar is a kind of epigram in which Alexander claims world rule and states his divine genealogy, though without reference to the battle on the shield. Moreno relates the battle composition to the figure types of Lysippos' Granikos group (taken to Rome in 148 B.C.; see p. 275 n. 15 below). In the frame are labels of the personifications, and of the battle on the shield (two lines: the Battle of Arbela).

21. Contra Hardie 1985, 31 and n. 123, this traditional date is correct. The symmetrical composition, of facing (female) figures in archaizing dress and pose (i.e., on tiptoe), is late Republican and Augustan. Compare the San Omobono base reliefs, on which archaistic Victories hold up a shield emblazoned with victory symbols: Strong 1988, fig. 16; Hölscher 1984a, 17-18, fig. 21; and Hölscher in Kais. Aug. 1988, 384-86, cat. 214; the archaizing Victories on the frieze of Augustus' aedes divi Julii: Hölscher 1984a, 20, fig. 28; Kais. Aug. 1988, cat. 206; and the compositions of the archaizing Campana reliefs from Augustus' Palatine Temple of Apollo: Kais. Aug. 1988, cat. 120-24.

22. LIMC II (1984), 857-58, s.v. "Asia" (Balty). The pairing of Europe and Asia personified goes back to Aes. Pers. 176ff., the vision of Atossa; Broadhead 1960, 78. Cf. the South Italian Darius vase, which adapts some great Hellenistic painting or paintings—Hellas and Persis appear at Darius' court; Gabelmann 1984, 79, cat. 29; Moreno 1981, 187, fig. 6; LIMC II (1984), s.v. "Asia," I.1.

23. Cf. Europa's nightmare in Moschus Eur. 8-9: Asia (in foreign dress) and "she who lies opposite," namely, the continent of Europe (in Greek dress), hold Europa between them as they quarrel over her. Text: Bühler 1960; Hesberg 1988, 352.

24. Kat. Albani 1988, 192-97, cat. 60, pl. 110 (Cain). 24.5 X 25 cm. Under the thiasos, a sacrifice scene.

25. Meyer (1989, 191-94) remarks how these have such vague visual markers that only inscriptions identify them; relationship is shown by dexiosis (handshake), later by simple juxtaposition. Pl. 7.1, cat. A 17: "Messene" with polos; cat. A 46: Aphytäe ("the citizens of Aphytis") with phiale; pl. 16.2, cat. A 51: "Corcyra," peplophoros unveiling; pl. 11.2, cat. A 38: Sicilia with torch; pl. 5.2, cat. A 15: "the Neapolitans at Thasos'' (fig. lost); cat. A 77 and pl. 46. 1, cat. A 157?: Salamis.

26. On the pompe's contemporary political symbolism, see Badian 1967, 51, nn. 57-58.

27. Ael. VH (ed. Dilts 1974) 13.22: Ptolemaios ho Philopator kataskeuasas Homeroi neon, auton men kalos ekathise, kukloi de tas poleis periestese toi agalmati, hosai antipoiountai tou Homerou; RE 23 (1959) 1691, s.v. "Ptolemy IV Philopator" (K. Ziegler). Onians 1979, 105; Hesberg 1988, 355.

28. Schober 1933, 76; Lippold 1950, 375; Havelock 1970, cat./fig. 110; Onians 1979, 101, fig. 1031 (detail with Roma); Hesberg 1988, 359. Comparable is Sardis's imperial cult temple, Julio-Claudian or early Flavian; its tympanon had a series of inscribed personifications of the cities of the Communis Asiae that worshipped here. Ratté et al. 1986, 54-55, 64, 67, pl. 33 (frag., "Adramyteon"). See p. 249 n. 52 below.

29. Lagina, the sanctuary of Stratonikeia, was the cult base of the association of poleis depicted on the temple frieze. Pro-Roman in the second century and loyal in the Mithridatic Wars, Stratonikeia was rewarded by Sulla. His benefaction, the senatus consultum confirming it, and the city's acts of gratitude were recorded on the walls of the sanctuary. Sherk 1969, cat. 18 at pp. 105-11.

30. Strabo (4.3.1) describes the inscription and refers to statues that may portray the cities listed. Turcan 1982, 608-10 (sources), 616f. (coin images), 636 (reconstruction); coins: Kais. Aug. 1988, 524-25, cat. 369; Ratté et al. 1986, 67; Fishwick 1989, 111-12. The enclosure frieze was patently carved by artists from the capital; see Simon 1986, fig. 286; Espérandieu 1910, III.1 18-19, cat. 1758; this oak garland with sacrificial axes links Augustus' cult to that of Jupiter. On the political context of altar and cult, see chap. 4. Maurin 1986 lists its priests; add Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 120 = ILS 7041, a statue dedication for an early priest by his civitas Divona Cadurcorum.

31. CIL V.7231. 9-8 B.C. Prieur 1982, 451f; Ward-Perkins 1981, 171-72, fig. 101.

32. See chap. 2, n. 37. Monument of P. Aelius Lamia: Eck 1984a, 146, 148, comparing Rufus' monument of the same period, on which see further pp. 208-9. Pekáry (1985, 90) thinks Aelius' monument consisted of nine statues of him in a row.

33. Luna marble. Vat. Mus. Greg. Prof. inv. 9942. Fuchs et al. 1989, 54-57, figs. 24-26, cat. 1; Fuchs 1987, 80, cat. C I3; Liverani 1989; Hölsher 1988, 523f.; Simon in Helbig 4 I, cat. 1054; Giuliano 1957, 34, pl. 23. The dynastic portraits: Rose 1987, cat. Caere 01; Fuchs 1987, 77-84; and see now Fuchs et al. 1989, cat. 1ff.

34. Fuchs et al. 1989, 89-91, s.v. the Manlius altar (on which see pp. 40-41 below).

35. Fuchs in Fuchs et al. 1989, 21, contra the altar hypothesis of Liverani in the same volume, is right.

36. I do not find convincing Fuchs's suggestion (Fuchs et al. 1989, 56) that the frieze decorated the top of the main stage-set door, the porta regia . These little figures would barely have been legible to the audience in such a position—who would ever clamber up on stage to read their little inscriptions? Even the statues put in niches in such theaters were often made larger than life-size for visibility. Fuchs's only parallel is a Severan pulpitum frieze of the late second century A.D. at Sabratha, on a much larger scale—the great front of the stage platform proper—where the emperor is shown with the Tyche of Hierapolis and some personified agones (the contests proper). There are no parallels in Roman theater construction (on which Fuchs is an expert) for a frieze of political import and of this scale incorporated into the scaena backdrop.

37. I think they are definitely base reliefs. They may have ornamented something that had an unconventional profile, that is, something bracket-shaped in plan, as in Fuchs's reconstruction; but I wonder very much if this could not be the elaborate base for an aediculated construction housing a statue, perhaps a less-than-life-size figure in precious metal.

38. Compare the "statue" conceit of the Vicus Sandaliarius altar and other Augustan altars (on which see p. 242 n. 126), and also of the Augustan ornamental base (for a tripod), Louvre MA 358, on which a statue of a wreathed quindecemvir sacrifices in a laurel grove at a portable altar on a garlanded base. Ill.: Zanker 1988, fig. 99a. Liverani (1989, 150f.) discusses representations of statues in Roman relief, noting early imperial candelabra and Campana relief production as well as political monuments. For garlands at the top of a frame as an Augustan motif, compare the friezes from Merida; see p. 280 nn. 47 and 48.

39. See chap. 2, p. 41. As on the Puteoli base (fig. 62), figures that once stood around a portrait are transferred to a basis supporting it. Cf. the transfer to the temple podium in the Tiberian forum adiectum at Arles of the Jupiter- clipei that surrounded the temple in the Forum Augustum here quoted. Gros 1987, 357-64, fig. 20.

40. On the particular images see Liverani 1989, figs. 144-52, analyzing the city sequence and the historical evidence for Augustan interest in Etruria, as well as the iconography of individual figures (of which three survive). Though Liverani cites as comparanda the Augustan great altars in the north (at Lugdunum, and the Ara Ubiorum) he did not know the personification groups on the BR cup, the Ara Pacis altar, or the senatorial monuments of Rufus and Aelius Lamia.

41. Bibl.: chap. 5, n. 62.

42. On cura, Halfmann 1986, 17 and n. 18. Eck (1984a, 203) discusses the legal standing of such honors awarded to Roman senators by foreigners; extremely useful are his tables (212-17) of inscriptions (Rome, Italy, provinces).

43. Hölscher 1988, 530-31, fig. 5. Louvre Mus.; three figures extant, wearing laurel; the central one holds a sprig.

44. Though Hölscher's broad redating is correct, his specifically Claudian date is shaky. His criterion is that the figures exhibit a submersion of individual differences in general neoclassicism, compared with the monuments described above. This is, however, because they are not separate Greek city-states or foreign gentes, but municipia with a common institutional and "Roman" character; the Trajanic relief (fig. 92) is an illuminating parallel.

45. Most recently on the trend to autobiography on late Republican coin types, Classen 1986, 267ff., adducing the naissance of autobiography as a literary genre in the same period (early first century B.C.). His exemplar (pl. 127.2) is Pompey's triumphal aureus of 71 B.C. ( RRC 402/1b) whose obverse—Africa bust, with augural symbols—explains its triumph reverse (Pompey in quadriga). I omit it here as a purely triumphal province depiction. Perhaps, though, the augural symbols mean that Africa herself is supposed to have granted the triumph, something like the female apparitions described on p. 77.

46. Cf. the mosaics discussed on p. 243 n. 7. Hence also personifications at home as career mementos. Cf. the inscribed stand in Assisi for an inserted bust of Hispania from a house courtyard at Vettona (Grünhagen 1961, 57); CIL XI. 5172: Hispania hanc/Proculus/proconsule/optinuit. A splendid fourth-century example is the "Great Hunt" corridor mosaic of the Piazza Armerina villa: the patron (center) supervises importation of animals for the arena from Africa and Asia/India, personified at the ends; Wilson 1983, 24-25, fig. 12 (drawing), 13 (detail: India). Cf. the annona sarcophagus from the Via Latina, Terme 40799: Africa and Sicilia with a praefectus annonae who imported grain from them; MNR 1.8 (1985), 46-50, cat. II.1.

47. BMCRR Rome no. 2839; rev., A. Post. A. f. S. n. Albin . The pendant is RRC 372/1, pl. 48: Diana on the obverse; on the reverse she receives sacrifice at a terrace sanctuary (?) from Albinus.

48. Note Aquillius' Hellenistic linen-and-metal cuirass. Hannestad (1986, 23, fig. 10) is wrong about pacification iconography here; Kais. Aug. 1988, 517, cat. 346 (Trillmich).

49. Obv. of Augustus CAESAR AUGUSTUS replaces VIRTUS. BMCRR III, pl. 47.4; II, 67, 71; I, 416; omitted in BMCRE, which assigns (p. ci) this moneyer to 18 B.C. Lucius also restored Manius' road from Ephesos to Sardis with Manius' name on the milestones; Degrassi 1962, 202.

50. The mythological (?) figure group also turns up on contemporary Arretine ware. Ashmolean fragment: Pucci 1981, 115, fig. 21; the wounded figure's gender is unclear.

51. Compare the late Julio-Claudian slabs from the Aphrodisias Sebasteion, which, as Smith observes, couple Claudius with Britannia (1987, pl. 14, cat. 6 at p. 117; see also Zanker 1988, fig. 234), in a garbled version of this stock warrior-and-wounded-comrade figure group, and Nero with Armenia (Smith, pl. 16, cat. 7 at pp. 118-19), in a more carefully rendered conflation of the Pasquino type with an Achilles-Penthesilea type. In the light of my discussion, the Aphrodisias sculptors may perhaps be recognized as quoting Hellenistic figure motifs in a version already assimilated to Roman iconography for imperatores and their provinces, rather than as inventing these compositions themselves by direct inspiration from Hellenistic sources.

52. Roman "reissue" of Hellenistic compositions adapted to imperial iconography: Smith 1988a, 65 n. 65. For official Roman propaganda reflected at Aphrodisias, see pp. 81-82. Sardis may provide a parallel, being connected, like Aphrodisias, to imperial cult. Its fragmentary Sebasteion pediment (cf. p. 246 n. 28) had at the corners enthroned figures facing and framing the center; for this typical Italian pediment composition (e.g., the pediment of the Temple of Mars Ultor), Classical and Hellenistic Greek parallels seem lacking.

53. Vermeule (1981a, 95) says this aes composition copies a rare aureus of 14-13 B.C. of Cossus Lentulus; Sutherland (1987, 8, 10; no ill.) seizes avidly on the legend of "the now very rare aureus." It is in fact unique. Fullerton (1985, 478 n. 39, pl. 56.17-18) rightly urges caution. Much as I would like it to be authentic, I feel doubts. On the reverse a togate figure reaches a hand to a partly clad female personification kneeling on a ground line; in the exergue RESPUB(lica) must be a label, like AUGUST(us) behind the togate figure. These identifying names are oddly located above and below the ground line, the drapery of "Respublica" is unconventionally arranged, the portrait style of the Augustus bust on the obverse is very odd, and the moneyer's title is usurped after COSSUS LENTULUS by the "Augustus" label. The composition seems too felicitous as a unique illustration of the now-problematic Augustan tag "Respublica restituta.

54. I avoid here the problematic clay frieze plaques from the "Tomb of Nero" on the Via Cassia, where an imperator often identified as Caesar (see esp. Weinstock 1971) is about to raise up or is being greeted by a kneeling Roma. Tortorella 1981, p. 69 n. 49; Kais. Aug. 1988, 435-36, cat. 233 (T. Schäfer). The date is disputed because the style is so primitive and idiosyncratic; the plaques have been held, for instance, to refer to the building of the Aurelian Walls. Until a comparable piece is found, I reserve my opinion on their date.

55. Cf the situation in Republican Spain; Knapp 1977, 106-7 and 43. Knapp notes that "it was only under duress that Rome used equal treaties as a diplomatic means. Treaties of any kind between sovereign Iberian states and Rome were eschewed after the 2nd Punic War, and the only acceptable basis for a relation between Roman and native was a recognition of Roman superiority" (43).

56. See now Künzl 1988 passim; Versnel 1970, 95ff. A good sample in English of Roman sources for the late Republic is Pollitt 1966, 63f.

57. The mural-crowned personification kneeling to present a shield (or a wreath?) to the imperator foreshadows the Augustan or Tiberian Arcus Novus relief (fig. 12), where two such goddesses offer something to Venus.

58. RRC 470/1c, pl. lv; reverse: here both cities stand, again "male" left and "female" right (compare the Arcus Novus gentes, fig. 12), on either side of the general; the figure left holds a caduceus, sign of alliance, and offers a branch to the general, while the right figure crowns him. The general, unusually, stands facing, looking out from the coin.

59. Weinstock 1971, 37; Bedon et al. 1988, I:174; its basement—37.6 m long on one face—seems to have been identified at the pass of Panissars near Perthus. Earlier dedications in temples of res gestae are implied by the anecdote that Cato the Censor's votive in the Temple of Salus stood out because it did not list military commands or triumphs, only the glories of his censorship (Plut. Cat. mai. 19.3).

60. Domitius at Vindalium, the confluence of the Sorgue and Rhône; Fabius at the confluence of the Isère and Rhône. Marius' trophy of 102 B.C. at Aix is not known to have been permanent. Bedon et al. 1988, I:173-74; Rolland 1977, 39. Before Pompey stole his command against Mithridates, Lucullus set trophies of unspecified form in Armenia at the Parthian border, as well as at Tigranocerta and Nisibis (Plut. Luc. 36.7). For Florus/Livy, the consuls of 121 innovated in leaving permanent triumphal monuments in the territory of peoples conquered: "utriusque victoriae quod quantum gaudium fuerit, vel hinc aestimari potest, quod et Domitius Ahenobarbus et Fabius Maximus ipsis quibus dimicaverant locis saxeas erexere turres, et desuper exornata armis hostilibus tropaea fixerunt, cum hic mos inusitatus fuerit nostris. Nunquam enim populus Romanus hostibus domitis victoriam exprobavit" (ha!) (Florus 1.37.6).

61. Pliny and Dio described different dedications: Prieur 1982, 442-75. La Turbie: Ward-Perkins 1981, 171, 476 n. 20; Bedon et al. 1988, I:174-78.

62. On geographic listing in Augustus' Res gestae, a hypertrophied development of this tradition (fifty-five geographic or ethnic labels!), see Nicolet 1988, 25f.

63. Pliny HN 36.41 ex Varro; Suet. Ner. 46. These were fourteen nationes (Pliny) in the form of simulacra gentium (Suet.) at the Theater of Pompey, made by the Roman(ized) sculptor Coponius (for his name as Roman: Cic. Cael. 10.24, Balb. 253)—that is, separate ethnic personifications in some kind of symbolic grouping, possibly in Neo-Attic style. Fuchs 1987, 8-9, amending recent work by Coarelli; Gabelmann 1986, 294.

64. Servius ad Aen. 8.721: "For Augustus made a portico in which he assembled images of all peoples [ simulacra omnium gentium conlocoverat ], on which account it is called the Porticus ad Nationes." Here also was put at some early imperial date, possibly by Augustus, a "Carthaginian Hercules" (Pliny HN 36.39)—a Melkart? Pollitt 1966, 58; Gabelmann 1986, 294-96. Compare the supporting terrace figures of Ephesos' Flavianeum (various Oriental deities); Waelkens 1985, 650.

65. Dio 75.4.5: walking between the choristers and guild representatives, ta ethne panta ta hypekoa en eikosi chalkais, epichorios sphisin estalmena . Price (1987, 59, 65, 83-84) omits the Augustan parallel.

66. Knapp 1977, 175, on the Iberian contingent; 163, 175-76, on the establishing of clientelae by conquerors and governors in Republican Spain, for example.

67. Bibl.: p. 239 n. 104. Cf. Gaius' arch at Pisa; see p. 254 n. 90 below.

68. Titulus for atrium portraits and commemorative statues: cf. Juv. 1.129; 5.110; 8.69, 242; 10.143; 11.86; Courtney 1980, 110, 242.

69. Some slabs (one of the three extant) had a graffito to assist assemblage to their bases. Slabs sans graffito are difficult to match to surviving base inscriptions, as their Greek dress and attributes are allusive rather than ethnically explicit. See Smith 1987, 95-96; Smith 1988a, passim. Erim 1986, figs. at pp. 120-21 (slabs and two bases); Erim 1982, 166, fig. 10 (figure with little bull, Doric peplos ). The inscribed ethnoi: Crete, Cyprus, Sicily, the Dacians, Bessi, Rhaeti, Trumpelini, the Balkan tribes of the Iapodes, Dardani, Andizeti, Pirystae; a people referred to as --- bon and identified as Suebi or Perrhaebi (Reynolds 1981) or as Arabians ( Arabon: Reynolds' opinion cited by Bowersock 1983, 49 n. 15, after a suggestion by M. Speidel); Illyrians, Judaeans, and Bosphorans. Reynolds noted in a 1985 lecture that the group Sicily-Crete-Cyprus represents territory regained in the civil wars, making the assemblage a personal record of res gestae by Augustus.

70. Against this is the parallel with Pertinax's funeral (see p. 80), which would establish for Augustus' funeral figures like those on the BR cup, instead of more loosely symbolic types as at Aphrodisias, which recall instead Late Classical Attic canons as seen on the treaty reliefs (p. 246 n. 25 above).

71. The Forum Augustum was imitated in various aspects elsewhere in the Empire, at Merida in Spain ( clipeus order) and at Assisi in Italy ( elogia of the summi viri ); Hölscher 1984c, 31. Merida (Ammon and Medusa clipei, caryatids, etc.): bibl.: Trillmich 1986, 281. Arles: Gros 1987, 357-64 (on the forum adiectum ).

72. Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 63, from Eresos (Lesbos), bilingual dedication to Julia, daughter of Augustus: in Latin Iuliae Caesarius f. Veneri Genetrici, in Greek Ioulia Kaisaros thugatri Aphrodita Geneteira . Another dedication assimilating one of Augustus' womenfolk to Venus Genetrix is Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 123 (Anticaria in Baetica), to Livia as genetrix orbis; for Livia-Venus with her sons, see figs. 114-15 and chap. 8.

73. Photograph: Erim 1986, 111. Smith (1987, 95-96) describes the rest of the propylon decoration (portrait statues of Julio-Claudians), tentatively suggesting reference to the Forum Julium; he asserts a set of fixed prototypes from Rome for the Aphrodisias ethnoi .

74. I think it probably translates a description with titulus list of the Roman complex into local visual norms, or Forum Augustum figures might deliberately have been depicted in a very Attic mode, to harmonize with the garland bearers and (fig. 68) caryatids there.

75. Wilkinson 1969, 169f.; Drew 1924.

76. Kais. Aug. 1988, 192-94, cat. 77-78 (Ganzert and Kockel); Zanker 1973, figs. 27-28.

77. So Nicolet 1988, s.v. the Velleius passage.

78. Kais. Aug. 1988, 186 and fig. 78 (Ganzert and Kockel). The extant Jupiter shields would do very well as a repeating series: the (doubtless) gilded horns and torques would have made a nice alternating pattern of arcs, directed up and down.

79. In 19 B.C. the Temple of Apollo Sosianus gave a preview of such a symbolic structure, based similarly on iconographic elements significantly located in an architectonic matrix. The interior column capitals have a Delphic tripod around which Egyptian uraeus snakes weave a Hercules knot; the pilaster capitals framing either row took a cuirass framed in date palms. These refer to the conflict of Octavian (Apollo) and Antony (Hercules) and Cleopatra (Egypt), resolved after Actium in a reknotting of civil ties among Romans, framed by reference to the Judaean victories the manubiae from which the triumphator Sosius used to construct the temple in Augustus' honor. Cf. Kais. Aug. 1988, figs. at pp. 140-41, cat. 33, 34a (= La Rocca 1985, figs. 19, 21) and plan fig. 44.

80. On this passage, most recently Gabelmann 1986 passim. He holds that the lines do not reflect contemporary submissio ritual and its representation in the arts, as Augustus avoided receiving proskynesis or being shown receiving it. Vergil's scene may be fantasy rather than a paraphrase of an actual event staged on the Palatine for the triple triumph after Actium, as Gabelmann says; but it cannot be proved, any more than the reverse. In any case his key text is not analogous: the distaste many felt at seeing Antony kneel to Caesar at the Lupercal is not proof that Romans would mind seeing a non-Roman kneel to a consul or general. Gabelmann posits Augustan avoidance of proskynesis images in submissio depictions by using the Lugdunum "son-giving" coinage and Rhoemetalkes' rex datus, but these are not actual submissiones; see chap. 4, Pls. 107f, n. 61.

81. Bibl.: Schneider 1986, 27 n. 79. See p. 251 nn. 63-64 above. Caryatids: Schneider, 27ff.; Schmidt-Colinet 1977, passim, esp. for figures.

82. See Schneider 1986, 115ff., cat. SO 1-22 at p. 200, pl. 25; this series of larger-than-life-size statues in pavonazetto and giallo antico marble, like the bases (Schneider, 117 n. 978), awaits publication by L. Fabbrini, who would not release photographs to Schneider. Hölscher 1984c, 76 n. 19. Zanker (1973, 23 n. 149) and Coarelli (1985, 296) said Fabbrini's study was still in progress. Thus it has been at least eighteen years since these came into the hands of a scholar who has yet to publish them. For symbolism compare Naples, MN 6715; see pp. 253-54 n. 89 below.

83. Schneider 1986, 27, 109f.

84. Waelkens 1985, 650 and n. 73, on the tradition of ethnic caryatids ( comparanda for the Dacians of Trajan's Forum).

85. MNR II.1 (1982), 298, inv. 1174, pl. 168. The crown of the pediment is a fantastic Dionysos with cornucopia and ivy crown; from his lower body curl out acanthus branches terminating in swan heads, on which stand these Orientals, each with a long hasta; below are the Moon and Sun. On the ceiling are Apollo giving audience to Phaethon, and emblematic suns.

86. Pfuhl and Möbius 1977, 1: 85, cat. 137, pl. 31; detail: Schneider 1986, pl. 15.3-4. The deceased stands in an elaborate porch between Corinthian columns before slightly open doors; the "podium" has a bucranium and garlands, a sphinx at either corner; in the pediment, a shield. In the frieze between the telamones, rosettes flank an urn. The patron is portrayed with naked torso and mantle round the hips, a hero type borrowed directly from commemorative statuary. one arm resting on a fine herm, between two slaves

87. Pentelic marble. Early Julio-Claudian, probably Augustan, head later recut (to Caligula?). Borda 1943, 24-25, cat. 12, pls. 25f.; Vermeule 1959, 237; Stemmer (1978, 107-8, cat. VIIIa3) calls it a Trajanic copy of an Augustan prototype.

88. The blurred available plate shows that the nine front pteryges of the statue are decorated with seated, slumping figures, like those on the Primaporta Augustus; like those and the BR Gaul, they are women (long hair in a chignon) in male ethnic dress. Unfortunately, no author describes any attribute of these figures; it may even be that rather than nine different types there are only two, repeated. This statue appears in no discussion of the Primaporta provinces.

89. It seems apt here to describe a unique piece, Naples, MN 6715, from Puteoli (or Avellino), cited by Zanker 1988, fig. 142; bibl.: Schmidt-Colinet 1977, 236, cat. W 54, fig. s.v. The facing for a basis or socle projection (.87m), it may have carried a trophy. At its corners peplophoroi caryatids raise their outer arms to hold the crowning molding (modern heads, raised arms, inscriptions). Between sits in profile a provincia capta, slumped chin in hand, one breast bare; "from" her rises an acanthus trunk with curling shoots. The province, a nonspecific, allusive "classical" type, will once have been identified by a lost attribute and/or inscription. Zanker derives the symbolism from Augustan use of fantastic acanthus plants to symbolize the Golden Age, here used to convey the Roman ideal of peace as guaranteed by conquest. Compare now the acanthus bases of the Augustan Basilica Aemilia Persians; see p. 252 n. 82 above. Like much in Naples, the piece has not yet been carefully studied. It has been thought a work of the second century A.D., but drill work in the plant is the only tangible datum cited; Zanker does not explain his own, early imperial, date. I am unwilling to choose between Hadrianic and Augustan classicisms on the basis of photographs.

90. Decreed in A.D. 4 ( CIL XI. 1421; ILS 140; Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 69), from the Augusteum in Pisa's Forum. It was to be decorated with spoils of the devictarum ant in fidem receptarum ab eo [sc. Augustus ] gentium, a standing statue of Augustus in triumphal dress, and flanking equestrian statues of Gaius and his brother Lucius. It must echo honors decreed by the Senate in Rome for the dead princes; the Tabula Siarensis (González 1984, 58, 11. 9-11) describes the arch decreed by the Senate under Tiberius for the dead Germanicus cum signis devictarum gentium in [ auratis . . .]. Compare the emblematic Eastern/Western captives on the Augustan exedra tomb in the Campus Martius; see p. 61.

91. Cf. Juv. 10.136: "summo tristis captivus in arcu."

92. Kienast 1982, n. 195 at 114-15, with bibl. on other honors to Gaius and Lucius; Pollini 1987, 74 and n. 155, 93 and n. 3. The attic statuary: Kleiner 1985a, 162; Kleiner 1989, 245; Gualandi 1979, 99f.; Rose 1987, cat. Pisa 01. The confused Latin of the inscription is generally translated as referring to statues of Gaius and of Lucius on foot flanking a statue of Gaius on horseback. Knowing no parallel for such reduplication in a single commission of a unified group, I envision a statue of Augustus as triumphator flanked by statues of Gaius and Lucius on horse-back; so also Gualandi, 107-8. Cf. the funerary arch at Saintes (A.D. 15-18): on the attic the "brothers" Germanicus and Drusus II flanked Tiberius ( CIL XIII. 1036); Bedon et al. 1988, 1: 196-97, 2: 222.

93. The many Julio-Claudian victory monuments in Gaul and the Gallo-Roman grave monuments that copy "official" iconography: Bedon et al. 1988, 1: 173ff., s.v. Orange, 184-93; Kleiner 1985a, 162f.; Gros 1976b, 1979. Most think that in the capital relief-covered arches developed only later, but Gallic compositions and iconography are based on relief, etc., from Rome. See an early Julio-Claudian marble panel from Rome (Mus. Greg. vestibule) on which a bound Gaul stands flanked by spears and a boar standard: Simon in Helbig 4 I, cat. 603; Lippold 1936, III.1, 55f., pl. 28, no. 605. The Lugdunum Convenarum statue group is certainly Roman work, and cf. the Arretine ware in figs. 65-67. Cf. Gros 1979, 65, s.v. the Cavaillon arch; Johannowsky and Zanker on Gros in Hellenismus in Mittelitalien 1976, 312-14.

94. See p. 243 n. 6 above.

95. A.D. 10-20, Rolland 1977, pls. 22-23 (east and west faces, male and female captives). But the arch front (fig. 85) has a different message: see pp. 109-10.

96. For Tiberius (Carpentras was originally Forum Neronis); Augustan or Tiberian. Bedon et al. 1998, 1: 178-80, 2: 116. On the short sides, an Asian and a Germanic captive flank a trophy; one Asian wears Iranian dress (Parthia/Armenia); the other is a Greco-Oriental king (diadem, chlamys, long hair, plumpness). See p. 86 below.

97. Bedon et al. 1988, I:175. See pp. 80, 250 n. 61.

98. Triple arch and propylaion; the central arch spandrels have bound male Pisidians, one nude and one draped ("real" captives); compare the similar pair on a governor's chair at Rome; see chap. 2, n. 21. See Vermeule 1968, 78-79; Fittschen 1976, 192-93; D. M. Robinson in AJA 28 (1924): 438f. and fig. 4 (nude Pisidian); Art Bulletin 9 (1926): 5-69.

99. Campana reliefs are mold-made terracotta revetments for house walls. One or more patterns would be bought in bulk and lined up in a repeating series to form a molding. They seem to have been made, and almost exclusively utilized, for domestic architecture in central Italy in the near orbit of Rome. Like the Arretine ware described below they document diffusion of a given iconography and message (see pp. 85, 200). Campana reliefs in general, and their relation to models from the capital: Tortorella 1981, 61-80, esp. 70-73 (themes from imperial ideology), 69 (figs. 9-11, Gallic prisoners-and-trophy type); Gabelmann 1981, 453-56 (triumph types).

100. Ward-Perkins 1981, 23, fig. 1; Zanker 1988, fig. 55, 339 (bibl.); La Rocca 1985, 94-95, figs. 22, 24; Kais. Aug. 1988, cat. 42-44 (Viscogliosi).

101. Kähler 1959, passim; Pollini 1978, chap. 1; Schneider 1986, 91 and passim, for Augustus' Parthian propaganda; Zanker 1988, figs. 148b, 192-96.

102. Fittschen (1976, 205-8) misidentified the provinces to set up a typically Augustan East-West pair but could have saved trouble by remembering that the central emblem is already "Eastern." Simon 1986, 237-38, 253 ( contra Fittschen), color pl. 1, figs. 55-56 (Hispania and Gallia); Zanker noted Gallia but waffled on calling her sister either German or (under Fittschen's influence) Oriental.

The long argument about these figures could largely have been resolved by the following sound methodological rule: like the original patron and viewer, interpret a given iconographic occurrence in the light of past and contemporary imagery ( not, like Alföldi, for example, in the light of images more than a century younger). The Primaporta figures have, respectively, a boar standard and carnyx (Gallic boar trumpet (fig. 64d)), and an eagle-headed sword (fig. 64c). Boar standards and carnyxes up to the Augustan period were associated exclusively with Gaul (cf. the many coins of Caesar and others in the late Republic celebrating Gallic victories; Crawford, RRC at 459 and 297). Among the many relevant monuments are the relief from Rome cited in n. 93 on p. 254, Campana reliefs with Gallic prisoners cited in n. 99 on p. 255, and an early imperial relief from the Moselle region in Gaul, a goddess with patera and boar standard (Metz Mus., from Betting les Avold; La civilisation romaine [1983], 142, cat. 72, fig. at p. 44). If one personification is Gaul, her companion is Spain; and compare Horace's coupling of Spanish and Armenian victories; see p. 256 n. 103 below.

