http://portraitsofcaligula.com/3/miscellaneous10.htm
The Typology and Iconography of Caligula: Subjectivity: Caligula First Living Princeps To Be Shown Radiate?
See All Photos of Coins Above.
By Joe B. Geranio
The portraiture of the Julio-Claudians is not
an easy subject to examine. The essential goals
of any such modern iconographic portrait study
are, first, to assemble all known portraits of a
given personage; second, to determine the
appearance and style of each of the presumed
lost prototypes on which all of the known
surviving replicas are based; third, to attempt to
date the creation of the lost prototype and
surviving replicas and other portrait versions;
and fourth to try to determine the reason(s) for
the creation of each type.1 The main work to date
that has been carried out is Boschung’s work, Die
Bildnisse des Caligula.2 First a little history of
the series inaugurated by the German
Archaeological Institute. The Romische
Herrscherbild project is an ambitious project to
collect and publish in a series of volumes
(currently 12) 3 entrusted to different scholars all
the surviving portraits of Roman emperors and
their families. Progress had been unusually slow
and the Romische Herrscherbild project is closer
to completion then it was thirteen to fifteen years
ago. For instance the comprehensive Die
Bildnisse des Augustus, brought together by
Boschung, who brought this magnum opus to
completion within a Remarkably short time. The
portraits of the Julio- Claudian emperors4
Present special problems because so
many of the Julio-Claudians look alike-in their
official likenesses, that is, perhaps not in life.
Hairstyles really are fundamental to establishing
imperial typologies. In some ways, emperors
(princeps) wore hairstyles as these were badges
of identity which helped distinguish them from
other princeps and members from the imperial
family. The same is true for imperial women and
even a few private individuals. So “curl
counting” as some graduate students call it, is a
useful tool because of the model of portrait
production and dissemination. The way most
scholars think this worked is that the princeps
and maybe some artistic advisors sat down with a
sculptor and they came up with an official
prototype of how they wanted the princeps to
look (hairstyle physiognomy etc.). That prototype
was then made available and “copied” thus
giving us the surviving replicas which form a
“type”. All replicas then generally share similar
characteristics of hairstyle and physiognomy,
although there can be a great deal of variation,
based on all sorts of factors such as material,
context, artists or patron’ wishes, and
geography , to name a few. A “variant” is usually
something that is different enough from the
“type” to establish it as a variant. If you have two
portraits that are pretty close to one another, then
you call it a type or subtype. The problem is with
the gray area portraits, and I cannot think of a
more gray area than pre-principate portraits of
Caligula.5 The problem is that identifying the
childhood portraits of Germanicus and his sons
Nero Iulius, Drusus Iulius, and Caligula is
extremely difficult because of the great similarity
of hairstyles and family resemblance of these
closely related males. Unless an inscription is
found with the portrait, problems will continue.
The only sure childhood portraits of Caligula
seem to be those on the Grand Cameo (pl. 35.6)
and the Louvre cameo (pl. 35.7). I still think it is
possible that the Walter's Head that was
published by John Pollini could be a pre-
principate image, although not avery good
provincial work and well under life size.
Boschung, of course, dismisses it because the
hairstyle doesn't conform. It could be mushed
because of the provincial nature of the work. The
facial features (the elongated face and wide, high
forehead) do resemble him. But if not, Caligula this
would be a case of Zeitgesicht.# We cannot
forget that, too, we only have a very small fraction
of the portraits that were produced in antiquity.
Ergo, if we only have two close portraits that are
extant, how many lost works might there be
behind these two extant portraits. Although there
may be only two representatives of a type today,
in 50 years there may be quite a number of new
works of that same type , given the plethara of
new finds and scholarship that come up every
year. For example, Since Boschung has
published his book on the portraits of Augustus,
there have been a number of new portraits of
Augustus which have surfaced.(show RAG,Pollini
article) Of the nearly 250 portraits of Augustus
that have come down to us, there may have been
more than 50,000! set up throughout the empire.
Portrait typology in the case of pre-principate
Caligulan portraiture is very subjective
business. Type I is the Herkalion type and type II
is the Copenhagen type. The Haupttypus
(i.e.type I) of Caligula was undoubted created
when he came to power in 37; it first and foremost
reflected Tiberius’ hairstyle and indirectly that of
his father, who in reality was imitating
Tiberius as the next in line to succeed Tiberius. I
argue that Tiberius’ last portrait type is the
Chiaramonti type (a rejuvenated type), not as
Boschung argued the Copenhagen (cat. 624).
