previous sub-section
next sub-section

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). [BACK]

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

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

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. [BACK]

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). [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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). [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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

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). [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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

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

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). [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

30. Andreae 1983, 54-56, 63, figs. 122-24, 126-30, showing the previous hit Ravenna  relief next hit (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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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

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

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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 previous hit Ravenna  relief next hit (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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

40. See Hölscher 1967, 100f. [BACK]

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). [BACK]

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). [BACK]

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

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

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

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

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). [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

50. Simon 1986, s.v. color pls. 32-33. [BACK]

51. See below p. 262 n. 6. [BACK]

52. Baratte et al. 1989, 19; on shell dishes, see appendix A, p. 208. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

59. Cf. LIMC II (1986), s.v. "Aphrodite," nos. 1036-37; examples in Brussels ( ex Coll. Loeb) and London (Brit. Mus., ex Townley Coll.). [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

62. This, as Flory and others recognize, was the context for Livia's statue in her bedroom of her (adoptive) son Gaius as Amor. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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). [BACK]

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). [BACK]

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. [BACK]

67. Ghedini 1986, bibl., 39 n. 1; 38, Antony's children; accepted by Künzl 1989, 73. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

71. Simon 1967, pls. 13, 15-17. [BACK]

72. On Mars-Venus iconography: Zanker 1973, 18-20; Hölscher 1967, 100f; Fittschen 1976, 187-94; Meyer 1983, 144-48. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

74. Other metaphors of victory by land and sea: chap. 3, n. 136. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

77. Kais. Aug. 1988, 472, cat. 276 (cast in Würzburg), 463 (C. Maderna-Lauter). [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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). [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

84. Héron de Villefosse 1899, 128. [BACK]

85. See Zanker 1988, fig. 17. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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). [BACK]

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. [BACK]

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. [BACK]

93. Kais. Aug. 1988, 376. Compare the framing composition on the late Republican tomb panel: Roma-General-Genius (fig. 3; chap. 2, p. 61). [BACK]

previous sub-section
next sub-section