103. Pollini 1978, 37-38. Simon (1986, 55, 253) thinks that Gaul, Spain, and Syria (i.e., the locus of the central transfer) commemorate Augustus' imperium (given in 27 B. C. , renewed in 17 B. C. ), as frontier provinces under his immediate control; and the sphinxes on the shoulder tabs signify Egypt. Meyer (1983, 136) rejected Pollini in favor of what he saw as Fittschen's hermeneuticism; he ignored Pollini except to taunt him for not citing Fittschen: ''Werden die Publikationen des Berliner Instituts in Berkeley nicht gehalten?" (p. 210 n. 64). Highly apposite in tone (cf. Zanker 1988, 189) is Hor. Epist. 1.12.25-29, which in praise of Augustus links the submission of the Spanish Cantabri by Agrippa, of Armenia by Tiberius, and of Phraates personally to Augustus with the gushing of fruit from Italia's cornucopia.

104. Compare an early imperial base from Delminium (Gardun) in Split: right of the central tabula (missing left) is a trophy flanked by Eastern prisoners (Phrygian cap) and Western (Celt in bracae ); Picard 1957, 252 (possibly Augustan), pl. 12. The relation of motif to tabula recalls the frieze of the Augustan Tomb of Caecilia Metella at Rome, which preserves a trophy with Celtic captive left of the inscription (right, lost); Eisner 1986, pl. 9. Picard (220f., pl. 7) discusses the Western and Eastern trophies painted on either side of the gate of the Armamentarium at Pompeii and (345-46) the possibility of a similar pair installed at Pompeii flanking an Isis shrine. On the East-West theme Rose (1990, 461) notes how Vergil ( Aen. 8.652-713) apposes Gauls (defeated in 387) to Orientals (Actium) on Aeneas' shield.

105. Vermeule (1980b, 23, cat. 15C) cites H. W. Catling, Brit. Sch. in Athens Archeological Reports for 1976-77, 48-49, fig. 82, where one can see flanking a trophy a bound male in a Thracian helmet and a seated female personification in a tall headdress on a cuirass. Even the blurred plate bears out Vermeule's observation that this is a very fine cuirass statue, its workmanship on a par with that of the Primaporta Augustus (fig. 64).

106. Müthmann 1936, 347-52, fig. 1, pl. 49 (best ill.); Poulsen 1973, cat. 31, pl. 46; Vermeule 1959, 233 n. 79, 237 (miscalls the figure with a child "female"). Compare the following: a Hadrian from Hierapytna in Crete (Vermeule, pl. 73, fig. 17) has a bound Oriental (Parthian cap) on one flap. Mansuelli (1958, 99) mentions a fragment of a cuirass statue from Pola, on which (right hip) appears a kneeling barbarian in a torque. Conquest iconography on cuirass statues: Vermeule's article explores the Augustan iconography revived in this genre by Trajan and his successors; see p. 258 n. 117.

107. Marble, 40 X 68 cm, broken at right. Hölscher 1984a, 209ff., fig. 12, n. 112 (bibl.). Egypt/Africa has female dress, a long and long-sleeved gown (and mantle?), and an elephant headdress the trunk of which rears up, as on the BR cup. The imperator has cropped hair and wears a Hellenistic-style cuirass (form possible from ca. 70 B. C. - A. D. 70); he steps left in three-quarter view, cradling a lance in his left arm. Behind him at right was another figure, whose right hand is visible gesturing as if in presentation, presumably a divinity "presenting" and sponsoring him. Dates vary. Hölscher points out the connection with Augustus' Actium imagery; I cannot see how in fact the allusions to Egypt/Africa and sea victory could fit anyone else.

108. Pucci 1981, 101-19; Wiseman 1987/1963, 6-14, 373. Official imagery disseminated in "private" media, including Arretine ware: Hölscher 1984a, 211-13, s.v. Actium imagery.

109. See the Introduction, pp. 3, 214 n. 6.

110. Reported by Simon 1957, s.v. the blue-glass cameo fragment (an Oriental in mitra and long-sleeved tunic), fitted as bottom to the Portland vase. This is so far the only fragment of a Republican or early imperial glass vessel that may have politically significant iconography.

111. Standing in a kind of frame, she has thick, loose hair, a long, unbelted dress, a spear in her lowered right hand and the hilt of a sheathed sword in her left (the thick object is not a mantle roll, as she has no mantle). Weapons fill the side extensions of the handle plate to frame the label below. Pais 1979, 125; Smith 1988b, 71 n. 50; AA 1889: 166, drawing on p. 167. Compare the deployment in an isolated rectangle and lack of formal specificity with the province at the base of the early Tiberian "Sheath of Tiberius" (fig. 118).

112. The loose-haired Germania (cf. pp. 71, 144 n. 8) is identified by the tropaeum details. Berlin inv. 4772: other sherds in Arezzo, Tübingen, Munich, Berlin. Dragendorff 1948, 160-61; Oxé 1933, 98, pl. 52, no. 220a-b. and 308 n. 1; other sherds in Heidelberg. Laubscher 1974, 253; Pollini 1978, 284-85; Simon 1957, 36.

113. Dragendorff 1948, no. 506 (= Tübingen 2575), pl. 33; no. 505 is a piece of a trophy from one of these cups. Dragendorff recognized a possible third composition involving Armenia in two Munich fragments with the lower part of an Oriental body (trousered and slippered) and the ends of two spears (?) (i.e., spears attached to a trophy arm). Armenia has a long-sleeved (i.e., Oriental) gown and an elaborate stiff tiara known from coinage to be a specific Armenian crown type; LIMC II (1984), s.v. "Armenia," sec. 9. J. Herrmann in The Gods Delight 1988, 290, fig. 51c, publishes a fragment in a private collection identical to the personification of Tübingen 2575 and attributes it for some reason to an Iliadic scene of the dragging of Hector's body

114. Laubscher 1974, 253 (depictions of the lost monument on Actian commemorative coinage); Zanker 1988, s.v. fig. 32 (the 31 B.C. coin type), If. (Republican nude portraits).

115. Smith 1987, cat. I, pl. 4 (Augustus, eagle, trophy, Nike); cat. 4, pl. 10 (trophy, captive, Germanicus); cat. 5, pl. 12 (trophy, female captive, prince, Genius). Smith (103, 135) rejects direct inspiration from Roman statuary group types for the Augustus group or any other panel because the imperial males are shown heroically nude. He notes similar compositions (n. 45: Vienna gem, nude imperator with scepter, eagle, trophy, prisoner) and allows single statues of Augustus and others heroically nude but rejects the possibility of "narrative" historical compositions with nude imperator because in such compositions the emperor and others are always at least partly clothed or armored. This avoidance of full heroic nudity may perhaps have been true of commemorative relief in Rome (though Smith cites no specific allegorical reliefs), and indeed a collection of reliefs like those at Aphrodisias would be very startling if excavated in Rome. However, there is no reason to assume such avoidance for multifigure narrative or symbolic statue groups any more than for individual statues; indeed triumphal arch statuary is very likely to have deployed freestanding groups of this type. The Aphrodisias panels throughout plainly draw on freestanding models.

116. See p. 243 n. 6.

117. Compare an Augustan cuirass statue from Civitavecchia (Vat. Mus.), the type copied in antiquity (Brit. Mus.): Victory with palm and cornucopia floats between two bound barbarians, one Celtic and one Oriental, each by a trophy, with Terra Mater under all. Heintze in Helbig 4 I, cat. 150; Vermeule and Haufmann 1957, 237 ("Flavian"); Stemmer 1978, 61, cat. V9, pl. 37 (Civitavecchia, "Claudian"). Cf. an Augustan cuirass statue from Susa in Torino cited by Mansuelli 1958, 98-99, fig. 53. The Amphipolis cuirass statue (p. 256 n. 105) may juxtapose a Thracian and Armenia (the tall headdress of the female would be a tiara). East-West imagery: see p. 244 n. 15 above and the Index. Apposition of separate, far-flung frontiers is a staple of Augustan panegyric poetry, echoed in other empires (''Dominion over palm and pine"; "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli").

118. On this question see Hölscher 1984C, 24, 26; compare the Arretine fragment discussed in the Introduction (p. 214 n. 6). Pollini (1978, 284-85) abandons these cups as being in "an entirely private sphere."

119. A good example of dissemination of personification iconography is a relief of abominable local workmanship from Kula (Lydia): Caligula rides down a female personification labeled "Germania"; Gaio Germaniko autokratori Kaisari kathieroutai pas ho domosios topos ( IGGR 4.1379; Smallwood 1967, no. 34). Pais 1979, 123-25; Kais. Aug. 1988, 544, fig. 223.

120. Contra Zanker 1987, 231: "unterworfener und befriedeter Provinzen" (= 1988, 230: "subject and pacified provinces"). Add an early imperial gem from Aquileia depicting a female provincia capta in a landscape; Sena della Chiesa 1966, I: 338, cat. 990 (inv. 50598); vol. 2, pl. 50.990.

121. A.D. 2-4. ILS 147 = Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, 79: Ti. Claudius Ti. f Nero pont. cos. II [imp. I] I trib. potest. V] Nero Claudius Ti. f Drusus Germa[ nicus ] augur c[ os.] imp. [ . . . ]/murum portas turris d. [s. p.] f c. Zanker 1988, fig. 258 (view); Schneider 1986, 133-34; bibl. in n. 972; detail of German, pl. 38.4.

122. So Nicolet (1988) and his reviewer Millar (1988) are bothered by Augustus' propaganda. Millar observes with regard to Parthia: "Augustan ideology in general, however, shifted uneasily between the notion of an already achieved universal domination and that of a major Eastern enemy whom it was Rome's destiny to confront" (138).

123. So an inscription at Messene ( SEG 23, no. 206) congratulates Gaius, who moved against Parthia, for "fighting against the barbarians for the safety of all men." This inscription motivated Millar's comment quoted in the preceding note.

124. Identified and reconstructed by Kähler 1954b, 38-39, fig. 2, and 1954a passim, when the fragments were still in the Terme basements; he has been ignored in most subsequent interpretations of the program of the Ara Pacis as a whole. Exceptions: Simon in Helbig 4 II, 676; Zanker 1988, 129-30. Now catalogued by Angelis Bertolotti 1985, 232-34, Pls. 90-95. She notes that these Amazon-type personifications are serene and expressive of the pax Augusta, thus not the gentes victae of, say, Verg. Aen. 8. 1103f ("incedunt victae longo ordine gentes . . ."), which are so typical of contemporary art. A good account of the fragments: Smith 1988a, 72-73; Smith thinks they represented "new conquests" (doubtful: Gaul itself was not Augustus' conquest!) and states oddly that "this does not constitute a major gentes monument.'' Catalogued by Koeppel 1987, 148-51, figs. 43-54, cat. 13; the other altar frieze, of female virtues or abstractions, 146-48, figs. 38-39, cat. 12.

125. One can identify fragments of an Amazon with a bare breast and an axe (compare the "Sheath of Tiberius" figure; see fig. 118), a Celtic female in a fringed gown and cloak with spear and shield, another figure with such armor by her legs, and a Celtic (?) female with soft boot and trousers, and at least one in female dress with chiton and mantle. See Smith 1988a, 73 n. 58; Koeppel 1987, cat. 13; Kähler 1954a, no. 2, fig. 20; no. 7, fig. 25; no. 11, fig. 29.

126. Koeppel 1987, fig. 13/10.

127. Koeppel 1983a, 120, cat. 26-27, fig. 31; see pp. 225-26 nn. 68-69.

128. Halfmann 1986, 20-21, omitting the monuments. For Zanker 1988, 234, the Gemma Augustea is Augustus' "first step" at a view beyond Rome to the Empire: in his Forum (2 B.C.) the Empire is only an object of "ständiger Eroberung"; on the cameo (ca. A.D. 14) Oikoumene and Italia take an active part in honoring Augustus (fig. 16). But the BR provinces do the same, and the Ara Pacis pacati and provinces bring this imagery back into the teens B.C.

129. Compare the terminology in Vell. Pat. 2.98.2; L. Piso's bloody crushing of the revolt in Thrace means he "pristinum pacis redegit modum [ sc. eos]."

130. The definition of pax in Roman terms has yet to be fully assimilated by modern art historians. In 1983 La Rocca (52) still claimed that the Ara Pacis fragments could not possibly show personified provinces or defeated peoples, because this would contradict the ideology of the altar; compare Torelli's comments (1982) on figures in the enclosure friezes; see chap. 4, n. 26.

131. See p. 70 n. 104 above.

132. On various literary images of Augustus' world rule see p. 260 nn. 135-37 below. Symbolism of world rule in the Forum Augustum complex: Zanker 1973, 12ff. The globe in general and Augustus' exploitation of that symbol: Hölscher 1967, 6ff., 116ff., and 148-63 passim; Buchner 1976, 347f.; Hardie 1986, 367-68. Republican globe symbolism: Crawford, RRC at nos. 393, 397, 403, 409.2, 426.4. The globe atop the obelisk that formed the gnomon of Angustus' Solarium: Buchner in Kais. Aug. 1988, 240-45, at cat. 110.

133. Compare the monument put up at Aphrodisias ca. 30 B.C. by Zoilos, a wealthy freedman of Octavian: greeted by Demos, Zoilos is crowned by Polis; Zoilos is crowned by Time; on individual slabs, Andreia, Aion, Mneme, and Roma seated with a shield. Erim, Aphrodisias (1986), 137-39; Erim and Reynolds in Alfäldi 1979, 35-40; Vermeule 1968, 20-21, 505, no. 4 ("Antonine").

134. On Caesar, Pompey, and the Demetrios painting see Weinstock 1971, 38-39, 41f; Hölscher 1967, 13-17. Compare, for imitation of Hellenistic regal prototypes, the monument at Praeneste that paraphrases the decoration of Alexander's funeral car; Hölscher 1979, 342f., and in Kais. Aug. 1988, 363-64, cat. 198. As regards the transmission by image and by text, consider the case of Protogenes' painting of Ialysos (Rhodes): taken by Demetrios Poliorketes (Plut. Mor. 183), seen by Cicero ( Orat. 2[5]), later installed in Vespasian's Templum Pacis in Rome and so described by Pliny ( HN 35.36). This installation can perhaps be attributed to imitation of the Ara Pacis's linking of personifications with pax . On the Theocritean panegyric for Ptolemy and its exemplary quality, see Ganger 1984, 269f.; Weinstock (1971, 41) omitted this parallel to Caesar's hemitheos inscription.

135. See p. 244 n. 12 above on subjection imagery. Zwierlein-Diehl 1973, vol. 2, s.v. cat. 1089. The corresponding poetic image: Bömer ad Ov. Fast. 4.857.

136. Terra marique: for the literary evidence and its Greek precedents, see Momigliano 1942, 53ff.; Ganger 1984, 269, 277-82. The images: Fittschen 1976, 189f.; Stemmer 1978, 152-62 (world rule at 157-58). For this and other images of Rome's preeminence, Ganger's gold-mine article is to be read with Bowra 1957, 21-28; Rowland 1983, 749ff.

137. The comparanda for Vergil's parcere subiectis ( Aen. 6.853): Fordyce's commentary ad loc. ; Polyb. 18.37.7: polemountas gar dei tous agathous andras bareis einai kai thumikous . . . nikontas ge men metrious kai praeis kai philanthropous; Cic. Off. 1.35: "suscipienda quidem bella sunt ob eam causam ut sine iniuria in pace vivatur, parta autem victoria conservandi ii qui non crudeles sunt in bello, non immanes fuerunt . . . et cum iis quos vi deviceris consulendum est, tum ii qui armis positis ad imperatorum fidem confugient . . . recipiendi," etc.; Aug. RG 26.2: "Alpes a regione ea, quae proxima est Hadriano mari, ad Tuscum pacari feci nulli genti bello per iniuriam inlato"; Livy 30.42.17 (Hasdrubal on Romans): "plus paene parcendo victis quam vincendo imperium auxisse," and 37.45.8f. (ambassadors from Antiochus to Rome, 190 B.C.): "maximo semper animo victis regibus populisque ignovistis; . . . positis iam adversus omnes mortales certaminibus haud secus quam deos consulere et parcere vos generi humano oportet''; Hor. Carm. saec. (on Augustus): "bellante prior iacentem/levis in hostem." Compare the Augustan imagery common on cuirass statues and elsewhere, of Arimaspes (emblematic barbarians) either eaten by griffins ( superbi ) or feeding them ( subiecti ); Stemmer 1978, 152-53.

138. Consider here Caesar's policy of clementia toward foreigners as well as toward his Roman political enemies. On this idea of patronage, one of the main themes of BR I:2, see chap. 4.

139. P. 242 n. 129 above. This is the tone of most numismatic representations of barbarians; cf. Levi 1952. Subjected barbarians on cuirass statues: Stemmer 1978, 156-57.

140. Millar 1988, 137.

4— Drusus, Augustus, and Barbarian Babies

1. Armor types: Waurick 1983, 265ff. At pp. 277, 288, and 292 (the BR cup) Waurick characterizes this armor as a Hellenistic-style Lederpanzer worn by higher-ranking military personnel, though unsure whether this is just artistic convention; I see no reason why it should not reflect actuality. As for the possible Praetorian identification, the same armor is worn by the figure in the central group on the Primaporta Augustus cuirass. One can reasonably suggest that he is one of the emperor's special Praetorian attendants. Héron de Villefosse compares Trajanic coins with a similar figure behind the seated emperor at a military audience ( BMCRE III, pls. 20.10, 19.19; MonPiot 5 [1899]: 139). Primaporta Augustus soldier: Kähler (1959, 17-18, figs. 11, 16) wavers between Tiberius and a personified populus Romanus, two dominant opinions; Simon 1986, 55, s.v. pl. I, "Mars." Although Kähler et al. call the band across his cuirass a general's band ( Feldherrnbinde ), the BR guard, clearly no general, has one too. The dog does mark the figure as symbolic of, for example, the Praetorians (?), as do his shoes: see Goette 1988a, 410 ("Mars"). Not the personified Roman people: there is no parallel, nor can I see why the available personification of the Genius of the Roman People should have been superseded in this one instance. Not an imperial prince: all such portraits known are bareheaded. The profile rendering and plain helmet rule out Mars.

2. An early example of a favorite spatial device of later historical relief, e.g., the Domitianic Cancelleria adventus panel; Strong 1988, fig. 71. Cf. the Julio-Claudian Arcus Novus fragment (fig. 12) and the figures flanking Augustus on the Ara Pacis.

3. A thick shaft terminates in a rounded knob over the figure's left shoulder. Not the right shape or length for a standard or a weapon, perhaps it is a trumpet; the Gallic carnyx has a similar profile, though with an animal-head bell.

4. A similar contrast is evident between the documentary and allegorical relief fragments from the Arcus Novus, from Ravenna, and on the Ara Pacis and Sorrento base (figs. 8, 12, 15, 71f.).

5. Arretine ware matrix: of M. Perennius. Compare the tableau-like quality and comparative lack of meaningful narrative structure in the Aquileia dish (fig. 17). There is a matrix for this cup in the Metropolitan Museum and another in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, as well as an impression in the Louvre. Fragments are common in museum catalogues. The New York matrix illustrated by Zanker (1988, figs. 45a-b) has been shown now by Francesca Porten Palange to be a forged version, but she assures me that the scheme does exist in authentic versions; the examples of this important scheme need a full investigation. I thank Joan Mertens of the Metropolitan Museum for directing me to Dr. Porten Palange's work, which tries systematically to distinguish original Arretine from modern reproductions of what remain, however, authentic schemata. See F. P. Porten Palange, "Fälschungen in der Arretinischen Reliefkeramik," Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, RGZM-Mainz 19 (1989): 91-99.

6. LIMC II (1984), s.v. "Ares/Mars," 383.

7. Drusus: Héron de Villefosse in the original publication ( MonPiot 5 [1899]: 134-40, 154), cited only by a few who are likewise predisposed to see individual portraits (see Kiss 1975, 96). Vermeule (1963, 35) and Pollini (1978, 289-90) speculate on Drusus very briefly; Küthmann (1959, 77) (after Willers) saw Gaius Caesar, taking the scene as the submission of the Sugambri and stretching Dio 55.6.4 to imply that Gaius was present with Tiberius and Augustus at that formal submission in 8 B.C. and presided over it (!) (on modern bias toward Gaius and Lucius see chap. 8); Simon (1986, 245) sees also a Julio-Claudian prince (cf. his bare head) but proposes Germanicus by comparision with the Gemma Augustea (Augustus-Germanicus-Tiberius). Most make no portrait identification nor report earlier attempts (Hölscher, Gabelmann, Kleiner, Ryberg, Zanker).

8. The cuirass type and its significance: Waurick 1983, 298-99.

9. See pp. 165f. Due to his premature death, portraits of Drusus are rarer than those of his brother Tiberius. Many are products of retrospective by his son Claudius, though based on prototypes from his own lifetime; cf. Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 29. Also, identification of Julio-Claudian princes is notoriously difficult, as their features are often very similar. Identification often hinges on close observation of little locks of hair fringing their faces in different, set patterns. This tool cannot be used here, given the scale of the cup. Nevertheless, the features here outlined do correspond to typical portraits of Drusus the Elder.

10. Ex Coll. Albani. For thorough plates (front, back, and both profiles), see Kaisersaal 1986, 60-61 (Tiberius), 62-63 (Drusus). See Fittschen and Zanker 1985, cat. 10, 22; Fittschen 1977, cat. 13, n. 16; Jucker 1977, 217f., fig. 4; Rose 1987, chap. 2, "Drusus the Elder."

11. My work, now quoted by Rose 1990, 460. "Submission": Zanker 1988, 229; Baratte 1986, 72; Simon 1986, 144; Gabelmann 1984, 127-31, 133, cat. 41; Gabelmann 1986, 285f.; Hölscher 1980, 282f.; Pollini 1978, 285-86. The most recent work on imperialism in Vergil adduces the panel as "Augustus receiving the homage of a varied group of conquered barbarians, men, women [ sic ] and children" (Hardie 1986, 368). Baratte says the children throw themselves at Augustus' feet! See pp. 99-100, 164-65 below. On the Torlonia relief, not part of this debate, see chap. 7, pp. 166-67 and p. 289 n. 19 (fig. 89).

12. Ryberg 1967, 61f., fig. 44; Gabelmann 1984, cat. 80; Strong 1988, fig. 132. This relief in its own way "ennobles" the barbarian father and son, by borrowing a composition developed to show the wounded Aeneas; the mourning Ascanius and stoic Aeneas have, however, been crumpled and twisted into anguished figures of defeat. The prototype Aeneas panel or painting must have been in Rome; the extant 4th Style copy from Pompeii would of course not have been available to the second-century artist. Casa di Sirico VII 1.23, Naples, MN 9009; Coll. Napoli (1986), 63 (col.), cat. 209; Alinari P.2.N. 12012.

13. Gabelmann 1984, 182-88; Brilliant 1963, 157, on fig. 3.132; see chaps. 5 and 7. These sarcophagi, like the Antonine panel, try to exemplify the virtus and clementia of the emperor/protagonist toward "zumeist besiegten Feinden" (Gabelmann, 128, on the BR scene).

14. See chap. 7. This naked emphasis on conquest characterizes other Julio-Claudian depictions of barbarians with their women and/or children; cf. the lower exergues of the great cameos (Gemma Augustea, fig. 16; Grande Camée de France). This is also true of cuirass statues, as they are by nature triumphal monuments. See p. 166 for the three Julio-Claudian cuirass statues (Copenhagen, Grosseto, Pal. Colonna) with child captives.

15. In triumphal processions captives may walk calmly, but the context here is not exactly benevolent. Consider the Julio-Claudian architrave (?) fragment from Rome in figure 84 ( ex Coll. Farnese; Naples MN 6722 [7516]; all heads restored; see also pp. 166, 289 n. 23): in a triumphal procession walk two Celtic captives (tunic, sagum, braccae ), each with a hand on the shoulder of a boy (tunic, sagum ) before them in the foreground plane; Koeppel 1983a, cat. II, fig. 12. Children were in fact sometimes led in triumphs—the infant Juba II, for example, in Caesar's North African triumph (App. BCiv . 2. 101).

16. Several claim that something like the BR scene is allegorized on the so-called Hoby cup, where Priam begs Achilles for the dead body of Hector—Vermeule 1968, 136; Gabelmann 1984, 142, cat. 46, pl. 14.1; 143, cat. 47, pl. 14.2, an Arretine ware reproduction.

17. Cf. the similarly deviant lid panel of the Ludovisi sarcophagus (fig. 88), which paraphrases the prototype of the BR scene; see chap. 7.

18. Simon 1967, 21, pls. 3, 17-19, 21; Simon in Helbig 4 II, 686. Simon (1986, 73, fig. 90a) called the south wall child simply a "Barbarenprinz," a hostage (74) to guarantee peace as in RG 32.

19. Contra Pollini (p. 264 n. 27) this is not an exomis ; the sleeve shoulder strap has simply slipped.

20. For this unpublished detail see the negatives DAI neg. 8817-18.

21. Picard 1957, pl. 9. Infants' dress in many cultures mixes aspects of the adult dress of either sex.

22. The relief may quote the Ara Pacis; the baby staggers toward his mother with arms out and head (now mostly gone) thrown back, in a not dissimilar fashion. His mother's hairstyle seems Tiberian or Claudian. Espérandieu 1938 (suppl. XI.2), cat. 7649.

23. A Gallic cult-figure type is a bearded male divinity with a child across his lap; one elaborate example shows a torqued male baby; Espérandieu 1911, cat. 2882, Auxerre (compare, for instance, cat. 3017). In Augustan art: a torque frames some of the Jupiter shield images of the Forum of Augustus, alternating with the better-known Jupiter-Ammon heads (fig. 69); see p. 82. On children: cf. a marble torso of a naked baby in Providence (RISD Mus. inv. 26.158); Ridgway (1972, 93-94) links Simon's Ara Pacis "princes" to this torso, identified as a barbarian child resident in Rome. This piece may exemplify friendly interest in northern children but might also belong to a trophy group of captives.

24. Some Hellenistic females wear a bracelet on the upper arm, but for males it seems a Gallic trait, observable on Gallic honorific statues in the Greco-Roman period. See the fine Augustan warrior (1.9 m; headless) with sagum and shield from Mondragon (Avignon, Mus. Calvet), and two right arm fragments from a multifigure limestone warrior group at Entremont. Espérandieu 1907, cat. 271; 1966, cat. 8662, 8665, pl. 12; Eydoux 1962, fig. 63 (Mondragon).

25. Simon (see p. 263 n. 18) followed by Ridgway 1972; Gercke 1968, 136-40; Rose 1987, chap. 2, "Gaius Caesar." My own arguments were presented at the AIA-APA 1986-87 meetings as "Lost Episodes in Augustan History"; at the same convention Rose accepted my identification of the Gallic child, identifying the other as from Pontos. Simon called both Eastern. Pollini (1986a, 453 n. 3) now calls both Gallic and (1987, 27 n. 49) publishes the agreement with my views that he had previously given in conversation, citing my evidence, though without acknowledgment. Dodging the issue are Kleiner (1985, 110: "a boy") and Syme (1984), who does locate Gaius in the north wall boy with Julia (426-27). See now Rose's definitive 1990 article sorting out the "Princes" Gaius and Lucius from the "Barbarians''; for Koeppel 1987 and 1988, see p. 264 n. 29.

26. Torelli 1982, 60 n. 72: "It is perfect nonsense from the Roman point of view to imagine (as Simon . . . does) that these boys were barbarian (?) princes, 'guests' (?) of Augustus." He was then commended by his reviewer, Smith (1985, 226). Compare La Rocca on the inner altar personifications; see p. 265 n. 29. On Roman definitions of pax see pp. 88-93 above.

27. The view that Gaius (south wall Oriental) and Lucius Caesar (north wall BR child) are here costumed for the Lusus Troiae (cf. Vergil's two-line description of these games as conducted under Aeneas) was especially promulgated by Pollini's 1978 dissertation (retracted; see n. 25), which is often cited; cf., still, Zanker 1988, 217f.; La Rocca 1983, 24, 30-31; Gabelmann 1985, 522; Torelli 1982, 48 n. 72. One need not belabor here the fallacies of this reconstruction (or Pollini's hypothesis [1987, 27 n. 43] that this is Vipsania Agrippina): the BR comparison makes it clear that "Lucius" is a Celt. Gaius' portrait can be identified on the camillus on the north wall; Rose 1990; Pollini 1986a, 453 n. 3, 454 n. 8; Pollini 1987, cat. 4 Type I, 42-43 and 21ff.; Rose 1987, S.V., 280. The Oriental has no bulla (which would not be removed for the dangerous Lusus Troiae!), completely non-Julio-Claudian features, and a mother who wears a diadem.

28. Note that the scanty dress of this high-ranking baby definitively sets the occasion of the procession frieze at a very warm time of year!

29. Cf. Koeppel's catalogue articles on the Ara Pacis in his Bonner Jahrbuch series; Koeppel (1988, 104-5) notes that Rose's "forthcoming" article settles the question; the 1987 catalogue of figures (cat. 5.30, 31, south frieze; cat. 6.35, north frieze) had asserted the foreign status of the children and mother as probable.

30. Well visible in the color photo essay on the Ara Pacis in FMR 10 (January-February 1983): 106. The diadem: Smith 1988a, 34f., 38 (its adoption by the non-Greek rulers of Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Pontus), 43 (its use by queens).

31. See RE 2.70 (1961) 1226-75 (R. Hanslik).

32. Most recently on Agrippa's activities: Halfmann 1986, 26, 163-64, 165-66. He made a stay at the Hellespont in 16 B.C. and sailed through the Bosphoros to Sinope and Amisos in 14 B.C. Rose 1990, 453, 457f.

33. Gem portrait in Beazley 1920, cat. 98 and pl. 6; and see Rose 1990, n. 13,

34. Large torque with finely striated tubes, large round finials. With a Cybele dish, Berlin, Charlottenburg Antikenabt. 3779.3-4. Barr Sharrar 1987, 138H, 14-15, pl. 70; LIMC II (1984), S.V. "Attis," no. 345 (compare no. 368). In the Hellenistic period a torque was also used for the iconography of "Asiatic" religious figures, like the syncretic Dionysus-Amor wearing a braided torque with ram's-head finials on a gold medallion now in the Louvre, ex de Clerq Coll.; Hoffmann and Davidson 1965, 228-31, cat. 93, pl. VI, fig. 93a-b.

35. See Smith 1988a, pl. 77, esp. 6, 11-12, 13-15; 16-18, of Pharnakes II, Asander, and an unidentified Bosphoran king, are closest to our period. For this comparison see also Rose 1990, 459.

36. As pointed out by Rose (1990, 459) with reference to the colossal polychrome tripod bearers catalogued by Schneider 1986, KO 1-3 (Naples, MN 6117, 6115; and Copenhagen 1177) and assigned by him to a monument on the Palatine. In these, however, the tongue flap is long, narrow, and straight, ending in a single point; it seems to be a double flap; the top piece is bent up over the shoe knot and tucked into the top of the shoe; the one underlying it is left dangling; see especially Schneider, pl. II. (He did not discuss shoes.) Other Parthian figures are KO 9 (Vatican Mag. delle Corazze 3330), a rectangular flap; KO 11 (Madrid, Prado 366), flap tapers to a point; SO 24, a long, narrow tongue; SO 53, an oval flap; pl. 37, unnumbered figure, a flared trapezoidal flap.

