Caligula's Portraiture
The Typology and Iconography of Caligula
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Typology and Iconography of Caligula
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 a
very good provincial work and well under life size. Boschung, of
course,
dismisses it because the hairstyle doesn't conform. It could be
mushed
because of the provincial nature of the work. The facial features (the
elongated face and wide, high forehead) do resemble him. But if not,
Caligula this would be a case of Zeitgesicht.# We cannot forget that,
too,
we only have a very
small fraction of the portraits that were produced in antiquity. Ergo, if
we
only have two close portraits that are extant, how many lost works
might
there be
behind these two extant portraits. Although there may be only two
representatives of 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’s
portrait
of Germanicus that Boschung mentions. This hairstyle is very
different than
any of Tiberius’s several types. Boschung can’t explain what
necessitated
the creation of his Nebentypus I, which he takes is represented in six
replicas
and all created in his principate. These are, in my opinion, close
enough to
one another to be considered a separate type, his type II. A number
of these
type II portraits (unlike most of the Haupttypus replicas) show him
with
corona civica, which Boschung associates with the title of Pater
Patriae that
he accepts (unlike Tiberius) at the outset of his principate.
Boschung’s
speculated Nebentypus II seems to be s spin off of Boschung’s
Nebentypus
I, with an Augustus look about it (esp. Metro Mus. NY, Boschung
pl.37). I
suspect this was a special issue, sort of like Roman special medallion
issues.
I would think that his type II (known in six replicas) were created in 40
after
his “triumphal” return from the northern frontier, for which he received
an
ovatio—the real triumph was to come after he conquered Britain (had
he not
been assassinated). He had made incursions into Germany like his
father
Germanicus (hence the name, which actually goes back to Tiberius’
brother
Drusus I) may explain why the lock configuration resembled that of
his
father Germanicus, and not Tiberius. In this way, he could
underscore the
likening himself to Germanicus rather than Tiberius (after all Tiberius’
hairdo
was already used in typeI). Although he would have worn a myrtle
crown
for the actual ovation (that is if he followed tradition), the wearing of
the
corona civica in his portraits in the round would have underscored his
saving
the lives of citizens alla Augustus. Interestingly, no portraits in the
round of
any princeps or male member of the family are shown wearing a
myrtle
crown.
Numismatics for Caligula
In the absence of surviving statues with inscribed bases naming the
persons
portrayed, scholars have for centuries turned to coins for labeled
portraits of
Roman princeps. Thus it is no suprise that numismatic evidence has
always
played a large role in the study of Roman portraiture. The evidence
provided has, however, frequently been used uncritically by
archaeologists
and art historians. All too often those publishing Roman portraits
examine
and illustrate as comparanda only a few randomly selected pieces,
most
often those reproduced on the plates of the British Museum’s multi-
volume
catalogue or specimens readily available to them in local collections,
whether they be comprehensive cabinets like those in London, New
York,
Paris, etc. or the small study collections in the possession of some
University
museums. Reliance on such a sample can easily lead the art
historian astray.
The coin portraits need to be subjected to their own
“replikenrezension” and
to achieve this a die study is required. Only the earliest dies in a
given series
are likely to be faithful reproductions of the official (three-
dimensional)
model provided to the mint. All subsequent dies will be copies,
occasionally
with pronounced variations, of the profile portraits portrayed engraved
on
the first dies. For use in sophisticated modern studies of imperial
portraiture, only the coins struck from the earliest dies in each series
will
suffice. Pre-Principate coinage will be from the reign of Tiberius, and
unfortunately most specimens are rather crude portraits. According
to Von
Kaenel
the portraits of Caligula on the aureii and denarii are all in right profile;
those on sestertii, dupondii, and asses are all in left profile. Von
Kaenel
concludes that all of the imperial issues reproduce a single official
portrait
type and that what variations exist are of a stylistic and not of a
typological
nature. Furthermore, since the two profile views are not mirror
images, von
Kaenel suggests that they faithfully reproduce the left and right side
Respectively of a single model in the round and he believes that
comparison
with marble replicas of Boschung’s “Haupttypus” confirm the same
master
“vorbild” lies behind both the sculptured and numismatic replicas.
According to von Kaenel, the Roman die engravers were provided
with
either a single head in the round to serve as a model for their
miniature
profile portraits or with two separate relief portraits corresponding to
the left
and right sides of a sculptured head of Caligula’s “Haupttypus.” This
is an
important observation and it would be interesting to know if it is
typical of
Roman numismatic portraiture for left- and right facing portraits of the
same
person to be rendered differently or whether the coinage of Caligula
is
exceptional in not employing mirror images. Some more thoughts
on
Caligula’s portraiture and typology. I think it would have been
difficult
For a die-cutter to have used a life-size portrait in the round (in plaster/clay)
as a model. More likely, he/they used a large medallion with the
image in profile.