Boschung’s Nebentypus I, which is somewhat
related to be sure to the Haupttypus, can in my
opinion be considered a second type, his type
II. It specifically recalls one of his father
Germanicus’ types, as represented in the head
from Tarragona (see Boschung’s Gens Aug.
cat.), more than the Bezier’sportraitofGermanicus
that Boschung mentions. This hairstyle is very
different than any of Tiberius’s several types.
Boschung can’t explain what necessitated the
creation of his Nebentypus I, which he takes is
represented in six replicas and all created in his
principate. These are, in my opinion, close
enough to one another to be considered a
separate type, his type II. A number of these type
II portraits (unlike most of the Haupttypus
replicas) show him with corona civica, which
Boschung associates with the title of Pater
Patriae that he accepts (unlike Tiberius) at the
outset of his principate. Boschung’s speculated
Nebentypus II seems to be s spin off of
Boschung’s Nebentypus I, with an Augustus look
about it (esp. Metro Mus. NY, Boschung pl.37). I
suspect this was a special issue, sort of like
Roman special medallion issues. I would think
that his type II (known in six replicas) were
created in 40 after his “triumphal” return from the
northern frontier, for which he received an
ovatio—the real triumph was to come after he
conquered Britain (had he not been
assassinated). He had made incursions into
Germany like his father Germanicus (hence the
name, which actually goes back to Tiberius’
brother Drusus I) may explain why the lock
configuration resembled that of his father
Germanicus, and not Tiberius. In this way, he
could underscore the likening himself to
Germanicus rather than Tiberius (after all
Tiberius’ hairdo was already used in typeI).
Although he would have worn a myrtle
crown for the actual ovation (that is if he followed
tradition), the wearing of the corona civica in his
portraits in the round would have underscored
his saving the lives of citizens alla Augustus.
Interestingly, no portraits in the round of any
princeps or male member of the family are shown
wearing a myrtle crown. It is also my personal
belief that Caligula was the first “Living Princeps
to be shown Radiate? B.E. Levy in her article “
Caligula’s Radiate Crown interpreted this with the
Consensv dupondius through the scruffy tide off
hair. You can see where the “T” in “ET” has been raised.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2. Another example of the Consensv dupondius with radiate attribution.
Fig. 3 PHRYGIA, Aezanis. Gaius (Caligula). 37-41 AD. Æ 20mm (5.20 gm). Lollios Klassikos and Lollios Roufos, magistrates. Radiate head right / Zeus standing left, holding eagle and sceptre. RPC I 3085; SNG Copenhagen 80.
Fig. 3
IONIA, Smyrna. Gaius (Caligula). AD 37-41. Æ 14mm (2.14 g, 12h). Radiate head right; star behind / Crab. Klose XXVII B (V7/R15); RPC I 2474; SNG Copenhagen 1347; BMC Ionia 279
1. See in general J. Pollini, Book Review, Dietrich Boschung, Die
Bildnisse des Augustus, Das romische Herrscherbild, pt. 1, vol. 2.
2. See D. Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Caligula. Deutsches
.
Archaologisches Institut, Das romische Herrscherbild 1,4 Berlin:
Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1989. 138pp, 52 pls. ISBN 3-7861-1524-9.
DM190.
3. I 7: D. Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Caligula (1989)
II 1: G. Daltrop - U. Hausmann - M. Wegner, Die Flavier. Vespasian,
Titus,Domitian, Nerva, Julia, Titi, Domitilla, Domitia (1966)
II 2: W. H. Groß, Bildnisse Trajans (1940)II 3: M. Wegner, Hadrian, Plotina, Marciana,
Matidia, Sabina (1956) II 4: M. Wegner, Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit (1940)
III 1: H. B. Wiggers - M. Wegner, Caracalla, Geta, Plautilla, Macrinus bis Balbinus
(1971)III 2: R. Delbrueck, Die Münzbildnisse von Maximinus bis Carinus (1940)
4. See Joe Geranio, "Portraits of Caligula: The Seated Figure? - Society of Ancient Numismatics, Vol. XX, (1997)
Princeton University Library Cabinet- Used with Permission- Note “T” in ET” slightly raised. With traces of radiate crown on Consensv Dupondius. I have come across 5 specimens with traces of radiate attribution.
Caligula Seated on CONSENSV dupondius. Traces of Radiate Crown above head. (Photo courtesy Princeton Library)
Caligula seated on reverse. close up of radiate attribution? Note how "T" has been raised to make room for Radiate Crown? (photo Courtesy Princeton Library)
Obverse of CONSENSV dupondius with Augustus and Caligula seated on reverse. (Photo Courtesy of Princeton Library)
Close up or radiate crown? on consensv dupondius. (Princeton Library)
Photo Courtesy Bern Historical Museum, Invoice 80.569 Photo Daniel Shmutz
[/img]