37. Cf. Hor. Carm. 3.21.20, regum apices burlesqued in this symposiastic mock hymn for Messala Corvinus.

38. They transform the genre of decorative Attis figures. As Rose (1990, 459) noted, Attis' Oriental dress can include shoes with flaps (as it can include the Oriental torque; see n. 34), but again none have the same profile: cf. LIMC III (1986), S.V., nos. 46, 117, 126 (rectangle), 90, 128 (rounded, straight tongue), 262 (narrow, pointed leaf). Only 115 (a small bronze from Thrace, Louvre Br 493) flares and has three points, where scallops are cut into the edge.

39. New York, Met. Mus., Edith Perry Chapman Fund 1949, 49.II.3, .64 m; Baltimore, Walters Art Gall. 54.1330, .62 m. Said to be from Egypt in 1912. See now Herrmann in The Gods Delight 1988, 282, 288-93, cat. 51, and 294-25, cat. 52. I cannot see that these figures wear, as Herrmann asserts, two tunics, a sleeveless one over a long-sleeved one; they seem rather to wear a single, very voluminous garment caught at the shoulder and other points, having but a single skirt. For its volume untucked, see the dexiosis reliefs from Commagene (n. 40). Note the arrangement of secondary folds under the belt, and the central knot of cloth over it: these indicate a date in the 30s, by comparison with Augustus' Apollo Palatinus, which had the same drapery mannerisms; cf. Roccos 1989.

40. Arsameia sculptures: Smith 1988a, 102-4, pls. 58.1-4, 59.3-5; dexiosis relief: pl. 59.1; see "Kommagene," Ant. Welt 6 (1975): fig. 78; cf. pl. 59.2, dexiosis relief from Sofraz Köy (Smith, 104), where the sun-god greeting Antiochos wears this mantle too. Depictions of Armenia and Asia (e.g., Herrmann in The Gods Delight 1988, 290, fig. 51c, Arretine "Asia" by L. Avillius Sura, priv. coll.) tend to have a centrally pinned mantle.

41. See Herrmann in The Gods Delight 1988, 290-91.

42. On philhellenism in the Commagenian dynasty, see Sullivan 1978, 793. On Antiochus IV's later attempts to try to Orientalize his image, see Smith 1988a, 104 (Nimrud Dagh as "a . . . synthetic Greek version of Oriental dynastic art").

43. See Herrmann in The Gods Delight 1988, 293.

44. Proposed by Rose 1990, 458-59.

45. Dio 54.24.4. Roddaz 1984, 463-75; RE 5.2 (1905) 1879-80, s.v. "Dynamis" (Stein), suggests that she may be the daughter of Pharnakes, who was sent in 47 B.C. to Caesar in token of peace (App. BCiv. 2.91)

46. RE, s.v., notes that Polemo lived to 8 B.C. at the latest and in the interval had time to marry Dynamis' sister Pythodoris.

47. The dynasty of Commagene: Sullivan 1975; Sullivan 1978, 781f. I have not seen his Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100-30 BC (Chicago, 1989).

48. Dio 59.4.3 calls him a paidiskos ( paidiskoi et' onti ). A paidiskos could be a young teenager; Polybius (30.26.9) says Ptolemy VII Philometor was a paidiskos when Antiochos IV attacked him in 170 B.C., and he is likely to have been at least twelve if not older, for he was a young child already in 180 B.C., when he acceded with his mother as regent.

49. Sullivan (1975, 35) accepts this date in his authoritative stemma of the house of Commagene.

50. Iotape, wife of Antiochos IV, in chignon and diadem, on the only coins of a queen of Commagene: Tasyürek 1975, 43, no. VII, fig. 47; her head at Nimrud Dagh: Smith 1988a, cat. 100, pl. 59.5.

51. Weinstock 1960, 53: "Why then should one wish to part company with so many distinguished scholars? They have not so far produced one valid proof and, indeed, they did not realize that proof was required. And yet neither is Pax represented on the altar nor her symbol, the caduceus, nor is her name inscribed on it. . . . Pax ought to have been conspicuous"; see PP. 45-46 in Weinstock on the etymology of pax and its two meanings for Romans in the Republic and early Empire.

52. Further on war celebrated here: Gruen 1985, 61-62.

53. Compare the arrangements of the positions of Gaius and Lucius on the altar, put on the north frieze with their mother, Julia, partly to avoid the awkwardness of including them on the south frieze, where both their natural and adoptive fathers are present; Rose 1990, 464-65.

54. Cf. Cic. QFr. 1.134: Rome's imperium guarantees pax sempiterna and otium to its subjects, protecting them from external and civil war, as long as they are loyal and pay taxes. Compare Augustus' work in Gaul, pp. 118, 121 below; Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 42 (p. 76 above): imp. Caesari Augusto pp. Hispania ulterior Baetica quod beneficio eius et perpetua cura prouincia pacata est; also Cic. Prov. cons. 39; later, Tac. Hist. 4.74, Ann. 13.56.1, and the cruel parody by a victim of empire in Agr. 30 ("They make a desolation and call it pax ").

55. These correspondences to Venus/Amor imagery bestow approval upon the visual evocation of "barbarian" fecundity—again, not what one would expect in the representation of a people that has just left off being hostile. On the role of children on the Ara Pacis see now also Rose 1990, 453: "In addition to serving as illustrations of Augustan social policy and legislation, the children were used to signify the establishment and future maintenance of the Pax Augusta "; see also his conclusion.

56. Cf. Zanker 1988, s.v. figs. 19, 245a-b; La Rocca 1974; see chap. 2, P. 51, s.v. the Anaglypha Traiani; Kleiner 1985, 116-17; p. 223 n. 42 and p. 235 n. 63 (Venus and babies, late Republic and early Empire).

57. Drusus' presence in a paludamentum is part of the proof that the procession is not for an augury, nor for an animal sacrifice to Pax or any other deity, but rather for a supplicatio: see chap. 5, pp. 124-25, 136ff, on the limitation of the sacrifice paludatus to certain military oath-taking ceremonies. Drusus' costume also strongly implies what one would anyway expect, that the ceremony shown is taking place outside the pomerium in the Campus Martius near or at the Ara Pacis's site.

58. Simon 1967, pls. 16, 23 (detail of head); clearly the features and hair cap of Gaius. See p. 264 nn. 25, 27 (Pollini, Rose). As son of Augustus and camillus, Gaius is cognate with the camillus Iulus/Ascanius on the end panel serving Aeneas' sacrifice; see Rose 1990.

59. Correspondence noted most recently: Rose 1990, s.v. fig. 8. The correspondence between coins and cup is noted by Banti and Simonetti (after von Bahrfeldt) in CNR (1974), 142, there described as depicting the surrender of the German Sugambri in 8 B.C. Banti and Simonetti cite L. Cesano, who did recognize "son-giving" but identified the barbarian as the Parthian Phraates handing over one of his sons. Müthmann 1936; Gabelmann 1984, cat. 38, 121-22, pl. 12.6; Gabelmann 1986, 282; Trillmich in Kais. Aug. 1988, 523-24, cat. 366; Burns and Overbeck 1987, 48: the coin "undoubtedly" documents the Sugambri's surrender after 8 B.C. Omitted by the two most recent commentators on the cups, Hölscher (1980, 282) and Kleiner (1983, 291).

60. This image qua submission: Gabelmann 1986, 282-83

61. Rex datus types commemorate those occasions when Rome formally confirmed a client-ruler in his position or gave a new king to a foreign people. Cf RIC 419 (61 B.C.), the "crowning" of Ptolemy V of Egypt by M. Aemilius Lepidus in 201; BMCRE I, pl. 28.1 (A.D. 38), Germanicus crowning Artaxias of Armenia. Josephus describes such ceremonies in our period, stressing the gracious reception of the client-ruler: 40 B.C., Herod before the Senate with Antony and Caesar ( BJ 1.284-85, details of presentation to Senate); 30 B.C., Herod before Augustus in Rhodes ( BJ 1.386-93, details of crowning ceremony at 387 and 392-93); 4 B.C., Archelaus before Augustus ( BJ 2.25 and 37, details of supplication and of meeting before Augustus' council). A rex datus ceremony is probably shown on Gaius' cenotaph at Limyra (A.D. 4); see chap. 8, n. 66.

Thracian coinage of Rhoemetalkes III uses the formulae of Roman state iconography to narrate Rhoemetalkes' confirmation by Caligula: Rhoemetalkes stands before a tribunal on which Caligula sits, togate on a sella curulis . By the Caligulan period, then, if not before, this rex datus type (emperor on tribunal, candidate below) was set for the later Empire, when it was the normal formula. Gabelmann 1986, 282 n. 7 (" submissio ").

62. E.g., Burns and Overbeck's apposition of the two types (1987, 42, cat. 100-101). All identify the coin with the submission of German tribes conquered by Tiberius in his campaigns of 8 B.C. against the Germans in general and the Sugambri in particular, whose rulers went to Lugdunum to negotiate with Augustus, were taken hostage, confined in various cities, and killed themselves (Dio 55.6 supplies this detail); cf. RG 32. So CNR IV, no. 129 and pp. 131-32; Mattingly, BMCRE I, cxiii, cxvi; Gross 1985, 43; Hölscher 1980 and Kleiner 1983 (see n. 59); Simon 1986, s.v. fig. 90a. Gabelmann (1984) notes that the child seems freely offered, remarking the barbarian's dignified upright stance; since he mistakes this for a submissio, it becomes for him evidence that representations of "proskynesis" were deliberately avoided in Augustan submission scenes, to prove that the BR submission scene is too flattering to have been formulated in Augustus' lifetime (128-31). Contra see, among others, Price 1987, 85: acts of obeisance and cult on the part of foreigners and provincials are fine.

63. This fills the gap asserted by Blamberg 1976, 4: "The pacification of Spain and Gaul ( RG 26) received no direct numismatic advertisement." Rose (1990, n. 40) notes that the issue is pendant to a type with a young equestrian Gaius, signaling his visit to the Gallic legions at this time; he sees them as complements, showing Gallic children going to Rome and Roman children going to Gaul, this free movement of children being itself a sign of pax .

64. Gros 1981, 160-65, fig. 1; Rolland 1977, pl. 24 (drawing), 50f. The arch: Bedon et al. 1988, 1: 178-80, 2: 116 (bibl.); Rolland 1977.

65. Cf. the mix of Italian tomb and Celtic rite by a Gaul loyal in opposition to Civilis' rebellion; p. 229 n. 10 above. Strabo 3.3.6: good Spaniards, loyal and Romanized, are " togati (or as you might say, peacably inclined), and have been transferred, clad in their toga robe, to their present gentleness of disposition and their Italian mode of life" (Knapp 1977, 160); Dio 46.55: Narbonensis is called "togata" since, being more pacified ( eirenikotera = "pacatiora''), its cities use Roman dress. A proud Rhaetian auxiliary under Augustus or Tiberius had his stele carved to show a statue of himself in military dress on a pedestal, next to it his son wearing a Roman toga; stele of Montanus from Andernach (Bonn); CIL XIII.7684; Espérandieu 1907, cat. 6207.

66. Rolland 1977, pl. 25 (drawing), 47f. Most call her Roma, but her fringed sagum and long gown make her Gallia. Because she sits upright and at ease atop (instead of among) a weapon pile—like Roma—she is not devicta but triumphans, cognate with the good Gaul opposite.

67. Stemmer 1978, 19, cat. I.19, pl. 10.1. Compare the Gemma Augustea exergue; see fig. 16.

68. See chap. 3 on the equation in status made in the province group of BR I:1, between Gaul and Spain on the one hand and "civilized" Africa and Asia Minor on the other.

69. Aymard 1961, 136-42; at p. 141 distinguished from royal offspring "freely" come to Rome.

70. Phraates' sons: Augustus RG 32.2; arena story: Suet. Aug. 43.4; cf. ILS 842 = Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 183, a dedication by two of them. Cleopatra Selene: Dio 51.15; Plut. Ant. 87; Crinagoras (Gow and Page) 25, 28. Herod's sons—Agrippa: Joseph. AJ 18.143; Archelaus and Philippos, paideuomenoi in Rome: Joseph. BJ 1.602. Such children of client-kings, listed also by Kienast 1982, 407-10, are distinguished by Braund (1984, 16) from massed child hostages (p. 270 n. 76 below).

71. Cf. Juvenal's cruel parody in 2.162f., on the corruption by actual Roman upper-class mores of a young Armenian hostage, who had become the lover of an officer: "venerat obses,/hic fiunt homines. . . . mittentur braccae cultelli frena flagellum,/sic praetextatos referunt Artaxata mores" (165-69). Compare Caligula's seduction of hostages described in Suet. Gaius 36; Courtney 1980, 149-50. Courtney takes referunt to mean "bring back," as if the mores were spoils of war; it refers rather to the process of Romanization and transfer of Roman ways back home, expected of such hostages.

72. Episodes from the Social Wars of 90 B.C. demonstrate that the practice of sending highborn children as hostages and tokens of fides had become embedded in Romano-Italian political thinking. Adolescents were exchanged as obsides by the members of the Italian League as part of their initial moves toward covert confederation, namely, the meirakios homeros of App. BCiv. 1.38; Appian also narrates ( BCiv. 1.44) how the rebel general Popaedius pretended to ally himself with the Roman general Caepio by sending him his two infant children (actually slaves) dressed like Roman children of rank in the toga praetexta . To send one's own child (or pretend to!) as a token of pax occurs again in the context of civil war: Antony, in the tense period succeeding Caesar's assassination, sent his little son (who was about two years old) to the Senate as a pacis obses; Cic. Phil. 1.13.31, 2.26; Plut. Ant. 14.1-2, cf. Brut. 19.2; App. BCiv. 2.142. As Pelling (1988, 151) remarks, they "doubtless found their hostage a handful." Antyllus was sent again to Octavian after Actium (Dio 51.8)—not, contra Pelling (297), "implausible."

73. In another episode from Appian's account of the Social Wars Of 90 B.C., BCiv. 1.42, a rebel general makes opportune use of such a hostage to create a " rex " to seduce the loyalty of the prince's countrymen serving his Roman opponent as auxiliaries. Gaius Papius took Oxynta, son of Jugurtha, away from his Roman guard at Venusia, put him in the royal purple, and displayed him to the Numidian horse of Sextus Caesar, most of whom promptly went over "as if to their own king."

74. Livy 2.32.9-12, the apocryphal speech of Menenius Agrippa after the secession of the plebs, made to induce them to return to their place under the guidance of the Senate. Cicero ( Off. 3.5.22) uses the metaphor to demonstrate that natural law demands harmony rather than violence from the members of society toward each other. See ultimately Xen. Mem. 2.3.18: Socrates compares the fighting of friends or brothers to a pair of hands or feet whose twin members fight one another. Note how the Augustan Livy twists this model of concord into a model of hierarchy.

75. Cf. Knapp 1977, 108, 111f., and pt. 3, chap. 1, on Romanization and its mechanisms in Spain before 100 B.C.

76. Sertorius' institution of special schools for the children of native elites is an interesting tool to direct Romanization. Augustus and Tiberius were to maintain this practice in Gaul; see their school for young Gallic noblemen at Augustodunum (Tac. Ann. 3.43) and the ludus litterarius for the education of obsides near the Rhine, whose students were paraded by Gaius (Suet. Calig. 15). (Related, in effect if not purpose, according to Braund 1984, 14, was the characteristic stipulation in late Republican and Augustan treaties that hostages should be replaced with a fresh batch at fixed intervals of a few years' duration, thus exposing as broad a cross section of the elite as possible to Roman mores .) By the Flavian era the institution of such schools was a recognized tool of imperial expansion and the creation of new provinces: Tacitus ( Agr. 21.2) portrays Agricola's creation of such schools in Britain as part of the typical repertoire of devious imperialist tools for subjugation. For Kienast (1982, 403 n. 173a) the school foundations in Gaul and Britain were meant to combat Druidism, as counterweights to Druidic schools.

77. See n. 78. Strabo 4.3.1; Livy Per. 137; Dio 54.32.1; Suet. Claud. 2.1; Juvenal 1.43; Turcan 1982; Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 14 and cat. A64; Zanker 1988, s.v. fig. 236. See Knapp 1977, 160: Republican generals in Spain tended to "lead natives away from their fractionalized political organizations" by encouraging tribal confederations and the coalescing of smaller into larger settlements.

78. Habicht (1972, 65-67) discusses the Western comparanda to the Greek East (55-64); organized imperial cult, like the provincial assemblies of the West, was not based on native tradition nor freely invented, but rather was inspired (66) and even directly overseen by the members of the imperial house (Drusus and the Lyons altar; 2 B.C., L. Domitius Ahenobarbus and the Elbe altar, Dio 55.109.2; A.D. 9, Varus and the Ara Ubiorum for Germany). Thus the imperial house established a dependence on themselves by the native elite, and a patron's responsibility toward such elites on their own part. According to Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 14 n. 32, the imposition of such assemblies was an Augustan innovation, which was carried out in those areas most recently acquired or least integrated into the Empire; compare the regions listed by Augustus as made to take a special oath to him ( RG 25; 32 B.C.: Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, Sardinia); Hänlein-Schäfer's cat. A65, the Ara Ubiorum. Cf. Zanker 1988, chap. 8. Replication the other way, from West to East: Oliver (1958, 475, 494-96) suggested that gerusiae in the East were encouraged as a sort of counterpart to western Augustales, formulated to strengthen the cities' loyalty to the Roman government; cited by Sherk with regard to Agrippa's letter to the Gerousia Argiva (1969, 324, cat. 63).

79. Though Braund (1984, 16) records the demanding of child hostages by Augustus, he sees it as part of the phenomenon of the mass taking of hostages, initiated by Caesar in Gaul (600 obsides: BGall. 2.15; 200: 5.4; 100: 6.4); this was a Roman response to the typical west-European societal structure of tribal elites with their widely available chieftainships, in perceived contrast to Hellenized political structures. Augustus took at one time 700 child hostages in newly conquered Dalmatia (App. Ill. 28). The BR event may indeed have been closer in inspiration to this phenomenon than to other distinct traditions of royal "son-giving"; what matters for us is that Augustan propaganda distinguished the BR event from an event like that in Dalmatia.

80. Its disruptive effects were aggravated by German subversion. Livy Per. 139; Dio 54.32.1; ILS 212.11.36-39. The loyalty of Gallia Comata and the Aedui in the face of this discontent earned them Claudius' commendation, discussed on pp. 120-21 below. The problem with the census was that it was a tool for tax assessment; Tacitus ( Ann. 3.40ff.) depicts resentment over taxes and tax debts as the spark kindling the revolt of Sacrovir in A.D. 21 following Germanicus' death (in which revolt, as Claudius diplomatically omitted to say, many Aedui took part).

81. Maurin 1986, 110f., noting that this is the only provincial assembly to cross province lines; Gallia Comata is the official term for the tres Galliae up to ca. the reign of Vespasian.

82. Census and altar cult were combined again as mechanisms for the pacification of the new province of Germany around A.D. 9; Tac. Ann. 1.39, 57. Cf. the combination of an altar ( bomos ) to Augustus with treaty alliances ( philia ) in regard to the trans-Elbe tribes immediately before 2 B.C.; Dio 55.10a.2. Cf. Vell. Pat. 2.107: a German crosses the Elbe to get a look at Tiberius, whom he knows so far from cult worship. See also pp. 270-71 n. 78.

83. The census: RE 3.2 (1899) 2703-19, at 2708-10, s.v. "Claudius" #139 (E. Groag) (Drusus). Drusus' mandate in Gaul: Rösger and Will 1985, 37f. The council of the primores Galliarum: Bellen 1984, 386-87, noting Drusus' special position as patron to the Gallic primores . The assembly was first organized in 12 (Dio 54.32.1), that is, for the initial consecration of the altar complex at Lugdunum prior to construction. It will have met again in 10 B.C. for the dedication of the completed complex, the award of the first priesthoods, etc. Bellen primarily examines the obsequies for Drusus voted and enacted by this assembly (in conjunction with the Rhine legions), on which see further Frenz 1985a, 395-97; Frenz satisfactorily identifies Drusus' cenotaph with the so-called Elchelstein at Mainz.

84. For details of his encounters with individual German peoples see Will 1987; he notes (46) how contemporary opinion at Rome treated Drusus' victories in battle as meaning successful, permanent incorporation of the territory traversed; cf. Livy Per. 140.

85. Just so Tiberius worked to consolidate Gallic affairs before moving against Germany itself when he later was sent to repair the effects of Varus' fall; cf. Vell. Pat. 2.120.1: "Gallias confirmat."

86. These connections are stated generally by Halfmann (1986, 27) in relation to the role of Augustus' "Stellvertreter" Drusus, Tiberius, and Germanicus. He notes Drusus' and Germanicus' census; Claudius' speech on the Aedui; a circuit by Tiberius of Gaul in A.D. 4 when he resumed his Rhine command; an ancient formulation of the role played by these imperatores, i.e., the commendation of Germanicus by the Senate at his death as "ordinato statu Galliarum" (Tab. Siar.; González 1984, 59, l. 15).

87. Dio 54.36.2 says that when the Dalmatians and Dacians attacked in 10 B.C., Tiberius was sent against them from Gaul, where he had gone with Augustus; 54.36.4 has Augustus start for Rome with Drusus and (cf. Suet. Tib. 7.3) Tiberius, the emperor having been in Lugdunum most of the time watching the Germans from near at hand. POxy. 3020 (Sherk 1969, no. 100) refers to an embassy from Alexandria that had to go to Gaul in 10 to present its case to Augustus. CIL VI.457 (Chisholm E.16) and ILS 92 (Chisholm J.1e) are altar dedications made by the emperor back in Rome from gifts given to him during his absence in 10.

See now Halfmann 1986, 158-62, for Augustus' visit in the winter 11 B.C. through 10 B.C. One hopes that historical literature in English, especially basic texts, will soon begin to supply more accurate chronologies and will cease to maintain the indifference of so many ancient sources to Augustus' physical and administrative interventions in the Western provinces. As an instructor of undergraduates, I note with disfavor that the otherwise laudable 1987 Penguin translation of Dio's Augustan book supplies in the category "The West" in its "Chronological Table" on pp. 304-5 no mention of any of Augustus' journeys nor of Drusus' census nor of the institution of the Lugdunum altar cult; the index on p. 335 notes only the first visit to Gaul, in 16-13 B.C.

88. Halfmann (1986, 159, 162) posits a last visit of Augustus to Gaul in 8 B.C.: Dio 55.6.1, when Tiberius crossed the Rhine Augustus stayed in the oikeia, the "hinterland"; Augustus returned to Rome in 7 B.C. an event documented by ludi votivi given for his return ( CIL VI.4, fasc. 3, no. 36789 and VI.1, no. 385; cf. Dio 55.8.3). However, oikeia can indicate North Italy as well as Gaul.

89. These will be identical with the families, and even with particular individuals, supplying the summus magistratus who led Gallic civitates through the early Tiberian period, when a less personal system of magisterial rule by councils of duoviri was instituted; see Will 1987, 12.

90. Dio 46.55: ekaleito . . . haute de de Komata hoti hoi Galatai hoi tautei es komen to pleiston tas trichas anientes episemoi kata touto para tous allous esan .

91. Neither physiognomy nor dress could be those of Orientals, contra Simon 1986, 143.

92. Brussels, Mus. Roy. inv. A 1145. Hölscher 1984b, figs. 1-4, 284 n. 44, attributing the head to a victory monument of Marius. An actual North European with such hair is the "Osterby Man" from a Danish bog: Glob 1969, the fifth plate after p. 112. Cf. a bronze of the second century A.D. in Romans and Barbarians 1972, cat. 4. On a stele from Worms, this chignon seems to have fallen down on a naked German being speared by an auxiliary—a long tail of hair falls down his back; Espérandieu 1922, 92-93, no. 6014; CIL XIII.6233.

93. RRC 448/2e, pl. 53.8; rev., naked Gaul fighting from a chariot. The companion issue 448/3, pl. 53.9, has a female bust with a long, disheveled hair (rev., Artemis with spear and stag). The shield behind the male bust and the carnyx (Gallic war trumpet) behind the female bust emphasize that these are trophy images. Compare the reduced but still vividly observed head of the captive by a trophy on a companion issue, RRC 452/4 (48/47 B.C.).

94. Trans. Chisholm and Ferguson 1981, K.23a; Braund 1985, no. 570.

95. Cf. Prop. 6, with reference to the Sugambri in l.77, celebrating Agrippa's holding ludi quinquinnales while Augustus was away in 16, as described in Dio 54.19.1, 8; on Lollius' campaigns, see RE 2, 4.1 (1931) 660, s.v. "Sugambri" (Schönfeld).

96. ILS 916 = Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 198 (Forum Clodii) on Cn. Pullius Pollio, who had prior/further experience of the West as proconsul of Gallia Narbonensis. Maurin 1986, 110. Sources for Augustus' activities of 16-13 B.C.: Halfmann 1986, 27, 158-62. He left Rome after 29 June, when he dedicated the Temple of Quirinus (Dio 54.19.4); CIL VI.385 documents the ludi votivi pro reditu of 13 B.C.

97. Tiberius' own and inherited popularity in Gallia Narbonensis: Bedon et al. 1988, 1: 180.

98. On some principes of Gallia Comata, see Syme 1977/1987, 992-94. He notes the many "xx Claudii" who will have received citizenship from Tiberius and Drusus, and the Aeduan Julius Calenus (grandson of C. Julius Eporedorix), one of only two Gauls known to have been tribunes in a Roman legion. ILS 7008 (Aventicum) records a public funeral for the Aeduan C. Valerius C.f. Fabius Camillus, not, contra Syme, for the Julia C. Iuli Camilli f. Festilla (probably his sister) who funded it.

99. Habicht 1972, 68: his citizenship will have been granted by Caesar or Augustus to bind the loyalty of this near descendant of one of Caesar's worst enemies; similarly, at the cult of A.D. 9 at Ara Ubiorum one of the first priests is Segestes' son C. Iulius Segimundus (Tac. Ann. 1.57; cf. Strabo 7.291f.). Another early Aeduan priest: ILS 7014, . . . / Aed[uo]/sacerdos; Maurin 1986, 115. A later Augustan/Tiberian priest (who dedicated the amphitheater at Lugdunum), C. Julius Rufus, carefully boasts three generations of Gallic ancestry on an arch to Tiberius at Saintes; CIL XIII. 1036; Bedon et al. 1988, 1: 197; his fellow tribesmen of the Santoni, C. Julius Victor, proclaims himself Conconnetodubni f: CIL XIII.1042. Cf. Syme 1977/1987, 992-93, on these noble pedigrees.

100. This does not vitiate my comments on historicity. I firmly maintain the accepted view, that the procession friezes of the Ara Pacis depict the celebration of a particular ceremony (its nature is a different problem) on a particular occasion. It is evident that the friezes are also meant, like the Parthenon frieze, to function as a timeless commemoration of the strength of the Augustan settlement based on the primacy of Augustus' domus . To this end persons are included in the procession whose simultaneous presences are difficult to account for, such as Agrippa and his "hostage," who should have returned only in 12 B.C., Drusus, etc. Symbolic details do seem to have been added or reworked in the course of time, between 13 and 9 B.C.; the fact that the veiled Agrippa, alone on the frieze, does not wear a laurel wreath must somehow refer to his death in 12. (This feature would have been highlighted by the original painting and gilding of the altar, and by Agrippa's placement between two veiled figures who did have wreaths, Augustus and Livia.)

101. On the manipulation of tribal structures as structures for the enrollment of auxiliaries, and the role of militarization in assimilation, see Will on the German tribes in the period from Drusus' campaigns onward (1987, 17f.). Will notes (7) how the Batavii, for example, served in groups led by the nobilissimi popularium (Tac. Hist. 4.12.3); he also comments (46) on how a tribe would be assimilated as a gens foederata partly by citizenship grants to its leaders (here, Segestes of the Cherusci, grant from Augustus; Tac. Ann. 1.58.1).

102. Cf. Kienast 1982, 119-20, on Augustus' propaganda image as pater orbis .

5— The Sacrifice of Tiberius

1. Kleiner 1983, 298.

2. Kleiner (1983, 299) adduces Aeneas' unarmed sacrifice on the Ara Pacis panel. But that panel does not narrate Aeneas' joint sacrifice with Latinus; it shows Aeneas' sacrifice of the Lavinian sow to the Dii Penates as his first act in the founding of Rome, a different episode described by Vergil ( Aen. 8.32ff. at 105-10; see 5.99-115 and 8.702-8, for example, for other sacrifices by Aeneas not in armor).

3. RRC 28.1, 225-212 B.C.; 29.1, 225-214 B.C.; 234, den., 137 B.C.; pp. 43-44, 715 and n. 5. The first (225-212 B.C.) and third (137 B.C.), Strong 1988, fig. 3.J and P.

4. Crawford, RRC at 715; bibl. in Zwierlein-Diehl 1973 to no. 1098, pl. 84, ca. 51-50 B.C.; Vollenweider 1984, pl. 40.1 = 1970, cat. 90.

5. BMCRR III, pl. 99.9 (eight warriors), pl. 99.3 (four), pl. 99.5-6 (the original Roman group of two). Close-ups of the eight-warrior type: Kent et al. 1973, cat. 45, pl. 13 ("Schwurszene"); Hannestad 1986, 31, fig. 27. Crawford ( RRC ) ignores the Social War coinage.

6. For the form of this altar and the manner in which it projects from the relief ground, compare the Augustan Merida relief; Trillmich 1986, pl. 44, 289 n. 21, citing (an Aurelian panel and) the foculus on an incense box ( acerra ) in the Ara Pacis friezes (Simon 1967, fig. 16; La Rocca 1983, fig. on p. 37); cf. the ivory acerra plaque from the Via Marsala in Kais. Aug. 1988, 372-73, cat. 205.

7. CAESAR DIVI F. series: BMCRE I, clxvii, 160, nos. 93f., pls. 30.9f.; cf. Kais. Aug. 1988, figs. 211 and 508f., cat. 326f. at cat. 330 (Trillmich).

8. Zanker 1988, s.v. fig. 42.

9. Hanfmann in Vermeule and Hanfmann 1957, pl. 75, fig. 29.1, n. 47.

10. Kleiner 1983, 296.

11. See Kais. Aug. 1988, 194-95, 200, fig. 88.a(-b).

12. On a relief of the first century B.C. from Capua (amphitheater), an armed honorific statue (over-life-size?) in a sacred portico complex leans on a spear with upright blade; Zanker 1988, fig. 19.

13. Later, see noted paludatus equestrian figures like the Equeus Domitiani in the Forum Romanum or the Marcus Aurelius from the Capitoline, and also the emperors on the Anaglypha Traiani and the Arch of Constantine (figs. 36, 40).

14. Forum Julium, statue of Caesar modified from a Lysippan statue of Alexander (Stat. Silv. 1.1.84-87); see p. 275 n. 15 on battle groups. Pliny HN 34.18, under Republican portrait types, cites as an example of cuirass statues a figure of Caesar in his Forum (the ex-Alexander?); he notes that people liked to put up nude portraits armed with a spear, saying nothing about a ban in the city or within the pomerium . Spear-bearing statues of Augustus at Rome: Dio 53.27.3 and 54.1.1. I cannot explore here the numismatic record of sculptural monuments; it indicates that arches in the capital might easily bear (as, for instance, Drusus' posthumous arch de Germanis, depicted often in Claudius' coinage) depictions of a mounted general charging with a spear, or that nude figures with lances (like the so-called Sulla) could stand in the capital, as in coinage of Octavian, for example, showing such a portrait statue upon a columna rostrata (see Zanker 1988, 25). An Aemilius of the first century A.D. had an equestrian statue with spear in the vestibule of his house in Rome; see p. 218 n. 33.

15. "Offensive" portraits at Rome of Republican notables leading cavalry charges, cuirassed and wielding lances: Portico of Metellus—Metellus' group, originally by Lysippos of Alexander and Companions at the Granikos, taken in 148 B.C. from the Sanctuary of Zeus at Dion (Vell. Pat. 1.11.3-4); Capitoline—the imitation of this group by Metellus Scipio cos. 52, with portrait heads of his ancestors Scipio Aemilianus and Scipio Nasica Serapio (Cic. Att. 6.1.17, De or. 2.261). The various turmae deriving from the Granikos group, including a version in Greek marble placed by Licinius Murena in the Sanctuary of Juno Sospita at Lanuvium: Moreno 1981, 185-86, 202-3, 282-84; Coarelli 1981, 258-60 and n. 141 on the Forum Julium Caesar statue(s).