.
NOTES
1. See in general J. Pollini, Book Review, Dietrich Boschung, Die
Bildnisse des Augustus, Das romische Herrscherbild, pt. 1, vol. 2.
2. See D. Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Caligula. Deutsches
.
. Archaologisches Institut, Das romische Herrscherbild 1,4 Berlin:
.
. Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1989. 138pp, 52 pls. ISBN 3-7861-1524-9.
.
. DM190.
3. I 7: D. Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Caligula (1989)
II 1: G. Daltrop - U. Hausmann - M. Wegner, Die Flavier. Vespasian, Titus, Domitian,
Nerva, Julia, Titi, Domitilla, Domitia (1966)
II 2: W. H. Groß, Bildnisse Trajans (1940)
II 3: M. Wegner, Hadrian, Plotina, Marciana, Matidia, Sabina (1956)
II 4: M. Wegner, Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit (1940)
III 1: H. B. Wiggers - M. Wegner, Caracalla, Geta, Plautilla, Macrinus bis Balbinus (1971)
III 2: R. Delbrueck, Die Münzbildnisse von Maximinus bis Carinus (1940)
III 3: M. Wegner, Gordianus III. bis Carinus (1979)
III 4: H. P. L'Orange - M. Wegner, Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu
den Konstantin-Söhnen 284-361 n. Chr. Die Bildnisse der Frauen und des Julian (1984)
III 5: Th. Pekáry, Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft (1985)
IV: A.-K. Massner, Bildnisangleichung. Untersuchungen zur Entstehungs- und
Wirkungsgeschichte des Augustusporträts (43
I 2: D. Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Augustus (1993)
4 See Pollini (as in n. 1), 725 In English and American scholarship, the use of emperor
and empress), which has been so prevelant, projects false notions onto the past,
especially in terms of leadership and governance. Although Rome had acquired an
empire (imperium) already under the republic, Caligula was not an emperor, a word that,
of course, derives from imperator but had a quite different meaning in antiquity.
Caligula’s, like that of Augustus was princeps (“first citizen” or “leader”), a term already
In use under the republic. The Roman historian Tacitus (Annales 1.9), writing in the 2nd
century c.e., pointed out that Augustus had established neither a kingship nor a
dictatorship but a principate (governance by a princeps): “Non regno tamen neque
dictatura , sed principe nominee constitutam rem publicam.”
5 Possible “pre-principate portraits of Caligula: see John Pollini, “A Pre-Principate
Portrait of Gaius (Caligula)?”, The Journal of The Walters Art Gallery, Volume 40
(1982) pp.1-12. The Walters head is much debated and some scholars; such as Boschung
see the head as possibly Nero Julius son of Germanicus and brother of Caligula. See Z.
Kiss, L’Iconographie des
Princes (Warsaw, 1975), p. 150 figs. 533-539 attempts to identify five portraits of young
boys as the young Caligula. See L. Fabbrini, RomMitt 73-74 (1966-1967), pp. 140ff. pls.
44-45. See F. Johansen, The Sculptured Portraits of Caligula, Ancient Portraits in the J.
Paul Getty Museum, Volume 1 1987, p. 95. Johansen see the portrait found at Carthage
as an early portrait of Caligula before his accession. See H. von Heintze, Die antiken
Portrats in Schlob Fasanerie bei Fulda (Mainz, 196 , no. 21. For the proposal that the
La Spezia and Dresden portraits may represent the youthful Gaius (rather than his father
Germanicus): H. Jucker, “Die Prinzen auf dem Augustus-relief in Ravenna.”Melanges
d’histoire ancienne et d’archeologie offerts a Paul Collart (Lausanne: 1976), p.249, n.64
On the bust (found in the theater at Luni) in the Museo Archeologico, La Spezia, inv. No
54. See further C. Pietrangeli, “Appunti su due ritratti giulio-claudio.”Congresso
Nazionale di studi Romani 1935.11 (193 : 184.,f pl.22.1: A. Frova, Scavi di Luni I
(1973): 49f., pl.14.1. For the Dresden Head: L. Curtius, “Iconographise Beitrage zum
Portrat der Romischen Republik und der Julisch-Claudischen Familie XIV. Germanicus,”
Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen Instituts 1(194 :71, pl.22; Kiss