16. Small-scale architectural representations: see esp. Fuchs 1969; Brown 1940; Jessop-Price and Trell 1977; Hommel 1954. Maier (1985) is interested in modes of abbreviation and signification and their relation to "reality," rather than in the deployment of architectural elements in narrative relief compositions; his is a good (though not complete) complement to Fuchs's work on numismatics. The BR Capitolium: Maier, cat. R 1, comparing in detail the real Capitolium; Hommel, 102 n. 435; Ryberg 1955, 201 n. 26, comparing the Capitolium image on a panel relief of Marcus Aurelius, which carefully shows the temple's triple doors as an identifying feature but wrongly makes it tetrastyle.

17. Fuchs 1969, 65, pl. 2.16.18.

18. Fuchs 1969, 69, pl. 4.51.4; Zanker 1988, fig. 17a.

19. Fuchs 1969, 22, 58-59, pl. 3.29.30. Cf. his remarks at p. 59: We have "hier nicht die realistische Wiedergabe eines visuellen Eindrucks . . . sondern nur das Ergebnis eines erheblichen Abstraktionsprozeß."

20. BMCRE I, 153, nos. 41-43; 156, no. +; 157, no. 69, pls. 28.6-9, 29.14; Ward Perkins 1981, fig. 17. The significance of this coin is noted by Strong 1988, 110; Hölscher 1988, n. 75.

21. Dated Claudian by Koeppel 1983a, cat. 12, p. 98f. and figs. 13-14 (description and bibliography), pp. 71f. (dating by style). See below pp. 157-58; as it is best known for its depiction of the Temple of Mars Ultor, I call it the Temple of Mars Ultor relief. This is not the place to decipher the Valle Medici reliefs, a collection of relief fragments that I do not believe to be from one monument (see Koeppel, cat. 12-23) or one time period. Koeppel has done an inestimable service in his series of articles cataloguing unattached Roman historical reliefs in the Bonner Jahrbuch (1983: Julio-Claudian; 1984: Flavian; 1985: Trajanic). Yet somehow almost all of the Julio-Claudian reliefs end up being dated to the Claudian period (from which we have no monumental historical relief of fixed date from Rome), although wide divergences in drapery style, compositional grouping, etc., are evident among the pieces so grouped. One would have liked to see greater use of the admittedly limited but invaluable coin issues that show similar scenes, as they establish at least a terminus ante quem .

22. Simon 1967, pl. at pp. 24-25; Strong 1988, fig. 33; not discussed in Maier's survey of architectural representations. Simon (1986, 204-5) connects the panel (fig. 99) to landscape painting and relief but ignores the temple depiction. Froning (1981) cites this panel only at p. 116, as an idealized rendering of a historical event; she does not discuss architectural elements.

23. Simon 1986, bibl. s.v. fig. 163; Augustan or Tiberian: Froning 1981, 1 nn. 2-3; late Augustan: Jucker 1980, 459. "Early imperial": Zanker 1988, s.v. fig. 138; he sees (somewhat tenuously) specific reference to political ideology; comparing the sheep barn (fig. 138c), for example, to one of the new Augustan temples in Rome.

24. Certainly these reliefs are executed by one of the best workshops associated with the court. Another resemblance to the Aeneas panel is the way a garland is looped from the pinax stand in the lioness relief; compare the way a garland is displayed on Aeneas' altar.

25. Zanker 1988, fig. 226; Simon 1986, fig. 263; Froning 1981, 72 n. 28 (it exemplifies spatiality, a criterion of Augustan decorative relief); Jucker 1980, 459, fig. 19.

26. Jucker 1980; figs. 1, 2 (detail); p. 461, dated 50-25 B.C. The Tuscan temple is depicted as if standing upon the city wall running across the panel; note the patterning of the walls with drafted masonry, as on other of my examples, which does not appear on any of the other buildings crowding the background. It is evidently the temple of the deity to whom the sacrifice is performed, set as it is right over the altar.

Jucker (449) is interested in the "incorrect" perspective of her temple—at a three-quarter angle with front and side run together—comparing an example at fourth-century Gjölbaschi Trysa (fig. 12), a Roman coin of the late second century B.C., Nero's Januum issue and a Caracallan type (fig. 13), the Grimani relief, and the Pompeii mask relief. However, she is not interested in the deployment of such temples in a broader composition.

27. Naples, MN 6633; Cain 1988, 141, fig. 35, cat. 45; Kraus and Matt 1975, 45, fig./cat. 42.

28. Jucker 1980, 459. My scheme differs from hers, which sees the Munich relief as probably contemporary with the Praeneste panel. The Pompeii panel (n. 27) incorporates a temple into a small, square panel focused on a set of New Comedy masks propped in the foreground, a common decorative assemblage (e.g., on vessels). The temple, presumably of Dionysos, is at upper left without visible support, relatively large in proportion to the panel itself; its proportions and rendering suggest the Praeneste "temple," which also borrows the framing temple motif for a nonnarrative decorative genre scene.

29. Near Dijon. Baltimore, Walters Art Gall. 57.708, 66 cm. On each side is a banqueting couple (one, Dionysos and Ariadne), satyr, temple on a crag. Greek and Roman Metalware 1976, cat. 11.

30. Naples, MN 145505 (signed Apelles ), Le collezioni del Museo Nazionale di Napoli 1986, silver no. 2. A sacrifice scene, at right a little temple on a crag behind a gnarled tree (cf. the Munich relief, fig. 100).

31. Genre scenes of Dionysiac sacrifice, or of Amorini sacrificing, are common in the gem repertoire; some show the act of worship directed toward a small temple at the edge of the scene on a rocky crag. A cult figure, Priapus or Dionysos, is usually indicated standing in the shrine's door. I would date all these signets to the late Republic and early Empire. A few have been dated later; even if this is not mistaken, the persistence of the motif can be put down to the extreme traditionalism observable in run-of-the-mill gem and glass intaglio production. The following list can no doubt be amplified; note that many printed cross-references do not specify whether a temple occurs or not, and equate "prospects" with full-size images.

Woman/maenad on rock, arm up in invocation: Kat. Wien II, cat. 628 (Zwierlein-Diehl, with cross-references, 50-25 B.C.). Maenad invoking god against satyr: Kat. Wien II, cat. 1063 (50-25 B.C.). Amor sacrificing: Sena della Chiesa 1966, 317, 339; Kat. Wien II, cat. 1339 (Zwierlein-Diehl, with cross-references, early second century A.D.). Woman sacrificing: Sena della Chiesa 1966, 819 (early first century A.D.), 823; Kat. Wien II, 1099 (Zwierlein-Diehl, with cross-references, first century A.D.); Scherf et al. 1970, cat. 143 (Scherf, second-third century A.D.); Brandt 1972, cat. 2740 (Gercke, third century A.D.). Two women sacrificing: Henig 1974, 494. Worshipper with staff. Sena della Chiesa 1966, cat. 253 (early first century A.D., with parallel). Old man offers with lifted hand, boy attendant carries basket: Kat. Wien I, cat. 500 (Zwierlein-Diehl, first century A.D.). Youth offers at baldachino (Tuscan cols.) on rocky outcrop: Henig 1974, cat. 493, pl. xv, App., and cat. 60, pl. xxvi ("late 2nd or e. 3rd c. AD"). Seated Silen plays lyre: Kat. Wien I, cat. 469 (Zwierlein-Diehl, with cross-references, first century A.D.); Scherf et al. 1970, cat. 101, 102 (Scherf, with cross-references, first century A.D.). Satyr plays with baby: Brandt 1972, cat. 2301 (Brandt, with cross-references, first century B.C./A.D.). Hunter rests with dog: Sena della Chiesa 1966, 844, 845 (cites parallel; end of first century B.C.).

32. Zwierlein-Diehl, Kat. Wien I, cat. 292.

33. Zwierlein-Diehl, Kat. Wien I, cat. 489, with literature.

34. Ghedini (1987) explores the identity of this temple, but not its rendering.

35. Baratte et al. 1989, 84-85, cat. 18; Paris B.N. Cab. Méd. Dedicated to Mercury (Augustus) by Q. Domitius Tutus, inscr. Q Domitius Tutus v (otum) s (olvit) l (ibens) m (erito). Corinth is localized by the spring of Peirene, a nymph seated on Pegasus under the Acrocorinth.

36. This beaker was dedicated by Q. Domitius Tutus, with several other pieces. The height of its relief has led people to call it Claudian, though it may very well be still Augustan. Note the distinctly "Octavianic" herm bust, appropriate for an owner with a special devotion to Mercurius Augustus, as the god is named in the expanded inscription on one of the pair of oinochoai (Baratte et al. 1989, cat. 16) dedicated with the beaker ( Mercurio Augusto Q Domitius Tutus ex voto ). Both these vases have scenes from the Iliad on the body; the Achilles ewer has under the handle a little temple on a stepped platform, garlanded just like the BR temple. The motif, though used in isolation, is clearly from the same "sketchbook'' as the Corinth beaker temple made for the same man, which is not garlanded.

37. An obscene parody is a cast handle group (5.58 cm), Swiss priv. coll.: a grotesque dwarf maneuvers his hoselike phallus toward a little temple upon an outcrop. Dörig 1975, cat. 308 (Ortiz).

38. Anderson 1987-88, figs. 54, 55.

39. One panel from the superb second-story salon is a sacrifice scene where several women move quietly or stand before a temple elevated at left. Kais. Aug. 1988, 287-90, cat. 135 at p. 288 (Carettoni).

40. Caesarian. See chap. 1, n. 42. The goddess is flanked by temples set upon crags; these buildings replace the flanking human figures seated on rocks so often placed in Classical and classicizing paintings.

41. An ekphrasis for his friend Piso: three women with offerings, a temple of Aphrodite and its image (cf. the Ara Pacis Penates!). Gow and Page, The Greek Anthology, 2: 27-28 (Antipater no. ix) = Anth.Pal. 6.208.

42. Jucker (1980, 461) points out, for instance, that the artist of her Bern panel obviously did all his work in Italy.

43. With Jucker I would argue for the integrity of the relief tradition, in its depictions of nature (vegetation and terrain) and of architecture, and especially in its integration of the two; when obvious similarities in basic taste (e.g., for the bucolic) are set aside, it is clear that rather different stylistic traditions are followed by painting and stucco workshops. Ridgway's explicit equation (1983) of the deployment of landscape elements in relief with a "painterly" approach assumes its thesis as a premise (and never addresses evidence for painting itself).

44. Simon (1986, 204-5), for instance, is the latest to connect to landscape painting the Aeneas and Mars panels, not least because of the way that they are centered upon trees and incorporate animals. Certainly, a taste for the bucolic and its fusion with elements of myth narrative or religion can also be observed in Roman painting. However, if one is looking for structural, rather than merely iconographic, sources and parallels, it becomes obvious that the basic compositional structure of these reliefs has its origins in the Hellenistic relief tradition, in a genre of late Hellenistic votive reliefs where a tree rises behind a central altar, animals are led in from the left, and a figure (in these, the divinity) stands right gesturing toward the altar; cf Copenhagen, NM 4763, and Vienna 1439 from Kyzikos; Athens, NM 1486, from Mysia; and another relief from Mysia (L. Robert, BCH 107 [1983]: 545ff, fig. 1).

45. One long side shows Augustus in the Roman Forum; one short side shows Romulus, (Venus), Mars, and Amor before Augustus' house on the Palatine. Jucker (1980, fig. 18) discusses its relation to genre scenes of the type of her Bern panel. Hölscher in Kais. Aug. 1988, 375-78, s.v. cat. 208 a-d (figs., p. 376); Zanker 1988, 210; Simon 1986, 24-25, fig. 17; LIMC II (1984), s.v. "Apollon," no. 147b (Palagia), s.v. "Apollon/Apollo," no. 404 (Simon); Roccos 1989, 573-76.

46. Similarly in Cain's genre of "mask reliefs" the rare temple motif is shifted from framing element (see p. 277 n. 28) to a motif in the middle of the panel, with masks around it, e.g. 1988, cat. 87, fig. 43 (Rome, ex Coll. Sarto, lost), cat. 94 (Vatican, Mag. 438, from Rome?).

47. These fragments belong to a series from the Forum still being documented and excavated. Trillmich (1986, 279-304, fig. 2) assembles the narrative fragments into a long panel (ca. 4 X 7 Roman feet): at either end a city gate, at left a sacrifice group centered on a togate celebrant wearing a heavy crown ( corona civica? ); farthest right, a victimarius looks away from the sacrifice; the portal fragment at far right has a lictor's head and (remains of) two sets of fasces with axes. A large object in high relief has been broken off crossing the face of the lictor: Trillmich (289, 300) identifies it as an axe head, like that carried by a popa in procession on the Ravenna reliefs, except that this axe is being swung. If so, the lacuna can have been filled only by some variant of the BR victim group, adjoining as on the Villa Medici (fig. 9) relief a building, framed as there and as on the Beneventum and Leptis reliefs by members of the gathering looking down on the victim at either side. The group will have been awkwardly arranged, with the victim either squashed in very abbreviated form or else put on the wrong side of the axe swinger; parallel would be the jammed, awkwardly arranged figures in the conventional sacrifice group at left (Trillmich, 289-92, 300).

48. Trillmich (1986, 301) calls the celebrant Agrippa. Within the conventions of this second-rate atelier he could just as well be an emperor, such as Augustus. The combination of togate emperor at sacrifice with the BR group would echo Julio-Claudian compositions in Rome similar to the Beneventum passage frieze (fig. 92; pp. 161f.). This panel also could celebrate an occasion connected with imperial building projects, military achievement, and vows. Both Augustus and Agrippa were active in Spain and will have concerned themselves with Augustus' new colony there, overseeing its construction while conducting their Spanish campaigns (cf. Trillmich, 301-3). Compare the garlanded figure friezes on the Throne of Claudius (fig. 63) or at St. Remy.

49. Brendel 1930, 46f., pl. 67.

50. Brendel 1930, cat. 2, pl. 70; Ryberg 1955, pl. 21 bis, fig. 36d, pl. 21, fig. 36b; Koeppel 1983a, cat. 12.

51. Inv. 3403. Reused. Very broken; axe swinger visible and scar of missing victim, at left a personification with cornucopia; Ronke 1987, cat. 101, fig. 126, ca. A.D. 25-50.

52. Brendel 1930, cat. 4, pl. 72; Ryberg 1955, pl. 55, fig. 83. No work on the arch (chap. 7, n. 2) makes use of Brendel's work.

53. Brendel 1930, cat. 5, pl. 73; Ryberg 1955, pl. 46, fig. 71; Boatwright (1987) means to illustrate this at pp. 234-35, ill. 57, but prints the Arcus Novus fragments (last sentence on p. 234) instead.

54. Brendel 1930, cat. 7, pl. 76; Ryberg 1955, pl. 56, fig. 87; Tortorella 1985, 41-43, no. II, fig. 14. Probably a nuncupatio; cf. the paludatus lictor with axes in his fasces .

55. Ryberg 1955, 197, after Giglioli.

56. Brendel 1930, cat. 10, pl. 79; Ryberg 1955, pl. 57, fig. 89a. Sacrifice at far right, altar group at far left; the celebrant is the empress (!) Julia Domna. At center is Septimius Severus, portrayed as divine; Roma at his side indicates the locus of the ceremony. This practice of having the empress sacrifice with/for her husband was under way by the Hadrianic period; cf. a vota publica issue of Hadrian. Ryberg (fig. 107a) and Mattingly ( BMCRE III, pls. 62.4, 89.10) identified its celebrant as Hadrian, but her breasts are clear.

57. Brendel 1930, cat. 9, pl. 78; Strong 1988, fig. 155.

58. Ex Coll. della Valle. Cagiano de Azevedo 1951, 112, no. 272, pl. IL 105; added by Ronke 1987, 742.

59. Anzio, Forestiera; DAI neg. 70.3738. Ronke 1987, cat. 135, fig. 147.

60. My addition to the list. Ryberg 1955, pl. 63, fig. 105d = BMCRE II, pl. 79.4, p. 393, no. 438, falsely described as identical to no. 411 (p. 395: attendants with a sheep and goat).

61. Brendel 1930, cat. 15; Ryberg 1955, 179-80, 186-87, pl. 64, figs. 107-8, pl. 66, fig. 114; Hölscher 1980, 299, fig. 33.

62. Brendel 1930, cat. 3, pl. 71; Fuchs et al. 1989, 56, 89-91, cat. 13, figs. 86-89. She dates the altar specifically to 10 B.C., after Torelli; this date is somewhat problematic for the date of the cups, if they are held to replicate the prototype composition.

63. Pal. Ven., Loggiato. Badly broken. DAI neg. 71.247; Ronke 1987, cat. 102, fig. 127. Right of a sacrifice scene, just before a break, is the kneeling cultrarius; the rest of the group is lost.

64. Espérandieu 1907, 370-71, no. 575 (bull and servant holding his head); 372, no. 577 (kneeling servant) is probably a fragment of a repeat depiction. Narbonne, Mus. Lamourguier, from the city walls. Early to mid-second century A.D. (compare Beneventum, fig. 92).

65. Louvre inv. 48991, marble, .52 m height; Ronke 1987, cat. 121, fig. 136. Axe swinger and bull; may have had kneeler right of the break. Includes Victory with palm, and bearded figure with cornucopia (?).

66. Conflates the victim-slaying and victim-led-in-procession motifs. Ill.: Ryberg 1955, pl. 62, fig. 103.

67. Mus. Civ. inv. 153; a victimarius holds the bull's head down, but the oblivious axe swinger salutes an officer. Ronke 1987, cat. 144, fig. 151; Ghedini 1980, 88f.

68. Pollitt 1986, fig. 216. Compare, for example, the painting of Hephaistos' workshop visited by Thetis; Havelock 1970, color pl./cat. iii.

69. Casa di Granduca del Toscana. Naples, MN 9042; Le collezioni del Museo Nazionale di Napoli 1986, no. 81.

70. To Zanker (1988, 120), for instance, the intensity of the BR victim group documents a new (Augustan) sensibility, which relishes the display of the actual moment of death; I would call this rather a continuing streak of High Hellenistic relish for such effects.

71. Ronke (1987) has some new examples (see p. 280 n. 51 and p. 281 nn. 58, 59, 63 above), though she is not always aware of them. She discusses the "Pausias motif" too briefly at p. 176.

72. Mantua, Pal. Ducale: Brendel 1930, cat. 6, pl. 74; Ryberg 1955, pl. 58, fig. 90; Hölscher 1980, 288, fig. 23. Florence, Uffizi: Brendel, cat. 6a, pl. 75; Ryberg, pl. 58, fig. 91; Höscher, fig. 22; "contaminated" by the hunting sarcophagus genre, cf half-scene at farthest left. Los Angeles, County Mus.: Brendel, cat. II (formerly Rome, Villa Bonaparte, late Coll. Castellani); Ryberg, pl. 58, fig. 92. Frascati, Villa Taverna: Brendel, cat. 12; Hölscher, 288, fig. 21; cf. Reinsberg 1985, 8f. Poggio a Caiano, Villa Reale: Brendel, cat. 13; Gabelmann 1984, no. 85, pls. 184-85, with bibl. Rome, Villa Albani, frag.: Brendel, cat. 14. Ryberg classifies these as "payment of vota " after triumph, as she does the BR sacrifice (142-43),

73. This reading of the sequence of scenes was established by Rodenwaldt in 1935 ( Über den Stilwandel in der antike Kunst, Abh. Berlin 1935, no. 3, 3ff). See further Ryberg 1955, 163f.; Fittschen 1969, 331-33; Hölscher 1980, 288-90. See Reinsberg 1985, 1-16, on the later evolution of this tripartite canon, highlighting the Frascati sacrophagus as representing a particular influential workshop. Fittschen shows how this tripartite canon influenced the sequence of episodes on Late Antique sarcophagi portraying the lives of Romulus and Aeneas.

74. Gabelmann 1984, 182-88; Hamberg 1945, 172-89; Goette 1988a, 419-20.

75. The "Rinuccini sarcophagus," known in Renaissance drawings, already puzzled Dütschke (1875, 2: 129, no. 316): in this elaborate, but jumbled, scene the general seems to pour a libation right onto the bull's head, and there is no altar or temple. Yet he does wear a cuirass, with tunic, paludamentum, and sword, and does not have his head veiled; perhaps the artist was trying to convey a transferral to legendary history or to myth. Villa Rinuccini, Camerata by S. Domenico; Horster 1975, fig. 12a-b.

76. Summation by Kleiner 1983, 290f. Zanker 1988, s.v. fig. 181, Tiberius' profectio sacrifice.

77. As noted by Ryberg, Kleiner, et al.; cf. Kleiner 1983, 294.

78. Schrömbges 1986, 38; Hölscher 1980, 280-81; Koeppel 1969, 148; Kähler 1954b, 225-27.

79. Ryberg 1955, 142-44, without explanation; Pollini 1978; Kleiner 1983, 295-96, by analogy to the reaction against Vitellius when he wanted to enter Rome in armor, against which see p. 139 below. He says the axes in the fasces of the lictors (actually visible in only one) place the scene outside Rome, citing the Cancelleria relief A ( profectio of Domitian), for he assumes the axe-bearing lictors there mark a division within the relief panel between "inside" and "outside" Rome. This is a tautology; and the literature is clear on the topic of paludati lictores (see below). Last, Kleiner says that Tiberius would not be armed "offensively" with a spear within Rome; but see pp. 275-76 nn. 14, 15.

80. Pollini 1978, 285-91: Tiberius' military dress means he is outside Rome, the site is the Temple of Bellona just over the pomerium, and the Capitolium is a "vista"; and Tiberius' spear is that kept in the Temple of Bellona and dipped in blood at the outbreak of a war (fetial rites). On the military dress, see this section. The other two points: ably corrected by Kleiner (1983, 296), who notes that the sacrificant in armor traditionally has a spear and that in Roman art there are no other instances of a given sacred site being indicated by the depiction of another sacred site.

81. Gabelmann 1986, pls. 24, 27, 30.2; Ryberg 1955, fig. 44.

82. Kleiner 1983, 297, in contrast to his remarks against Pollini at p. 296; see n. 80.

83. Kleiner 1983, 295; Hölscher 1980, 282 n. 59; cf. Alföldi 1935, 47-49.

84. Cf the profectio of Marcus Aurelius (Ryberg 1967, fig. 18): the emperor paludatus is just leaving the city, its monuments directly behind him at the foot of the Via Flaminia (personified at his feet, right); at right a small armed cavalry escort with vexilla waits to take him to his troops. More texts: Livy 34.14-1, P. Sulpicius (200 B.C.): "secundum vota in Capitolio nuncupata paludatis lictoribus profectus ab urbe Brundisium venit"; Festus Ep. I.11.7, in the Latin wars the Romans attack Praeneste "nuncupatis in Capitolio votis"; Varro Ling. 6.60, s.v. "nuncupare": "quod tunc <pro> civitate vota nova suscipiuntur"; 7.37, s.v. ''paluda": "a paludamentis, haec insignia atque ornamenta militaria: ideo ad bellum cum exit imperator ac lictores mutarunt vestem et signa incinuerunt, paludatus dicitur proficisci."

85. Compare the ludi saeculares, depicted only in Domitian's unique coin series. And take the case of the supplicationes in his honor, of which Augustus was so proud (55, totaling 890 days: RG 4.1.55); no more than a scant few of these can be dated by reference to other historical texts, and unless such a supplicatio is shown on the Ara Pacis procession frieze, we have no depictions of any of them.

86. The Paris frieze, ca. 100-90 B.C.; pp. 56-57. The Praenestine cist, Villa Giulia 13 133: Kuttner 1991.

87. An excellent study parallel to my investigation of the armed sacrifice is Schneider's 1990 article on "trophy dancers," who turn up in Augustan Neo-Attic relief, and triumph ritual and symbolism in ceremony and images in Republican Rome and Italy.

88. Koeppel (1985a, 154-55, 204-12, cat. 50, figs. 35-41) follows Zanker (1970, 516f.) in assigning it to the Forum of Trajan and calls it an extispicium and nuncupatio without explanation. More informative, Tortorella (1985, 40, cat. 5, fig. 8) notes fragments in the Vatican probably from a companion relief. Ryberg 1955, pl. 45, fig. 69a-b.

89. Ryberg 1955, pls. 43-44, figs. 66-67.

90. Problematic is a late Antonine/early Severan relief fragment ( ex Villa Borghese), Louvre MA 1098: left of an altar the BR victim group motif, another bull being led up for sacrifice and a laureled paludatus lictor with axes in his fasces, before an architectural backdrop (a Tuscan colonnade and another construction).

Identified as a triumph ceremony; the paludamentum and axes of the lictor rule this out, however. Perhaps a nuncupatio votorum, taking place, for instance, in the Capitolium porticoes (?). Tortorella 1985, 41-43, cat. 11, fig. 14; Ryberg 1955, 158-59, fig. 87.

91. Cf. contemporary vota suscepta coinage (no victim): Maximinus and Maximus paludati sacrifice in camp, Ryberg 1955, pl. 66, fig. 113d; Diocletian and Maximian paludati offer to images of Jove and Hercules, Ryberg, 186, pl. 66, fig. 113a. This depends on Antonine formulae for joint sacrifice by paludati, such as scene 75 of the Column of Marcus Aurelius (Ryberg, pl. 44, fig. 68).

92. Laubscher (1975, 17, pls. 40.1-42.2) thinks that Diocletian is in civilian garb and that the subject is not vota suscepta (vs. Laubscher's n. 274: Ryberg, Vollbach, Brilliant, Vermeule, Kinch) but a victory sacrifice (Carcopino, Enslin), to account for the presence of Aion, Eirene, Oikoumene, and Homonoia in the scene. I think that this sacrifice would have looked like a conventional vota suscepta scene to its audience; it does not seem odd to trumpet the virtues of the united and "everlasting" Empire at the start of a campaign to defend that empire against the Parthians. Eirene and Homonoia (i.e., Pax and Concordia) are the virtues of civil concord in Roman political theology; Oikoumene is the civilized world that Rome is about to defend.

93. Strong 1988, fig. 5, with the modern helmet; see now Cristofani 1985, 222-23, figs. 116-17, cat. p. 292 (ca. 400 B.C.). Lamellar cuirass, iron lance, patera.

6— The Triumph of Tiberius

1. On the rite, see Künzl 1988; BR cup: 70f, fig. 51a-b.

2. Described by Kleiner (1983, 288-89). Corrections: Kleiner: the torquatus behind Tiberius' chariot holds two laurel branches; no, he holds one, the other is held by the background figure in lower relief beside him. Kleiner: all five figures before the chariot are lictors; no, only four, the partly hidden figure on the horses' far side is an officer in caligae, tunic, paludamentum . Kleiner: only two sets of lictor's rods are visible; no, a pair is visible in very low relief near center, one crushed, the other abraded. Contra Koeppel 1983b, 105, the horses are led not by the background figure behind them but by the slave at their head.

3. Most recently on the carrying of laurel branches by soldiers in triumphs and associated Italian, Republican, and Augustan images: Schneider 1990, 190f.

4. His brother was legate to Tiberius in Dalmatia: "quali adiutore legatoque fratre meo . . . usus sit, ipsius patrisque [ sc. Augustus] eius [ sc. Tiberius] praedicatione testatum et amplissimorum donorum, quibus triumphans Caesar [ sc. Tiberius] donavit, signat memoria" (Vell. Pat. 2.115.1).

5. Compare ILS 3320 = Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 43b, an inscription from Dalmatia by the proud recipient of a torque from (he specifies) Tiberius' Dalmatian campaign.

6. See p. 284 n. 4 above. Vell. Pat. 2.115.1: "et amplissimorum donorum, quibus triumphans Caesar [ sc. Tiberius] donavit"; 121.3: (this triumph) "quem mihi fratrique meo inter praecipuos praecipuisque donis adornatos viros comitari contigit.

7. Doppelfeld and Held 1974, vii. fig./cat. 22; Simon 1986, fig. 289; Franzoni 1987, 111, pl. 32.2; Kais. Aug. 1988, 566, cat. 392. CIL XIII.8648; ILS 2244 = Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 45.

8. Mainz inv. S 182. Franzoni 1987, 43, pl. 12.1; Selzer et al. 1988, 128, fig. 49, cat. 30; Espérandieu 1918, no. 5790. CIL XIII.6901.

9. Verona, Mus. Maffeiano, from Cellove d'Illari. Franzoni 1987, 51-54, cat. 30, pl. xvi.

10. Selzer et al. 1988, cat. 45, Mainz (L. Refidius Bassus). Franzoni 1987, cat. 28, pl. xv.1, Este; cat. 54, pl. xxvi.3, Brescia; cat. 60, pl. xxix.2, Milan ( CIL V.5586); cat. 65, pl. xxxii.3 (P. Cassius). Frenz 1985, pl. 50.2, Augustan, Naples, phalerae and four torques between busts of an officer and his wife. Espérandieu 1918, nos. 5438, Brugg (C. Allius); 5811, Mainz (Q. Cornelius; CIL XIII.6938); Espérandieu 1922, 6248, Bonn (C. Marius eques; CIL XIII.8059), harness in corner of cavalry duel scene.

11. A single torque fills a metope of a grave monument at Modena, probably next to a panel with a phalera harness. Here elements of military costume and honors are isolated as a decorative scheme. Franzoni 1987, 106 n. 11.

12. Espérandieu 1907, 38, no. 35; Espérandieu 1910, 373; Vermeule 1960, 35, pl. 4.14; Eydoux 1962, 69, fig. 64. Over-life-size (1.55 m to the knees), local stone; chain mail, paludamentum, sleeved tunic, braccae, sword, and shield. Attributed to the mausoleum of a Vocontius who commanded under Caesar.

13. Hannestad (1986, 80) suggests Thracian auxiliaries sent by Rhoemetalkes to Tiberius in Pannonia.

14. See p. 109 above.

15. Highly decorated triumphal cars were traditional; cf. App. Hist. Rom. 8.66 and Pun. 9 on the 201 B.C. triumph of Scipio Africanus (a quadriga katagegrammenos poikilos ).

16. RIC 7; BMCRR III, pl. 59.16; BMCRE I, pl. 15.7; Kent et al. 1973, cat. 122, pl. 32.

17. Vermeule (in Vermeule and Hanfmann 1957, 245 n. 80) cites a Claudian denarius, Trajan's quadriga on the arch at Beneventum (small frieze), and the triumph panel in the Aurelian panel relief series.

18. Cf. Velleius' words on Tiberius' position immediately before his exile, 2.99: "Ti. Nero duobus consulatibus totidemque triumphis actis [ sc. the triumph of 8 B.C. and an earlier ovation] tribuniciae potestatis consortione acquatus Angusto, civium post unum, et hoc, quia volebat [!], eminentissimus, ducum maximus, fama fortunaque celeberrimus et vere alterum rei publicae lumen et caput." Cf. Zanker 1988, 232, on the succession imagery in this scene.

19. Künzl 1988, 28. Juv. 10.36-42 (the pompa circensis modeled on the triumphal pompa ): the servus holds the crown and shares the chariot "sibi consul/ne placeat," lest the celebrant think too much of himself; Courtney (1980, 458, s.v.) cites Mart. Ep. 8.33.1 on the lightness of a leaf from the praetoricia corona —surely, an implied contrast to the crown's noted heft. Tert. Apol. 33.4: "hominem se esse etiam triumphans in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur, suggeritur enim ei a tergo: Respice post re! Hominem re memento!"

20. Künzl (1988, 28, 163) notes a recently discovered marble relief at Praeneste, being published by L. Musso, said to depict the servus publicus .

21. Spanish coins of 17-16 B.C., depicting at least three different arches, variously Augustus in quadriga or in elephant biga.

22. This scheme is rooted in Greek athletic dedications, such as the fifth-century bronze group by Pythagoras of Rhegion at Olympia, of Cratisthenes of Cyrene and Nike sharing a chariot (Paus. 6.18.1). See chap. 2, pp. 62-63. Coins: Sulla, 82 B.C. denarius, RRC 367.1, pl. 47; Pompey, 71 B.C. aureus, RRC 402.1b, pl. 50; Octavian/Augustus, ca. 17 B.C. denarii (arch), BMCRR III, pl. 63.18-20. The servus publicus 's replacement by divinities: Höscher 1967, 82-84, ascribing the BR image to a fictitious "streng republikanische Ablehnung des Kaiserkultes" by Tiberius. Precedents go back to the fifth century B.C.; cf. a monument to their founder Battos put up by the Cyrenians at Delphi (Paus. 10.15.6).

23. This leaning figure was by 30 B.C. a stock type in narrations of the triumphal procession; on the (probably satirical) paraphrase of a triumph by Antony and Cleopatra/Hercules and Omphale on a datable early Augustan Arretine ware matrix, the centaur chariots are pulled along by such a figure. See chap. 4, p. 97.

24. Strong 1988, fig. 69, p. 350 nn. 6-7.

25. The epigraphic description of a triumphal arch for Germanicus in Rome enjoins simply supraque eum ianum statua Ger(manici Caesaris po)neretur in curru triumphali (Tab.Siar. 18-19). As the text goes on to specify in detail family portraits and their placement relative to the arch, the omission of subsidiary figures (i.e., the servus publicus ) in this Tiberian commission must be deliberate. González 1984, 55ff ; the Tabula Siarensis, found near Seville in 1982, records the Senate's decrees of posthumous honors to Germanicus on 16 December A.D. 19, supplementing the Tabula Hebana.

26. See chap. 2, n. 109. Republican triumph types with a quadriga group begin in 101. 101 B.C. denarius for Marius: rev., Marius in quadriga, three-quarters right with scepter and laurel, on the near horse Marius' eight-year-old son; RRC 326.1, pl. 43. 83 B.C. denarius for Sulla: rev., Sulla in quadriga, three-quarters left in cuirass and tunic with palm and trophy; RRC 358.1, pl. 47. 82 B.C. denarius for Sulla: Sulla in quadriga, three-quarters right, crowned by flying Victory, reins in his left hand, a caduceus (divine symbol of peace = pax, the product of victory) in his right; RRC 367.1, pl. 47. 71 B.C. aureus for Pompey: Pompey in quadriga, profile right, crowned by flying Victory, with palm, on the near horse his young son (the eldest, born between 80 and 76 B.C.); RRC 402.1b, pl. 50. 29/27 B.C. denarius for Octavian: Octavian in quadriga, profile right, branch in his right hand and reins in his left; BMCRR III, p. 13; II, pl. 60. 29/27 B.C. denarius for Octavian: quadriga group on arch, Octavian in profile right, crowned by Victory standing behind him in the chariot. 13-14 A.D. denarius and aureus for Tiberius: Tiberius in quadriga, profile right, in toga and crown with eagle-tipped scepter and branch. Note that the two Sullan issues tinker with the triumphator 's regalia, replacing elements of the costume with symbolic dress and attributes; note too that on a Sullan coin and on Octavian's quadriga issue, the triumphator holds the reins himself, when in fact the horses would have been led by a slave.

27. Found in 1980; the square altar is inscribed TIB(e)R(ius)/C(ae)Sar. Provinciaal Museum G. M. Kam 1986, 26 and fig., cat. 105; Bloemers in Schatkamer 1989, 28-29, figs. 1-6, and Bloemers 1985 (I thank the author for bringing these articles to my attention and permitting me photographs of the pillar).

28. Summary: Kleiner 1983, 290-93; Kienast 1982, 108 n. 165. Zanker (1988, 229) chooses the second triumph of A.D. 12, ascribing the four cup panels to a victory monument erected for it. Simon (1986, 143) (omitting BR II) dates the cup pair to the end of Augustus' reign when Tiberius was active in the Balkans. Künzl (1988 and 1989) picks A.D. 12.

29. On these rituals and the "fuss" over Tiberius in 7 B.C., see Boatwright 1986, 16.

30. See esp. Koeppel 1969, 130-94; Hölscher 1967, 48ff.

7— Echoes of the Boscoreale Cup Panels in Later Historical Relief

1. For possible evidence in the Augustan period, there is an odd relief in the Vatican (Mus. Greg. Prof. inv. 2071) that comes from a grave monument in Luna marble from Rome, one of the class of bisellium panels (fig. 23) investigated by Schäfer 1989, s.v. pl. 30 and cat. 10. Here a figure stood, or more likely sat, in the center, just right of the present break; to him knelt a large male with arms outstretched, behind him a matron, then a woman with a Julio-Claudian low chignon, her hand on the head of a tallish togate child, behind her a woman with her hand on the head of a smaller child, behind her again a togatus standing. Plainly, the procession of men and women with their hands on children's heads is adapted from the Ara Pacis procession friezes; what is curious is that on first sight the drapery of the kneeling man seems to indicate the outline of a tunic (consider esp. the line of the back thigh), though Schäfer thinks he is togate. Could this be a garbling of the BR composition, where a tunicate Gaul kneels in just the same way before Augustus? Other Augustan bisellium reliefs show similar influence from monumental prototypes, e.g., the Palazzo Colonna relief (fig. 23a) (chap. 2, n. 4). The subject is so far unique in the repertoire of these grave monuments, which will have pushed the artist to such adaptation; Schäfer thinks it represents a defendant in a criminal proceeding before the deceased as praetor.

2. Basic is Hassel 1966, with if., 9, pl. 1.1-2 on the passage reliefs; good plates: Rotili 1972; Strong 1988, 153, figs. 89-93. See Gauer 1974, 308-35; Fittschen 1972, 742-88; Hölscher 1980, 312 n. 172; Simon 1981; Lorenz 1973.

3. Hassel 1966, 1f.

4. Gauer 1974, 312-13.

5. Not a nuncupatio: all participants are laureled, the emperor is togate, the Capitolium lacks. Not a sacrifice in Rome, which narrows the possibility of connection to Trajan's decennalia: the Genius of the Roman Senate is present (fitting, as the arch was voted by the Senate) but not the by-now familiar figure of the Genius of the Roman People, and (cf. Hassel 1966, 9) the lictors have axes in their fasces .

6. The BR victim group does often occur in connection with vows and/or campaigns, though one cannot build a case on this point. Gauer (1974, 312) suggests the dedication of the Via Traiana in A.D. 109; cf. Hassel 1966, 9, contra Fittschen 1972, 747-48, denying any specific historical referent; followed by Rotili 1972, 97. Hölscher (1980, 312 n. 172) also takes issue with Fittschen. Simon (1981, 4.1) says only that it is a sacrifice to Jupiter. Lorenz (1973, 26) proposes A.D. 113, the inauguration of Trajan's Parthian campaign, connected somehow with the fact that this was (he says) the occasion of Trajan's first visit to the Via Traiana.

7. Good plates: Rotili 1972, pls. 53, 55. Hassel 1966, pl. 1.2; Fittschen 1972, figs. 1-2; Simon 1981, pl. 4; Lorenz 1973, pl. 7.

8. Hassel 1966, 23-30.

9. Hassel 1966, pl. 1.1; Strong 1988, fig. 93.

10. Simon 1981, 4.1.

11. Obviously, the prominently depicted little girl and her brother are put forward as the puer alimentarius et puella alimentaria pair of alimenta propaganda, familiar in the visual, as in the epigraphic, record. See most recently Eck 1980, 266-70, on the Terracina base and the coinage and at p. 269 for the epigraphic and literary evidence; the statue group represented on the Anaglypha Traiani (figs. 37, 39), see chap. 2.

12. Hassel 1966, 30-35, connecting esp. the Anaglypha Traiani and the Arch of Titus.

13. Wickhoff 1912, 59. Pfanner (1983, 58f.) finds the Wickhoffian notion of a "Flavische barock" useless as a dating criterion, since "barock" and its antithesis "Klassizismus" do not succeed each other but rather coexist in Roman art. A succinct formulation of Pfanner's position (which I support) and its implications is Laubscher's contrary review (1985, 643-44).

14. Gabelmann 1984, 128: "Mit der Wiedergabe der Barbaren in Proskynese vor dem Kaiser steht das Becher am Beginn einer langen Serie von sich zu neuen Bildtypen formierenden Unterwerfungsszenen der römischen Staatskunst"; Gabelmann 1986, 285.

15. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glypt. inv. 553-54. See chap. 3, n. 106.

16. Grosseto, Mus. Civ. Goette 1988a, n. 36; Stemmer 1978, 28, cat. IIa 3, pl. 14.3; Vermeule 1980b, 16 (a "masterpiece," "Neronian"). Left of the trophy, which stands over an eagle carrying a palm; at right cowers a captive with hands tied behind his back.

17. Rome, Pal. Colonna. Restored as Fabricio Colonna. Victories construct a trophy, at its foot the captives. Vermeule 1980b, 93, fig. 53; Vermeule 1959, cat. 141; Stemmer 1978, 393.

18. Jucker 1976, passim. Women (no children) are included in the trophy group being constituted in the exergue of the Augustan Gemma Augustea (fig. 16).

19. Ryberg 1967, 64 n. 11; Cafiero in Rilievi storici Capitolini (1986), 14-15, fig. 4, and at pp. 12f. on provenance (arch in Via di Pietra). Hadrianic or Aurelian. One barbarian kneels in the foreground, a boy standing behind him, and two stooped barbarians stand in the background ( contra Cafiero: "4 kneeling barbarians"). The emperor's head ("Lucius Verus") does not belong.

20. Cafiero takes the central figure as the Genius Senatus, which would probably set the scene at Rome.

21. Gabelmann 1984, 186, cat. 88, pl. 30.2; the restoration: Petermann 1975, 218ff., pls. 81ff. (best plates); M. E. Micheli in MNR I.6 (1986), 24-27, cat. II.5. She queries the attribution to the Ludovisi sarcophagus—unnecessary, and for us irrelevant as the lid certainly belongs to some battle sarcophagus.

22. A standing youth and seated figure on each side of the trophy, in grieving postures; seated are, left, a woman; right, a mature man. Compare the standing boy of the Torlonia relief (fig. 89); see n. 19.

23. This somewhat recalls the Julio-Claudian frieze fragment (fig. 84) from Rome ( ex Coll. Farnese), Naples, MN 6722 (7516); Koeppel 1983a, 71, cat. 11, fig. 12. In this triumphal procession stand two Celtic captives, a man (with bracae ) and a woman, both resting a hand on the shoulder of a child in Celtic dress. See chap. 4, n. 15. The erect posture of this captive family does not vitiate my point about the posture of the Celts and their Romanized children on the Mainz fragment, for in the Julio-Claudian fragment, all the participants in the procession stand very upright even when straining forward (e.g., the ferculum bearers), so that this posture seems a mannerism of the entire frieze. Also, the artist of this minor piece evidently looked to the processions of the Ara Pacis to see how to incorporate a group of two adults with a child into a procession.

24. This would indicate that the artist, looking for a model to depict children being honored/benefited, had used the puer (alimentarius) et puella (alimentaria) pairing established by second-century alimenta propaganda (pp. 49-50).

25. Ryberg 1967, pl. 51, fig. 49, and p. 73 n. 3, on the other two extant reliefs of a congiarium scene that she calls Liberalitas: a damaged relief in the Villa Albani and the Constantinian panel on the Arch of Constantine. The Aurelian and Constantinian reliefs bracket the sarcophagus in date; both include figures of young children swathed in drapery standing upright before the imperial dais.

26. Lid type, noted briefly by Koch and Sichtermann 1982, 115, citing with the Mainz lid a "late third c." sarcophagus lid from the Catacomb of Praetexta. It has a central tablet, a scene of public honor to the deceased at left, and at right a portrait bust of the deceased's wife; also cited by Micheli in MNR I.6 (1986), cat. II.5. On the catacomb sarcophagus (reused by Elia Afanasia) the deceased as lupercus presides at the whipping of a woman. A further example is the fragmentary lid of the Louvre sarcophagus of Q. Petronius Melior (A.D. 230, sodalis augustalis Claudialis, CIL XI.3367 = Dessau 1180), another third-century piece from Rome; left, a partly obliterated panel shows the deceased as consular giving an audience (format: [Audien]ce panel: procession: tabula : procession : [?? panel]). Baratte 1985, 28-29, cat. 2, ca. A.D. 250.

27. The only typological study is Brandenburg 1980, 280-84, s.v. the Lupercal lid, which he groups with the Mainz lid as a type with "repräsentativen Öffentlichkeitscharakter," placing it in the typology of biographical structures on senatorial and generals' sarcophagi. Himmelmann's study of Late Antique sarcophagi documents a number of the relevant pieces but does not address the placement of "historical" subjects on sarcophagus lids (see nn. 29-30 below). Probably other examples are scattered in museum basements; sarcophagus lids are usually ignored when in a fragmentary state, as in much of the vast literature on the Ludovisi sarcophagus, for instance.

28. Heintze proposed in an influential article that this is the sarcophagus of Hostilianus, son of the emperor Decius (d. A.D. 251) (1957, 69ff., pl. 13, repeated in 1974, 369ff., pls. 47-49). Contra: Fittschen (1979, 581ff.) sees it as Gallienic (ca. 260). Mid- to late third century.

29. A similar example of intelligent borrowing directly from an official monument to decorate the lid of a magistrate's sarcophagus is a fragmentary late Antonine lid of Parian marble from the Via Ostiense (found in 1933), Rome, Pal. Cons. inv. 2311, 2829; Andreae in Helbig 4 I, cat. 1792; Mustilli 1936, 160, no. 6, pl. 101. Preserved are the two ends of the lid front; right and left of the customary central tabula (or possibly portrait) were careful copies of the personifications of the Hadrianeum standing before a curtained backdrop; this arrangement mimics not just the individual personifications but their arrangement in a series in the socle zone of the Hadrianeum cella. (Three are visible at left, one at right.) I cannot find this lid discussed in any work on Roman sarcophagi or in any work on the Hadrianeum provinces.

30. Processus consularis: (1) Tunis, sarcophagus of Celsus frag.; B(randenburg and Solin 1980) 282; H(immelmann 1973) 5f., pl. 2. (2) Vatican frag.; B 282; H 5, pl. 5b. (3) Louvre, sarcophagus of P. Melior: B 282; H 5. Pompa circensis: (1) San Lorenzo lid: B 282; H 37ff., pls. 56b, 57. (2) Louvre, sarcophagus of P. Melior: B, 282; H 5, 40, pl. 5a. Cult procession: (1) Aquileia lid: B 282; H pl. 58. Procession, protagonist in wheeled throne: (1) Stockholm lid: H 32, pl. 50. (2) Terme lid; H 32, pl. 52. (3) Lateran lid: H 32, pl. 54a. (4) Turin lid: H 33, pl. 51. (5) Praetexta catacomb: H 34, pl. 55b. (6) Ostia lid: B 284. Tribunal scene: (1) Klein-Glienicke frag.; H 5, pl. 4b. (2) Louvre, sarcophagus of P. Melior (lost frag.): H 5. The iconography of the consular procession is related to that sometimes seen on the body of sarcophagi, e.g., the Naples Brothers' sarcophagus (B 282; H 5f., pl. 3; see p. 290 n. 27). Pompa circensis iconography (H 37f.) had already been developed for honorific relief; cf. the Puteoli frieze (H pl. 60). "Wagenfahrt" scenes (probably of adventus ) are also adapted from architectural relief, as on the Arch of Galerius, for example.

8— Tiberius and Drusus in Augustan Propaganda and the Prototype for the Boscoreale Cups

1. Plutarch closes his Life of Antony (87) with a long note to show how the descendants of Antony ended up, after all, winning a place in the Julio-Claudian dynasty. His opening account, of the loyal Octavia's efforts on behalf of Antony's children by other women, stresses how high a place she won for Iullus Antonius in Augustus' favor, by ranking him third after the Claudii Nerones in the sequence just given. Plutarch's "Antonian" source is all the more to be trusted, as the first two places are given to others; this source describes specifically the period before ( a ) the exile of Tiberius and ( b ) the conspiracy and suicide of Iullus in 2 B.C., in connection with which Tiberius' wife Julia was disgraced.

2. Louvre 1845. Megow 1987, 180, A 50, pl. 10.11. Busts of the youthful Tiberius, in tunic and laurel, and Drusus, unadorned, gaze slightly up.

3. Kais. Aug. 1988, 565-66, s.v. cat. 391 (from Speyer) (Künzl); ZwierleinDiehl 1973, vol. 2, to cat. 1036-37. Catalogued now by Boschung 1987b; and see Grose 1989, 359 and n. 9.

4. Kais. Aug. 1988, 559-60, cat. 385 (Künzl); Zanker 1988, 220, fig. 172, as in Bildnisse des Augustus 1972, 22.

5. Compare Kiss 1975, nos. 302-3. Bonn inv. 4320, silvered bronze sheath plaque, owner's inscription VALIIRI. Both princes wear cuirasses with gorgoneia, sword belts, and mantles bunched on the left shoulder; contra Menzel their coiffures differ slightly, but the difference in head size is not significant at this scale and level of workmanship. Kiss 1975, 62, no. 157 (Gaius and Lucius); for physical details: Menzel 1986, 83-84, cat. 205, pl. 97, outlining the case for Tiberius and Drusus; Gonzenbach 1966, 183, 202, fig. 8.1-2.

6. Julia is honored once only as Venus Genetrix, at Eresos on Lesbos, and without her children; Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 63 = CIL III.7156-57; IG XII, 2, 537.

7. CIL 11.2038 = Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, 123, from Anticaria: Iuliae Aug. Drusi [fil.] div[i Aug.] matri Ti. Caesaris Aug. principis et conservatoris et Drusi Germanici [g]en[etric]is orbis M. Cornelius Proculus pontufex Caesarum . Proculus put up a statue group of Livia as Venux Genetrix with both sons. It is very unusual for such honors voted in the provinces to include someone dead as long as Drusus—Gaius, for example, does not receive portraits after the immediate commemoration of his death; Proculus must have been strongly influenced by some other statue group of this type put up under Augustus when Drusus was still alive. Compare Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 124: a bronze coin also from Baetica (Colonia Romula) couples a Divus Augustus obverse with a reverse inscribed IULIA AUGUSTA GENETRIX ORBIS, showing Livia's bust with a crescent on a globe. Purcell (1986, 92) is a bit extreme (Livia as Venus Genetrix is "common in dedications").

8. Livia's coiffure is not "late" (as asserted in Polacco 1955, 67, for example); the long curls on her neck simply assimilate her hairdo to that of Ceres/Venus. Winkes (1982) ("Augustus") can be refuted by his own comparative tables in figs. 13, 9.

9. Megow 1987, 256-57, B 19 = the BMFA turquoise, pl. 10.5; 279. Some other Augustan Tiberius depictions moved late are A 41, A 42, A 38 = pl. 6.9, 6.11-12, 6.13; A 40 = pl. 7.1; A 43 = pl. 10.3. Drusus cameos moved with them: C 11, C 10 = pl. 10.8, 10.12; Leningrad Herm. 73 (Drusus or Tiberius with Augustus); Vienna, K. h. Mus. 11 (inv. IX. a. 33) (Drusus naked with shoulder mantle and laurel). On the other hand, C 7 (pl. 1.15), C 8 (pl. 1.14), and C 9 (no ill.) of Drusus are allowed to stay at 9 B.C. in correlation with posited statue types.

10. Megow 1987, 168.

11. Flory 1984, 311.

12. Gabelmann 1984, 131.

13. Fullerton 1985, 476-77.

14. Pollini 1987. This fine study of Gaius portraits is presented as a definitive study of political propaganda; see esp. opening pages.

15. Sutherland 1987; see secs. 9, "The mint of Lugdunum under Augustus and Tiberius," 10, "Augustus' dynastic plans," and pp. 25-27, an outline of everyone connected with Augustus.

16. Simon 1986, 67-73.

17. Zanker 1988, 226-29.

18. Ibid., 229-32.

19. On Drusus, with bibl.: Kienast 1982, 100-114, 299-301, 345-46; Bellen 1984, 385f.; Frenz 1985a, 394f.; RÖsger and Will 1985, 37f. Tiberius, Drusus, and dynastic policy: add to Kienast, SchrÖmbges 1986, 24ff. A welcome corrective is Garzetti's account, esp. in the revised and translated (1974) edition at pp. 7-8 and 11-12 on the attention given Tiberius from childhood on.

20. Drusus' omission struck Kienast (1989, 179) in his fine discussion of the Res gestae .

21. Passage 5.6.3 expands on the brothers as paradigms of fraternal love comparable only to the Dioscuri: Drusus on his sickbed gives detailed orders for Tiberius' reception, to give him dignity equal to his own and have him too saluted as imperator . See below on Tiberius' efforts to give Drusus triumphal dignities like his own. Passage 4.3.3 speaks of Drusus "pariter ac fratri Augustis duobus rei publicae divinis oculis mirifice respondentem." These passages and 5.6.4, like Velleius' panegyric to Drusus (2.97.2-3), were written in Tiberius' reign; meant to attract imperial favor, they testify to Tiberius' continuing interest in his brother's memory decades after Drusus' death.

22. Courtney 1980, citing Mart. 8.52.3.

23. The epigraphic record for Drusus' own activities is weak, but then he died young, before he could spend much manubiae . That from his Alpine wars was spent on road building, an activity to which Augustus had tried hard to divert the building instincts of his victorious fellow aristocrats; this Via Claudia was restored by his son Claudius as emperor. See Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 363a = ILS 208, from near Venetia: viam Claudiam Augustam quam Drusus pater Alpibus bello patefactis derexerat .

24. Glen Bowersock pointed out to me the implications of the inscription from Nysa of 1 B.C. about this cult, SIG 3 , 781, on which see his 1965 book at p. 118 and n. 4.

25. McCabe 1987, 219, a still unpublished base. On posthumous, generally Claudian portraits for Drusus see Rose 1987, s.v.; and Fuchs et al. 1989, cat. 4 and 6, s.v. the two portraits at Caere.

26. Most recently, Fullerton 1985; Zanker 1988, s.v. figs. 167, 173.

27. Zanker 1988, s.v. fig. 171. Though Gaius executed his part in the Troy games staged here before the troops, this marks him clearly as still one of the noble boys for whom these exhibitions were reserved. They had been staged often since Sulla's day, several times in Augustus' own reign before Gaius and Lucius were old enough to take part. On other iconographic motives for this coin type see p. 268 n. 63.

28. Levick exemplifies this fashion, most recently in her 1976 biography of Tiberius; Kienast (1982, 107f.) gives an overview. The later adoption policy of the latter half of Augustus' reign: Kienast, 114ff. Tiberius A.D. 4-14: Schrömbges 1986, 29-37, 38-42 (the adoption day), 42-54 (Tiberius' significant building projects, the aedes of the Dioscuri and Concord and the Ara Numinis Augusti), 54f. (Tiberius' triumph of A.D. 12, arranged to be celebrated on the same day Augustus won at Philippi in 42 B.C.), and 57f. (Tiberius' status as coruler).

29. Cf. Blamberg 1976, n. 21: ''Nor did they honor Tiberius and Drusus when these brothers became temporary heirs after the death of Agrippa in 12 BC to assure smooth succession in case Augustus died before Agrippa's sons, Gaius and Lucius, were of age." But Marcellus (d. 23 B.C.) had not been honored on Roman coinage either, although he was Augustus' nephew and married to Augustus' daughter.

30. Fixation with "the blood of Augustus," as the best or sole guarantor of legitimacy, postdates Augustus' own reign, as one would expect. The earliest indicator is the famous quarrel of Agrippina the Younger (Augustus' granddaughter through Julia) with Tiberius, Augustus' adopted son (Tac. Ann. 4.51-52).

31. Compare the deeply sad grave inscription of Sextus Appuleius at Luna, the family burial site (Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 206 = ILS 932): [ Sex .] Appuleio Sex. f. Gal. Sex. n. Sex. pron. Fabia Numantina nato, ultimo gentis suae .

32. As when Agrippa was made Augustus' socer, and Tiberius (the next "in line") made into Agrippa's socer; then when Agrippa died, Tiberius was made to divorce Agrippa's daughter in order to take his place as Augustus' socer . Drusus was given the next best sort of marriage alliance, paired off to one of Augustus' nieces through his sister Octavia. The redoubtable reputation of Drusus' wife Antonia is borne out by a significant historical fact: note that although she was very young when widowed, and quite fertile, she was unique among the eligible females of Augustus' household in remaining unmarried. She must have had great strength of character to pull this off.

33. As noted by Garzetti (1974, 13). So, who carried the mantle of the gens Claudia after the adoptions of Tiberius, Drusus II, and Germanicus? Drusus' son Claudius, of course, who must have been deliberately left unadopted to carry on the family name, as the emperors' careful marriage plans for him show. Physically unfit to be an active soldier, he was delegated this essentially religious, as well as genetic, task; Augustus and Tiberius were like traditional Republican heads of clan making dignified arrangements for their handicapped members. This mechanism was not appreciated by Wiseman (1982/1987, 91f.).

34. Thallus ii (Gow and Page = Anth. Pal. 6.235): "Great joy to furthest west and east, Caesar, /descendant of Romulus' unconquered sons, /your heavenly birth we sing, and round the/altars we pour glad libations to the immortals. /Do you tread firm in your grandfather's steps,/and be the subject of our prayers for many a year".

As Cameron (1980, 47f. ) shows, Thallus hopes on Claudius' birthday that he will not die young (like his father) but live long like his "grandfather" ( sic ), namely Augustus; Cameron observes: "It is difficult to doubt that poets and panegyrists blurred the distinction between grandson and step-grandson" (50). The poem must have been written while Claudius was still relatively young, probably while Augustus was still alive; note that the poet does not claim Julian blood for him outright ("descendant of Romulus' unconquered sons"). Cameron nominates Thallus Antonius to Antonia's salon, which included also Crinagoras.

35. The evidence collected by Wiseman 1982/1987, 87-91, is all to this effect, notwithstanding the author's exasperation with such notions—Seneca's mockery only documents the phenomenon. If Claudius was felt to be of the house of the Caesars, obviously his father Drusus was too. See Joseph. AJ 19.164 and Dio 60.1.3 on Claudius' accession ("seize the throne of your ancestors"); also Thallus ii (Gow and Page = Anth. Pal. 6.235; see n. 34).

36. Only Hallett (1985, 87-88) really analyzed step-relationships as serious bonds, referring not least to Tiberius and Drusus.

37. In 33 B.C., at the age of nine, Tiberius enters public life to pronounce the laudatio and preside over funeral games for his dead father; he is then betrothed to Agrippa's daughter; in 29 B.C. he rides Augustus' chariot horses along with Marcellus in the great triple triumph and holds a seat of honor at the games for the occasion; in 27 he assumes the toga virilis with much fanfare at the age of fifteen; in 26/25 at sixteen he is tribunus militum against the Cantabri in Spain; in 24 he is excused five years from the normal qualification for magistracy and gives three defensive speeches and a diplomatic speech to the Senate, all building his own client base; in 23 at the age of nineteen he is quaestor Ostiensis, coping with a dangerous grain shortage; in 20 he receives back the Parthian standards after pacifying Armenia; in 19 he is ornamentis praetoriis ornatus; in 16 he goes to Gaul with Augustus and remains as his governor; in 15 he begins his own conquests (Rhaeti, Vindelici) and is received into the college of priests; in 13 at twenty-nine he is consul, with Varus; in 12 he governs Illyria and beats the Pannonians and is first voted a triumph by the Senate; in 11 he is first saluted as imperator; in 9 he finally gets to celebrate an ovatio; in 8 he is consul designate for the second time, saluted again as imperator; he celebrates a triumph in 7 B.C. as consul and in 6 B.C. receives a five-year grant of tribunicia potestas, at the age of thirty-six—an extraordinary career.

38. Although it can never be proved, and cannot bolster any other argument, I feel that Augustus did believe (with others in antiquity) that Drusus was his own son, conceived by Livia before she was divorced to marry him; sources: Flory 1988, 345-46. I also think Tiberius believed this, or at least believed Augustus' feeling. In re that notorious divorce, where a husband passed a pregnant wife to a friend, no one seems to note the precedent of the younger Cato and his friend Hortensius; see Plut. Cat. min. 25.4-5.

39. Sources on Drusus' death: Frenz 1985a, 394-95; Bellen 1984, 385f.; Kienast 1982, 105. Seldom used is Valerius Maximus' set piece 5.6.3; see p. 292 n. 21.

40. Dio 55.2.1-3; Suet. Claud. 1.3-4; Cons. ad L. 169-78 (death and journey of corpse to Rome), 199-220 (his funeral rites in Rome). Tac. Ann. 3.5-6 contrasts Drusus' funeral with the quieter observances for the death of Germanicus, mentioning Augustus' public restraint over the deaths of Gaius and Lucius. Tacitus' list of observances has to be fleshed out by other accounts, as he omits the agents of particular observances.

41. Authentic: Purcell 1986, 78 and n. 3 (I thank N. Horsfall for this reference); Kienast 1982, 105 n. 150, without argument. The opposing view that the Consolatio is Tiberian or later: E. Bickel, RhM 93 (1950): 193-227, citing stylistic correspondences between phrases in the Consolatio and the phrasing of Ovid and Propertius, followed by J. Richmond, ANRW 31.4 (1981): 2768-83 (his historical logic ably corrected by Purcell). The author of the Consolatio was no genius, but I see no reason why he and greater poets like Ovid could not have been situated in the same literary culture, drawing on the same literary models; it is an acknowledged commonplace in music and the visual arts that contemporaries of widely differing abilities share formal characteristics. Against a date after Tiberius' exile but before his return: no reference to Gaius and Lucius. Against a late Augustan, Caligulan, or Claudian date: no reference to the German campaigns of Drusus' son Germanicus. Against a Tiberian date: the absence of any "prophecy" as to Tiberius' "future" accession.

42. Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, no. 80; Vassileiou 1983 passim.

43. Kleiner (1989, 245) points out that this was the first arch Augustus had allowed to anyone else in Rome and that it becomes the prototype for a series of arches for imperial princes.

44. See p. 275 n. 14; Rostra Drusus: Cons. ad L. 269 (omitted by Lahusen).

45. The cenotaph tradition definitely has Republican roots. We know (Plut. Cat. min. 11.2) that Cato the Younger put up a mnema at Aenos in Thrace to mark where his beloved brother Caepio died; this cenotaph must have been on the scale of Drusus' and Gaius', as it was made of eight talents' worth of Thasian marble. A cenotaph may also have been erected for Mark Antony's brother Caius in Macedon, where he fell fighting Brutus; Plutarch cites a mnema for him there. Cic. Fam. 4.12 tells us that S. Sulpicius in 45 B.C. set up a monument in Athens at the Academy for M. Marcellus. See pp. 298-99 nn. 64, 65, 70 below.

46. The extraordinary funeral observances for Drusus and their parallels in later imperial funerals (Germanicus, Gaius, and Drusus the Younger): P. Herz in Ganzert 1984, 178-92; cf. chap. 4, n. 83. Frenz and Bellen's articles on observances for Drusus also discuss other imperial funerals; Frenz 1985a, 395f., Bellen 1984, 392-96. Both Gaius (cf. p. 299 n. 65) and Germanicus ( CIL VI.1, no. 911 = VI.4, fasc. 2, no. 31199; cf. González 1984, 58f.), who also died among foreigners, received a cenotaph; on their decoration, see p. 195 below.

47. Stylow 1977, passim; at p. 490: Ti. Claudius Ti. f. Nero pont. cos. II [ imp. I ] I trib. potest. V/Nero Claudius Ti. f. Drusus Germ [ anicus ] augur cos. imp. II/murum portas turris p.s.p.f.c. (1250 m of wall, twenty-seven towers, four gates!). Syme 1979a, 1203; at p. 1206 he notes another inscription of Tiberius (A.D. 4) here, in the Forum.

48. Distribution of copies of fine court cameos of Drusus in Tiberius' reign: Zwierlein-Diehl 1973, 2: 107-8, cat. 1036.

49. Brit. Mus. inv. Bronze 967; CIL XIII.6796. Walker and Burnett 1981, cat. 4, pp. 49-53, pls. 4.1-2, 5.2-3 (with bibliography on the scabbard and detail of the legionary sacellum in the middle); Zanker 1988, 234, figs. 183a-b; Kais. Aug. 1988, 558-59, cat. 383a-b (Künzl); Hölscher 1967, 112f., pl. 15.1; Gabelmann 1984, 145-50, cat. 39; Klumbach 1970, 123-32; best plate: Levick 1976, fig. 11. Klumbach (128-30) describes the material, from a 1970 assay by B. F. Cook in the BM Research Lab: Roman brass, "silvered" with tin and silver lead, with decorative brass leaf appliqué; the owner's inscription AURELI = Aurelius, of the Leg. XIIII Gemana XVI, which was in Mainz until A.D. 43; he is an officer, as he uses only the gentilician name and does not add his centuria number, as is usual with ownership marks on armament (Klumbach, 132). On the piece as mass-produced from a matrix, Klumbach, 132; Gabelmann 1984, 124-25, assigning it to the sphere of largitio art (art for official gift giving); Gabelmann thinks the scheme was originally created for a cameo. Walker in Walker and Burnett 1981, like Gabelmann, adduces the IMP. X coinage (figs. 115-16).

50. Klumbach, Walker, and others see Augustus receiving Tiberius. But any good photograph permits clear identification of the features of Tiberius and Germanicus, as we would expect, given that the emperor holds a shield inscribed Felicitas Tiberii, felicitas being the quality of the holder of successful highest auspices .

51. Compare the location of the inscription for Tiberius on the Nijmegen pillar (fig. 119).

52. This has always been called Vindelicia, by comparison with a line of Horace ( Carm. 4.4.20) apostrophizing the Vindelicii as axe-bearing Amazons; yet the Vindelicii belong to Drusus' youthful campaigns, while the Sheath's main scene refers to activities of Tiberius in Germany many decades later. A similar double axe turns up on the Augustan arch at Carpentras (A.D. 1-10) next to an Oriental prisoner; Espérandieu 1907, fig. on p. 180; Bedon et al. 1988, 1: 178; another one figures in a set of weapons reliefs (Villa Albani) from the later first century A.D., which refer to many European gentes; Kat. Albani 1988, inv. 1006, cat. 126, pl. 226. The historical context of the Sheath and signum, both Tiberian products from the Rhine frontier, determines the meaning of the axe for those images.

53. An armed Tiberius stands on a weapon pile over a bound German savage; from the weapon pile protrude several axes, with flared half-moon blades and curved hafts. Künzl in Kais. Aug. 1988, 564-65, cat. 390 (Tiberius); Künzl 1983, 385-86, pl. 73.1. The signum has not entered the handbook canon, as have the Sheath and the Avenches Marcus Aurelius miniature bust, for example. The portrait is much disputed; Tiberius can be identified by comparing his bangs to recognized portraits in, among other locations, Toulouse from Beziérs, in the Uffizi from Leptis, and in Copenhagen from Nemi—note the predominantly Western provenance; Polacco 1955, pls. 21-22, 25, 27. Shape and proportions of the features agree.

54. Kais. Aug. 1988, 523, cat. 365; Gabelmann 1984, 118-21, cat. 36-37; Zanker 1988, 226-28, fig. 179a and pp. 230-31, adducing not the BR I submission but the allegory; Schäfer 1989, 82.

55. Compare the statuary described for the Pisa arch to Gaius and Lucius (chap. 3, nn. 90 and 92). Though it celebrated the deeds of the two young princes, they were made to flank a central and dominant Augustus. Cf. the well-known Corinth group of Gaius, Lucius, and Augustus, where the princes are nude warrior heroes who flank a togate Augustus; Simon 1986, fig./cat. 84. For doubts cast on the original disposition of the togate and nude statues upon a single base, see most recently Goette 1988b, 254-55, dating the princes to A.D. 4. the Augutus simply "late Augustan" (257-58).

56. Schumacher 1985, 191-222, at pp. 209ff.; Eck 1984a, 131.

57. Banti and Simonetti ( CNR IV [1977], 112) point out that Augustus put his own imperatorial acclamation number on coinage for the first time with the IMP. X types, which were also the first coins that associated someone else directly with his own glory; he did the same on the IMP. XII series, of 11 B.C., for Drusus' and Tiberius' first ovations.

58. The next turning point is 9 B.C., when Drusus and Tiberius were permitted the formal acclamation of imperator, numbered as Augustus' thirteenth/fourteenth. See Schumacher 1985, 221-22 (table of acclamations). On Tiberius', see Dio 55.6.4. On Drusus', see the passage in Dio (unclear) and his elogium from the Forum of Augustus—his portrait stood among the other viri triumphales, inscribed imperator appelatus est in Germania; cf. Vassileiou 1983. This indicates clearly to me that this acclamation had just been, or was just about to be, awarded to Drusus at the time of his death in 9 B.C. and that it was part of the formal titulature including triumphator with which he was saluted by the Senate at his death when he was named Germanicus.

59. Response to Augustus' new triumphal awards: Eck 1984a, 142-44.

60. On Horace's odes, see Christ 1977, 170-75. Further in the panegyric tradition see, of course, the Consolatio ad Liviam for the death of Drusus, with its characterizations of Tiberius as well as Drusus (above at p. 185). Compare Vergil Aen. 6.854f. for Marcellus; Ovid Ars am. 1.170-228 (approximately) on Gaius Caesar. In the Greek Anthology (Gow and Page), Crinagoras 26 on Drusus, 28 on Tiberius, 27 for Drusus and Tiberius as the twin oaks of Zeus; Diodoros 1 to Tiberius, 8 to Drusus; Antipater of Thessaloniki 46. There is a tendency to take epigrams to Drusus as epigrams to Germanicus; others who reassign Crinagoras 26 ( Anth.Pal. 9.291) to Drusus are Schneider (1986, 41 n. 189), associating it with the clades Lollianae; Williams (1978, 129-32) interprets it, probably rightly, as an epitaph for Drusus that in sorrow paraphrases the language of Horace's Odes . Crinagoras works in any case largely for Augustus, Drusus, Tiberius, and Antonia.

61. A good discussion along these lines is Künzl 1989, 77-78.

62. Contra Künzl 1989, 77-78. Koeppel 1985b is the main spokesman for this tradition, which sees painting as the prototype for historical relief; I do not believe that in more than gross outline there is any such dependence, for the pictorial aims of painting and sculpture as they exist from the Greco-Roman world are very different. (Cf., for instance, the genres of painted and carved landscapes.) Roman relief sculpture often aims at effects of spatiality, momentariness, and chiaroscuro, which to us seem extremely painterly; but when we look at Roman action paintings they seem rather to aim at what we would call sculptural effects, especially a hard austerity in drapery. This is not the place to develop this theme; I hope to do so in a book on Republican megalographic painting.

63. Also the four panels would imply two passages. There are not imperial double arches, only single, triple, or quadruple ( quadrifrons ) arches. The four BR panels seem so tightly structured in relation to one another that I do not think they excerpt a longer series.

64. This monument has yet to be slotted into discussions of Roman relief and Augustan art. Simon (1986, 71, figs. 88-89: view, ruins; architectural ornament frag.) barely acknowledges it; it is omitted altogether by Zanker 1988 and by Ling (annotations to Strong's Roman Art [1988]).

65. Most recently, Ganzert 1984, 91f. (geographic orientation), 178-92 (P. Herz on the cult and legal aspects of honors for Gaius and other Julio-Claudian princes), 171f. (reconstruction as a tower tomb on a high podium), 175f. (on date and attribution to Gaius and workshop, a team from Rome close to the Temple of Concord workshop, 7 B.C.-A.D. 10), 114f. and 118f. (P. Herz on the inscriptions), 126-27 (Ganzert on the inscriptions, esp. ART]AVAS[DES; cf. RG 27 and Dio 55.10a.7 on Gaius' crowning of Ariobarzanes the son of Artavasdes of Armenia). Pollini (1986, 134-36) sees the fact that the inscription is in Latin as strengthening the case for attribution to a team sent from Rome.

66. Ganzert's catalogue of relief fragments (1984, 134f.) does not replace but only supplements Borchhardt 1974. Remains indicate, besides a garland frieze, at least one sacrifice and one rex datus scene (horses being led; a bull; lictors; laureled heads; a signifer; an Oriental head with long beard and open mouth; a Roman senator's hand with ring; a tree trunk, setting one of the scenes in the open air). Rex datus scenes: chap. 4, n. 61.

67. Compare, though, the relief-decorated "Jupiter Column" at Mainz, whose socle has superb two-figure panels of deities sacrificing; Espérandieu 1907, no. 5887.

68. Strong 1988, 197-98, figs. 127-28, bibl. at p. 356 n. 1.

69. This column is especially apposite, being a triumphal monument with documentary panels in the same mode of historical narration as BR I:2, for example, paired with allegorical panels. These reliefs were destroyed in the restoration by Sixtus V; they are recorded in engravings by Piranesi, Enea Vico, and others. These make clear that at least one panel was a submissio scene (not in Gabelmann 1984), and two or more showed Victories with garlands. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, fig. 363 (Piranesi 1762); Becatti 1967, fig. on p. 415 (Vico). Piranesi's plates are Il Campo Marzio dell'antica Roma (1762), "Base del colonna Antonina," and Trofeo . . . (1768), "Colonna Antonina," and "Colonna Antonina in tre momenti"; A. Bettagno, ed., Piranesi (1978), figs. 237, 351-52 (I thank Michael McCarthy for this reference). I hope to discuss the engravings and the basis in a future paper.

70. One would like very much to know if there were historical reliefs on Drusus' tower-tomb cenotaph in Germany or on Germanicus' cenotaph in Antioch. For historical relief on tombs at Rome, consider the exedra tomb panel for a late Republican/early Augustan general ca. 35 B.C. in the Campus Martius, where the deceased figured as a kind of universal imperator (p. 61); an isolated triumphal narrative tableau is the focus for a tomb later on the (similarly curved) Monument of Philopappos, Athens. Such tombs may have influenced the design of the Arch of Titus, which doubled as a tomb. For narrative " res gestae " panels on tombs, see Pliny's description ( HN 15.82) of the tomb of one of Augustus' Praetorians, a noted strongman, carved with his personal exploits.

71. This tower monument stands on a massive substructure; each side takes a different scene (cavalry, infantry, heroic battle; Caledonian boar hunt), like the Via Appia tomb panel, Hellenistic in style. Strong 1988, 348 n. 13. Such bases may derive ultimately from early Hellenistic royal monuments like the Mausoleum, but I think these panels are different from the Mausoleum friezes in conception and are connected with a Roman fondness for decorating monument bases, on whatever scale, with commemorative images.

72. See p. 57. The Praeneste base (p. 260 n. 134): at least three documentary panels in contrasting styles; the San Omobono base reliefs (p. 232 n. 38): emblematic weapon friezes centered on an allegorical tableau. Similar programs structure the later column bases: Column of Trajan, weapon reliefs; funerary Column of Antoninus Pius, allegorical apotheosis panels, alternating with documentary depictions of the funeral decursio in contrasting style; Column of Marcus Aurelius, large submission scene and presumably a pendant historical relief, alternating with Victory and garland panels (fig. 121).

73. There are tetrapylon arches in Augustan Gaul, such as Cavaillon (ca. A.D. 1-10; Gros 1979), and the attic of the Tiberian triple arch at Orange does have a battle scene on its broad face. We do not yet, however, have evidence of a certifiably imperial quadrifrons with panels in the attic before the reign of Domitian.

74. See chap. 2, n. 55.

75. Note how he overshadowed Tiberius in the commemoration of the return of the Parthian standards (compare the Primaporta Augustus), Drusus in the "BR baby" event (separated from the BR child on the Ara Pacis), Gaius in his mission to the East (Vicus Sandaliarius altar; see p. 221 n. 32) and in his funerary honors (Pisa arch; see p. 254 nn. 90, 92; contrast the anonymity of Tiberius, Drusus, and Gaius on the preexile coinage (pp. 179, 187-88).

Conclusion: The Boscoreale Cups and Roman Art

1. See pp. 75-76, above.

2. See index to BR cups, sv. Ara Pacis.

3. Simon 1986, fig. 285; see further pp. 225-26 nn. 68-69 below for bibliography; see p. 226 n. 69 above on the cognate Augustan and early Tiberian coinage. The Belvedere altar composition, in fact, is echoed exactly on Tiberius' accession issues, leading one to assume that these and the altar panel both depend on a more grandly scaled public composition, in painting or relief.

4. This sort of double vision is only possible because we can look at a human being or animal in a moment of action and guess with some accuracy how that motion is going to be continued, and we can extend this sense of an immediate future to visual depictions of a human being in an action pose (as in the victim group of BR II:1: "that man is going to hit that victim on the head with that axe"). When the opportunity for such double vision is afforded, it is an example of something not possible in literary art; for while literary art can be evocative in many ways denied to visual art, especially of other works of art, it cannot give the sense that the pattern of words one sees/hears is about to shift into a different alignment of the same words.

Appendix A— Toreutica: The Cups as Silver Vessels

1. Vermeule 1963, 35. Lead content in Roman silver: Baratte et al. 1989, 22-23.

2. See Strong 1966, 133-39; Küthmann 1959, 88- 89; Gabelmann 1974; Andreae in Baia 1983, 49 n. 6; Simon 1986, 145; Baratte et al. 1989, 65. For Künzl (1979, 211ff.) any ring-handled vessel is a "scyphus"—my profile is his "cylindrical" type (219).

3. Techniques: Baratte et al. 1989, 23-28. Some Republican cups were left plain, with no shell; cf. Baratte et al., 65, cat. 8, from near Thorey (Chalon-sur-Saône, Mus. Denon inv. 86.3.15). Early imperial cores remounted as Late Antique chalices: Dodd 1974, fig. 52 (Swiss coll.); Boston, MFA inv. 1971.633, a core with handle rings intact, inlaid and fitted with new rim, thumb plates, and foot (fifth-seventh century A.D. Syria); Mango 1986, cat. 73. Copenhagen inv. 3143 is a stripped core.

4. Ring handles too were employed over a wide time span, on various cup profiles; Strong 1966, 133-34.

5. Millefiori, Met. Mus. inv. 9*1.2053 ( ex Coll. Castellani). Cut glass low skyphos, Köln inv. 35.132: Fremersdorff 1967, 62, pl. 21, citing two fragments at Cologne (pls. 309g, 20) and examples in the Vatican, from Cumae, and in London at the Victoria and Albert and Guildhall museums. Metal prototypes and Arretine ware models for glass: Grose 1989, 245f, and Toledo fragment cat. 429; J. Price in Henig 1983, 206-12, skyphoi at p. 209. Skyphos from late Republican tomb at Ancona: Mercando 1976, 16, fig. 66. (Italian glass imitations of metal of the third century B.C.: Grose 1989, 186-88.)

A special class are revivals of the third and fourth centuries A.D. in clear glass after vegetal silver of the first century A.D. Third-century cast glass skyphos with vine garland from Cologne (Mainz, RGZM); Price in Henig 1983, fig. 172. Fourth-century (ca. A.D. 360) blown glass pair from a woman's grave from Nord Rhein-Westfalen, with stylized laurel ornament (inscr. Kalos zesais ); Gallien in der Spätantike 1980, 129-30, cat. 178a. See also Glass of the Caesars 1987, 189, s.v. cat. 99. Compare Late Antique reuse of early imperial silver skyphos cores; see n. 3.

6. Skyphos with mock-Egyptian decoration in enamel and gold wire from Stabiae: Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 204, fig. 218; Pompeii 79 1979, pl. xiv.a-b. On this inlaid Italian ware, see Grose 1989, 342.

7. Cologne: Bühler 1973, cat. 55a, pl. 17; cf. pp. 28-29 on inspiration from metalwork. Rome, MN, from Doganella: Bordenache Battaglia 1983, no. vii.25. Pompeii miniature: Kraus and Matt 1975, fig./cat. 194.

8. Pergamene: Schäfer 1968, 68, pl. 36.E85. Lead-glazed ware: Jones, AJA 49 (1945): 45f.; Antiken aus rheinischem Privatbesitz 1973, s.v. cat. 112, 115, 124-27, 130; Gabelmann 1974; Green and Rawson 1981, 77, s.v. no. 71.02; King in Henig 1983, 189; Andreae 1983, 49 n. 6. Italian production: Maccabruni 1987, 169, 171-72, figs. 1-2.

9. Cf. Rome, MN 56146, a marble skyphos 32 CM in height X 78 cm diameter, carved with pine branches and grapevines (center motif: Pan and goat/wolf and sheep), dedicated by Q. Caecilius Amandus and his son Quintus Tullius. MNR I.1 (1979), 329-30, cat. 194 (R. Paris).

10. A major cult statue of Hercules in Rome (Custos?) had club and skyphos for attributes, reproduced on three votive altars from Rome: late Republican, MN inv. 114760; A.D. 81, Mus. Cap., Stanza dei Gladiatori; early first century A.D. Villa Albani inv. 916, dedicated to Hercules Defensor by the Papirii. The skyphos has reliefs, vine branches. Lahusen in Kat. Albani 1988, 118-20, s.v. cat. 32, pl. 57. This statue is probably copied by the bronze banqueting Hercules, Naples, MN 2828 (Pompeii), first century B.C.; Neudecker 1988, 179-80, n. 39, cat. 33.1 pl. 3.4; and cf. p. 303 n. 24.

11. Odysseus' cup in the Baiae Polyphemos group: Andreae in Baia 1983, 49, figs. 80-85 (Claudian). Also depicted in the mosaic rendition at Nero's Golden House, the ring-handled skyphos is still identifiable in the mosaic of the fourth century A.D. at Piazza Armerina; Wilson 1983, fig. 14; Andreae 1982, figs. on pp. 93, 97-98. Odysseus and skyphos on intaglios: Scherf et al. 1970, s.v. cat. 31 (Kassel), subject unrecognized; on early imperial lamps: Bezzi Martini 1987, 70, s.v. no. 2, fig. 1 ("kantharos"); Walters 1914, 83, pl. xvii.547. If the Tiberian group at Sperlonga adhered fully to the Catania sarcophagus version, the skyphos would have lain on the ground (cf. p. 303 n. 15); Andreae 1982, figs. on pp. 115, 270.

12. Held by banqueters in effigy; for instance: large, straight-sided skyphos (handles missing), Mus. Cons. inv. 1999, monument of C. Iulius Bathyllus (Columbarium of Livia's freedmen), late Julio-Claudian; smaller cup, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glypt. Sc.777, Trajanic. Wrede 1977, 400-402, fig. 73; 415-16, fig. 108.

13. Arch spandrel panel, on an early imperial historical relief from Rome (drawing): Pfanner 1980, pl. 114; Künzl 1988, fig. 20. Fragment of a small procession relief for (?) Venus Victrix, offerings carried in a large skyphos; Mus. Cap. 616; Helbig 4 II, cat. 1373; DAI neg. 76.2067. A banquet relief of the first century A.D. from S. Vittorino (Amiternum) has at least six skyphoi; Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, fig. 75. To the banqueting grave statues above compare the relief depictions (one skyphos in deceased's hand, one on table) from Narbo ( CIL XII.4557), Bonn (inv. 21357), Cologne ( CIL XIII.8303-4).; Espérandieu 1907-, nos. 643, 6268, 6454, 6455.

14. Naples inv. 8615 from Herculaneum, Casa dei Cervi: a ring-handled skyphos lies among offerings to Dionysos. Tinh 1988, 70-71, fig. 136.

15. E.g., the deep ring-handled skyphos, garland ornament in grisaille, held by the old Silen in the Villa dei Misteri Dionysiac cycle—Simon 1986, color pl. 20; a similar skyphos with repoussé garlands lies dropped from Hercules' hand in the Hercules and Omphale Naples panel, LIMC III (1986), s.v. ''Eros/Amor," no. 38.

16. House of the Faun emblema, putto on tiger clutching large ring-handled skyphos: Kraus and Matt 1975, color pl. 82, cat. 103. Cf. the mosaics mentioned on p. 302 n. 11.

17. Augustan blue-glass cameo plaque: Pompeii, House by the Porta Marina. A Dionysiac landscape; left, a satyr holds a skyphos. Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, figs. 225-26; Glass of the Caesars 1987, cat. 32. Cain (1988, cat. 93) cites a decorative marble relief with Hercules' club and skyphos.

18. Brescia, garland skyphos design: Bezzi Martini 1987, 108-9, no. 7, fig. 9, with parallels.

19. On a phiale emblema from Berthouville, early first century A.D., a maenad sleeps off her potations by a garland-decorated deep skyphos. Baratte et al. 1989, cat. 20.

20. On the early Augustan matrix (p. 97) with the Triumph of Omphale, Hercules has a big ring-handled skyphos; Pucci 1981, fig. 14; Zanker 1988, fig. 45a.

21. A vegetal skyphos is in the table service on the "Coupe des Ptolemées" kantharos (Paris, BN; mid-first century B.C.); Bühler 1973, cat. 18, color pl. 1; Küthmann 1959, 41; Henig 1983, 161, fig. 131.

22. E.g., two early imperial signets in New York (Met. Mus.); Richter 1956, nos. 568—69, pl. 64. See p. 302 n. 11 above.

23. The service of vegetal silver depicted at the Tomb of Vestorius Priscus has a pair of ring-handled skyphoi: Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 75; Kraus and Matt 1975, fig./cat. 227; cf. fig./cat. 226, a table service in a banquet scene. See also p. 302 n. 13 and p. 303 n. 21.

24. Andreae in Baia 1983, s.v. the Baiae Odysseus (see p. 302 n. 11). A garlanded ring-handled skyphos seems definitely part of Roman iconography of Hercules drinking.

25. Ori di Taranto 1984, s.v. cat. 8, the Canosa dish; Oliver and Luckner 1977, 61-62, dishes from Paternò, Tivoli; Strong 1966, 152; in BR hoard: MonPiot 5 (1899): pl. xxi; Casa del Menandro: Maiuri 1938, pls. lxii-lxiii; cf. Baratte et al. 1989, 19-20. In amber, Doganella: Bordenache Battaglia 1983, 62, no. vii.12, fig. 14. Terracotta model, a clay fish lying in it, South Italy: Antike Kunstwerke aus der Sammlung Ludwig 1982, 95-96, cat. 146. Bronze, Brescia: Bezzi Martini 1987, 33-34, no. 4, figs. 4-6. As clay lamp depression, Forcello: Bezzi Martini 1987, 70, no. 2, fig. 2. In a toilette set (with mirror and open casket?) depicted on an early imperial Spanish grave monument from Coimbra: Gamer 1989, cat. BEL 1, pl. 62c. This shape remained popular throughout the Empire; cf., for instance, Baratte et al. 1989, cat. 95, 115, 116.

26. Ori di Taranto 1984, cat. 318 (mounted, ca. 200-150 B.C., ex Tarentum), and cat. vii. 7, cxxix. 7-8, cxxx.12; Bordenache Battaglia 1983, 188-19, no. xii.6, fig. 13 a-c; Oliver 1977, 61-62 (mounted, ex Asia Minor). Cf. Dioscurides 1.2-3; Hellenistic epigram on shell carved with sleeping Eros, Gow and Page 1968, 2: 587, lv ( Anth.Pal. 9.325); later epigram on shell carved with Aphrodite, Greek Anthology, vol. 3, no. 681 (Loeb edition).

27. Oliver 1977, s.v. cat. 34.

28. See now Baratte et al. 1989, 67, and cat. 9, 10, 12. Küthmann 1959, 51-52; Strong 1966, 136; Henig 1983, 142; Simon 1986, s.v. figs. 272-73. Much represented in contemporary art; cf. nn. 9-10, 15, 18 above. Laurel-decorated jugs turn up on Augustan reliefs in Spain; in the garlands of the historical reliefs at Merida: Trillmich 1986, pls. 40-42; on the altar at Tarragona, inv. 7590: Gamer 1989, cat. T 1, pl. 1 b-d.

29. Cf. the commemorative ewers, MonPiot 5 (1899): pls. iii and iv; Küthmann 1959, 53-54; Baratte et al. 1989, 38, 61-64, 81-82. Vegetal attachments in the BR hoard, MonPiot 5 (1899): pls. vii, xvii, xviii, xix. Cf. Küthmann 1959, 77-78; Strong 1966, 137; Bühler 1973, cat. 20, 21, pls. 8, 74, 23, 80, 26; Baratte et al., cat. 10 (skyphos handle); Kais. Aug. 1988, 578, cat. 404.

30. Kais. Aug. 1988, 569-71, cat. 397 (Künzl).

31. Baratte et al. 1989, 67. Style: Küthmann 1959, 78-80 (n. 3). Matheson (1980, 40-41, cat. 111) discusses imitation by painted blue glass, a rare first-century luxury type. Ceramic imitations: e.g., Antiken aus rheinischem Privatbesitz 1973, s.v. cat. 112, pl. 51; cat. 130, pl. 53 (superb oak garland). Lead-glazed skyphoi are characterized by vegetal decoration; Maccabruni 1987, 169.

32. Cf. Simon 1986, 211-16.

33. Acanthus decoration in metal and stone: Küthmann 1959, 55f; Oliver 1977, s.v. cat. 80; Zanker 1988, 183-88; Büsing 1977, 247-57 (Ara Pacis).

34. Other artists: Strong 1966, 15f.

35. E.g., Byvanck van Ufford 1974, 203-4 (misunderstood by Hannestad 1986, 378 n. 11, as reidentifying Tiberius' portrait ); taken up by Jucker (1978, 94) and by Gabelmann (most recently 1984, 130 n. 534). He adduces the fact that no datable Arretine ware (early imperial molded pottery closely tied to metalwork) has such high, undercut relief. True—for it would never have come out of its mold if it had had undercut relief. Gabelmann chides Hölscher (Augustan date) for not heeding literature on silver style but himself omits Küthmann (1959, 79f). Zanker (1988, 392) backs Künzl's characterizations (1969) of Augustan silver styles and rejects Gabelmann, like Simon (1986, 245).

36. Mythological decoration in high, undercut relief, in expressive figure-style: Künzl 1969, 321-22. Vegetal and figural decoration: Küthmann 1959, 79; vegetal: Strong 1966, 136. See p. 3 above.

Appendix B— Communications Theory and the Boscoreale Cups

1. My deep thanks to Dr. Ernst Künzl of the RGZM-Mainz and Dr. Antje Krug of the DAI-Zentraldirektion for bringing this thesis to my attention in 1990 and helping to make it accessible to me on microfiche.

2. My 1987 dissertation was not included in her bibliography, though Pollini's 1978 dissertation was.

3. The structure: part 1: introduction; part 2: pp. 7-23 review each scholar who wrote on the cups and pp. 24-51 turn exclusively to a description of the categories of historical art and communications analysis; part 3: pp. 58-68 describe the figures represented, pp. 69-78 briefly treat the narrative and name figures and details, and pp. 51-90 comment on individual elements that are the main signs to convey information.

4. The illustrations consist of the central shot of each face from the original publication (pp. 7-10) and a photo montage of each side (pp. 52-55, printing by mistake the sacrifice side of the Tiberius cup twice for the triumph scene).

5. That is to say, in the iconographic analysis of BR II:2 on pp. 86-88 the meaningful details are those that tell us this is a sacrifice by an official figure at Rome (Lictor, Flute Player, Tripod, Temple, and Sacrificial Animal), and the explanations of these signs simply briefly define Roman practice (i.e., a flute player plays at Roman sacrifices).


The Age of Augustus: Interdisciplinary Conference Held at Brown University, April 30–May 2, 1982 . 1985. Ed. R. Winkes. Providence.

Alföldi, A. 1935. "Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser." RM 50: 1–171.

———. 1973. Die zwei Lorbeerbäume des Augustus . Bonn.

———. 1979. Aion in Merida und Aphrodisias . Madrider Beiträge 6. Mainz.

Anderson, M. L. 1987–88. "Pompeian Frescoes in the Metropolitan Museum of Art." Met. Mus. of Art Bull . Winter 1987–88: 1–56.

———. 1987. "The Portrait Medallions of the Imperial Villa at Boscotrecase." AJA 91: 127–35.

Andreae, B. 1975. "Rekonstruktion des grossen Oecus der Villa des P. Fannius Synistor in Boscoreale." In Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, 71–83.

Andreae, B. 1978. The Art of Rome . New York.

———. 1982. Odysseus: Archäologie des europäischen Menschenbildes . Frankfurt.

———. 1983. "Le sculture." In Baia: Il ninfeo imperiale, 49–66.

Angelis Bertolotti, R. de. 1985. "Materiali dell' Ara Pacis presso il Museo Nazionale Romano." RM 92: 221–84.

Antike Kunstwerke aus der Sammlung Ludwig . Vol. 2. Terrakotten und Bronzen . 1982. Edited by E. Berger. Basel.

Antiken aus rheinischem Privatbesitz . 1973. Cologne.

Architecture et société de l'archaisme grec à la fin de la république romaine. Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre national de la recherche scientifique et l' Ecole française de Rome, Rome, 2–4 décembre 1980 . 1983. Rome and Paris.

L'art décoratif à Rome ô la fin de la république et au début du Principat, Table ronde, organisée par l' Ecole française de Rome, Rome, 10–11 mai 1979 . 1981. Collection de l'Ecole française de Rome 55. Rome.

Aymard, A. 1961. "Les ôtages barbares an début de l'Empire." JRS 51: 136–42.

Badian, E. 1967. "Alexander and the Greeks of Asia." In Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on His 75th Birthday, 37–69. Oxford.


Baia: Il ninfeo imperiale sommerso di Punta Epitaffio . 1983. Naples.

Bammer, A. 1971. Das Monument des C. Memmius . Forschungen in Ephesos 7. Vienna.

Banti, L., and R. Simonetti. 1977–. Corpus nummorum Romanorum . Florence.

Baratte, F. 1985. Römisches Silbergeschirr in den gallischen und germanischen Provinzen . Mainz.

———. 1986. Le trésor d'orfèvrerie romaine de Boscoreale . Paris.

———. 1988. "The Treasure of Boscoreale." In Il tesoro di Boscoreale, Una collezione, 27–32.

———. 1991. "Arts précieux et propaganda imperiale au début de l'empire romain: L'example des deux coupes de Boscoreale." Revue du Louvre 1 : 24–40.

Baratte, F., and C. Metzger. 1985. Musée du Louvre: Sarcophages au pierre d'époques romaine et paléochrêtienne . Paris.

Baratte, F., K. Painter, and F. Leyge. 1989. Trésors d'orfèvrerie gallo-romains: Musée du Luxembourg-Paris, 8 fevrier–23 avril 1989 . Paris.

Barr Sharrar, B. 1987. The Hellenistic and Early Imperial Decorative Bust . Mainz.

Bartmann, E. 1988. "Decor et Duplicatio: Pendants in Roman Sculptural Display." AJA 92: 211–25.

Beazley, J. 1920. The Lewes House Collection of Ancient Gems . Oxford.

Becatti, G. 1967. The Art of Ancient Greece and Rome, from the Rise of Greece to the Fall of Rome . New York.

Bedon, R., R. Chevallier, and M. Pinon. 1988. Architecture et urbanisme en Gaule romaine . Vol. 1, L'architecture et la ville . Vol. 2, L'urbanisme . Paris.

Bellen, H. 1984. "Das Drususdenkmal apud Mogontiacum und die Galliarum Civitates." JbRGZM 31: 385–96.

Beschi, L. 1968. "Il monuments di Telemachos, fondatore dell' Asklepeion ateniese." ASAtene 45–46, n.s. 29–30: 381–436.

———. 1982. "Il rilievo di Telemachos ricompletato." AAA 15: 31.

Besques, S. 1986. Musée du Louvre: Catalogue raisonné des figurines et reliefs en terrecuite grecs étrusques et romains . Vol. 4.1, Epoques hellénistique et romaine: Italie méridionale-Sicile-Sardaigne . Paris.

Bettagno, A., ed. 1978. Piranesi: Incisioni-rami-legature-architetture . Vicenza.

Bezzi Martini, L. 1987. Necropoli e tombe romane di Brescia e dintorni . Brescia.

Bianchi Bandinelli, R. 1970. Rome, the Center of Power, 500 B.C. to A.D. 200 . New York.

———. 1971. Rome, the Late Empire: Roman Art, A.D. 200–400 . New York.

———., and M. Torelli. 1976. Etruria-Roma . L'arte dell'antichitô classica 2. Turin.

Bieber, M. 1945. "Honos and Virrus ." AJA 49: 25–34.

Die Bildnisse des Augustus: Herrscherbild und Politik im kaiserlichen Rom, Sonderausstellung der Glyptothek und des Museum für Abgüsse Klassischer Bildwerke, München . 1979. Edited by P. Zanker and K. Vierneisel. Munich and Bonn.


Blamberg, E. 1976. "The Public Image Projected by the Roman Emperors (A.D. 69–117) as Reflected in Contemporary Imperial Coinage." Ph.D. diss., Indiana University.

Blanck, H., and C. Weber Lehmann. 1987. Malerei der Etrusker in Zeichnungen des 19. Jahrhunderts: Dokumentation vor den Photographie aus dem Archiv des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Rom . Mainz.

Bloemers, J. H. F. 1985. "Archeologisch Nieuws: Mededelingen van de archeologische instellingen in Nederland, Gelderland, Romains Nijmegen." Bulletin KNOB: Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond 84: 30–37.

BMCRE: see Mattingly.

BMCRR: see Grueber.

Boatwright, M. T. 1986. "The Pomerial Extensions of Augustus." Historia 35: 13–27.

———. 1987. Hadrian and the City of Rome . Princeton.

Boeselager, D. von. 1983. Antike Mosaiken in Sizilien: Hellenismus und römische Kaiserzeit 3. Jh.v.Chr.–3. jh.n.Chr. Rome.

Boissac, M.-F. 1988. "Sceaux déliens." RA 1988: 217–41.

Bömer, F., ed., trans., and comm. 1957–58. P. Ovidius Naso, Die Fasten . Heidelberg.

———., comm. 1969. P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen . Heidelberg.

Borchhardt, J. 1974. "Ein Kenotaph für Gains Caesar." JdI 89: 217–41.

Borda, M. 1943. Monumenti archeologici tuscolani nel Castello d'Agliè . Rome.

Bordenache Battaglia, G. 1983. Corredi funerari di età imperiale e barbarica nel Museo Nazionale Romano . Rome.

Boschung, D. 1987a. Antike Grabaltäre aus der Nekropolen Roms . Bern.

———. 1987b. "Römische Glasphalerae mit Porträtbusten." BJb 187: 193–257.

Bowersock, G. 1965. Augustus and the Creek World . Oxford.

———. 1983. Roman Arabia . Cambridge, Mass.

Bowra, M. 1957. "Melinno's Hymn to Rome." JRS 47: 21–28.

Brandenburg, H., and H. Solin. 1980. "Paganer Fruchtbarkeitsritus oder Martyriumsdarstellung? Zum Grabrelief der Elia Afanasia im Museum der Praetextät-Katakombe zu Rom." AA 1980: 271–84.

Brandt, E. 1972. Antike Gemmen in Deutschland . Vol. 1–3, Staatliche Münzsammlung München: Gemmen und Glaspasten der römischen Kaiserzeit sowie Nachträge . Munich.

Braund, D. 1984. Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of the Client Kingship . New York.

———. 1985. Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History, 31 B.C.–A.D. 68. Totowa, N.J.

Brendel, O. 1930. "Immolatio Boum." RM 36: 1–47.

Brilliant, R. 1963. Gesture and Rank in Roman Art: The Use of Gestures to Connote Status in Roman Sculpture and Coinage . New Haven.


Broneer, O. 1944. "The Armed Aphrodite on Acrocorinth and the Aphrodite of Capua." CPCA 1: 30–45.

Brown, D. 1940. Temples of Rome as Coin Types . American Numismatic Society Notes and Monographs 90. New York.

Buchner, E. 1976. "Solarium Augusti und Ara Pacis." RM 83: 319–65.

Bühler, H.-P. 1973. Antike Gefässe aus Edelsteinen . Mainz.

Bühler, W., ed., trans., and comm. 1960. Die Europa des Moschos . Hermes Einzelschriften 13. Wiesbaden.

Burns, T. S., and B. H. Overbeck. 1987. Rome and the Germans as Seen in Coinage: Catalogue for the Exhibition . Emory University Museum. Atlanta.

Büsing, H. 1977. "Ranke und Figur an der Ara Pacis Augustae." AA 1977: 247–57.

Bütler, H.-P. 1970. Die geistige Welt des jüngeren Plinius: Studien zur Thematik seiner Briefe . Heidelberg.

Byvanck van Ufford, L. 1974. "Le Skyphos de Tibère: Un Skyphos de Claude." In Festoen opgedragen aan A. N. Zadoks Josephus Jitta, 203–4. Leiden.

Cagiano de Azevedo, M. 1951. Le antichità di Villa Medici . Rome.

Cain, H. U. 1988. "Chronologie, Ikonographie und Bedeutung der römischen Maskenreliefs." BJb 188: 107–221.

Cameron, A. 1980. "The Garland of Philip." GRBS 21: 43–62.

Carinci, F., ed. 1990. Catalogo della Galleria Colonna in Roma: Sculture . Busto Arsizio.

Cassius Dio. 1987. The Roman History: The Reign of Augustus . Translated by I. Scott-Kilvert, with an introduction by J. Carter. New York and London.

Chisholm, K., and J. Ferguson. 1981. Rome, the Augustan Age: A Source Book . London.

Christ, K. 1977. "Zur augusteischen Germanienpolitik." Chiron 7: 149–205.

Città e architettura nella Roma imperiale . 1983. Analecta Romana Suppl. 10. Rome.

La civilisation romaine de la Moselle à la Saure . 1983. Paris.

Classen, C. J. 1986. "Virtutes Romanorum nach dem Zeugnis der Münzen republikanischer Zeit." RM 93: 257–79.

CNR: see Banti and Simonetti.

Coarelli, F. 1968. "L' 'Ara di Domizio Enobarbo' e la cultura artistica in Roma nel II secolo a.C." DialArch 2: 302–68.

———. 1976. "Architettura e arti figurative in Roma 150–50 a.C." In Hellenismus in Mittelitalien, 38–51.

———. 1981. "Alessandro, i Licinii e Lanuvio." In L'art décoratif, 229–62.

———. 1983a. "Architettura sacra e architettura privata nella tarda Repubblica." In Architecture et société, 191–217.

———. 1983b. "Il Pantheon, l'apoteosi di Augusto e l'apoteosi di Romolo." In Città e architettura, 41–46.

———. 1985. Il Foro Romano . 2 vols. Rome.

———. 1987. I santuari del Lazio in età repubblicana . Rome.


Le collezioni del Museo Nazionale di Napoli: I mosaici, le pitture, gli oggetti di uso quotidiano, gli argenti e le invetriate, i vetri, i cristalle, gli avori . 1986. Rome.

Colucci Pescatori, G. 1975. Il Museo Irpino . Naples.

Courtney, E. 1980. A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal . London.

Crawford, M. H. 1974. Roman Republican Coinage . 2 vols. London and New York.

Cristofani, M. 1985. I bronzi degli Etruschi . Novara.

Crous, J. W. 1937. "Roma auf Waffen." In Corolla L. Curtius zum sechzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht, 217–24. Stuttgart.

CRR: see Sydenham.

Daut, R. 1975. Imago: Untersuchungen zum Bildbegriff der Römer . Heidelberg.

Degrassi, A. 1962. "Nuovi miliari arcaici." In Scritti vari di antichità, edited by A. Degrassi, 3: 195–209. 1967. Venice and Trieste.

Delbrück, R. 1934. Antike Porphyrwerke . Berlin and Leipzig.

Dilke, O. 1985. Greek and Roman Maps . Ithaca, N.Y.

Dodd, E. C. 1974. Byzantine Silver Treasures . Bern.

Doppelfeld, O., and H. Held. 1974. Der Rhein und die Römer . Cologne.

Dörig, J. 1975. Art antique: Collections privées de Suisse romande . Geneva.

Dragendorff, H. 1948. Arretinische Reliefkeramik mit Beschreibung der Sammlung in Tübingen . Reutlingen.

Drew, L. 1924. "Vergil's Marble Temple: Georgics III.10–39." CQ 18: 195–202.

Dunbabin, K. 1986. "'Sic erimus cuncti . . .': The Skeleton in Graeco-Roman Art." JdI 101: 185–255.

Dütschke, F. 1875. Antike Bildwerke in Oberitalien . Vol. 2, Zerstreute antike Bildwerke in Florenz . Leipzig.

Eck, W. 1972. "Die Familie der Volusii Saturnini in neuen Inschriften aus Lucus Feroniae." Hermes 100: 461–84.

———. 1980. "Traian als Stifter der Alimenta auf einer Basis aus Terracina." AA 1980: 266–70.

———. 1984a. "CIL VI 1508 (Moretti, IGUR 71) und die Gestaltung senatorischer Ehrenmonumente." Chiron 14: 210–17.

———. 1984b. "Senatorial Self-Representation: Developments in the Augustan Period." In Millar and Segal, Caesar Augustus, 129–67.

Ehrenberg, V. 1953. "Legatus Augusti et Tiberii?" In Studies Presented to D. M. Robinson on His Seventieth Birthday, edited by G. Mylonas and D. Raymond, 2: 938–44. St. Louis.

Ehrenberg, V., and A. H. M. Jones. 1976. Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius . 2d ed. Oxford.

Eichler, F., and E. Kris. 1927. Die Kameen in Kunsthistorischen Museum, Wien: Beschreibender Katalog . Vienna.

Eisner, M. 1986. Zur Typologie der Grabbäuten im Suburbium Roms . RM Ergänzungsheft 26. Mainz.


Emmons Levy, B., and P. Bastien. 1985. Roman Coins in the Princeton University Library . Vol. 1. Princeton.

Erim, K. T. 1982. "Récentes découvertes à Aphrodisias en Carie, 1979–80." RA 1982: 163–69.

———. 1986. Aphrodisias: City of Venus Aphrodite . New York.

Espérandieu, E. 1907–66. Recueil général des bas-reliefs de la Gaule romaine . Vol. 1, 1907. Vol. 2, 1908. Vol. 3, 1910. Vol. 4, 1911. Vol. 7, 1918. Vol. 8, 1922. Vol. 9, 1925. Vol. 10, 1928. Vol. 11, 1938. Vol. 14, 1955. Vol. 15, 1966. Paris.

Eydoux, H.–P. 1962. La France antique . Paris.

Fabbrini, L. 1964. "Il ritratto giovanile di Tiberio e la iconografia di Druso Maggiore." BdA 49: 304–26.

Felletti Maj, B. M. 1977. La tradizione italica nell' arte romana . Rome.

Fishwick, D. 1989. "The Sixty Gallic Tribes and the Altar of the Three Gauls." Historia 38: 111–12.

Fittschen, K. 1969. "Ein Feldherrnsarkophag in Thermenmuseum." RM 76: 329–34.

———. 1972. "Das Bildprogramm des Traiansbogens zu Benevent." AA 1972: 742–88.

———. 1975. "Zu Figurenfries der Villa von Boscoreale." In Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, 93–100.

———. 1976. "Zur Panzerstatue in Cherchel." JdI 91: 175–210.

———. 1977. Katalog der antiken Skulpturen in Schloss Erbach . Berlin.

———. 1979. "Sarkophage römischer Kaiser oder vom Nutzen der Porträtforschung." JdI 94: 578–93.

Fittschen, K., and P. Zanker. 1985. Katalog der römischen Porträts in dem Capitolinischen Museen . Vol. 1, Kaiser- und Prinzenbildnisse . Rome.

Fleischer, R. 1983. "Zu den trajanischen Elfenbeinfriesen aus Ephesos." AA 1983: 539–41.

Flory, M. 1984. "Sic exempla parantur: Livia's Shrine to Concordia and the Porticus Liviae." Historia 33: 309–30.

———. 1988. "Abducta Neroni Uxor." TAPA 118: 343–59.

Forschungen zur Villa Albani: Katalog der antiken Bildwerke . 1989. Vol. 1, Bildwerke im Treppenaufgang und im Piano Nobile des Casino, edited by P. C. Bol. Berlin.

The Fragrant Past: Perfumes of Cleopatra and Julius Caesar . 1989. Emory University Museum. Atlanta.

Franzoni, C. 1987. Habitus atque habitudo militis: Monumenti funerari di militari nella Cisalpina romana . Rome.

Fremersdorff, F. 1967. Die Denkmäler des römischen Köln . Vol. 8, Die römischen Gläser mit Schliff, Bemalung und Goldauflagen aus Köln . Cologne.

Frenz, H. G. 1985a. "Drusus Maior und sein Monument zu Mainz." JbRGZM 32: 394–421.


———. 1985b. Römische Grabreliefs in Mittel- und Süditalien . Rome.

Froning, H. 1981. Marmor Schmuckreliefs mit griechischen Mythen im 1. Jh. v. Chr.: Untersuchungen zu Chronologie und Funktion . Mainz.

Frova, A. 1956. "Due statue sedute romane." ArchCl 8: 34–39.

Fuchs, G. 1969. Architekturdarstellungen auf römische Münzen der Republik und frü hen Kaiserzeit . AMUGS 1. Berlin.

Fuchs, M. 1987. Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung römischer Theater in Italien und den Westprovinzen des Imperium Romanum . Mainz.

Fuchs, M., P. Liverani, and G. Santoro. 1989. Il teatro e il ciclo statuario giulio-claudio . Vol. 2 of Caere, edited by P. Santoro. Rome.

Fullerton, M. 1985. "The Domus Augusti in Imperial Iconography of 13-12 B.C." AJA 89: 473–83.

Gabelmann, H. 1974. "Zur hellenistische-römische Bleigläsurkeramik." JdI 89: 265–305.

———. 1981. "Römische ritterliche Offiziere in Triumphzug." JdI 96: 436–65.

———. 1984. Antike Audienz- und Tribunalszenen . Darmstadt.

———. 1985. "Römische Kinder in toga praetexta ." JdI 100: 491–541.

———. 1986. "Zur Schlub szene auf dem Schild des Aeneas (Vergil Aeneis VIII 720–728)." RM 93: 281–300.

Galinsky, K. 1966. "Venus in a Relief of the Ara Pacis Augustae." AJA 70: 223–45.

———. 1969. Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome . Princeton.

Gallien in der Spätantike von König Constantin zu Frankenkönig Childerich . 1980. Römisch-Germanisch Museum. Mainz.

Gamer, G. 1989. Formen römischer Altäre auf der hispanischen Halbinsel . Madrider Beiträge 12. Mainz.

Ganger, J. D. 1984. "Der Rom Hymnos der Melinno (Anth. Lyr. II.2. 6.209f.) und die Vorstellung von der 'Ewigkeit' Roms." Chiron 14: 267–99.

Ganschow, T. 1986. "Überlegungen zum Partherdenkmal von Ephesos." AA 1986: 201–21.

Ganzert, J. 1984. Das Kenotaph für Gaius Caesar in Limyra: Architektur und Bauornamentik . Istanbuler Forschungen 35. Tübingen.

Garzetti, A. 1974. From Tiberius to the Antonines: A History of the Roman Empire, A.D. 14–192 . Translated by J. R. Foster. London.

Gauer, W. 1974. "Zum Bildprogramm des Traiansbogen im Benevent." JdI 89: 308–35.

Gercke, W. 1968. Untersuchungen zum römischen Kinderporträt von den Anfängen bis in hadrianische Zeit . Hamburg.

Geyer, A. 1978. "Ikonographische Bemerkungen zum Neapler 'Brüdersarkophag.'" JdI 93: 369–93.

Ghedini, F. 1980. Sculture greche e romane del Museo Civico di Padova . Rome.

———. 1986. "La figura recumbente di piatto di Aquileia e l'eleusinismo alessandrino." RdA 10: 31–42.


———. 1987. "L'alabastron di Berlino: Un dono di Caligola a Cesonia?" RM 94: 197–203.

Giuliano, A. 1957. Catalogo dei ritratti romani del Museo Profano Lateranense . Mon. Vat. di Arch. e di Arte 10. Vatican City.

Glass of the Caesars . 1987. Edited by D. B. Harden. Corning and Munich.

Glob, P. V. 1969. The Bog People: Iron Age Man Preserved . Ithaca, N.Y.

The Gods Delight: The Human Figure in Classical Bronze . 1988. Edited by A. Kozloff and D. Mitten. Bloomington, Ind.

Goette, H.–R. 1988a. "Mulleus-Embas-Calceus: Ikonographische Studien zu römischen Schuhwerk." JdI 103: 401–64.

———. 1988b. "Zwei 'fest-datierte' griechische Statuen römischer Zeit." AM 103: 251–58.

Gold of Greece: Jewelry and Ornaments from the Benaki Museum, Dallas Museum of Art, April 8–June 10, 1990 . 1990. Edited by A. R. Bromberg. Dallas.

González, J. 1984. "Tabula Siarensis, Fortunales Siarensis et Municipia Romanorum." ZPE 55: 55–100.

Gonzenbach, V. von. 1966. "Tiberische Gürtel- und Schwertscheidenbeschlage mit figurlichen Reliefs." In Helvetia antiqua: Festschrift E. Vogt, edited by R. Degen, W. Drack, and R. Wyss, 183–208. Zurich.

Götter-Pharaonen: Ausstellung, Essen, Villa Hügel, vom 2. Juni bis 17. September 1978 . 1978. Edited by D. Wildung and G. Grimm. Recklinghausen.

Gow, A. F. S., and D. L. Page. 1965. The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams . 2 vols. London.

———. 1968. The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams . 2 vols. London.

Greek and Roman Metalware: A Loan Exhibition, February 14–April 14, 1976, The Walters Art Gallery . 1976. Baltimore.

Greek and Roman Portraits, 470 B.C.–A.D. 500: Boston Museum of Fine Arts, 1972 . 1972. Boston.

Greek Gold: see Hoffmann and Davidson.

Green, J., and B. Rawson. 1981. Antiquities: A Description of the Classics Department Museum in the Australian National University, Canberra . Canberra.

Gros, P. 1976a. Aurea Templa: Recherches sur l'architecture religieuse de Rome à l'époque d'Auguste . Rome.

———. 1976b. "Hellénisme et romanisation en Gaule Narbonnaise." In Hellenismus in Mittelitalien, 300–311.

———. 1979. "Pour une chronologie des arcs de triumphe de Gaule Narbonnaise (à propos de l'arc de Glanum)." Gallia 37: 55–83.

———. 1981. "Note sur deux reliefs des 'Antiques' de Glanum: Le problème de la romanisation." RAN 14: 159–72.

———. 1987. "Un programme augustéen: Le centre monumental de la colonie d'Arles." JdI 102: 339–63.

Grose, D. F. 1989. The Toledo Museum of Art: Early Ancient Class, Core-formed,


Rod-formed, and Cast Vessels and Objects from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Roman Empire, 1600 B.C. to A.D. 50 . Toledo.

Gross, W. H. 1985. "Ways and Roundabout Ways in the Propaganda of an Unpopular Ideology." In Age of Augustus, 29–47.

Grueber, H. A. 1874. Roman Medallions in the British Museum . London.

———. 1910. Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum . London.

Gruen, E. 1985. "Augustus and the Ideology of War and Peace." In Age of Augustus, 51–72.

Grünhagen, W. 1961. "Ein Frauenkopf aus Munigua." Pantheon 19: 53–65.

Gualandi, G. 1979. "L'apparato figurativo negli archi augustei." In Studi sull'arco onorario romano, 99–121. Rome.

Habicht, C. 1972. "Die augusteische Zeit in das erste Jahrhundert nach Christs Geburt." Fond. Hardt 29 (Le culte des souverains ): 39–88.

Hadas, M. 1959. Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion . New York.

Hafner, G. 1967. "Bildnisse römischer Dichter: Plautus und Terentius." AntK 10: 105–11.

———. 1987. "Drei Gemälde im Tempel der Bellona." RM 94: 241–60.

Halfmann, H. 1986. Itinera principum: Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im römischen Reich . Stuttgart.

Hallett, J. 1985. "Queens, Princesses and Women of the Augustan Elite: Propertius' Cornelia Elegy and the Res Gestae Diui Augusti." In Age of Augustus, 73–88.

Hamberg, P. G. 1945. Studies in Roman Imperial Art, with Special Reference to the State Reliefs of the Second Century . Uppsala.

Hammond, M. 1953. "A Statue of Trajan Represented on the 'Anaglypha Traiani.'" MAAR 21: 127–83.

Hänlein-Schäfer, H. 1985. Veneratio Augusti: Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des ersten römischen Kaisers . Rome.

Hannestad, N. 1986. Roman Art and Imperial Policy . Aarhus.

Hanson, J. A. 1959. Roman Theater Temples . Princeton.

Hardie, P. R. 1985. "Imago Mundi: Cosmological and Ideological Aspects of the Shield of Achilles." JHS 105: 11–31.

———. 1986. Vergil's Aeneid: Cosmos and Imperium . Oxford.

Hassel, F. 1966. Das Traiansbogen im Benevent: Ein Bauwerk des römischen Senates . Mainz.

Havelock, C. M. 1970. Hellenistic Art: The Art of the Classical World from the Death of Alexander the Great to the Battle of Actium . Greenwich.

Heintze, H. von. 1957. "Studien zu den Porträts des 3. Jhs. n. Chr. IV: Der Feldherr des grossen Ludovisischen Schlachtsarkophags." RM 64: 69–91.

———. 1971. Roman Art . London.

———. 1974. Römische Porträts . Bonn.

Helbig, W., ed. 1966—. Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom . 4th ed. Tübingen.


Hellenismus in Mittelitalien: Kolloquium in Göittingen vom 5. bis 9. Juni 1974 . 1976. Abhandlung der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 3.97. Göttingen.

Henig, M. 1974. A Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites . BAR 82. Oxford.

———. ed. 1983. A Handbook of Roman Art: A Survey of the Visual Arts of the Roman World . Ithaca, N.Y.

Herdejürgen, H. 1989. "Beobachtungen an den Lünettenreliefs hadrianischer Girlandensarkophage." AntK 1989. 1: 17–26.

Héron de Villefosse, P. 1899. "Le trésor de Boscoreale." MonPiot 5: 1–290.

Hesberg, H. von. 1980. "Ein Monument aus Canosa di Puglia." RM 87: 349–94.

———. 1988. "Bildsyntax und Erzählweise in der hellenistischen Flachenkunst." JdI 103: 309–65.

Himmelmann, N. 1973. Typologische Untersuchungen an römischen Sarkophagreliefs des 3. und 4. Jhs. n. Chr . Mainz.

Hoffmann, H., and P. F. Davidson. 165. Greek Gold: Jewelry from the Age of Alexander, The Brooklyn Museum, January 20–March 9, 1966 . N.p.

Hölscher, T. 1965. "Ein römischer Stirnziegel mit Victoria und Capricorni." JbRGZM 12: 59–73.

———. 1967. Victoria Romana . Mainz.

———. 1979. "Beobachtungen zur römischen historischen Denkmälern." AA 1979: 337–48.

———. 1980. "Die Geschichtsauffassung in der römischen Repräsentationskunst." JdI 95: 265–321.

———. 1984a. "Actium und Salamis." RM 99: 187—214.

———. 1984b. "Beobachtungen . . . II." AA 1984: 283–94.

———. 1984c. Staatsdenkmal und Publikum . Xenia 9. Konstanz.

———. 1988. "Beobachtungen . . . III." AA 1988: 523–41.

Holum, K. G., and R. L. Hohlfelder. 1988. King Herod's Dream: Caesarea on the Sea . New York and London.

Hommel, P. 1954. Studien zu den römischen Figurengiebel der Kaiserzeit . Berlin.

Horster, M. 1975. "Eine unbekannte Renaissance Zeichnung nach römischen Sarkophagen." AA 1975: 403–32.

Jessop-Price, M., and B. Trell. 1977. Coins and Their Cities: Architecture on the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome and Palestine . London and Detroit.

Jobst, W. 1977. Römische Mosaike aus Ephesos . Vol. 1. Forschungen in Ephesos 8.2. Vienna.

———. 1985. "Zur Standortbestimmung und Rekonstruktion des Parthersiegaltares von Ephesos." ÖJh 56: 79–96.

Jones, F. F. 1945. "Rhosica Vasa." AJA 49: 45–51.

Jucker, H. 1976. "Der Grosser Pariser Kameo." JdI 91: 211–50.

———. 1977. "Die Prinzen des Statuenzyklus aus Veleia: Umfang und Datierung der Stiftung des L. Calpurnius Piso." JdI 92: 204–40.


———. 1978. "Ipse suos Genius adsit uisurus honores." In Classica et provincialia: Festschrift Erna Diez, 93–96. Graz.

Jucker, I. 1980. "Hahnenopfer auf einem späthellenistischen Relief." AA 1980: 440–76.

Jung, H. 1976. "Zur Eirene des Kephisodot." JdI 91: 97–134.

Kaenel, H.-M. von. 1986. Münzprägung und Münzbildnis des Claudius . AMUGS 9. Berlin.

Kähler, H. 1954a. "Die Front der Ara Pacis." In Festschrift B. Schweitzer, 322–30. Stuttgart.

———. 1954b. Rom und sein Welt . Mainz.

———. 1959. Der Augustusstatue von Primaporta . Cologne.

———. 1964. Das Fünfsäulendenkmal für die Tetrarchen auf den Forum Romanum . Cologne.

———. 1966. See-Thiasos und Census: Die Reliefs aus dem Palazzo Santa Croce in Rom . Berlin.

———. 1968. Alberti Rubeni Dissertatio de Gemma Augustea . Berlin.

Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik: Eine Ausstellung im Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin, 7. Juni—14. August 1988 . 1988. Berlin.

Kaisersaal: Porträts aus den kapitolinischen Museen in Rom, Köln, Römisch- Germanisches Museum, 23. April-22. Juni, 1986 . 1986. Edited by W. Eck, K. Fittschen, and F. Naumann. Rome.

Kampen, N. B. 1981. "Biographical Narration and Roman Funerary Art." AJA 85: 47–58.

Karanastassis, P. 1986. "Untersuchungen zur kaiserzeitlichen Plastik in Griechenland, I: Kopien, Variationen und Umbildungen nach Aphroditetypen des 5. Jhs. v. Chr." AM 101: 207–91.

Kaschnitz von Weinberg, G. 1961. Römische Kunst . Vol. 2, Zwischen Republik und Kaiserzeit . Hamburg.

Kat. Albani: see Forschungen zur Villa Albani .

Kent, J. P. C., B. Overbeck, and A. Stylow. 1973. Die römische Münze . Munich.

Kersauson, K. de. 1986. Muséee du Louvre: Catalogue des portraits romains . Vol. 1, Portraits de la République et d'époque julio-claudienne . Paris.

Kienast, D. 1982. Augustus: Prinzeps und Monarch . Darmstadt.

Kienast, D. 1989. Review of The Nature and Purpose of Augustus' "Res Gestae," by E. S. Ramage (Historia Einzelschriften 54 [1987]). AJP 110: 177–80.

Kiss, Z. 1975. L'iconographie des princes julio-claudiens au temps d'Auguste et de Tibère . Warsaw.

Kleiner, D. 1985. "Private Portraiture in the Age of Augustus." In Age of Augustus, 107–35.

Kleiner, F. 1983. "The Sacrifice in Armor in Roman Art." Latomus 42: 287–302.

———. 1985a "The Arch of Gaius Caesar at Pisa (CIL XI 1421)." Latomus 44: 159–64.


———. 1985b. The Arch of Nero in Rome: A Study of the Roman Honorary Arch before and under Nero . Rome.

———. 1989. "The Arch of Galba at Tarragona and Dynastic Portraiture on Roman Arches." MM 30: 239–52.

Klumbach, H. 1970. "Altes und Neues zum Schwert des Tiberius." JbRGZM 17: 123–32.

Knapp, R. 1977. Aspects of the Roman Experience in Iberia, 206-100 B.C. Vallodolid.

Koch, G., and H. Sichtermann. 1982. Römische Sarkophage . Munich.

Kockel, V. 1986. "Archäologische Funde und Forschungen in den Vesuvstädten Il." AA 1986: 443–569.

Koeppel, G. 1969. "Profectio und Adventus." BJb 169: 130–94.

———. 1983a. "Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit I: Stadtrömische Denkmäler unbekannter Bauzugehörigkeit aus augusteischer und julisch-claudischer Zeit." BJb 183: 61–144.

———. 1983b. "Two Reliefs from the Arch of Claudius." RM 90: 103–9.

———. 1984. "Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kalserzeit II: Stadtrömische Denkmäler unbekannter Bauzugehörigkeit aus flavischer Zeit." BJb 184: 1–65.

———. 1985a. "Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit III: Stadtrömische Denkmäler unbekannter Bauzugehörigkeit aus trajanischer Zeit." BJb 185: 143–213.

———. 1985b. "The Role of Pictorial Models in the Creation of the Historical Relief during the Age of Augustus." In Age of Augustus, 89–106.

———. 1987. "Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit V: Ara Pacis Augustae, Teil 1." BJb 187: 101–57.

———. 1988. "Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit VI: Ara Pacis Augustae, Teil 2." BJb 188: 97–106.

Kraus, T. 1975. Pompeii and Herculaneum: The Living Cities of the Dead . New York.

Kunckel, H. 1974. Der römische Genius . RM Ergänzungsheft 20. Mainz.

Künzl, E. 1969. "Der augusteische Silberkalathos in Rheinischen Landesmuseums Bonn." BJb 169: 321–92.

———. 1975. "Eine Silberkanne mit Kentauromachie aus Pompeji." JbRGZM 22: 62–80.

———. 1983. "Zwei silberne Tetrarchenporträts im RGZM und die römischen Kaiserbildnisse aus Gold und Silber." JbRGZM 30: 381–402.

———. 1988. Der römische Triumph: Siegesfeiern im antiken Rom . Munich.

———. 1989. "Der Kniefall des Tiberius: Zu den beiden Kaiserbechern von Boscoreale." ActaAH 41: 73–79.

Küthmann, H. 1959. Beiträge zur späthellenistischen und frührömischen Toreutik . Kallmunz.


Kuttner, A. 1991. "A Third Century BC Latin Census on a Praenestine Cist." RM 98: 141–61.

Kyrieleis, H. 1970. "Zu einer Kameo in Wien." AA 1970: 492–98.

Lahusen, G. 1982. "Statuae et Imagines: Praestant interna." In Festschrift U. Hausmann, 101–9. Tübingen.

———. 1983. Untersuchungen zu Ehrenstatue in Rom: Literarische und epigraphische Zeugnisse . Rome.

Langlotz, E. 1954. "Zwei römische Terrakotten." In Festschrift B. Schweitzer, 311–18. Stuttgart.

La Rocca, E. 1974. "Eirene e Ploutos." JdI 89: 112–36.

———. 1983. Ara Pacis Augustae in occasione del restauro della fronte orientale . Rome.

———. 1985. Amazzonomachia: Le sculture frontonali del tempio di Apollo Sosiano, Roma, Palazzo dei Conservatori, 16 aprile–16 giugno 1985 . Rome.

Laubscher, H. P. 1974. "Motive der augusteischen Bildpropaganda." JdI 89: 242–59.

———. 1975. Der Reliefschmuck des Galeriusbogens in Thessaloniki . Berlin.

———. 1976. Arcus Nouus und Arcus Claudii, Zwei Triumphbogen an der Via Lata in Rom . Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philhist. Klasse, 3. Göttingen.

———. 1985. Review of Der Titusbogen, by M. Pfanner (Mainz, 1983). BJb 185: 642–45.

Levi, A. C. 1952. Barbarians on Roman Imperial Coins and Sculpture . American Numismatic Society Notes and Monographs 123. New York.

Levick, B. 1976. Tiberius the Politician . London.

Linfert, A. 1977. "Zwei Versuche über antiken Witz und Esprit." RdA 1: 19–25.

Lippold, G. 1936. Die Skulpturen des Vatikanischen Museums . Vol. III.1. Berlin and Leipzig.

———. 1950. Die griechische Plastik . Munich.

Liverani, P. 1989. "Il rilievo con i popoli etruschi: Proposta di ricostruzione e interpretazione." In M. Fuchs et al., Caere, 145–57.

L'Orange, H.-P. 1972. Art Forms and Civic Life in the Late Roman Empire . Princeton.

Lorenz, T. 1973. Leben und Regierung Trajans auf dem Bogen von Benevent . Amsterdam.

McCabe, D., ed. 1987. Priene Inscriptions: Texts and List . Institute for Advanced Study. Princeton.

Maccabruni, C. 1987. "Ceramica romana con invetriatura al piombo." In Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines, edited by P. Lévêque and J. P. Morel, 2: 167–89. Besançon.

Maier, J. 1985. "Architektur in römischen Relief." Diss., Bonn.

Maiuri, A. 1938. La Casa del Menandro e il suo tesoro di argenteria . Rome.


Mango, M. M. 1986. Silver from Early Byzantium: The Kaper Koraon and Related Treasures . Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore.

Mansuelli, G. A. 1958. "Studi sull'arte romana dell'Italia settentrionale: La scultura colta." RIA n.s. 7: 45–128.

Matheson, S. B. 1980. Ancient Glass in the Yale University Art Gallery . New Haven.

Mattingly, H. 1956. The Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum . 4 vols. London.

Maurin, L. 1986. "Gaulois et Lyonnais." REA 88: 109–24.

Megow, W. 1987. Kameen von Augustus bis Alexander Severus . AMUGS 11. Berlin.

Menzel, H. 1986. Die römischen Bronzen aus Deutschland . Vol. 3, Bonn . Mainz.

Mercando, L. 1976. "L'ellenismo nel Piceno." In Hellenismus in Mittelitalien, 160–72.

Meyer, H. 1982. "Vulcan und Isis in der Sala Rotonda: Ein Beitrag zur Kunst um Pompeius der Grosse." RendPontAcc 53/54 (1980–81/1981–82): 247–71.

———. 1983. Kunst und Geschichte: Vier Untersuchungen zur antiken Historienkunst . Münchner Archäologische Studien 4. Munich.

Meyer, M. 1989. Die griechische Urkundenreliefs . AM Beihefte 13. Berlin.

Mielsch, H. 1981. "Wandmalerei der Prinzipätszeit." ANRW II.12.2: 157–264.

Millar, F. 1984. "State and Subject: The Impact of Monarchy." In Millar and Segal, Caesar Augustus, 37–60.

———. 1988. Review of L'inventaire du monde: Géographie et politique aux origines de l'empire romain, by C. Nicolet (Paris, 1988). JRA 1: 137–41.

Millar, F., and E. Segal, eds. 1984. Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects . Oxford.

MNR: see Museo Nazionale Romano .

Momigliano, A. 1942. "Terra Marique." JRS 32: 53–65.

Moreno, P. 1981. "Modelli lisippei nell' arte decorative di età repubblicana ed augustea." In L'art décoratif, 173–227.

Murray, W., and P. Petsas. 1989. Octavian's Campsite Memorial for the Actian War . Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 79.4. Philadelphia.

Museo Nazionale Romano II. Le pitture . Vol. 1, Le decorazioni della villa romana della Farnesina . 1982. Edited by I. Bragantini and M. de Vos. Rome.

Museo Nazionale Romano I. Le sculture . Vol. 1, 1979. Vol. 2, 1981. Vol. 3, 1982. Vol. 4, 1983. Vol. 5, 1983. Vol. 6, 1986. Vol. 7, 1984. Vol. 8, 1985. Edited by A. Giuliano. Rome.

Mustilli, D. 1936. Il Museo Mussolini . Rome.

Müthmann, F. 1936. "Bruchstücke einer Panzerstatue." RM 51: 347–52.

Nash, E. 1968. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome . 2 vols. 2d ed. New York.

Nees, L. 1987. "Theodulf's Mythological Silver Hercules Vase, Poetica Vanitas, and the Augustinian Critique of the Roman Heritage." DOP 41: 443–51.

Neudecker, R. 1988. Die Skulpturenausstattung römischer Villen in Italien . Mainz.


Neue Forschungen in Pompeii und den anderen von Vesuvsausbruch 79 n. Chr. verschütteten Städten . 1975. Edited by B. Andreae and H. Kyrieleis. Recklinghausen.

Nicolet, C. 1988. L'inventaire du monde: Géographie et politique aux origines de l'empire romain . Paris.

Niemeyer, H. G. 1968. Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischen Kaiser . Berlin.

Oliver, A., and G. Luckner. 1977. Silver for the Gods: 800 Years of Greek and Roman Silver, The Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo, Ohio, October 9–November 20, 1977 . Toledo.

Oliver, J. H. 1958. "Gerusiae and Augustales." Historia 7: 476–96.

Onians, J. 1979. Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age: The Greek World View, 350–50 B.C. London.

Gli ori di Taranto in età hellenistica . 1984. Edited by E. De Juliis. Milan.

Oxé, A. 1933. Arretinische Reliefgefässe vom Rhein . Bonn.

Pais, A. M. 1979. Il "Podium" del Tempio del Divo Adriano à Piazza di Pietra in Roma . Rome.

Pekáry, T. 1985. Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft dargestellt anhand der Schriftquellen . Das römische Herrscherbild 3. Berlin.

Pelling, C. B. R., ed. 1988. Plutarch, Life of Antony . London.

Pensabene, P. 1982. "La decorazione architettonica di Cherchel: Cornici, architravi, soffitti, basi e pilastri." In RM—150 Jahrfeier: Ansprachen und Vorträge, 4–7 Dezember 1979, 116–69. Mainz.

Petermann, R. 1975. "Zur Restaurierung der Deckelreliefs vom Ludovisischen Schlachtensarkophags." JbRGZM 22: 218–20.

Pfanner, M. 1980. "Codex Coburgensis nr. 88: Die Entdeckung der Porta Triumphalis." RM 87: 327–34.

———. 1983. Der Titusbogen . Mainz.

Pfuhl, E., and H. Möbius. 1977. Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs . 2 vols. Mainz.

Picard, G.-C. 1957. Les trophées romains: Contribution à l'histoire de la religion et de l'art triomphal de Rome . Bibliothèque des Ecoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 187. Paris.

———. 1982. "La sculpture dans l'Afrique, romaine." In RM—150. Jahresfeier: Ansprachen und Vorträge, 4–7 Dezember 1979, 180–91. Mainz.

Pinkwart, D. 1965. "Das Relief des Archelaos von Priene." AntP 4: 55–65.

Platner, S. B., and T. Ashby. 1929. A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome . London.

Polacco, L. 1955. Il volto di Tiberio: Saggio di critica iconografica . Rome.

Pollini, J. 1978. "Studies in Augustan 'Historical' Reliefs." Ph.D. diss., University of California at Berkeley.

———. 1981. "Gnaius Domitius Ahenobarbus and the Ravenna Relief." RM 88: 117–40.

———. 1986a. "Ahenobarbi, Apulei and Some Others on the Ara Pacis." AJA 90: 453–60.


———. 1986b. Review of Das Kenotaph für Gaius Caesar in Limyra, by J. Ganzert (1984). AJA 90: 134–36.

———. 1987. The Portraiture of Gaius and Lucius Caesar . New York.

Pollitt, J. J. 1966. The Art of Rome, c. 753 B.C.–337 A.D.: Sources and Documents . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

———. 1986. Art in the Hellenistic Age . Cambridge and New York.

Pompeii 79 . 1979. Edited by F. Zevi. Naples.

Pompeii: Leben und Kunst in den Vesuvstädten . 1973. Essen.

Poulsen, V. 1973. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek: Les portraits romains . Vol. 1, République et dynastie julienne . Translated by G. Merad. Copenhagen.

Price, S. 1987. "From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: The Consecration of Roman Emperors." In Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, edited by D. Cannadine and S. Price, 56–105. Cambridge.

Prieur, J. 1982. "Les arcs monumentaux dans les Alpes occidentales: Aoste, Suse, Aix-les-Bains." ANRW II.12.1: 442–75.

Provinciaal Museum G. M. Kam . 1986. Edited by A. V. M. Hubracht and A. M. Gerhartl-Witteveen. 2d ed. Nijmegen.

Pucci, G. 1981. "La ceramica arretina: 'Imagerie' e correnti artistiche." In L'art décoratif, 101–19.

Purcell, N. 1986. "Livia and the Womanhood of Rome." PCPS 32: 78–105.

Ratté, C., T. Howe, and C. Foss. 1986. "An Early Imperial Pseudo-Dipteral Temple at Sardis." AJA 90: 45–68.

Reeder, E. D. 1988. Hellenistic Art in the Walters Art Gallery . Baltimore.

Reinsberg, C. 1984. "Das Hochzeitsopfer—eine Fiktion: Zur Ikonographie der Hochzeitssarkophage." JdI 99: 291–317.

———. 1985. "Der Balbinus Sarkophag—Grablege eines Kaisers?" Marburger Winckelmannsprogr . 1: 1–16.

Reynolds, J. M. 1981. "New Evidence for the Imperial Cult in Julio-Claudian Aphrodisias." ZPE 43: 317–27.

Reynolds, J. M. 1985. "Aphrodisias and the Imperial Cult in the First Century A.D.: New Evidence." Lecture delivered at University of California at Berkeley, Dept. of Classics.

Richardson, L., Jr. 1978. "Honos et Virtus and the Sacra Via ." AJA 82: 240–46.

———. 1987. "A Note on the Architecture of the Theatrum Pompeii in Rome." AJA 91: 123–26.

———. 1988. Pompeii: An Architectural History . Baltimore.

Richter, G. M. A. 1956. Catalogue of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection . Cambridge, Mass.

Ridgway, B. 1972. Classical Sculpture: Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design . Providence.

———. 1983. "Painterly and Pictorial in Greek Relief Sculpture." In Ancient Greek Art and Iconography, edited by W. Moon, 193–208. Bloomington, Ind.


Riemann, H. 1987. "Praenestinae Sorores: Tibur, Ostia, Antium." RM 94: 131–62.

Rilievi storici capitolini: Il restauro dei pannelli di Adriano e di Marco Aurelio nel Palazzo dei Conservatori . 1986. Edited by E. La Rocca. Rome.

Rivet, A. L. F. 1988. Gallia Narbonensis, with a Chapter on Alpes Maritimae: Southern France in Roman Times . London.

Robinson, D. M. 1926. "Roman Sculpture from Antioch in Pisidia. "Art Bulletin 9: 5–69.

Roccos, L. J. 1989. "Apollo Palatinus: The Augustan Apollo on the Sorrento Base." AJA 93: 571–88.

Roddaz, J.-M. 1984. Marcus Agrippa . Bibliothèque des Ecoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 253. Rome.

Rodenwaldt, G. 1935. Über den Stilwandel in der antike Kunst . Abh. Berl. 3. Berlin.

Rolland, H. 1977. L'Arc de Glanum (St.-Remy-de-Provence) . Gallia Suppl. 31. Paris.

Romans and Barbarians . 1976. Museum of Fine Arts. Boston.

Ronke, J. 1987. Magisträtische Repräsentation im römischen Relief: Studien zu standesund statusbezeichnenden Szenen . 2 vols. BAR 370. Oxford.

Rose, C. B. 1986. "Princes and Barbarians on the Ara Pacis." AJA 91 (1987): 280.

———. 1987. "Julio-Claudian Dynastic Group Portraits." Ph. D. diss., Columbia University.

———. 1990. "'Princes' and Barbarians on the Ara Pacis." AJA 94: 453–67.

Rösger, A., and W. Will. 1985. "Die Drususbrücke zu Bonn: Nochmals Florus Epit. 2.30.26." BJb 185: 27–39.

Rotili, M. 1972. L'Arco di Traiano a Benevento . Rome.

Rowland, R. J. 1983. "Rome's Earliest Imperialism." Latomus 42: 749–62.

RRC: see Crawford.

Rühfel, H. 1984. Das Kind in, der griechischen Kunst von der minoisch-mykenischen Zeit bis zum Hellenismus . Mainz.

Ryberg, I. S. 1955. Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art . Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 22. Rome.

———. 1967. Panel Reliefs of Marcus Aurelius . New York.

Sahin, M. 1972. Die Entwicklung der griechischen Monumentalaltäre . Bonn.

Sauer, H. 1964. "Das Motiv nachalexandrinischer Köpfe mit Elefantenexuvie." In Festschrift Mercklin, 152–70. Hamburg.

Savorkina, I. 1979. Römische Sarkophage in der Ermitage . Berlin.

Schäfer, J. 1986. Hellenistische Keramik aus Pergamon . Pergamenische Forschungen 2. Berlin.

Schäfer, T. 1989. Imperii insignia, Sella curulis und Fasces: Zur Repräsentation römischer Magistrate . RM Ergänzungsheft 29. Mainz.

Schatkamer van Gelderse Oudheden: Nijmegen, Provinciaal Museum G. M. Kam. 1989. Nijmegen.


Scherf, N., P. Gercke, and P. Zazoff. 1970. Antike Gemmen in Deutschland . Vol. 3, Braunschweig, Göttingen, Kassel . Munich.

Schmidt-Colinet, A. 1977. Antike Stützfiguren: Untersuchungen zu Typus und Bedeutung der menschengestaltigen Architekturstütze in der griechischen und römischen Kunst . Frankfurt.

Schneider, R. M. 1986. Bunte Barbaren: Orientalstatuen aus farbigem Marmor in der römischen Repräsentationskunst . Worms.

———. 1990. "Augustus und der frühe römische Triumph." JdI 110: 167–205.

Schober, A. 1933. Der Fries des Hekataions von Lagina . Istanbuler Forschungen 2. Baden bei Wien.

Schrömbges, P. 1986. Tiberius und die Res publica romana: Untersuchungen zu Institutionalisierung des frühen römischen Principats . Bonn.

Schumacher, L. 1985. "Die imperatorischen Akklamationen der Triumvirn und die Auspicia des Augustus." Historia 1985.2: 191–222.

Schumacher, W. N. 1979. "Zwei Becher aus Boscoreale." RM 86: 249–318.

Scrinari, V. S. M. 1972. Museo Archeologica di Aquileia: Catalogo delle sculture romane . Rome.

Selzer, W., K. V. Decker, and A. Do Paco. 1988. Römische Steindenkmäler, Mainz in römischer Zeit: Katalog zur Sammlung in der Steinhalle . Mainz.

Sena della Chiesa, G. 1966. Gemme del Museo Nazionale di Aquileia . Vol. 1. Aquileia.

Sherk, R. 1969. Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus . Baltimore.

Sherwin-White, A. N. 1966. The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary . Oxford.

Simon, E. 1957. Die Portland Vase . Mainz.

———. 1967. Ara Pacis Augustae . Tübingen.

———. 1981. Die Götter am Traiansbogen zu Benevent . Trierer Winckelmanns-progr. 1/2, 1979/80, vol. 1. Mainz.

———. 1986. Augustus: Kunst und Leben in Rom um die Zeitenwende . Munich.

Slater, W. J. 1974. "Pueri, Turba Minuta." BICS 21: 133 –40.

Smallwood, M. 1967. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero . Cambridge.

Smith, R. R. R. 1985. Review of Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs, by M. Torelli (Ann Arbor, 1982). JRS 75: 225–28.

———. 1987. "The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias." JRS 77: 88–138.

———. 1988a. Hellenistic Royal Portraits . Oxford.

———. 1988b. "Simulacra Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias." JRS 78: 50–77.

Squarciapino, M. F. 1976. "Ipotesi sul lavoro sul gruppo scultoreo da Pan Caliente." In Augusta Emerita: Actas del simposio internacionale commemorative del Bimilenario de Merida, 16–20 de Novembre de 1975, 64–98. Madrid.


Stemmer, K. 1978. Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Chronologie und Ikonographie der Panzerstatuen . Berlin.

Strong, D. 1966. Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate . Ithaca, N. Y.

———. 1988. Roman Art. 2d ed. New York and London.

Stylow, A. U. 1977. "Berechtigung zur Chiron 6, 1976: Noch einmal zu der Tiberius Inschrift von Saepinum." Chiron 7: 487–91.

Sullivan, R. D. 1975. "Die Stellung der kommagenischen Königsdynastie in den Herrscherfamilien der hellenistischen Staatenwelt." Antike Welt 6: 31–39.

———. 1978. "The Dynasty of Commagene." ANRW II.8: 732–98.

Sutherland, C. H. V. 1987. Roman History and Coinage, 44 B.C.-A.D. 69: Fifty Points of Relation from Julius Caesar to Vespasian . Oxford.

Sydenham, E. A. 1952. The Coinage of the Roman Republic . London.

Sydow, W. von. 1984. "Die Grabexedra eines römischen Feldherren." JdI 89: 187–216.

Syme, R. 1959. "Livy and Augustus." HSCP 44: 27–87 (= 1979a, 1: 400–454).

———. 1974. "The Crisis of 2 B.C." Bay.Ak.Wiss.Ph.-Hist.Kl.Sitzungsber. 7: 3–34 (= 1979a, 3: 912–36).

———. 1977. "Helvetian Aristocrats." MusHelv 34: 129-40 (= 1979a, 3: 986–97).

———. 1978. History in Ovid. Oxford.

———. 1979a. Roman Papers . Vols. 1–3. Edited by E. Badian. Oxford.

———. 1979b. "Some Imperial Salutations." Phoenix 33: 308–29 (= 1979a, 3: 1198–1219).

———. 1984. "Some Neglected Children on the Ara Pacis ." AJA 88: 583–89 (= 1988, 4: 418–29).

———. 1988. Roman Papers. Vols. 4–5. Edited by A. Birley. Oxford.

Tasyürek, O. A. 1975. "Die Münzprägung der Könige von Kommagene." Antike Welt 6: 42–44.

Il tesoro di Boscoreale: Gli argenti del Louvre e il corredo domestico della "Pisanella." 1988. Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompeii. N.p.

Il tesoro di Boscoreale, una collezione di argenti da mensa tra cultura ellenistica e mondo romano: Pitture, suppellitili, oggetti vari della "Pisanella," Pompeii, Casina di Aquila, 20 agosto-30 settembre 1988 . 1988. FMR. Milan.

Tinh, Tram Tanh. 1988. La Casa dei Cervi à Herculanum . Rome.

Tomlinson, R. A. 1983. Epidauros . Austin.

Torelli, M. 1982. Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs . Jerome Lectures 14. Ann Arbor.

Tortorella, S. 1981. "Le lastre Campana: Problemi di produzione e di iconografia." In L'art décoratif, 61–80.

———. 1985. "I rilievi storici romani nelle sede parigine." In Forma: La città antica e il suo avvenire, 36–43. Rome.

Toynbee, J. 1934. The Hadrianic School: A Chapter in the History of Greek Art. London.


Trillmich, W. 1978. Familienpropaganda der Kaiser Caligula und Claudius: Agrippina Maior und Antonia Augusta auf Münzen . AMUGS 8. Berlin.

———. 1986. "Ein historisches Relief in Mérida mit Darstellung des M. Agrippa beim Opfer: Ein Rekonstruktionsversuch." MM 27: 279–304.

Turcan, R. 1982. "L'Autel de Rome et d'Auguste 'Ad confluentem.'" ANRW II.12.1: 607–44.

Van de Grift, J. 1984. "Tears and Revel: The Allegory of the Berthouville Centaur Scyphi." AJA 88: 377–78.

Vassileiou, A. 1983. "Drusus Imperator appellatus est in Germania (Ergänzung des Drususelogiums auf dem Forum Augusti)." ZPE 51: 213–14.

Vermeule, C. 1959. The Goddess Roma in the Art of the Roman Empire . Cambridge, Mass.

———. 1960. "Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues." Berytus 13: 1–153.

———. 1963. "Augustan and Julio-Claudian Court Silver." AntK 6: 33–40.

———. 1968. Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor . Cambridge, Mass.

———. 1980a. Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues . Boston.

———. 1980b. Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues: Concordance of Greek and Roman Cuirass Statues in Marble and Bronze . Boston.

———. 1981a. "The Basis from Puteoli: Cities of Asia Minor in Julio-Claudian Italy." In Coins, Culture and History in the Ancient World: Numismatic and Other Studies in Honor of Bluma L. Trell, edited by L. Casson and M. Price, 85–101. Detroit.

———. 1981b. Jewish Relations with the Art of Greece and Rome . Boston.

Vermeule, C., and G. Hanfmann. 1957. "A New Trajan." AJA 61: 223–53.

Versnel, H. S. 1970. Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph . Leiden.

Vollenweider, M. L. 1970. Musée d'Art et d'Histoire de Genève: Catalogue raisonné des sceaux cylindres, intailles et camées . Mainz.

———. 1974. Die Porträtgemmen der römischen Republik . 2 vols. Mainz.

———L. 1984. Deliciae leonis: Antike geschnittene Steine und Ringe aus einer Privatsammlung . Mainz.

Waelkens, M. 1985. "From a Phrygian Quarry: The Provenance of the Statues of the Dacian Prisoners in Trajan's Forum in Rome." AJA 89: 641–53.

Walker, S., and A. Burnett. 1981. Augustus: A Handlist of the Exhibition and Supplementary Papers . British Museum Occasional Papers 16. London.

Walters, H. B. 1914. Catalogue of the Greek and Roman Lamps in the British Museum . London.

Ward-Perkins, J. B. 1981. Roman Imperial Architecture . 2d ed. New York and London.

Waurick, G. 1983. "Untersuchungen zur historisierenden Rüstung in der römischen Kaiserzeit." JbRGZM 30: 265–99.

Weinstock, S. 1960. "Pax and the 'Ara Pacis.'" JRS 50: 44–58.

———. 1971. Divus Julius . Oxford.


Wesenberg, B. 1984. "Augustusforum und Akropolis." JdI 99: 161–85.

Wickhoff, F. 1912. Römische Kunst . Berlin.

Wilkinson, L. P. 1969. The Georgics of Virgil: A Critical Survey . London.

Will, W. 1987. "Römische 'Klientel-Randstaaten' am Rhein? Eine Bestandsaufnahme." BJb 187: 1–62.

Williams, G. 1978. Change and Decline: Roman Literature in the Early Empire . Berkeley.

Wilson, R. J. A. 1983. Piazza Armerina . Austin.

Winkes, R. 1982. "Der Kameo Marlborough: Ein Urbild des Livia." AA 1982: 131–38.

Wiseman, T. P. 1963. "The Potteries of Vibienus and Rufrenus at Arretium." Mnemosyne 16: 257–83 (= 1987, 6–14).

———. 1974. "Legendary Genealogies in Late Republican Rome." GaR 21: 153–64 (= 1987, 207–18).

———. 1976. "Two Questions on the Circus Flaminius." PBSR 44: 44–47 (= 1987, 157–60).

———. 1981. "The Temple of Victory on the Palatine." Antiquaries Journal 61: 35–52 (= 1987, 187–204).

———. 1987. Roman Studies Literary and Historical . Liverpool and Wolfeboro, N. H.

Wlosok, A. 1975. "Geminorum mater Amorum." In Monimentum Chiloniense: Festschrift E. Burck, 514–23. Amsterdam.

Wrede, H. 1977. "Stadtrömische Monumente, Urnen und Sarkophage des Klinentypus in den beiden ersten Jahrhunderten n. Chr." AA 1977: 395–432.

Wünsche, R. 1985. Ein griechischer Traum: Leo von Klenze der Archäologe, Ausstellung vom 6. Dezember 1985–9. Februar 1986, Glyptothek München . Munich

Yavetz, Z. 1984. "The Res Gestae and Augustus' Public Image." In Millar and Segal, Caesar Augustus, 1–36.

Zanker, P. 1969. "Der Larenaltare im Belvedere des Vatikans." RM 76: 205–18.

———. 1970. "Das Traiansforum in Rom." AA 1970: 499–544.

———. 1972. Forum Romanum, die Neugestaltung durch Augustus . Tübingen.

———. 1973. Forum Augustum, das Bildprogramm . Tübingen.

———. 1983. "Der Apollontempel auf dem Palatin: Ausstattung und politische Sinnbezüge nach der Schlacht von Actium." In Città e architettura, 22–46.

———. 1987. Augustus und die Macht der Bilder . Munich (translation follows).

———. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus . Translated by A. Shapiro. Ann Arbor.

Zevi, F. 1976. "Monumenti e aspetti culturali di Ostia repubblicana." In Hellenismus in Mittelitalien, 52–63.

Zwierlein-Diehl, E. 1973. Die antiken Gemmen des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien . 2 vols. Munich.

———. 1980. "Der Divus Augustus Kameo in Köln." KJb 17: 12–53.


Index of Art, History, Sites, and Subjects

Most images on the Boscoreale cups are indexed by image following the main Boscoreale Cups entry. A long dash (—) is used within an entry to group subentries. A short dash (-) signifies repetition of the foregoing entry: "helmets, 000; — leather" for "helmets, 000; helmets, leather, 000." Asterisks attached to page references indicate overview or primary discussion.


Abdera, 223 n.47

acanthus, 29 , 67 , 208 , 226 n.70, 253 n.85, 253 -54n.89, 304 n.33

Acerra, 242 n.127

Achilles, 217 n.23, 249 n.51, 278 n.36, 263 n.16

M. Acilius Glabrio, 242 n.129

Actaeon, 129 -30

Actium. See Augustus

Adiabene, 116

Adherbal, 115

Adramyteon, 246 n.28

adventus, 48 , 60 , 139 -40, 147 , 167 , 197 , 261 n.2, 291 n.30

armed, 140 , 282 n.79

dep., 141 , 163 -64

Aedui, 121 -22, 271 n.80, 273 -74nn.98-99

Aegina, 73

Aelius Lamia. See Rome sv. Monument

Aemilius, private equestrian portrait, 218 n.33, 275 n.14

M. Aemilius Lepidus (dep.), 268 n.61

L. Aemilius Paullus (167 B.C.), 139 (tr.)

funeral, 80 , 92 , 196 , 251 nn.65-66

Monument, 196 -97

portrait, 196

Aeneas, 23 , 52 , 82 , 124 -25, 138 , 142 , 239 n.100, 242 n.125, 244 n.13, 262 -63n.12, 264 n.27, 267 n.58, 274 -75n.2, 282 n.73

Shield, 52 , 82 , 124

See also Rome sv. Ara Pacis

Aenos, Cenotaph of Caepio, 296 n.45

Aesculapius, 241 n.116

Africa, 72 -73, 77 -78, 85 , 86 , 90 , 93 , 226 n.75, 243 n.7, 244 n.13, 248 nn.45-46, 256 n.107, 271 n.78

art, 24 , 73 , 132 , 226 n.75, 257 n.36, 290 n.30, 297 n.53, 299 n.5

agency, 5 , 141 , 192 -93

Agones of Sabratha (personified), 247 n.36

Agricola, 141 , 270 n.76

Agrippa, 24 , 64 , 66 , 148 , 172 -73, 176 , 178 -86, 190 -91, 193 , 221 n.24, 273 n.95, 274 n.100, 280 n.48, 294 n.32, 294 n.37

funeral, 81 , 236 n.69

in East, 73 , 102 -5, 118 , 179 , 265 n.32, 271 n.78

in Spain, 256 n.103, 280 n.48.

——dep.: portrait, 24 , 179 , 221 n.24

rel., 227 n.79, 280 n.48

see also Rome sv. Ara Pacis

Agrippa (son of Herod), 269 n.70

Agrippa Postumus, 176 , 181 , 183


Agrippina, 293 n.30

Ahal Trutitis (portrait?), 142

Aion, 260 n.133, 284 n.92

Aitolia, 73

Aix, 250 n.60

akrostolion. See Ship parts

alabastron, 208

dep., 26 -27, 208 , 223 nn.48-49, 224 nn.54-56, 224 -25nn.60-61, 225 n.63

Alba Longa, 138

Alban kings, 23

Alexander (son of Antony), 104 , 115

Alexander the Great, 74 -75, 245 n.20;

funeral car, 238 n.86, 260 n.134;

imitation, 61 , 238 n.86, 260 n.134, 275 n.14

see also Granikos group

—— dep.: portrait, 27 , 61 , 72 , 74 -75, 275 -76nn.14-15;

ptg., 27

Alexandria, 40 , 91 , 103 -4, 114 , 130 , 229 n.10, 239 n.32, 272 n.89;

Homereion, 75 , 90 , 246 n.27

See also personifications

alimenta, 45 -46, 49 -50, 156 ff., 204 , 235 n.58, 288 n.11, 289 n.24

puer [et puella ] alimentarius,235 n.58, 288 n.11, 289 nn.24-25

Alps, 75 , 80 , 187 -88, 190 , 193 , 217 n.29, 295 n.37

altars, 132 , 219 n.11, 302 n.10, 304 n.28, 373 n.87;

funerary, 27 , 224 n.58, 230 n.11;

imperial cult, 30 -32, 40 , 64 , 67 , 76 , 227 n.78, 240 n.114, 241 n.115, 242 n.126, 247 n.35;

Hellenistic, 6 , 88 -89, 215 n.10.

(see also Ara Ubiorum; Elbe, Altar of Augustus; foculus; Lugdunum; historical relief; Rome sv.).

—— dep.: 61 , 124 , 136 , 245 n.20, 247 n.38, 275 n.6, 279 n.44, 283 n.90, 287 n.27

Alexandria, 40 , 103 , 129 -30, 229 n.10, 232 n.32

Homereion, 75 , 90 , 246 n.27

C. Allius (grave rel.), 285 n.10

Altinum, 38

Amazon, 14 , 19 , 72 , 187 , 237 n.74, 249 n.51, 258 n.125, 297 n.52

amicitia, 76 , 104

Amisos, 265 n.32

Amiternum (S. Vittorino), 303 n.13


see also Eros; 24 -29, 61 , 106 , 116 , 205 , 220 n.13, 220 n.21, 221 n.28, 222 n.36, 222 n.38, 222 -23nn.42-43 (Cupido ), 223 n.47, 224 -25nn.57-62, 226 n.69, 241 n.115, 265 n.34, 267 n.55, 277 -78n.31, 279 n.45, 303 n.16;

mimed, 27;

youth, 26 , 29 , 223 n.42

——attributes: alabastron, 27 -28, 223 n.49, 224 -25nn.60-61, 225 n.63;

palm, 214 n.6;

shell (dish), 15 (BR), 224 n.58, 224 -25nn.60-61

——with persons; 24 -28;

Alexander, 27 ;

Antony, 28 ;

Antonia, 24 , 221 n.30;

Augustus, 15 , 17 , 26 , 28 , 225 n.65;

Caesar, 24 -25, 29 , 241 n.115, cf. fig. 6

Livia, 24

"real woman", 223 n.47, 225 n.61

Amphipolis, 223 n.47 See also cuirass statues

Amphitrite, 56 , 240 n.110

Amyklai, 245 n.17

Ancona, tomb, 301 n.5

Andematunum, tomb, 39 , 229 n.10, 268 n.65

Andernach, 269 n.65

Andizeti, 251 n.69

Andreia, 260 n.133

M. Anici